Try not to make learning difficult for your employees.

Although learning wants to flow throughout an organization like blood in our human body, there are sometimes blockages which interfere with knowledge. And knowledge is a process which is a work in progress. Thus, one of the most important things your organization can do is to identify obstacles which slow your company down. Later, it is time to take the necessary steps to remove those obstacles. Here are some of those common barriers or obstacles.

Mixed messages

In an organization, head honchos have a tendency to wax eloquent about words and ideas, but they don’t always practise what they preach. For example, your company may state a policy that learning is important. It may encourage people to attend training programs, workshops and conferences. At the same time, however, employees may still be expected to do their regular work on the days that they attend such learning and educational programs. This probably means that employees have to come in early and work overtime. The company may even require them to stay at their desk and work during their lunch hours.

In many companies, workaholism tends to be ingrained within the company culture. Laws cannot always protect employees from expectations which emerge from the top of the food chain. Like alcoholics who can’t kick their habit, the employees are forced to work long hours and forget about fancy notions like work-life balance and health, wellness and fitness. Thus, employees put their shoulders to the wheel like corporate slaves because they do not want to lag behind.

Oftentimes, companies also tend to reward and recognize employees who tow this official line. Thus, such employees are receiving a mixed message from their company about the value of learning. Owners of the company tend to forget that employees are also human beings with human needs and have a life outside of the cubicle. This is oftentimes the case with many Indian companies which are not managed professionally, that is, family owned businesses.

Eventually, therefore, employees will become apathetic and leave the company because “action speaks louder than words”. When you send a mixed message about learning, you undermine your objectives to become a learning company. What mixed messages do you receive? What can be done to help improve the situation? For example, it is commonplace for American companies to expect more from their employees than a college degree. Even if an employee has years of work experience, and is a senior colleague, American companies will require them to pursue an MBA to prove their worth.

Today, knowledge is a currency that sells in the marketplace of ideas and information. Once the employee earns an advanced degree, he/she is rewarded both in cash and in kind. That usually means a higher pay package, a climb up the corporate ladder, and a company party to honor their achievement. This is why many employees from developing nations desire to be posted abroad because American companies tend to reward merit rather than seniority, status, power, etc. A pay-for-performance and pay-for-merit system is the exception rather than the rule in developing nations like India, where being a “yes-person” seems to be the norm, especially in family owned businesses.

This is also a key difference between traditional companies and a learning organization. However, those who are not serious about learning will get left way behind in an increasingly global marketplace. The focus of a business has shifted from a focus on profits to a focus on learning by doing and the pursuit of life-long learning. For example, one company in India was mired in bureaucratic paperwork, while another company took advantage of a software programme which streamlined daily procedural work. This freed up the time and energy of employees, who took advantage and forged ahead by focusing on high priority and high value-added tasks. This “learning organization” gained competitive advantage, while the traditional company failed, over time, and had to close shop.

In other words, those companies which are unable and unwilling to change in response to internal and external pressures will henceforth find it difficult to stay afloat, while other companies which are able to adapt to a fluid and dynamic and ever-changing ecosystem will get results and win trophies and awards. Learning has to occur because there are political, economic, environmental, socio-cultural, technological and legislative changes all over our world, and companies will have to choose to swim, stay afloat and even thrive or sink to the depths of the ocean floor.

Unclear, conflicting or missing vision

A vision provides direction to a company and its employees. It helps to clarify what is important and what is not important. Without a vision, or with one that is unclear, it is difficult to know what needs to be learned., The company which tells their employees they are responsible for their learning without giving them a context for that learning does them a disservice. For example, an art class may be relevant and appropriate for someone who will be using desktop publishing in his/her work. If, however, the company plans to outsource its newsletter and other company publications, that art class may become irrelevant. Can you write out the mission and vision of your company without having to look it up?

Lack of resources

Among training and development professionals, it’s a widely made assumption that, in the face of financial pressures, the first thing to remove will be the training. As you move towards becoming a learning company, there is no guarantee that your company will not encounter difficult choices in the face of lean times. So, what has been your company’s commitment to learning when money is tight?

Furthermore, businesses may also be victims of fluctuating priorities, especially with today’s rate of change among managing directors and chairpersons. Let me give you an example: At a resort, the CEO was deeply committed to training and to developing a learning organization. Thus, employees attended several training programs and had raised expectations of being involved in company decisions and communications. When the resort experienced financial difficulties, a new CEO was hired. However, the new CEO did not focus on the development of employees. Instead, the new CEO was only concerned about the bottom-line, that is, productivity and profits. A few years later, another CEO was hired and was committed to training. Not surprisingly, the employees took a “wait and see” attitude.

Thus, organizational politics can indeed affect the learning agenda of a company. In this case, a consistent and long-term approach toward learning endeavors and educational outcomes could have prevented worker apathy and indeed could have encouraged the company’s employees to take their training programmes seriously and earn certifications..

Dr Archan Mehta is an Assistant Professor at LJ Institute of Management Studies, LJ University in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.