Strategics | Studies, Essays, Thesises » R. LeWayne Johnson - Double Loop Learning Applications in Addressing Program Management Challenges in Virtual Work Environments

1 Double-Loop Learning Applications in Addressing Program Management Challenges in Virtual Work Environments R. LeWayne Johnson, PhD/LLM/JD Abstract 2 There has been a global increase in the demand for U.S defense products and services within the past ten years. More NATO countries and the US share global arms transfer agreements A number of these NATO partner countries such as Asia, the Middle East, Australia, and Latin American countries are looking to modernize and increase their combat capabilities. US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program Managers - responsible for the contracting, executing these agreements, the acquisition of and managing these systems have become physically removed from their Integrated Products Teams (IPT). Due to the current operations environment, e.g, fluctuating US budgetary resources, shrinking workforce due to “Baby Boomers” exiting the workforce thus increasing the workloads for remaining Federal employees, more demands for U.S warfighting

capabilities from NATO countries, FMS Program Managers find themselves managing several programs and employees in several different countries and needing to coordinate and communicate with team members both in the U.S and other countries Traditional management methods and organizational structures, therefore are failing to adequately accommodate a complexity-based work environment. This study identified the organizational structures that U.S Government FMS program managers operate in and the rethink of the tools necessary to better manage programs in different countries - specifically adaptations of FMS program managers in globalized-virtual work environments. The study leveraged from the existing literature knowledge of organizational performance to include Bolman and Deal’s four frames and Morgan’s metaphors. Argyris’ and Schon’s double loop learning theory will be applied to help facilitate paradigm shifts in the way none co-located Integrated Product Teams (IPT) operate.

Table of Contents 3 Introduction.4 Statement of Problem.5 Background of the Organization of Focus.6 Theoretical Framework for the Project.7 Organizational Learning10 Recommendations for Action14 References.17 Introduction 4 22 U.SC 2751: Arms Export Control Act The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program is a security assistance program implemented by the U.S Department of State This program is authorized by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended [22 U.SC 2751, et seq] (DSCA, 2016a) FMS continues to be a fundamental tool used in U.S foreign policy strategy Under Section 3, of the AECA, “the US may sell defense articles and services to foreign countries and international organizations when the President formally finds that to do so will strengthen the security of the U.S and promote world peace.” (US Code, 2016, p 3) Pursuant to the FMS agreement, the US Government and its foreign government allies execute government-to-government agreements called a Letter of Offer

and Acceptance (LOA) (DSCA, 2016). The FMS program facilitates the sales of U.S arms, defense equipment, defense services, and military training to world-wide-government partners. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), is the lead agency in the Department of Defense that is responsible for the execution of Security Cooperation programs. The DSCA program, in addition to FMS sales expand U.S foreign security policy of diplomacy, intelligence, military and economic (DIME) Both contribute greatly to the foreign policy and national security strategies of the U.S FMS Sales Profile Summary During Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, sales under the government-to-government Foreign Military Sales Program were estimated at $35.359 billion These FMS sales, coupled with sales realized from U.S government appropriations under at least two other security cooperation and security assistance programs: (a) Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and (2) DoD programs, estimated at $11.726 billion, amounted to

$47085 billion for fiscal year 2015 (DSCA, 2016b) Globally, there continues to be a high demand for U.S defense products and services In fact, the 5 U.S has realized an increase in its share of total global arms transfer agreements over the last decade. Partners such as defense markets in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America continues to increase (DSCA, 2016b). Most of these markets are continuously and aggressively looking to modernize and expand a full spectrum of their warfighting capabilities. Program Management Functions and Requirements With the increasing demand for U.S arms, defense equipment, defense services, and military training to partners the federal government is required to manage the acquisition of these requests in addition to managing the operations of ongoing legacy programs. The Program Manager (PM) is the U.S government job series where the authorization lie in the performing organizations’ program tasks by organizing teams and leading these teams to

accomplishing the program’s objectives (Le Masson, Moran, & Rohleder, 2013). Program managers are required to undertake large, complex initiatives to provide new programs and services and to adapt and improve ongoing programs in a rapidly changing environment (PMI, 2010). Technologically induced emergence of a virtual environments has resulted in the adoption of new organizational structures /and work practices. These introductions have also created several management and leadership challenges for the traditional twentieth century management. Statement of the Problem Due to the current operations environment, e.g, fluctuating US budgetary resources, shrinking workforce due to “Baby Boomers” exiting the work-force thus increasing the workloads for remaining Federal employees, more demands for U.S war-fighting capabilities from NATO countries, FMS program managers find themselves managing several programs and employees in several different countries and needing to coordinate

