June Fast Company article review by Todd Mehrkens

Big Learning, Fast Futures, Page 46, Fast Company, June 1999, by Cheryl Dahle

This article, "Big Learning", starts off with a story about Taco Bell. The top executives of the fast food chain were looking for a way to revitalize their business. They decided that the traditional way of implementing a new company-wide strategy was not going to bring about the effect they were looking for. I am guessing that this could have been a somewhat controversial and "well discussed" decision. Although we all like to think that we are willing to think outside the box and not be tied by tradition, when the stakes are high, the old way can seem like the wise, or least safe, choice. In this case, they wisely realized that in order for a new strategy to be successfully implemented, it would depend upon the 7,000 store managers and how committed they were to the new strategy.

Taco Bell consulted with Root Learning Inc. for advice. Randall Root, founder and CEO of Root Learning, notes: "Companies say to us, We tell people what our mission is, but they dont get it. We must have a communication problem. " "Those companies dont have a communication problem. They have a misunderstanding of human nature. If you are (the) CEO, people may tolerate your ideas, but they will ACT (on) their own ideas".

This relates directly to what we have been learning in class. It is ineffective and inefficient to use a "pour it down from the top" strategy, whether its a learning situation or a business situation.

In the case of Taco Bell, they "implemented" their new strategy by bringing their store managers together and letting them figure out what the new strategy was going to be. There was a highly interactive "game" that not only got people involved, but it directly related to their work at Taco Bell. It was a way to learn about their company, understand the larger issues and collectively determine the best way to solve the challenges that Taco Bell was facing. The managers also came to realize that they were an incredibly important part of the process.

The thinking behind Root Learning Inc. does a pretty good job of applying the theories that we have been learning about in class. Jim Haudan, a partner in Root Learning is quoted as saying, "Most so-called learning experiences dont require any thinking. They are just persuasive attempts to get the learners to agree with the teachers conclusions. Real thinking occurs only when people are engaged in answering the most strategic questions of the business - when they are encouraged to make connections and defend responses."

The tool that Root Learning utilized sounded very similar to a board game that was used at our District Conference a few years ago. An Extension Educator from another county had put together a board game, with the goal of successfully "guiding" Extension through the "jungle". There were pitfalls and triumphs that we as participants had to deal with as we did this. It was a fun and interactive way to look at the many and complex issues facing Extension. The only main complaint I remember hearing was that the "pitfalls", which consisted of bad-news scenarios, were considered too negative - the writer of the game had come up with some incredibly detailed stories of how things could go terribly wrong.

When I discussed this article with the other staff in my office, there were some pretty strong opinions. They agreed that when Extension faces major decision, there should be input from the people who are out in the counties doing the work. They even felt that Extension has at times made the effort to get grass roots input. At the very least, there have been opportunities or invitations to offer input. There was however also intense frustration because the input often seems to be ignored or given very little value and credibility. They felt it would be helpful if the input would be acknowledged and explanations offered as to why the decisions were made the way they were.

This issue also raised considerable discussion relative to a decision that had been made in our County. We are building a new courts building, so there will be several offices vacated in the building where our Extension office is located. There were several committee meetings, tours, and other discussion surrounding how the vacated space would be re-allocated. In the end, the decision of who would get what space seemed to totally ignore the work of the committees, with no explanation as to why things were done the way they were.

The bottom line is that getting input from the people doing the work is great, but follow-through and commitment to listening to that input is a key part of the process.

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999