A month ago, I conducted a short survey among working professionals asking which of the following they would be happy to experience in their organizations. Would it be – Civility and Respect, Growth and Development, Psychological and Physical Safety, Clear Leadership and Expectations.
Interestingly, Growth and Development got the highest votes at 41 percent. This says a lot considering the number of certifications, accolades, conferments, and titles people bag almost daily. Hardly would a week pass that you would not congratulate someone on some academic or learning achievements, so what is going on? Or could it be that, although people learn a lot, nothing improves in and around them with the acquired knowledge?
A sage once differentiated knowledge from wisdom with his apt definition. He said, “Wisdom is the direct application of knowledge”. This means that learning is just a step in the right direction, a means to an end and not the end. Learning cannot lead to growth and development without using the knowledge gained to solve problems, invent things, and make or execute policies.
It is no news that the Nigerian community in the United States is the most educated immigrant community in the country. An average Nigerian adult holds at least a university degree. However, most people learn a lot, year in and year out, only to fulfill righteousness and rarely to solve problems. We go to colleges/universities so that we can get a job. We get all the certifications so we can hold the job. We obtain a second degree to get promoted within the organization, elevated through a new job, or change a career. We continue to accumulate accolades, titles, and memberships to remain relevant. Thirdly, we return to university for the third time to pursue a PhD as a retirement fallback position.
In contrast, in the developed world, learning is to solve problems and not just for the fun of getting educated. As a result, their learning goals, outcomes, and methods often change based on solutions they need or are trying to anticipate. So, because we learn with little or no goal to solve new problems, our curricula are outdated and sometimes out of sync. This is probably one of the reasons employees go for many certification programs and more degrees to be promoted within their organizations or get a better job elsewhere. The proper purpose of learning to achieve results includes promotion but is not limited to it as it should stem from both parties’ interests. This mutual interest brings us back to the importance of an employee aligning their personal goals with their organization’s.
Learning outside the walls of the workplace has tremendous benefits as it brings fresh views, exposure, and expertise into bear. However, this individual external learning benefits employees more than employers, except when certain boxes get checked. So, the next time you sponsor any of such, be sure to tick most of the boxes with questions such as – How relevant is the programme to both the present and future of the organization? What immediate, envisaged, and future problems will the knowledge solve? How will the knowledge be shared with others in the organization that needs it? What project(s) is the knowledge useful for? How will the program enhance personal mastery in the learner’s field? How will the knowledge be used to plan for an intelligent fast failure? Can a minimum viable product be developed for quick testing from the knowledge, observation, and condition post-learning? Will the program give or share crucial market information, relevant statistics, and valuable data? etc.
So, as much as external training is critical and should be encouraged, the most effective way of building a learning culture that will guarantee mutual reward for employees and employers will be for learning to occur within. Aside from engaging experts to come over to train staff, learning, and application should be continuous through sharing, anchoring, matching, and giving. It is also necessary to take note of the different categories of people that exist even within organizations that are highly driven by learning culture. These three categories are takers, matchers, and givers.
In a taking culture, people do what is best for them by seeking and acquiring knowledge as much as they can get from others while avoiding giving back unless they must. The problem with this learning culture is that takers will always want to get ahead individually rather than collectively. Takers are only willing to do what is best for them and not necessarily what is best for the team or organization. Trust becomes an issue with confident takers because, once their loyalty shifts from the common good, they cease to be impactful. An organization with a taking culture is often toxic.
On the other hand, a matching culture trades favours evenly. The quid pro quo type of organizational behaviour is on the premise that ‘If I do something for you, I expect you to do something for me in return’. In a matching culture, people care more about fairness, so things are more squared within the organization. More learning and teaching occur within the organization, with much more effective collaboration encouraged.
Lastly, people generally enjoy helping others in the giving culture. Knowledge sharing and mentoring take place freely. Everyone looks for ways to contribute to their team positively. The people in the organization experience massive generosity as people are willing to help one another without expecting anything in return. The giving learning culture allows for creativity and innovation because every knowledge acquired gets shared in different ways. It also promotes a culture where people choose and are committed to doing what is best for their team in serving the company’s mission.
Call to action
You will be amazed to learn that there are great organizations in which each category is prevalent. So, which category would you rather have the most people in your office be in and why? What would you do if you realized that your least preferred category was the predominant one in your organization as a new employee? Would you resign, adjust, or try to change things? What would you do as an employer if you discovered that your organization is more skewed to the least preferred category? What would you change?
If you or your organization needs help identifying the prevailing learning culture in your workplace, clarity on the topic, or further engagement of a workplace wellness specialist, kindly send an email to [email protected].
Opaleye, a wellbeing specialist and corporate wellness strategist, writes from Lagos
