Cense

Research.Design.Impact.

Chief Learning Officer

by

C-suite leadership roles focus on an organization’s most important functions. Time to introduce the role of the Chief Learning Officer.

Learning — easier said than done. Yet, learning is vital to the success of an organization that seeks to innovate to gain advantage or merely survive – which is most human service organizations these days.

Learning opportunities abound, yet these require energy and attention in order to take advantage of them. Organizationally, this requires leadership and resources to support people across the organization to learn within their areas of focus and across the institution and networks.

Everyone is responsible for learning and there are some great resources to support that effort, but without someone taking explicit leadership on making sure learning happens within the institution, it’s less likely to happen — at least happen in a way that is designed for innovation.

Introducing: the Chief Learning Officer.

Leading Learning

With the alphabet soup of C-s that we are seeing among organizations’ leadership teams adding another might not seem helpful. What we propose is less about formalizing the title of CLO and more about creating the function of what they can do within an organization.

We envision a CLO role as one that does the following:

  • Establishing a learning plan for the organization and the data structure to support that learning. This means instilling and building a culture of evaluation across the organization, which provides data and feedback on what is happening to allow staff at all levels to learn from what is being done. It involves showing what evaluation can do and co-creating ways to do it across the enterprise to add learning value.
  • Ensures that staff roles and functions include the ability to study and reflect on the work being done and its impact. This means establishing practices and procedures that link evaluation data to program activities. It also involves creating the means to bring in insights from outside sources (e.g., published research and reports, networks, professional communities, customers and clients). Structuring what we do and how and when we do it is part of this function to ensure that roles and learning needs are fit-for-purpose.
  • Organizing the evaluation of program activities and ensuring that staff at all relevant levels of the organization close to each program have access to the information about those programs and can make decisions about those programs without having to go through cumbersome layers of bureaucracy.
  • Create sensemaking channels and opportunities throughout the organization. This allows intra- and cross-departmental/unit collaboration to understand the bigger picture of what’s going on in the organization and industry.
  • Supports the development of self-sustaining communities of practice or learning groups on topics relevant to the organization, yet without specific roles or functions. Topics might include emerging technologies, leadership, creative thinking, or professional development.

Creating your CLO Office

A CLO would link the activities of the organization to the monitoring and evaluation data about those activities with the literature and trend data from outside the organization into a culture of learning within the organization.

This could be a full- or part-time position or something like a fractional CLO role like we can play at Cense.

Whether you create a CLO within your organization or choose to recruit learning support from outside, having a dedicated person shepherding your culture into a learning organization is something that will increase your innovation capacity exponentially.

For more information about how you can build this learning culture within your organization or the fractional CLO role, contact us. We’d love to help you out.

Developmental Evaluation Traps

by

Developmental evaluation (DE) is a powerful tool for supporting innovation in complex systems. 

Developmental evaluation (DE), when used to support innovation, is about weaving design with data and strategy. It’s about taking a systematic, structured approach to paying attention to what you’re doing, what is being produced (and how), and anchoring it to why you’re doing it by using monitoring and evaluation data. For innovators, this is all connected through design.

DE helps to identify potentially promising practices or products and guide the strategic decision-making process that comes with innovation and provides evidence to support the innovation process from ideation through to business model execution and product delivery.

As introduced over on Censemaking, DE is also filled with traps. 

Over the next couple weeks, we’ll be providing some guidance on how to navigate these traps and what your organization can do to steer clear of them and harness the great potential of this important approach to innovation strategy and evaluation for your organization.

Image credit: 200 pair telephone cable model of corpus callosum by J Brew used under Creative Commons license

Engagement for ideas

by

Engage everyone in idea creation

Among the biggest success factors in any organizational change initiative is engaging staff and stakeholders in participating in the change process; this is true for idea generation through the design cycle to implementation and evaluation. How do we overcome the challenge of disengagement to produce productive creative, innovative ideas in our organizations?

Beyond brainstorming

Ideas are usually the starting point for any change initiative. Ideas produce the raw content of problem identification and the seeds for solution generation. Brainstorming is often the means people first think of as a way to generate ideas and explore concepts. However, there are some substantial problems with this approach and some ways around it.

Brainstorming has been widely criticized for good reasons. Among them: it favours those voices who think (and speak) quickly, speak early, often and loudly. Those early suggestions drive the conversation for what comes next, creating a path dependency that’s hard to escape once initiated. If you’re a quieter, perhaps more contemplative person, you’ll find that you are either late to the conversation or not included. From Jungian Personality Theory, this indicates a bias towards extroversion over introversion, which excludes about 40 per cent of the population according to some estimates.

This approach also favours what Min Basadur would classify as an ‘generator’: someone who’s work style preferences favour idea generation. Those from the other quadrants in the Basadur Profile, particularly ‘conceptualizers’ and ‘optimizers’ (ones who’s work style preference leans toward processing and organizing information) are less likely to respond quickly.

Ideas in private and public

Another problem with many ideation strategies is that many really useful ideas are a bit heretical or outlandish. While design thinking writers often refer to the need to generate ‘wild ideas’ without criticism or judgement, the truth is that’s a lot harder to do in practice, particularly when there are power dynamics in the room, reputations, and the real fear that comes with change and challenges to established practices. The public nature of the ideation process favours transparency, but induces self-censorship and produces disengagement for many and hyper-engagement for a few.

A solution is to have those involved in the process generate ideas independently and anonymously contribute them via a suggestion box (digital or analog). Keep the suggestion box open for a defined period — we recommend no more than one week or as short as three days. This allows time for those who are more reflective to mull through their ideas and contribute them, while those who are more quick to generate ideas will not be affected.

These are then collated independently by someone neutral to the problem and solution set and organized thematically. This has the advantage of potentially embedding some of the wildest ideas within a small set of other ideas that might seem far less threatening. If you create a category of ‘wild ideas’ the risk is that the entire category will be dismissed. A more public, but elaborate, means of doing this can be found in the CoNEKTR Model described elsewhere.

This process can be repeated over the design cycle at different stages – anywhere diverse perspectives and feedback is needed.

Overcoming biases to better ideas

The bias toward ‘rapid ideation’ in design thinking systematically excludes people in favour of a well-meaning intention of trying to avoid participants ‘over-thinking’ a problem. While that might happen, it still prevents many from engaging in the process fully because of personality, work preferences, cognitive style and social pressures.

The strategy listed above is a simple, but highly effective means of getting lots of ideas and engaging your entire team in the process. Try it out. You might be surprised what ideas come from it all.