The Competitive Imperative of Learning (Harvard Business Review July-August 2008), by Amy C. Edmondson

Most executives believe that relentless execution – the efficient, timely, consistent production and delivery of goods or services – is the surefire path to customer satisfaction and financial results. Managers who let up on execution even briefly, the assumption goes, do so at their peril.

                In fact, even flawless execution cannot guarantee enduring success in the knowledge economy. The influx of new knowledge in most fields makes it easy to fall behind.  Look at General Motors which was the largest most profitable company in the world in the 1970. GM remained wedded to a well-developed competency in centralized control and high-volume execution. They have steadily lost ground for decades and are now counted in the ranks of high profile bankruptcies.

                Edmondson’s research identifies a different approach to execution, what she calls “Execution-as-learning ”. The approach maintains that a focus on getting things done, and done right, crowds out the experimentation and reflection vital to sustainable success. By continuing to think about execution as efficiency, which she refers to as old fashioned and narrow, companies fall into predictable self sabotaging traps.

1.       Critical information and ideas fail to rise to the top

2.       People don’t have enough time to learn

3.       Unhealthy internal competition arises

4.       Companies think they can do no wrong

In addition the environment must be made safe. Before an execution-as-learning can occur organizations must foster psychological safety. This means ensuring that no one is penalized if they ask for help or admit a mistake. This safety is not done at the expense of accountability and Edmondson presents a safety/accountability matrix which suggests that effective organizations achieve high levels of both.

        The goal of the approach is to find out what works and what doesn’t; employees must absorb new knowledge while executing, often sacrificing short term efficiency to gain insight into and respond to novel problems. The author reveals four steps to make this happen.

1.       Provide process guidelines

2.       Provide tools that enable employees to collaborate in real time

3.       Collect process data

4.       Institutionalize disciplined reflection

The article presents a valid and viable alternative that strikes a median between hierarchy and self guided teams. Fostering an atmosphere in which trust and respect thrive, and flexibility and innovation flourish, pays off in most settings, even the most deadline driven. When people know their ideas are welcome, they will offer innovative ways to lower costs and improve quality, thus laying a more solid foundation for their organization’s success.

You can read the full article here.