and communicate with team members both in the U.S and other countries Traditional management methods and 6 organizational structures, are failing to adequately accommodate a complexity-based work environment. Background of the Organization of Focus The organization of focus for this application is a federal government agency. It consists of approximately 1,100 civilian and military employees. This organization provides a full range of training solutions for the DOD. It has military and civilian personnel stationed at eight stations across the continental United States. It has one site overseas The organization’s statutory mission is “.to provide full life-cycle support of naval aviation aircraft, weapons and systems operated by Sailors and Marines.” (NAVAIR, 2012, p1) The function of the organization is to conduct research, design, development and systems engineering; acquisition; test and evaluation; training facilities and equipment; repair and modification; and in-service

engineering and logistics support (NAVAIR, 2012). The functional disciplines of the organization is broken into competencies or communities of practice to include: program management, contracts, research and engineering, test and evaluation, logistics and industrial operations, corporate operations, comptroller and counsel. The organization functions in a military hierarchy environment and supply people, tools, processes, mission facilities, training, and core technologies to the U.S Navy Fleet The Naval Aviation Program Executive Officers (PEOs) and their assigned program managers are responsible for many of the programs ran by this organization. The program managers’ functions are to meet the cost, schedule, and performance requirements of their assigned programs. In designing and developing the products to support the Fleet, this agency performs: (a) requirements analysis, (b) design, (c) development, and (d) full life cycle support of training systems and solutions. A central

mission of this agency is to integrate “the science of learning 7 with performance-based training and measurement of training effectiveness focused on improving the performance of Sailors and Marines.” (p 1) This agency’s operations allow for an interchange of services, technology and information among and within its superior commands, the Fleet, and vendors through the Internet. Theoretical Framework for the Project The framework for this project is derived from the theory of Argyris and Schön’s (1974) double loop learning theory. This section will present an overview of the theory along with that of Bolman and Deal’s four frames and Morgan’s metaphor in order to create a more comprehensive way of making sense of FMS program managers’ behaviors and business processes required to adequately accommodate a complexity-based work environment. Storyline Development Strategy In the development stages of a storyline, Morgan (2006) suggested one must first identify a

dominant metaphor through the understanding to the organization’s internal and external challenges. Morgan (2006) suggested supporting metaphors could be used to assist one in grasping a better understanding of the organization. Morgan (2006) looked at organizations through the lens of different metaphors. The author suggested that the brain metaphor invites one to rethink important management principles. This rethink - in turn allows one to deviate from customary ways of thinking and encourages shifts in paradigms; thus acquiring new theories of management. The organic metaphor similar to the brain metaphor, invites flexibility in organizational thinking. According to Morgan (2006), the organic metaphor encourages managers to be more flexible and adaptable to threats from the uncertainties of a turbulent environment. The metaphor organic metaphor encourages interaction between sub units It focuses on the human elements and therefore encourages innovation. The benefit of seeing

things 8 in the organization using the organic metaphor is that it fosters adaptation to the environmental uncertainties with ease. Morgan (2006) made the point that organizations, like organisms, can be understood of as set of interacting subsystems. Multidisciplinary project teams and the use of personnel skilled in the art of coordination and conflict resolution have been effectively used in some organizations in navigating in turbulent environments (Morgan, 2006). Organizational effectiveness in today’s environment depends on the ".sharing of power and information through collaborative teams." (Callanan, 2004 pg 77) Rigby, Gruver, and Allen (2009) maintained that in order for organizations to navigate turbulent environment they must deploy a mixture of methods aimed at empowering their employees and coordinating individual and group efforts and to link local initiatives with system wide goals. They do this in two primary ways: (a) vertically: through the formal

chain of command higher levels coordinate and control the work of subordinates through authority, rules and policies, and planning and control systems (Bolman & Deal, 2013) and (b) laterally: through meetings, committees, coordinating roles, or network structures. Murphy (2016), pointed out that the management structures and systems developed by such management pioneers as Weber, Fayol, Taylor and Drucker in the 19th and 20th centuries established a management paradigm which has endured up to the millennium. These structures and systems accommodated the time when competition was slower, less aggressive, and characterized by long periods of stability. They were also useful when information technology was in its embryonic or primordial stage. Morgan (2006) would argue that looking at the management structures and systems of the 21st Century through the brain metaphor invites one to rethink important management principles initially identified by management pioneers such as Weber,

