Making Sense of Organizational Learning : Putting Theory into Practice 9781409441878, 9781409441861

Citation preview

Making Sense of Organizational Learning Putting Theory into Practice

Cyril Kirwan

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

www.gowerpublishing.com/ebooks We hope you enjoy this ebook with its interactive features and the wealth of knowledge contained within it. We’d love to keep you informed of other Gower books available to you from your chosen provider. Why not join our monthly email newsletter? It features new books as they are released, links you to hints and tips from our expert authors and highlight free chapters for you to read. To see a sample copy, please go to www.gowerpublishing.com/newsletter and then simply provide your name and email address to receive a copy each month. If you wish to unsubscribe at any time we will remove you from our list swiftly. Our blog www.gowerpublishingblog.com brings to your attention the articles and tips our authors write and, of course, you are welcome to comment on anything you see in them. We also use it to let you know where our authors are speaking so, if you happen to be there too, you can arrange to meet them if you wish.

Making Sense of Organizational Learning Putting Theory into Practice

Cyril Kirwan

© Cyril Kirwan 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Gower Applied Business Research Our programme provides leaders, practitioners, scholars and researchers with thought provoking, cutting edge books that combine conceptual insights, interdisciplinary rigour and practical relevance in key areas of business and management. Published by Gower Publishing Limited Gower Publishing Company Wey Court East 110 Cherry Street Union Road Suite 3-1 Farnham Burlington Surrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-3818 England USA www.gowerpublishing.com Cyril Kirwan has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Kirwan, Cyril. Making sense of organizational learning : putting theory into practice. 1. Organizational learning--Philosophy. 2. Employees-Training of. 3. Career development. I. Title 658.3’124-dc23 ISBN: 978-1-4094-4186-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-4094-4187-8 (ebk – PDF) ISBN: 978-1-4094-6516-4 (ebk – ePUB) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kirwan, Cyril. Making sense of organizational learning : putting theory into practice / By Cyril Kirwan. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4094-4186-1 (hbk) -- ISBN 978-1-4094-4187-8 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-40946516-4 (epub) 1. Organizational learning. 2. Employees--Training of. I. Title. HD58.82.K573 2013 658.3’124--dc23 2012040310 IV

Contents

List of Figures   List of Tables  

vii ix

Introduction  

1

1

Foundations of Organizational Learning  

5

2

Learning as an Individual Process  

13

3

Learning as a Social Process  

31

4

Learning in Organizations  

49

5

The Learning Organization  

69

6

The Role of Human Resource Management  

83

7

The Role of the Line Manager  

101

8

Evaluating Organizational Learning  

123

Author Index 145 Index149

This page has been left blank intentionally

List of Figures

I.1 Making sense of organizational learning   5.1 Dimensions of the learning organization   6.1 Model of learning transfer from a training/learning programme   7.1 Facilitating behaviours   7.2 A model for facilitating learning   8.1 The learning effectiveness audit  

3 75 92 105 107 127

This page has been left blank intentionally

List of Tables

2.1 Self-directed learning in stages 2.2 Characteristics of self-directed learners 4.1 Work environment effects on creativity 5.1 Comparison of different approaches to the learning organization 5.2 Factors working against being a learning organization 6.1 HRM factors affecting organizational learning 6.2 Improving learning transfer 7.1 Empowering and facilitating behaviours  7.2 Delegation for organizational learning  8.1 Learning outcome measurement options 8.2 Evaluating intervention inputs 8.3 Learning transfer factors of the learning transfer evaluation instrument

