Part 3: Organisational Learning and Ethical Considerations

This is Part 3 of a five part series:

• 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

The  ethical, moral and spiritual implication of organizational learning can be debated based on literature and practice or personal experience. The literature poses certain dilemmas and weaknesses of the processes, premises and assumptions of organizational learning. These arguments are illustrated with practical observations.
 

Dilemmas in Large Group Dynamics

Group dynamics is undeniably part and parcel of organizational learning. Individual learning is translated into organizational learning because of the interpersonal and intergroup relationships involved in the learning process in the context of a collective mode of action and decision-making driven by collective purpose and values. Such group dynamics, specifically the large ones, embody certain dilemmas that  affect the learning process vis a vis large group interventions. Bunker and  Alban (1997) identify these to be the

• dilemma of voice
• dilemma of  structure
• egocentric dilemma
• contagion affect

Group dynamics affect the flow of discourse, meaning and energy

The learning  process and the intervention intended can be obstructed by the fact that some people tend to be more outspoken while others tend to be more silent, thus not  enriching the intended free flow of discourse, meaning, and energy. Thus, the process may tend to simply reinforce implicit or explicit hegemonic theories, assumptions and norms.

The egocentric dilemma may also reinforce self-fulfilling prophecies through the learning process as people may tenaciously hold on to their own versions of reality. This dilemma may even be more pervasive when left unchecked and when political realities come into play.

Coaching Process – A Case in Point

In Integrative Learning International, Philippines (ILIP)[1], this becomes very evident in the coaching process when the coachee is in the mercy of the coach’s perception of reality. The coach would ask the coachee what did not work and why, but the former had already set the precedents for similar processes wherein the framework for such discussion is tailored.  Some of the things that the coach would impress upon the coachee are ‘give results not reasons’ or ‘you’re not taking total responsibility’ or ‘you’re acting out and not coming from who you really are’ — statements that are indisputable, not because they’re factual, but because they’re fallacious.

Implications of Organizational Learning to Individual

Organizational learning require certain behaviors from individuals such as openness, trust, vulnerability. Consequently, such pose threats to an individual such as loss of personal identity, self-esteem, question of self-worth, confusion. Additionally, learning, especially the transformational type, also tends to be very confrontational and painful. This is because it probes into culture, power relations, hidden learning and work practices (Dovey, 1997), discussing the undiscussable, and bringing to fore what has been repressed and suppressed.

Deep learning is also about a change of consciousness at the individual level. For instance organizational initiatives that promote learning (e.g. financing experimentation) would be futile if the individuals have self- imposed limitations on their learning.

Leadership Influence

Based on personal observations in the practices of ILIP, the field of learning, which is a very subtle, almost unexamined aspect of organizational learning, is controlled by the leader. For instance, the language and behavioral objectives are set by the head of the organization, the premises and underlying theories of which are left oblivious to the rest.  However, only individuals who have had the discipline of social and psychological inquiry would be able to understand that the head is only representing one school of thought, one theory, one method, which has its inherent limitations, and may in fact be dangerous.

Organisational learning and its influence on individuals has its dangers

One such danger is the opening up of personal psychological issues (especially employing a psychoanalytic process), bringing it out in the open without the appropriate and even ethical support (as required in the psychological and counseling professions), and sometimes using it subtly against the person without the person knowing it. It becomes a manipulative process.

Even more dangerous is that the manipulator himself may not be aware of the processes going on, and that he may in fact be in a defensive mode like projecting mistakes. Not only is this process a painful one for the person in the receiving end, but it also becomes confusing and threatening to his self-worth and may eventually adversely affect his self-efficacy.

Deeper organisational learning involves personal transformation

Although organizational learning is viewed as dealing with the collective, the learning process itself involves individuals, and the deeper level of learning involves an examination of one’s psyche and philosophies. To change this would mean changing ones’ personality. And this is supported by Dovey’s (1997) notion that organizational transformation eventually requires personal transformation without which the former would not materialize. The organization then has to contend with the ethical and moral responsibility of the extent to which it should involve itself with one’s personal transformation.

Power  and Control

Learning organizations and the concept of deep organizational learning have been criticized as being merely rhetoric and do not lend itself to the realities of organizational life. This can be attributed to the fact that organizational learning as a transformational tool fails to take into account the realities of power.

Organisational transformation follows transformation in power relations

Conflicts of interest may affect the learning process as illustrated by the egocentric dilemma. According to several authors cited by Dovey (1997), learning in itself does not transform an organization if there is no transformation in power relations within the organization. This further raises the issue of control wherein the learning process, which in itself is value-free (Argyris and Schon, 1996), maybe used for evil ends and become a tool for manipulation.

Balancing the Need for Organisational Control

Morgan (1987) also criticizes the brain metaphor of organizations underlying the concept of learning organization and large group interventions, for underestimating the element of control in organizational life. Additionally, a certain degree of control, order and predictability is also necessary in organizations for efficiency, effectiveness, and sense of stability and security. Resources have to be managed accordingly, and the deployment of such resources has certain implication not only in the learning process but also in the power of certain interest groups.