Learning curve of CXO’s for organization

growth
Subash Vuppala1 Foram Purohit2 Sagar Patil3 Netradeep4 Sneha Srivatsava5 Dr.Mohan Chandra6
Dr.Pavan Sriram7

Abstract— Developing a learning framework for learning I. INTRODUCTION

across organizations is one of the most important driving
element an organization can implement. It helps in easier
transfer of knowledge, less learning time across the employees
and reduction of budget in learning domain. With very
dynamic shifts in technology and massive disruption of one
industry affecting the others, it has become increasingly
W HEN posed with a question on to “how does

somebody learn”, in specific when we think of “How does

important for employees and CXO’s at all levels in
organizations to learn and adopt to new trends in market
situation. Keeping this dynamic workforce learning in mind,
there is a need for developing a framework that is in general
can be implemented in various organizations. A study on
sample respondents who are CXO’s and Managing directors
of the organizations is made, we studied how learning could
be different with change in verticals , impact of team size on
mode of learning. Finding if there is anything that is common,
learning that has been there with them for a longer period of
time. Also, the learning mode they expect to deliver in an
organization. All of these form basic factors of study and
foundation for developing the framework as a whole.
Keywords— learning organization, disruption, Learning styles,
domain based learning
CXO’s learn ?”, like CEO, CTO , CSO, CMO etc, it is
difficult to interpret and at the same time find an answer.
Because, a lot of learning in an organization of any size
happens through experience and it turns into a personality trait
of a CXO or an employee in later stages. This experiential
learning can’t be captured but a research study can be made to
understand if there is a pattern in the learning across verticals
and how they drive this learning across organization.
Understanding how successful people learn and attribute the
same to organization. Identifying various areas of study that
will help understand learning methodologies, to understand
and learn various behavioral learning models. Because,
behavioral learning models contribute to greater understanding
of how learning happens in a organization at all levels.
Develop a 4 quadrant learning matrix that has team, self,
society and organization as major attributes to the 4 quadrants.
Here the matrix is based on understanding how an
individual/self learning happens ,how does this self-learning
convert into a team learning and how the team learning helps
in organization learning, and what part of learning of an
organization goes into learning of the society.
 II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Continuous improvement requires a commitment to learning.
How, after all, can an organization improve without first
learning something new? How, for example, will managers
know when their companies have become learning
organizations? What concrete changes in behavior are
required? What policies and programs must be in place? How
do you get from here to there?
Solving a problem, introducing a product, and reengineering a
process all require seeing the world in a new light and acting
accordingly. In the absence of learning, companies—and
individuals—simply repeat old practices. Change remains
cosmetic, and improvements are either fortuitous or short-
lived.
A few farsighted executives—Ray Stata of Analog Devices,
Gordon Forward of Chaparral Steel, Paul Allaire of Xerox—
have recognized the link between learning and continuous
improvement and have begun to refocus their companies
around it.
Scholars too have jumped on the bandwagon, beating the
drum for “learning organizations” and “knowledge-creating
companies.” First is the question of meaning. We need a
plausible, well-grounded definition of learning organizations;
it must be actionable and easy to apply.
Second is the question of management. We need clearer
guidelines for practice, filled with operational advice rather
than high aspirations. Third is the question of measurement.
We need better tools for assessing an organization’s rate and
level of learning to ensure that gains have in fact been made.
A learning organization is an organization skilled at creating,
acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its
behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights. Peter Senge,
who popularized learning organizations in his book The Fifth
Discipline, [1] described them as places “where people
continually expand their capacity to create the results they
truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are
nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where
people are continually learning how to learn together.” To
achieve these ends, Senge suggested the use of five
“component technologies”: systems thinking, personal
mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning.
Ikujiro Nonaka characterized knowledge-creating companies
as places where “inventing new knowledge is not a specialized
activity…it is a way of behaving, indeed, a way of being, in
which everyone is a knowledge worker.”[2] Nonaka suggested
that companies use metaphors and organizational redundancy
to focus thinking, encourage dialogue, and make tacit,
instinctively understood ideas explicit. Understanding how
systematic problem solving technique works, most training
programs focus primarily on problem-solving techniques,
using exercises and practical examples, Relying on the
scientific method, rather than guesswork, for diagnosing
problems (what Deming calls the “Plan, Do, Check, Act”
cycle, and others refer to as “hypothesis-generating,
hypothesis-testing” techniques).Insisting on data, rather than
assumptions, as background for decision making (what quality
practitioners call “fact-based management”).[3] Using simple
statistical tools (histograms, Pareto charts, correlations, cause-
and-effect diagrams) to organize data and draw inferences.
Employees are provided with tools in four areas: generating
ideas and collecting information (brainstorming, interviewing,
surveying); Reaching consensus (list reduction, rating forms,
weighted voting); analyzing and displaying data (cause-and-