18 20 53 73 78 86 96 104 114 129 138 140

This page has been left blank intentionally

Introduction

Why the Interest in Organizational Learning? Interest in the field of organizational learning has been growing steadily since the 1970s, most notably through the work of Argyris and others (e.g. Argyris and Schon 1978), as organizations of all sorts aspire to be what have become known as learning organizations. They want to become learning organizations (or at least acquire some of their characteristics) because evidence suggests that doing so is a source of competitive advantage (Argote and Ingram 2000, Ellinger et al. 2002). In the so-called ‘knowledge economy’, the challenge of generating commitment to organizational aims while at the same time satisfying individual learning and development needs is assuming greater significance. In addition, the methods and means by which people in organizations acquire knowledge, and the ways in which it can be distributed throughout the organization in order to improve its effectiveness, are coming under increasing scrutiny. The ability of an organization to engage in real organizational learning, and to do so faster and in a more sustainable way than its competitors, is being seen more and more as an important component of its success. Lyle (2012), for example, suggests that this need for improved learning is being driven by changes in three areas – the social and economic climate, the work environment and customer expectations. These changes are all related. To begin with, globalization and increasing competition are demanding more creativity and innovation from organizations, which is having an effect on the type of knowledge and skills required. It is also stimulating the development of workplaces that facilitate the sharing of knowledge. As customers are offered more choice they in turn demand even more choice, with its implications for further innovation. Being able to create, retain and transfer knowledge throughout an organization becomes vital for its performance and indeed long-term survival. Even in organizations where external competition and survival are not the most pressing considerations (such as in many public service institutions) a constant pressure to adapt internally to changing circumstances and to provide more services with fewer resources is a feature of the environment in which they do business. Meeting these challenges requires organizations to learn.

2

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Making Sense of Organizational Learning A variety of terms exist to describe the many facets of the subject that will be dealt with in this book. On the one hand, organizational learning will be taken as relating to the processes that enhance the actions of organizations through better knowledge and understanding (Garavan and McCarthy 2008). Thus organizational learning concerns itself with the structures, processes and networks that facilitate the creation and dissemination of knowledge within and between organizations. The term learning organization, on the other hand, is typically used to describe the type of organization in which the above processes are widespread and successful. In other words, learning organizations are those that are good at organizational learning. Although the terms are often used interchangeably, perhaps what separates the approaches taken to each construct is that work on organizational learning tends to be research-led and descriptive, whereas that on the learning organization has tended to be practitioner-led and prescriptive (Heraty and Morley 2008). Finally, knowledge management practices, which in early research and practice focused to a large extent on technology and how it can be used to foster knowledge-sharing in organizations, now include human resource-based practices, customer relationship development processes and regular measurement in their efforts to help organizations optimize the collective wisdom of their members and make the most out of what they know (McKenzie and Van Winkelen 2004). As will be seen throughout the coming chapters, the creation of organizational learning and knowledge takes place at a number of levels. At the individual level, it is achieved through the generation of continuous learning opportunities, reflection on experiences and the promotion of enquiry and dialogue. At the team level, it’s about encouraging collaboration, team learning and the sharing of knowledge within and across boundaries. At the organizational level, the emphasis is on building systems to capture and share learning, empowering people towards a collective vision, establishing two-way connections between the organization and its environment, and providing strategic leadership for learning.

Layout of the Book Following this introduction, Chapter 1 will set the scene by looking at some of the main philosophies underlying the approaches to learning that have the most relevance for learning in organizations. Chapters 2 and 3 will focus on these approaches first in the context of individual learning, and then in the context of learning with others. Individual and social learning approaches, including behavioural and cognitive approaches, situated and experiential learning, action learning and the development of communities of practice will all be discussed. The following two chapters will deal with organizational learning and the concept of the learning organization. In Chapter 4 the emphasis will be on describing