Fayol, Taylor and Drucker in the 19th and 20th centuries. The rethink should focus the 9 development of a management paradigm that can standup to the rapid changes caused by the borderless, connected and wired world. Morgan would advocate that FMS program managers, with their programs and employees in various countries and the need for teams to coordinate and communicate with other team members both in the U.S and other countries, focus on exploiting the virtual structures - virtual management systems. Bolman and Deal (2013) identified four organizational frames: (a) structural, (b) human resources, (c) political and, (d) symbolic by which organizational efficiency and effectiveness can be measured. The structural frame with its focus on the architecture of the organization to include goals, structure, technology, roles and relationships and coordination of them present the dominant challenge for FMS program managers. Using Morgan’s (2006) brain metaphor FMS program managers

could rethink important management principles, responsibilities, division of labor, rules, policies, procedures, systems, and hierarchies which constrain their abilities to optimize their resources. This organizational retooling or reengineering could require an organizational cultural change from what Bolman and Deal (2013) termed as a structural frame with its focus on the architecture of the organization to looking through Morgan’s organic lens and encouraging the FMS program managers to be more flexible and adaptable to threats from the uncertainties of the FMS turbulent environment. The metaphor organic metaphor encourages interaction between sub units. This transformation is referred to by Schein (1990a) as being organizational learning. The next section is the cornerstone or literature researched to better comprehend the theoretical framework of the project and to explain why transforming the operating environment of the FMS program managers is relevant. The next section

consists of a synthesis of the major works on organizational learning methodologies as well as a review of the 10 Argyris and Schön’s double-loop focus on solving problems. Finally, I propose courses of action that FMS program managers can deploy to be more productive in their operating environments. Organizational Learning According to Schein (1990), organizational learning is manifested in the changing of shared assumptions and beliefs by members within the organizational cultural. The result of this change is an enhanced ability to act. The foundation of organizational learning has its roots in such disciplines as certain applied fields of science, economics, psychology, and sociology. In each given field, there exists a unique set of theories requiring the implementation of various research methods and different assumptions applicable to nature and culture displayed by the people and the organizations where they work. Pfeffer (1997) argued that this diversity has tended to

hinder common language required to understand various theories of organization and their learning behaviors. Vecchio (1991) noted that organizations are constantly changing. According to the author, “.organizations are not static” (Vecchio, 1991, p 580) Moreover, according to the author, the continuous change realized in organizations is “.in response to a variety of influences coming from both inside and outside the organization.” (p 580) The resultant is continuous changes in organizational behavior, values and leadership. To properly understand and adjust to this constant change, Argyris (1977) suggested double-loop learning theory. The effective deployment of this theory is contingent upon how well one learns to change underlying organizations values and assumptions as the inevitable changes in the organization occur. The focus of the double-loop learning theory is on solving problems that are not simple but ill-structured (Argyris & Schön, 1974). These problems tend

to change proportionally with the advancement of problem-solving. Further, according to the authors, in using double-loop 11 theory as an organizational change device, the implementer must entertain certain assumptions relevant to organizational culture and behavior. The optimum result of double-loop learning should be elevated decision-making effectiveness and an effective system for plotting failures and mistakes. Because double-loop learning focuses on evaluating and changing organizational strategies, goals, and creating mental maps, it is more effective than single-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1974). Moreover, according to Argyris and Schön, (1974) double-loop typical initiation occurs in the event that existing mental maps and avenues of understanding the organization’s business require reengineering. An illustration of this need is when the product market-share that a firm is operating in drops significantly. A firm’s major survival strategy would be an

adjustment to its strategic posture in accordance to an assessment of its internal and external environments. The firm would develop new mental maps; thus enabling the company to adjust both its strategic and marketing strategies. This, according to the authors is a typical example of double-loop learning. Model I and Model II Theories of Action are Argyris & Schön’s hallmark theories of double-loop learning. Model I Theory of Action Argyris & Schön (1974) argued that individuals create elements to acquire outcomes they want. Rules, propositions, theories of actions and various organizational patterns that represent these outcomes are governed by this learning methodology (Argyris & Schön, 1974). This foundation has been associated to espoused theories. The resultant actions from the theories of action are theories-in-use. Theories-in-use, consequences of theories-of-action, are generated from our actual behavior. According to the authors, where individuals are often

cognitive of their espoused theories, they are sometimes not cognitive of theories-in-use. Sometimes, according to 12 the authors, theory-in-use and espoused theories are inconsistent. Where theory-in-use or Model I theory may result in embarrassment to the person or firm when acted upon, Model II, allows firms to master change during turbulence times and thus allows employees to assist in organizational learning (Argyris & Schön, 1974). Generally speaking Model I in its single-loop learning processes, fails to insulate participants from being embarrassed or threaten when they identify, attempt to reduce or correct the causes of inefficient organizational operations (Argyris & Schön, 1974). According to the authors, Model I fosters anti-learning behavior. Other characteristics of Model I use is that they (1) fail to exercise testing or validation of claims, (2) overprotect users, and (3) constrain the ability to detect and correct errors that are non-routine. The use of