effect diagrams, force-field analysis);Planning actions (flow
charts, Gantt charts).They then practice these tools during
training sessions that last several days. Training is presented in
“family groups,” members of the same department or
business-unit team, and the tools are applied to real problems
facing the group. The result of this process has been a
common vocabulary and a consistent, companywide approach
to problem solving. Once employees have been trained, they
are expected to use the techniques at all meetings, and no topic
is off-limits. When a high-level group was formed to review
Xerox’s organizational structure and suggest alternatives, it
employed the very same process and tools.[4]
In understanding how learning happens from past experience,
companies must review their successes and failures, assess
them systematically, and record the lessons in a form that
employees find open and accessible. One expert has called this
process the “Santayana Review,” citing the famous
philosopher George Santayana, who coined the phrase
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it.” [5] Unfortunately, too many managers today are
indifferent, even hostile, to the past, and by failing to reflect
on it, they let valuable knowledge escape. A study of more
than 150 new products concluded that “the knowledge gained
from failures is often instrumental in achieving subsequent
successes. In the simplest terms, failure is the ultimate
teacher.” IBM’s 360 computer series, for example, one of the
most popular and profitable ever built, was based on the
technology of the failed Stretch computer that preceded it. In
this case, as in many others, learning occurred by chance
rather than by careful planning.[6] A few companies, however,
have established processes that require their managers to
periodically think about the past and learn from their mistakes.
Boeing’s experiential learning is another classic example of
experiential learning, Boeing did so immediately after its
difficulties with the 737 and 747 plane programs. Both planes
were introduced with much fanfare and also with serious
problems. To ensure that the problems were not repeated,
senior managers commissioned a high-level employee group,
called Project Homework, to compare the development
processes of the 737 and 747 with those of the 707 and 727,
two of the company’s most profitable planes.[7] The group
was asked to develop a set of “lessons learned” that could be
used on future projects. After working for three years, they
produced hundreds of recommendations and an inch-thick
booklet. Several members of the team were then transferred to
the 757 and 767 start-ups, and guided by experience, they
produced the most successful, error-free launches in Boeing’s
history. British Petroleum went even further and established
the post-project appraisal unit to review major investment
projects, write up case studies, and derive lessons for planners
that were then incorporated into revisions of the company’s
planning guidelines. A five-person unit reported to the board
of directors and reviewed six projects annually. The bulk of
the time was spent in the field interviewing managers. This
type of review is now conducted regularly at the project level.
IBM’s legendary founder, Thomas Watson, Sr., apparently
understood the distinction well. Company lore has it that a
young manager, after losing $10 million in a risky venture,
was called into Watson’s office. The young man, thoroughly
intimidated, began by saying, “I guess you want my
resignation.” Watson replied, “You can’t be serious. We just
spent $10 million educating you.” [8] Fortunately, the learning
process need not be so expensive. Case studies and post-
project reviews like those of Xerox and British Petroleum can
be performed with little cost other than managers’ time.
Companies can also enlist the help of faculty and students at
local colleges or universities; they bring fresh perspectives and
view internships and case studies as opportunities to gain
experience and increase their own learning. A few companies
have established computerized data banks to speed up the
learning process. Paul Revere Life insurance, management
requires all problem-solving teams to complete short
registration forms describing their proposed projects if they
hope to qualify for the company’s award program. The
company then enters the forms into its computer system and
can immediately retrieve a listing of other groups of people
who have worked or are working on the topic, along with a
contact person. Relevant experience is then just a telephone
call away. [9]
 II. DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS FOR BUILDING
LEARNING FRAMEWORK
As per the figure below,leaders learning is achieved by
attributes such as self, society, employees, researchers and
other leaders.Similarly employees learning is achieved
through classroom, self, peers, leaders.We must similarly
articulate CXO’s learning through blog writings, interviews,
international summits and linkedin posts.Consequently,
combining all of them together learning measurement is based
on variables which are dependent and independent, then create
scales on which learning could be measured, identifying
parameters that effect our developed learning model and then
test the model framework.
III. METHODS AND METHODOLOGIES
This research uses survey method with ex-post-facto
technique. The ex-post-facto research is conducted by taking
samples from a population and using questionnaire as a tool
for collecting data. The user selection is conducted by
purposive sample technique, namely respondents who are at
higher levels of workforce in an organization. The research
population is of all higher designations and all verticals like
The selection of users as sample was used by random
sampling technique.
The research instrument used is of questionnaire format. The
questionnaire is to measure independent variable of interest,
the CXO’s learning pattern for whom 13 questions referring to
understanding the learning pattern, learning model followed,
last learning that happened, kind of learner and team size that
was managed.
 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION What kind of a learner are you ?