Introduction

3

the conditions that need to be fostered to support organizational learning, while Chapter 5 will set out the features of what researchers and practitioners suggest learning organizations should look like. Chapters 6 and 7 focus on the workplace and how human resource management (HRM) practices (from both a central and a line management point of view) affect the creation, retention and transfer of knowledge. Finally, Chapter 8 offers some frameworks, tools and techniques for measuring the impact of a variety of organizational learning interventions. A conceptual model of how the different aspects interact is shown in Figure I.1. Throughout the book, relevant contributions from varying theoretical viewpoints will be brought together and consolidated into a coherent and practical guide to making the best use of the knowledge that resides in organizations, whether within the systems, the processes or indeed the heads of the people in the organization. Along the way, practical advice will be offered on how the wealth of learning that organizations create (through their individual members) can be translated into improved practice. Valid and reliable evidence built up over the years in both the academic and practitioner literature around what helps and what hinders organizational learning and development will be provided to decision makers in these areas, so that those who wish to make the most of the learning opportunities provided will be assisted in doing so. On the practical side, the real-world case studies and examples will demonstrate the opportunities for application, and can serve as a template for interventions. Similarly, the ‘tips, tools and techniques’ (including diagnostic questionnaires, checklists and step-by-step guides) will be presented in a way that makes their application straightforward while ensuring their validity remains intact. Underlying Philosophies

Individual Learning

Learning with Others Organizational Learning

HRM

Line Managers The Learning Organization

Evaluation

Figure I.1

Making sense of organizational learning

4

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Who is the Book for? The book is aimed primarily at ‘thinking practitioners’ – those who are working in and around the fields of learning and development, management development or organization development. It should be of particular interest to practising managers undertaking postgraduate study in human resources (HR) and related disciplines, particularly those who are in a position to influence the application of the theory back at work. Finally, it should also be of use to line managers who are looking to improve the effectiveness of learning efforts in their own areas of responsibility. However, the book is not intended as a comprehensive guide to organizational learning. Many of the specific areas of theory discussed here are dealt with more comprehensively in other works, which will be cited where appropriate. Instead, its purpose is to provide a sound base of knowledge for those thinking practitioners to support their efforts to improve the level of learning in the organizations with which they work, and to help them move from just doing what they know to really knowing what they do.

References Argote, L. and Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–69. Argyris, C. and Schon, D. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Ellinger, A.D. Ellinger, A.E., Yang, B. and Howton, S.W. 2002. The relationship between the learning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 5–21. Garavan, T.N. and McCarthy, A. 2008. Collective learning processes and human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 451– 71. Heraty, N. and Morley, M. 2008. Dimensionalizing the architecture of organizationled learning: A framework for collective practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 472–93. Lyle, E.R. 2012. Learning organisation(al) learning. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(6), 217–21. McKenzie, J. and Van Winkelen, C. 2004. Understanding the Knowledgeable Organization. London: Thomson.

Chapter 1

Foundations of Organizational Learning

Introduction The primary purpose of this short chapter is to help the reader understand the background and main approaches that have defined the field of learning as it relates to people at work. Learning in organizations (which will also be referred to as workplace learning) as it is practised today has roots in the fields of both human resource development (HRD) and adult education, with adult learning theory providing much of the foundation for HRD theory and practice. While academic views differ on whether and how these fields are related, it would appear that from a practical viewpoint each has much to offer our understanding of why and how individuals engage in learning in organizations, why and how these learning efforts succeed or fail, and what options are out there to optimize both organizational performance and individual development.

Underlying Philosophies Yang (2004) suggests that the relationship between different philosophies underlying the fields is perhaps best described along two dimensions. The first dimension concerns the purpose of learning. At one end of the scale, it is suggested that the primary purpose of learning is to enhance personal growth and develop human potential. At the other end of the scale is the argument for a performance orientation – that learning should be used to fulfil the needs of existing tasks and roles. The second dimension indicates the focus of learning, and the roles of the individual and society in the learning process. At one end of this scale is a view that individual learners should be the focus of the process: at the other end, there is a strong emphasis on its social or organizational implications. Thus a number of underlying philosophies will be considered. While these philosophies approach the subject from different angles, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Between them, they manage to provide insight into many of the challenges that affect the practice of learning in organizations. Although

6

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

a properly integrated theory of learning is still some distance off, the collective wisdom captured in the work of a variety of theorists and practitioners will enable us to better understand what is a complex and multifaceted domain.

Approaches to Adult Learning To begin with, Merriam, Caffarella and Baumgartner (2007) outline a number of learning frameworks or philosophies within which various approaches to the subject have been accommodated. They include behaviourism, cognitivism, humanism, social cognitivism and constructivism. These have important implications for learning at individual and group level, and will now be discussed.