single-loop learning and defensive reasoning processes become inadequate when dealing with complex issues because it produces mixed messages (Argyris & Schön, 1974). One major weakness is that in decision making while using single-loop learning criticism tend to get withheld because of fear of causing conflicts. Difficult issues are usually avoided by team members. (Argyris & Schön, 1974) argued that the use of Model I learning tend to decrease constructive learning and therefore do not activate theories-in-use. Model II Theory of Action Model II’s theory-of-action is a more advanced component of double-loop learning. Requiring minimal defensive actions, Model II is a more logical process of reasoning. Argyris & Schön (1974) illustrated that there exists pronounced gaps relative to espoused theories and theories-in-use. Action science is therefore, a tool to assist in the transition from one learning level to the next. 13 The usability of information and knowledge

is the focus of Model II learning. Model II has high cognitive goals to test the validity of various assertions (Argyris & Schön, 1974). Moreover, according to the authors, usability can be productive as well as logical reasoning causality based on probability (i.e, the probability that A will cause B) The logic behind probabilistic causality is that it fosters a clearer analysis of how concrete situations are unique. Model II’s probabilistic causality benefit is that it allows an individual to recognize the “.inherent gap that exists between stored knowledge and the knowledge required acting effectively; the continual need to change the status quo.” (Argyris & Schön, 1974, p30) Model II allows for the monitoring of innovative thinking and therefore encourages productively reasoning. The caveat of this condition is in the allowance of decisions to be repeated to test their validity. Thus because of the tested validity of decisions effective actions, the outcomes of

actions can be convincingly made public in policies and training directorates. Additionally, strategies prompting actions and the development of skills specific to the focus activities can be tailored to generate the planned occurrences and consequences needed to maintain the actions. This process permits the activity to be testable as in a scientific equation. Problem-solving therefore can be enhances and the theory is ready to be integrated into practice. Where the benefit of employing Model II learning process may vary, teams can approach difficult problems with innovative actions up front and early (Finger & Brand, 1999). Model II process promotes openness thus dispensing with threatening work environments thus; resulting in members questioning each other’s regarding probable solution to organizational issues. Trust that is essential in team work is created. There are benefits to implementing Model II learning in organizations. Decision patterns are open and upfront between

individuals, groups and the organization in general (Finger & Brand, 1999). 14 In summary, the literature reviewed support Argyris and Schön’s (1974) argument that organizations regardless of composition, charter or market, are under constant requirements to adapt to changing environments (Moore, 2007). The general idea is for managers to use lessons learned from previous successes to include failures and create strategies aimed at detecting as well as correcting the discrepancies of past actions; anticipating and responding to foreseeable threats; conducting experiments; engaging in continuous improvement and innovation and; building and realizing the paths to more effective and profitable futures (Moore, 2007). Discrepancies and issues prohibiting an organization from adjusting to both internal and external environmental changes can be detected and mitigated through the use of Argyris & Schön (1974) single-loop and double-loop theory of learning. Recommendations for

Action Implementing Organization Change and Learning In this study, I examined how applying Bolman and Deal’s four frames and Morgan’s metaphors to the structural operational frame of the FMS program managers’ changing it from a hierarchy operation in a highly political environment to a more organic organization where decisions are made on a diplomatic and team driven scale could be more beneficial to operations in the FMS world. I used Argyris’ and Schon’s double loop learning theory as a means of facilitating paradigm shifts in the way none co-located Integrated Product Teams (IPT) operate. In using the aforementioned methodology, several courses of actions can be taken by the FMS program managers: (a) initially the IPTs should create a concrete method for understanding 15 and communicating to the entire team how an organization learns; (b) specific steps should be identified to assist the team in learning better and; (c) organizational learning building blocks should

be identified aimed at improving organizations efforts to be learning organizations. Using Argyris’ and Schon’s double loop learning theory, the creation of a supportive learning environment is necessary to be built around the IPT. This environment should consist of the psychological safety, openness to new concepts and ideas, appreciation of differences, and time allocated for reflection. Secondly, solid learning processes and practices and operation procedures, to include information sharing, experimentation, and education and training should be implemented. Finally, top leadership buy-in must reinforce this learning As the teams improve their various functions and dialogue among the members improve refinement of the organization with the aim of becoming a learning organization should be shared through the organization - far beyond the FMS program managers (Garvin, Edmondson & Gino, 2008). Challenges and Courses of Actions from Working in Virtual Work Environment In reference