After conducting the survey, we have found there are 75%

respondents who are CEO’s and 25% of them are Managing
director’s with more than 50% belonging to
Manufacturing/Engineering related sectors.50% of them
manage a team size less than 100, 25% of them manage from
200 to 500 team size and 25% of them manage upto 2000 team
size. Most interesting finding is, all the respondents have learnt
last time in less than a week .So, learning is too dynamic for
any CXO which is evident from the findings. Majority of the
respondents think leadership as an important skill they have
developed in the past and it is there even today. Almost 50% of When was the last time you learnt something new ?
them have learnt leadership, 25% did technology oriented
learning and 25% have done behavioural learning. 50% of
them did self-learning , with 25% doing a blended learning and
25% of them adopting to conferencing/networking.

Designation of respondents :

What’s one related skill you have learnt in the past that has
been with you even today ?

Industry vertical the organization belongs to :

How is learning transmitted in your team/organization ?

What team size do you manage ?

 V. FRAMEWORK DEVELOPED

Learning framework has been developed to apply for various

organization from the study made. To explain in detail, a CXO
self-learning happens from different kinds of learning
methodologies like visual, verbal,aural,logical etc. Each kind
of learning helps generate new ideas and new
technology/functions that can create impact on society.
Learning in one domain is made constant for some period of
time referred to as mastery in domain 1 and a growing learn
box which is dynamically growing as the mastery is achieved,
completing its cycle from CXO quadrant to the society
quadrant.

The learning from society is then again used to define new

ideas and bring new inventions to light. So, a new domain in
which CXO learns will evolve with time again. To help
function the existing domain and a new domain that will come
up in near future, there will be an increase in the team size and
that will help grow organization to take giant footsteps. This
new domain of learning again impacts the society and the
society continues to evolve. The cycle continues to evolve and
grow.
 helped us to identify variables and set the required scale for
future output. A ever evolving learning model was designed
VI. CONCLUSION and the framework can be used by organizations to map
themselves with time and also gain insight in building learning
blocks that can transform their own organization and society as
Learning framework is built for companies to understand how a whole.
the learning made by CXO’s and how the learning is
transferred across the organization. The framework is based on
building various smaller learning models and then co-relating
these models to the CXO’s model. This learning together is
then captured using learning tool that can measure based on
scales and various parameters built across the framework. The
framework is built on real time data which when captured
REFERENCES
[1] 1. Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline (New York: Doubleday,
1990), p. 1.
[2] 2. Ikujiro Nonaka, “The Knowledge-Creating Company,” Harvard
Business Review,November–December 1991, p. 97.
[3] 3. Robert Howard, “The CEO as Organizational Architect: An
Interview with Xerox’s Paul Allaire,” Harvard Business
Review, September–October 1992, p. 106.
[4] 4. Modesto A. Maidique and Billie Jo Zirger, “The New Product
Learning Cycle,” Research Policy, Vol. 14, No. 6 (1985), pp. 299,
309.
[5] 5. Frank R. Gulliver, “Post-Project Appraisals Pay,” Harvard
Business Review, March–April 1987, p. 128.
[6] 6. David Nadler, “Even Failures Can Be Productive,” New York
Times, April 23, 1989, Sec. 3, p. 3.
[7] 7. Robert C. Camp, Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best
Practices that Lead to Superior Performance (Milwaukee: ASQC
Quality Press, 1989), p. 12.
[8] 8. Roger Schank, with Peter Childers, The Creative Attitude (New
York: Macmillan, 1988), p. 9.
[9] 9. Ramchandran Jaikumar and Roger Bohn, “The Development of
Intelligent Systems for Industrial Use: A Conceptual
Framework,” Research on Technological Innovation, Management
and Policy, Vol. 3 (1986), pp. 182–188.