Behaviourism and Learning Early and important contributions to our understanding of the learning process come from the work of people like Thorndike, Watson and Skinner. Behaviourism begins with the assumption that the focus of interest for studying learning should be observable, measurable behaviour. On that basis, behaviourists assert that learning is said to occur when there is a change in behaviour. A second assumption of behaviourism is that how we behave is determined by our environment, not by ourselves. In essence this suggests that our internal thought processes do not play a role in learning at all. Instead, the probability of us behaving in a certain way is reinforced if we receive a positive reward (or avoid punishment) as a consequence of that behaviour. If, on the other hand, the behaviour continues not to be reinforced, it eventually becomes extinct. Reinforcement is a central element of behaviourism. Although the influence of behaviourist ideas in the world of learning has lost ground to later (particularly cognitive) approaches, Petri and Mishkin (1994), for example, suggest that insights from behaviourism may be useful in explaining the formation of habits (learned behaviour that is not necessarily available to cognition), which work separately from memories (which are available to cognition) to facilitate learning. Habits, they explain, are simply a relationship between a stimulus and a response. They are formed over time as particular responses to given stimuli are reinforced. To take an example, an individual who consistently contributes ideas at meetings may have their efforts recognized in a positive way, which will encourage them to continue doing so. On the other hand, if they always end up being the person who has to implement those ideas, adding to their already busy workload, it would not be surprising if they saw fit to reduce the number of ideas they come up with in the future. In effect, they learn the habit of contributing (or not contributing) ideas, without having to spend too long thinking about it.

Foundations of Organizational Learning

7

The development of new habits, that is, enduring behaviour patterns, is consistently seen as the most desirable outcome within the domains of training and of performance in today’s organizations. In the case of training, outcomes are typically expressed in terms of application-oriented objectives, which include standards to which and conditions under which tasks should be performed. Whether the training is about conducting more effective meetings, developing negotiating skills or managing time better, it is usually expected that the trainee will be able to do something differently as a result. Of course that is not to say that stating objectives in this way is inappropriate, but as later approaches have demonstrated, different types of objectives may be appropriate for different learning situations. In a related way and in the context of performance, organizations with any degree of interest in monitoring and measuring performance have some form of system for doing so. Once again, the basis of performance appraisal in such systems is usually a set of prescribed behavioural objectives, stating what must be achieved, conditions under which it must be achieved, behaviour to be demonstrated, and so on. Contingent rewards, for successfully completing the training course, or for achieving stated performance objectives, then reinforce the behaviour.

Cognitivism and Learning The cognitivist approach, developed through important contributions from Piaget, Ausubel and Gagne amongst others, is built on quite different assumptions. Its focus is on the mental processes involved in learning – how we think, perceive, remember and learn – rather than demonstrable changes in behaviour. At the heart of these processes is the memory system, which takes in information, organizes it in relation to what is already there, and uses the resulting memory structures for interpreting information (known as ‘schemata’, or ‘schemas’) to facilitate further learning and problem solving. For example, an individual who already understands Spanish will find it easier to learn Italian or French than one who understands neither, given the similarities between the languages. Information on the new language can be compared with what is already stored in memory regarding the previously learned language (such as similar words or grammatical rules), become associated with the previous schema and be more easily available for recall when required. Given that individuals are likely to process and interpret information in unique ways, the implications for learning are important. For instance, individual learning styles (Honey and Mumford 1992), essentially a function of how individuals process information, will suit some types of learning more than others. The activist will want to try something first before reflecting on it, while the reflector will be likely to give consideration to a new task before trying it out. The theorist will want to know how something new fits in to what they already know, while the pragmatist will want to ensure the new learning has a practical value. Indeed

