The challenge to organisational leadership

Moving to the learner-centric model is a significant change for an organisation. But is it a change that requires top management to take its hands off the steering wheel? This might seem to be implied by the terms in which the argument is couched: the rhetoric aginst top-down, command-and-control structures is compelling. In which case, how can change be effectively directed (and is that the wrong question to ask)?

We could get into a hall of mirrors here.

Again and again during our discussion it seemed that people were being apologetic about describing initiatives that originated in upper mangement for fear that they might seem too 'top-down'.

Granted, learner-centric learning might involve changing the 'psychological contract' between employer and employee - but it surely can't imply dispensing with one altogether?

The reality within organisations is that any initiative requiring significant resources is going to have to require buy-in at some stage from the ultimate budget-holder. And from where else within an organisation can a change initiative of significant scope be directed, other than from the top?

Besides, exactly how self-directed are learners really expected to be? Cisco Systems is often held up as a beacon of e-learning success, and the commitment of CEO John Chambers to e-learning cannot be doubted - and yet learners at Cisco, while given great flexibility in the where, when and how of learning, are not so self-directed in the sense that they can choose the what.

The organisation has to control what it spends its money on. By the same token, what it chooses to spend its money - and top executives' time - on is a keen indicator of priorities. Support from the top can be a powerful endorsement of the value a particular organisation places on learning; Jack Welch of General Electric turning up to corporate prizegivings to present certificates in person, for instance sends a powerful signal.

Strategic leadership, surely, is about identifying the change forces which are impacting an organisation, and then acting to create the conditions in which those changes can have beneficial outcomes for the organisation (or at the very least, do minimal damage).

The forces of change might be most visible in their effects at lower levels of the organisation - but the power to shape and enable that change must surely repose somewhere near the top.

We looked at Kotter's eight change steps in this regard (a model widely endorsed around the table).

• Establish urgency
• Create guiding coalition
• Develop vision, strategy and associated brand
• Communicate vision in line with the brand
• Empower broad based action
• Generate short term wins
• Consolidate gains and produce more change
• Anchor new approaches in culture

What we found was that it did not take a particularly top-down, command-and-control approach. It talks about communicating brand values (more marketing-speak) and empowering action - rather than compelling it. There seemed to be considerably more carrot here than stick.

Although there may be less compulsion in a learner-centric environment, that does not mean that management expends less effort in achieving what it wants to achieve. It is merely that the effort shifts from compelling the change (make them do it) to leading the change (make them want to do it).

Marketing water to horses

Early experiments in creating learning-centred environments, where generic e-learning was offered without any marketing or line manager support, and with no blending, had disappointing results. The moral of this story was that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

So let's take a marketing approach to this problem.

The horse needs to be thirsty (incite desire). It might need some reassurance about the quality of the water (create a trusted brand). If it is an extremely sceptical horse it might need to be convinced that drinking water here will deliver health improvements (sell the benefits), and told a little about the deleterious effects on health of not drinking water in the long term (okay, a bit of stick). Lastly, and most importantly, it needs to be told about these things in a language that it can understand - i.e. horse language...

Of course, the analogy breaks down there, because we don't have access to horse language: we can't converse with horses, we can only train them.

…An excuse that can hardly be used in the case of humans.

Intro:Moving from 'training push' to 'learning pull'
What do learners want?
Marketing becomes crucial