We’ve encountered many leaders who really do want to keep raising the bar on themselves and their institutions. They know that learning is key to innovation and impact. But as this blog notes, they find it hard to execute in practice. In our work we’ve found that leaders must align three key elements to become a learning organization: a leadership team that holds themselves accountable for learning as a top priority, a culture that values continuous improvement over time, and structures and processes that reinforce and reward learning behaviors.

Behind closed doors, many leaders acknowledge the “rhetoric/reality gap” about learning – that despite their aspirations in fact these elements don’t align in their institutions. They don’t embrace smart failures, identify and reward specific instances where learning has actually improved their own grantmaking behavior, or hold themselves accountable for getting better over time.

Shortly before his invention succeeded, Thomas Edison was asked about his failure to deliver on the promise of electric lighting. He replied: “I have not failed. Now I know 1,000 ways not to make a light bulb.” We would be wise to learn from his example.

Although an evaluative organization is a learning organization, a learning organization is not always evaluative. The evaluative organization “adds value” to the learning organization concept by assessing the extent to which the knowledge acquired by or integrated into the organization is worthwhile and used to improve organizational effectiveness. Hence, an evaluative organization is a learning organization that instinctually reflects on its actions and external environment and continuously improves as a result of those reflections.

For more: http://bit.ly/cgzP8l

The discussion continues.

CEP has devoted much effort over the past nearly nine years to creating the feedback loops that Bob and Susan note are crucial for maximizing foundation impact. I very much agree that thoughtful, committed foundation leaders want this kind of feedback; but it can be tough to get when surrounded by those who might be predisposed to say what they believe a funder wants to hear.

I think the fact that 200 foundations have participated in our Grantee Perception Report (GPR) process — to get candid and comparative feedback from those on the ground doing the tough work — is something to applaud and celebrate. An increasing number are participating in our other assessment processes, too, getting feedback from stakeholders, staff, and even those who should matter most: intended beneficiaries.

My colleagues and I will be writing more in the coming weeks here about what kind of learning happens as a result of these processes — and what kinds of changes foundations are making as a result.

Phil Buchanan, CEP

We’ve encountered many leaders who really do want to keep raising the bar on themselves and their institutions. They know that learning is key to innovation and impact. But as this blog notes, they find it hard to execute in practice. In our work we’ve found that leaders must align three key elements to become a learning organization: a leadership team that holds themselves accountable for learning as a top priority, a culture that values continuous improvement over time, and structures and processes that reinforce and reward learning behaviors.

Behind closed doors, many leaders acknowledge the “rhetoric/reality gap” about learning – that despite their aspirations in fact these elements don’t align in their institutions. They don’t embrace smart failures, identify and reward specific instances where learning has actually improved their own grantmaking behavior, or hold themselves accountable for getting better over time.

Shortly before his invention succeeded, Thomas Edison was asked about his failure to deliver on the promise of electric lighting. He replied: “I have not failed. Now I know 1,000 ways not to make a light bulb.” We would be wise to learn from his example.