8

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

cognitivism is at the heart of a number of organizational learning approaches, which will be discussed in greater detail in later chapters. Another reason cognitivism has an important contribution to make is that as individuals gain more experience and move up the organizational ladder inevitably their jobs become more complex, and as a result less easy to define in strict behavioural terms. Desired outcomes (in terms of training or performance) may still be specified in these terms, but different and less tangible learning outcomes may also be valid. Also, the specific way in which these outcomes should be achieved is more likely to be left up to the individual as they progress. At higher levels, people are usually acquiring more declarative (contextual) knowledge, and integrating it with what they already know, building up their expertise in particular areas and making it easier to use that knowledge to solve future problems. As an example, the principles of this approach underlie the rotation of managers through different functions as part of their preparation for general management roles, where reflection on their experience (and thus their learning) may be facilitated through coaching or mentoring.

Humanism and Learning Humanist learning theory, with which names such as Maslow and Rogers are associated, places emphasis on the nature of human growth and development, and in doing so deals with both cognitive and affective (feeling) aspects of learning. Humanists argue that learning is about the freedom and responsibility to become what one is capable of becoming, and that the process of learning is more important than the content. Another important element of the humanist approach is that our perceptions are based on our experience. Thus the choices we make in terms of learning are guided both by our internal thought processes and by factors in the environment we experience. As with the other approaches already discussed, the humanist approach to learning has implications for the way in which individuals choose to use their work or career to develop skills, knowledge or even new ways of looking at life. In its inclusion of the affective (feeling) aspect, it positions learning primarily as a selfdevelopment activity – individuals will learn what they’re interested in learning, and what makes sense for them. In organizational settings, an understanding of this approach will provide greater insights into an individual’s motivation to learn, given that motivation to continue self-development throughout one’s career can be a complex matter. It should also enable the development of learning interventions that build on that motivation and thus facilitate learning effectiveness.

Foundations of Organizational Learning

9

Box 1.1 Integrating Three Philosophies in a Coaching Intervention Dick is the operations manager for a chain of pharmacies begun by his grandmother some 50 years ago, and now in its third generation of family ownership. It is widely assumed that Dick will take over the running of the business when his uncle Brian retires at the end of the year. Partly in preparation for his new role, but also out of general interest, he has undertaken a part-time management development programme. On the programme, interaction with course tutors and other participants is giving him plenty of time to reflect. In particular, his profiles from personality and other feedback instruments are making him think about his strengths, weaknesses and career interests. One of the consequences from this process is that he’s questioning his motivations in a way that he hasn’t up to now. If Dick thinks of the sort of work that has really satisfied him in the past, he fondly remembers working on projects to solve problems, such as the research he did when completing his Master’s degree, or a small study he undertook amongst his customers to examine the feedback regarding a loyalty programme they introduced. On the other hand, most of the stresses he has experienced have come from constantly working to tight deadlines, constructing and monitoring budgets and the sales and marketing activity that goes with the job he’s currently performing. At the moment, he’s wondering whether he might like to change direction and get involved on the research side of the industry, although that’s not easy for someone in the third generation of a family business. As part of the management development programme he’s undertaking he has been allocated a coach, who is available to him over the course of the programme. From a cognitive perspective, the coach is facilitating the sort of reflection that enables Dick to think through his strengths, preferences and motivations. He questions his client’s perceptions, beliefs and values to help him develop insights into what he really wants from life, and has created an environment where he can voice his thoughts freely. From a humanist perspective this is important, as Dick feels that indicating a desire to leave the family business would be seen as disloyal and would come as a blow to other family members, particularly his father, who is the Chairman. However, both coach and client agree that the matter should at least be raised, as while Dick wants to do what he sees as ‘the right thing by his family’, he also feels he has a right to ‘become what he is capable of becoming’. Because there is a danger that too much reflection without action is not conducive to progress, he puts together with his coach a course of action to set things in motion. He agrees to meet with the chairman and with Brian, and role plays with his coach what these meetings might look like. He makes an appointment with a research scientist he knows, to outline his thoughts on a change in career direction and to seek feedback. And at the same time he sets specific short-term performance goals for his ‘day job’ to ensure that it continues to be performed effectively while he contemplates his future.

