I wrote this paper more than 10 years ago, yet the issues, observations and thinking still remain relevant today. Organisational learning is still an under-utilised model for organisational change, yet it is critical to achieve sustainable changes.

This paper is presented in five parts:

• Part 1 – Background on Organisational Learning
• Part 2 – Organisational Learning for Innovation, Change and Survival
• Part 3 – Organisational Learning and Ethical Considerations
• Part 4 – Organisational Learning for System Integration
• Part 5 –  Conclusion and References

SYNOPSIS

Organizational learning is one of the current organizational innovation and change issues due to its recent prominence in the organizational change and management literature.  It has also been a very promising path for practitioners as it promotes not only change and innovation, but sustainability as well. This inquiry shall be presented in four parts:

• First, present a review of the recent literature in organisational learning in light of its goals, outcomes and processes.
• Second,  explore the reasons why organisational learning is of current concern, such as organisational survival, competitiveness, and innovation.
• Third, examine the ethical and moral implications.
• Fourth, contextualise organisational learning in integration of the system and the environment.

INTRODUCTION

The advent of the new millenium is characterized by increasing turbulence. Space, time and resources have been increasingly constrained, raising the mortality rate of organizations.

To be able to survive, organizations are thus pressured to respond rapidly to the changing environment and be innovative to remain competitive. Organizational learning plays a key role in helping organizations respond to the environment by shaping the organisational architecture through a process of integration, reframing and reconstructing organizational realities.

By catalyzing the free flow of energy and information, organisational learning also develops capabilities for innovation. All of these contribute to continuous improvement, individual and organizational development, increased satisfaction of stakeholders, excellence of the organization and  whole system development.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

There is a vast wealth of literature on organisational learning and learning organisations, a field of study full of debates especially as to the distinctive features that define what organisational learning is all about. This review shall focus on the different models of organisational learning first, as an outcome or ideology, and second as a process.

Goals and Outcomes of Organisational Learning

The different movements in the management scene have incorporated organisational learning into certain ideals of organisation. One of these is excellence. Peters and Waterman  (cited in Pedler, 1997) have researched the characteristics of companies that exhibit excellence. In the 80’s their major theme for organisational excellence was adaptiveness and responsiveness to the rapid changes in the environment. They concluded that ‘excellent companies are learning organizations’, those that foster experimentation, risk-taking, and permissive of trials and minor mistakes.

Another movement is that of total quality management. In this light, organizational learning is believed to result in organizational transformation towards enhanced total quality. Edwards Deming (cited in Pedler, 1997) believes that to be able to achieve total quality management in organizations, there should be fundamental shifts in the means of management and organization which implies breaking down functional barriers espoused by the bureaucratic culture.  In this regard,  Deming associates organizational learning with continuous improvement alongside rigorous programs of training and self-improvement.

Different schools of thought also offer different outcomes of organizational learning (Argyris and Schon, 1996).

• From a sociotechnical systems perspective, organizational learning, which connotes collective participation and learning to design the work system and creating the context, should result into new  patterns of work and career, and integrating family and work life.
•  The human resources perspective suggests that learning should enhance personal development, which consequently results in enhanced organizational capabilities for competitive performance.
• From an organizational strategy perspective, organizational learning is necessary in creating strategies by virtue of constant examination and implementation of the strategist’s assumptions and theories of business.
• Finally, from a corporate perspective, Dixon (cited in Pedler, 1997) suggests that learning at different levels of the organization  should result into continuous transformation ‘towards increasing satisfaction of stakeholders’ (p. 199).

All of these indicate that organizational learning embody varying objectives depending on the perspective with which it is defined.

Processes of Organisational Learning

Different authors and researchers in the field of organizational learning propose different processes of learning according to different categorizations. One of these is the type of learning according to level of aggregation. Organizational learning occurs at several levels of the organization which eventually become institutionalized in the whole system (Hale, 1997).

There has been a debate regarding the split between individual and organizational learning.

• Some authors differentiate individual learning and view organizational learning as merely a metaphor of the former, the latter being merely rhetoric, lacking in empirical evidence.
• Some authors, on the other hand, argue that there is such a thing as organizational learning, alongside its components of organizational cognition and memory.
• Finally, some authors like Argyris and Schon believe that organizational learning is an integration of both learning of the individual and of the organization, wherein the individual serve as agent for organizational learning.

Learning at Organizational Level

The elements of learning at the organizational level involve the acquisition of knowledge base, core competencies and routines (Dodgson, 1993). Learning shapes the culture of the organization through a process of generating solutions on problems of survival in the external environment and on internal integration. Schein (1990) describes such a process as being behavioral, cognitive and emotional.

Lower and Higher Levels of Learning

Learning is also categorized into lower and higher level learning. Argyris and Schon proposes three typologies of organizational learning: single-loop, double-loop, and deutero-learning, the first, which is lower level learning, and the latter two, higher level learning.

• Single-loop learning involves error-detection and correction of existing operating norms.
• Double-loop learning challenges the underlying assumptions of such, and consequently changes existing norms and policies. (Argyris and Schon, 1996). It involves inquiry and questioning and may imply conflict and power struggles. (Pedler, 1997). It is more elusive due to obstructions in the process such as the bureaucratic culture, which  results to fragmented structures of thought and bureaucratic accountability, and also the gap between ‘espoused theory” and “theory-in-use”, or in other words, the gap between what people say and what they actually do. (Morgan, 1986).
• The third type of learning is that of deutero-learning which involves a process of ‘learning to learn’.

Figure 1. Argyris and Schon’s Model of Organisational Learning

Implementing, Improving, Integrating

Pedler , Burgoyne and Boydell also three types of learning according to increasing levels: implementing,
improving and integrating. Seven modes of being and learning  are embedded in these  three holarchical[1]
levels.

1. In level one, implementing, learning involves adhering, adapting and relating.
2. In level two, improving, learning involves experiencing and experimenting.
3. In level three or integrating, learning involves connecting and dedicating.

At the highest level of organizational learning, the mode of organization shifts to whole system development, resonating Senge’s systems thinking. This involves the large group intervention process of future search as specifically identified by Pedler.

Five Disciplines

Senge’s (1994) concept of learning is similar to that of Argyris and Schon involving a deeper learning cycle intertwined with learning via organizational architecture which includes a triumvirate of guiding ideas,
innovation in infrastructure, and theory, methods and tools. Senge believes learning embodies five disciplines:

1. Systems thinking
2. Personal mastery
3. Mental models
4. Shared vision
5. Team learning

 Figure 2. Senge’s Model of Organisational Learning

Free Flow of Meaning and Energy

The process of organizational learning involves the free flow of meaning and energy as implied by the models of Senge, Pedler and Nixon.

• Senge specifically suggests dialogue as a means of facilitating the free flow of meaning.
• Pedler, on the other hand suggests a model of energy flow among policy, operations, ideas and action.
• Dixon, who is a student of Revans and Argysis, suggests a model of learning which puts an emphasis on shifting collective meaning and creating organizational structures through generation, integration, interpretation of information and taking responsible  action on its interpreted meaning. (Pedler, 1996).

The techniques of large group interventions which fosters collective and participative discourse devoid of structural constraints, serves as a venue for dialogue and enables the free flow of energy and meaning.