to FMS program managers leading or managing in a virtual work environment unless paradigm shifts are made moving away from the traditional co-located work environment, challenges to managers are going to continue to be posed. These challenges will be as big as the technological challenges that created them (Cascio, 2000). Some virtual work environment challenges are: (a) accountability, (b) isolation, (c) lack of trust between team members, and, (d) monitoring and controlling projects. FMS program managers managing in a vastly changing virtual work environment will need a new management approach or shift in management models from the ones proposed by Drucker and Hershey (Zofi, 2011). Conflict Resolution 16 FMS program managers will require techniques in improving team communications, building trust, defusing conflicts, and handling cultural differences in the international workplace. These issues could be increase drastically while managing in an international or virtual work

environment. Garton (2006) suggested that at least eighty percent of team communications in a virtual is nonverbal. This has become an issue with FMS program managers. The inedible continuation of this condition is high given that electronic communication is the preferred media. Co-located teams in traditional work environments could communicate face-to-face. This physical presence was considered the preferred method of communication (Baladi, 2008). Teams working in different countries will have to resort to more virtual methods of communication. In summary, as with FMS program managers changing their organizational structure from a hierarchy operation to an organic operation by using Argyris’ and Schon’s double loop learning theory the same approach could apply in changing their management styles from the management concept of control to embracing e-leadership. This form management is going to require maintaining a control over processes and not controlling people. In using

Argyris’ and Schon’s double loop learning theory FMS program managers will need to create enabling and empowering processes that will allow teams and employees to self-manage. Policies addressing the various challenges of how team members are doing will require writing. More than ever over, goal setting, maintaining respect, enabling team members, promoting project vision, and establishing accountability for groups that are geographically dispersed will have to be addressed. Management-without-walls in addition to navigating uncertainties together with the technology-based terrain is going to require a reengineering of management processes designed to mitigate risks in managing people and resources located in this environment. 17 Reference Argyris, C. (1977) Increasing leadership effectiveness New York: Wiley Argyris, C., & Schön, D (1974) Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Baladi, I. (2008) An empirical analysis of

perceived value of virtual versus traditional project management practice. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68, 121 (UMI No 3277885) Bolman, L. G, & Deal, T E (2013) Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (5th ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Callanan, G. A (2004) What would Machiavelli think? An overview of the leadership challenges in team based structures. Team Performance Management, 10(3/4), 77–83 18 Cascio, W.F (2000) Managing a virtual workplace The Academy of Management Executive, 14, 81-90. Defense Security Cooperation Agency. (2016a) Fiscal year 2015 sales exceed $47B Retrieved 31 January 2017 from http://www.dscamil/news-media/news-archive/fiscal-year-2015sales-exceed-47b Defense Security Cooperation Agency. (2016b) Foreign military sales (FMS) Retrieved 4 February 2017 from http://dsca.mil/programs/foreign-military-sales-fms Finger, M. & Brand, S B (1999) The concept of the learning organization applied to the transformation of the

public sector in M. Easterby-Smith, L Araujo and J Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization London: Sage Garton, C. & Wegryn K (2006) Managing without walls Lewisville, TX: Mc Press Online, LP Garvin, D. A, Edmondson, A C & Gino, F (2008) Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Le Masson, B., Moran, BJ & Rohleder, S (2013, November) Coup D’état: Radically rethinking public services. New York, NY: Accenture Moore, E. H (2007) Evaluating selected examples of one state legislative chamber’s processes from the perspective of learning organization theory. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts ProQuest, AAT 328268) Morgan, G. (2006) Images of organization Sage: Thousands Oak Murphy, J. J (2016) Virtual management: A new business organization paradigm Retrieved 4 February 2017 from, http://www.calumcoburncouk/articles/virtual-management/ 19

NAVAIR (2012). Naval aviation enterprise: Science & technology objectives Retrieved 5 February 2017 from http://www.navairnavymil/osbp/indexcfm?fuseaction=homedownload&id=495 Pfeffer, J. (1997) New directions for organization theory New York: Oxford University Press Program Management Institute (2010). A study of program management in the US Federal Government. Washington, DC: PMI Rigby, D., Gruver, K, & Allen, J (2009) Innovation in turbulent times Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 79–86. Schein, E. H (1990) Organizational culture American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119 U.S Code (2016) 22 US Code 39: Arms Export Control Retrieved 4 February 2017 from https://www.lawcornelledu/uscode/text/22/chapter-39 Vecchio, R. P (1991) Organizational behavior (2nd ed) Fort Worth: The Dryden Press Zofi, Y.S (2011) A managers guide to virtual teams New York: AMACOM