Social Cognitivism and Learning Social cognitivist theory draws together aspects of both the behaviourist and cognitivist learning approaches already discussed and adds another – the social dimension. The most important tenets of this approach are that learning occurs

10

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

most frequently in a social environment, and that people can learn from observing others. Its behaviourist origins promoted the idea that although observation was an important element in learning, learning couldn’t really take place unless learners imitated what they observed and the (correct) behaviour was reinforced. Later work by Rotter and primarily Bandura concentrated more on the cognitive processes that are involved, and separating the acts of observation and imitation. In particular, Bandura (1986) argues that individuals can learn by observing the behaviour of others and by reflecting on (a key element of the cognitive approach) and visualizing the consequences for themselves. The most significant contribution of the social cognitive approach to learning in organizations is that it takes account of the environment in which learning is taking place, where behaviour is a function of the interaction between the person and the environment. For example, a trainee accountant joining an auditing firm will have a lot to learn in their first year. There is of course the obvious declarative and procedural knowledge that goes with being an accountant – costs, revenues, taxes and the like. There is also their induction and socialization into the organization itself – how it’s structured, who’s who, what gets noticed, what not to do and so on. While the acquisition of declarative knowledge will involve a certain amount of formal learning, they are also likely to learn a lot from observing and listening to others they encounter, such as managers, mentors and clients. In terms of procedural knowledge, the chances are even greater that the bulk of what they pick up will be from others, including their presumptions, perceptions and prejudices, for better or for worse.

Constructivism and Learning Firmly rooted in the notion of experience as a basis for learning, the contructivist approach suggests that adult learning is about learners making sense of their experience. For some, without doubt this can be achieved individually. In such cases learning depends on building on current knowledge structures and developing new ones, as discussed in cognitivism earlier. However, where constructivism really becomes a social process is when practical learning activities are supported by group discussions. Thus the social constructivist view is that knowledge is constructed when individuals engage around shared problems and tasks. Much of the learning we see in organizations is in fact constructivist in nature. The constructivist framework encompasses self-direction, transformational learning, experiential learning and andragogy, as well as situated learning, reflective practice, action learning and communities of practice. These approaches have particular relevance for knowledge organizations, for as will be seen in the coming chapters, both the experiential and social dimensions of learning are critical to the creation, retention and transfer of knowledge, the basic building blocks of organizational learning.

Foundations of Organizational Learning

11

Box 1.2 Social Cognitivism and Constructivism in Action The management team at a small wholesale distributors are currently trying to respond to significant competitive challenges to their business. Newer low-cost entrants to the market are making life difficult for this long-established operation to maintain its margins. The managing director has a number of ideas as to how they might respond in the medium to long term, but is encountering resistance from some of her colleagues. As quickly as ideas are produced, arguments (some of them valid) against that course of action are put forward, defensiveness ensues, and meetings break up without clear decisions. In the heat of the moment, what the managers are probably failing to grasp is that relevant solutions are most likely within their collective experience. Between them they have accumulated some 90 years of business experience, in work environments both similar to and different from where they are now. It is more likely that the ‘learning’ process they’re employing is getting in the way of solutions. On the basis of some expert advice, they decide to practise a new approach to their meetings using some basic principles. First, they take one issue at a time. Second, they use a questioning process to draw out each other’s experience of similar situations, identifying successes and failures in a non-defensive way (ground rules are set beforehand) and reflecting on the contributing factors. Third, they separate diagnosis from solution, resisting the temptation to provide quick answers before the facts of the issue are well aired. As a result, defensiveness is reduced, more real-world experience is brought to bear on the issue, and team learning is thus enhanced.

