646 Case Study
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•561 views
5 min. overview of organizational learning case study.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (12)
Similar to 646 Case Study
Similar to 646 Case Study (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
646 Case Study
- 1. Learning Organization Case Study Briefer: Mr. Adam Reitz Date: 28 July 2015
- 2. 2 Agenda • Purpose • Problem Framing • Solution Framing • Quantitative Research • Qualitative Research • Recommendation • Conclusion
- 3. 3 Purpose • To provide an overview while communicating PCE’s initial expectations to managerial employees in regard to what each should know respective of the case study regarding organizational alignment’s potential impact on an organization’s ability to learn.
- 4. 4 Topical Area: Organizational Learning
- 5. 5 Problem Framing 1 2 3 Understanding of Strategic Guidance Problem Definition Understanding of The Operational Environment Quantitative Measures Qualitative Measures CDT ‘Mission’ CDT ‘Purpose’ “How can the vertically hierarchically aligned CDT learn in a complex and rapidly changing environment when the entire premise of vertically aligned organizations is that they already know the best solution?”Complexity Rapid Changes Vertical Alignment
- 6. 6 Learning Org Solution Framing 2 Change AlignmentCDT 1 3 Means Ways Ends “How can the vertically hierarchically aligned CDT learn in a complex and rapidly changing environment when the entire premise of vertically aligned organizations is that they already know the best solution?” Problem Statement
- 8. 8 Quantitative Analytical Results 50 2.5 10 157.5 2012.5 17.5 “Spider vs. Starfish” Weighted 5-Number Summaries Regarding instances of ‘new learning’ Min. / Max.Q1 Q2 Q3 Min. Max.Q1 Q2 Q3 “Spider” “Starfish” Effectiveness
- 10. 10 Recommendation Learning Org 2 Change AlignmentCDT 13 Means Ways Ends “How can the vertically hierarchically aligned CDT learn in a complex and rapidly changing environment when the entire premise of vertically aligned organizations is that they already know the best solution?” Problem Statement
- 11. 11 Conclusion • Recognizing one of our long-understood advantages, our hierarchical structure, as a weakness in context of our dynamic and complex environment will be difficult for people to accept and therefor produce its own set of problems in its implantation. Appreciating that true organizational learning cannot occur when leaders feel they already ‘know’ the answers, transforming to a horizontal structure may demonstrate what Robert & Elizabeth Bjork identify as “desirable difficulties,” (Gladwell, 2013, pg. 102) by replacing our CDT leadership role with learners who can generate and explore new insights, fueled by one another.
- 12. Questions?
- 13. 13 References • Brafman, O. & Beckstrom, R. (2006). The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. The Penguin Group. • Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperCollins Publishing. • de Bono, E. (1998). The Six Thinking Hats: A Creativity Process for Results Driven Groups. Retrieved from http://www.debonoforschools.com/pdfs/six- thinking-hats-pre-reading.pdf • Gladwell, M. (2013). David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants. Back Bay Books.
Editor's Notes
- Welcome, everyone. My name is Adam Reitz and I’m briefing you today on my recent case study regarding the CEO’s Design Team, or “CDT,” as a learning organization.
- We will cover the brief’s purpose, an overview of the case study’s concepts listed here, and the conclusion.
- The international environment in which Persuasion, Coercion, & Enforcement Ltd. (PCE) must influence other actors is inherently complex and exists in a dynamic state of constant change. Any organization that desires to deliberately influence a multifaceted system as complex as national security must continually position itself to not only learn about the environment, but must also learn how to best adapt to it in pursuit of its strategic objectives. This case study explores how the manner in which the CEO’s Design Team (CDT) aligns itself (whether vertically vs. horizontally) impacts its ability to learn as an organization as a required precursor to any subsequent adaptation. A striking analytical insight that occurred during the team’s analysis of itself (as an actor within its own environment) were the patterns that emerged regarding its efficiency and effectiveness in relation to its organizational structure. The quantitative analysis demonstrated that the CDT, when vertically aligned (i.e., a “spider”) was more efficient than when it was horizontally aligned (i.e., a “starfish”) by up to two standard deviations (Brafman, 2006), which was supported by the more subjective qualitative findings.
- Before getting into too much detail regarding the analytical findings of this case study regarding the spider vs. starfish organizational alignments, it is worthwhile to provide context via the problem and solution frameworks which were applied. In trying to frame the problem to set the foundation for a potential future solution framework, the research followed joint doctrine’s three step methodology for developing an operational approach, (CJCS, 2011, pg. III-7) as shown here. The CDT’s purpose, mission, and directed organizational alignment were compared and contrasted with the analytical results produced by quantitative and qualitative measures, from which the problem statement shown her was discerned. [Read Problem Statement]
- The overarching solution to this problem that jumped out was to change the vertically aligned team to a more collaborative, horizontally aligned team, or in other words, to solve the learning disabilities inherent to spider organizations by transforming into a starfish team.
- The first quantitative measure the paper addresses is the determination of the number of weeks the CDT worked on each of its projects while juxtaposing the results from its ‘spider’ days with its more recent transformation to a ‘starfish’ organization in order to determine which organizational design is more efficient. As shown here, the spider versions of the CDT were more efficient by up to almost three standard deviations than the starfish version.
- With effectiveness defined as the amount of learning that actually occurred (vice the efficiency at which is was accomplished), the juxtaposition of these two 5-Number Summaries clearly shows that the starfish model of the CDT is more effective at achieving organizational learning than its spider counterpart.
- The qualitative research into the operational environment dove into the three elements of chaos which Brafman argues are essential for organizational learning and subsequent innovation. As these charts clearly demonstrate, the starfish versions of the CDT clearly and consistently scored higher in the survey results when the respondents were asked which organizational alignment offered more. Another way to understand the rationale for measuring the elements of chaos is that without white space, or autonomy, workers simply do as they are told. If the make up of the workforce rarely varies the team’s perspective is unlikely to be challenged and group-think sets it, and organized serendipity regards the ability for new learning to penetrate the larger organization’s decision-making spaces.
- The case study’s recommendation is that PCE should retain the CDT’s change to a starfish structure (as depicted here on the right) by replacing the vertical hierarchical relationships of the spider with the horizontally collaborative relationships of a starfish (de Bono 1998; Brown 2009).