Harold Jarche wrote a though provoking item on Learning Organizations.  It is based on a paper with the interesting title: “Why aren’t we all working for a learning organization?“. I couldn’t resist to comment on this discussion. I love publications on the Learning Organization. They are abstract and paint a picture of an organization that no one would resist. It’s implementation though is very hard, because it requires a deep change in most organizations on all organizational aspects (e.g. style, structure, systems, …).

The research on learning organizations and organizational learning tends to focus on organizations that are far from these concepts (large corporations with scientific management roots). That is why I find it interesting to research organizations on the other end of the continuum: organizational learning in new ventures / start-ups.

These new organizations have most of the admired characteristics of learning organizations, but still also have their limitations in learning. They often lack the command & control, structure and systems required to effectively capture their learning. The ‘too much’ that large organizations have of these factors can be ‘too less’ in new ventures.

The inhibiting factors for learning therefore have two different faces.

The May issue of Harvard Business Review contains an interesting article on Talent Management: “How to keep your top talent” by Martin and Conrad Schmidt. In this article they highlight 10 critical components of a Talent Development Program. These components are:

• Explicitly test candidates in three dimensions: ability, engagement and aspiration.
• Emphasize future competencies: rather than current performance.
• Manage the quantity and quality: see talent as a scarce portfolio of growth assets.
• Forget rote functional or business unit rotation: rather focus on intense assignments with development challenges.
• Identify the riskiest,most challenging positions: assign them to rising stars.
• Create individual development plans: linking personal objectives to corporate plans for growth.
• Reevaluate top talent annually: on changes in ability, engagement and aspiration.
• Offer significantly differentiated compensation: and recognition to star employees.
• Hold regular, open dialogues: between high potentials and program managers.
• Replace broadcast communications: about strategy with individualized messages from emerging leaders.

These components were uncovered as a set of best practices based upon research. In my opinion not all components are really about talent development, but rather about talent management. I also find the suggestions quite high-level, interrelated, and culturally biased. But, you might be able to translate them into ingredients of your talent development programs. Good luck, since effort in talent development will become more and more critical in the years to come!

Recently I wrote a working paper for the International HRD Conference that will be held on June 2-4, 2010 in Pecs, Hungary. This working paper will be presented in the conference stream: business strategy, organizational learning and knowledge management. The paper tries to establish a connection between the fields of Human Resource Development (HRD) and Strategic Management through the concept of absorptive capacity. Up until now the corporate university has been claimed to be a strategic instrument for learning and development in organizations. The strategic nature of the corporate university remains unclear lacks scientific fundament. With this paper I try to establish a fundament for future research into the strategic potential of corporate universities.Working paper: Corporate University for strategic innovation

The German drugstore Schlecker will be leaving the Dutch market. The price fighter faces decreasing revenue and decided to close all stores. Recently we have seen quite some companies aiming at price competition close their doors. Although it always has been argued that this strategy is not sustainable, it is interesting that it becomes clear in these economic times. On the one hand you might expect that buyers are more price sensitive and turn to these discounters. One the other hand the business models depending on low margins and high turnover are high risk in these times.

From studying succesful companies it becomes clear that applying a hybrid strategy is the way forward. Generic strategies like the ones described by Porter are to limited to stay competitive in the current competitive landscape and economic climate. Succesful organizations adopt a combination of competitive aspects to build a Hybrid Strategy. Examples are: IKEA (differentiate in design + low cost), Toyota (quality – although under pressure + price) and Ahold (quality + price). Just competing on price isn’t good enough anymore. Therefore we enter an interesting new era of strategic management in organizations.

An interesting HBR Blog post ‘Learning from Toyota’s Stumble’ by Stephen Spear. It reflects on what we can learn from the recent issues Toyota is facing with pedal malfunctions. Toyota for a long time has been leader in quality and books were published on the Toyota Way in almost all management area’s. From this case we can learn that this competitive success is fluid.

According to Spear the way to sustain success is to continue learning and improving: “The capabilities to do this are poweful but fragile and need constant reinforcement … This includes developing people by investing time in mentoring and developing their capabilities for pushing the boundaries of quality, efficiency, safety, and responsiveness, and taught them how to build those capabilities in others. But as we are now sadly seeing, the capacity for developing people can be overstretched. It was not recognizing this and succumbing to the temptation to make growth its first priority that led to Toyota’s current problems”. This stroll of events caused great damage to the carefully developed image of Toyota being the most reliable car manufacturer in the World with quality and innovation as it’s guiding principles.

Conclusion: It is already hard to become a true learning organization, but it is even harder to stay one …