Summary The learning philosophies described above provide a backdrop for a range of schools of thought that have grown around a number of aspects of adult learning, and which have relevance for learning in organizations. As stated earlier, these philosophies are not mutually exclusive. Instead, the insights each provides blend together to help make sense of what can be a complex and confusing field of activity. These insights will be discussed under a number of headings in the next two chapters. First, we will briefly examine the nature of andragogy, a term usually associated with adult learning. Next we will discuss self-directed learning, itself a major component of the andragogical approach. As self-directed learning in organizations inevitably involves experience and varying degrees of reflection (including critical reflection) on that experience, these issues will also be dealt with. Further, the notions of learning as ‘transformational’ and ‘emancipatory’ (and their implications for learning in organizations) will be discussed. Thereafter, we will consider some of the particular approaches that have special relevance for learning at group level, such as situated learning, action learning and the functioning of communities of practice.

12

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

References Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Honey, P. and Mumford, A. 1992. The Manual of Learning Styles, 3rd edn. Maidenhead: Peter Honey. Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S. and Baumgartner, L.M. 2007. Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide, 3rd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Petri, H.L. and Mishkin, M. 1994. Behaviorism, cognitivism and the neuropsychology of memory. American Scientist, 2(1), 30–37. Yang, B. 2004. Can adult learning theory provide a foundation for human resource development? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 129–45.

Chapter 2

Learning as an Individual Process

Introduction The learning philosophies described in the previous chapter are at the core of how people acquire skills and knowledge at both individual and organizational level. In reviewing them, it is apparent that learning in organizations, as elsewhere, has both individual and social dimensions. Given the links between them it is impossible to separate the dimensions completely. However, in this chapter the emphasis will be on learning approaches developed out of the philosophies that have particular implications for learning at individual level. These approaches include andragogy, self-directed learning, experiential learning and critical reflection, as well as ‘transformational’ and ‘emancipatory’ learning.

The Position of Andragogy Although andragogy is a term usually associated with adult learning (in the same way as pedagogy is usually associated with childhood learning) it is perhaps more accurate to think of it as student-centred rather than teacher-centred learning. Knowles, for example, defines andragogy simply as ‘the art and science of helping adults learn’ (1980: 43). It is based on the idea that adult learners are capable of considering their options and making their own choices with regard to what and how they want to learn. Assimilating the work of others, Kessels and Poell (2004) suggest andragogy is characterized by: • an emphasis on facilitating increasing self-directedness; • the use of personal experience with real-life issues as a starting point for learning; • the development of competence in a meaningful way; • the dominant role of intrinsic motivation and self-esteem. The importance of these principles for real learning in organizational settings should not be underestimated. First of all, andragogy suggests that as people mature, their motivation to engage in learning is driven more by perceived,

14

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

practical needs and intrinsic interest than for example their organization’s learning agenda, although that is not to say the two can’t overlap. Also, as with many of life’s important learning events, it suggests that the work people perform in the organization provides the starting point for learning, rather than isolated learning events (such as training courses) outside the work environment. Proponents of the andragogical approach see the necessity of developing individuals who will be able to act on their learning and behave more autonomously. In essence, they are advocating that learning should be more than just the acquisition of knowledge or skill, but about developing the skill of learning itself, or as it’s often referred to, ‘learning how to learn’. Thus application of this approach is likely to be part of a move away from the traditional classroom and towards the workplace as a conducive learning environment that is situated in their real-life practice, and with learning objectives over which they have at least some degree of control. While these developments are seen by many as very encouraging, andragogy is not without its critics. They argue that its concentration on individual learning at the expense of the social dimension limits its application. Given its humanist origins, they suggest it conveys an impression of an autonomous learner, focused solely on personal growth, but with no account taken of the real-life constraints that are integral elements of today’s workplaces. Perhaps because of this, evidence for the effectiveness of andragogical over pedagogical instructional design has been hard to come by. A review of studies by Rachal (2002), for example, could not find any consistent evidence to indicate that andragogy is necessarily a better approach. He did suggest however that part of the problem may be that andragogy itself has been difficult to define precisely, and as such its effectiveness can be difficult to measure. Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, andragogical principles continue to provide the basis for many of the workplace learning interventions in use today.

Other Adult Learning Models Apart from andragogy, there are other perspectives on adult learning that help us to understand some of the reasons how and why people do or don’t engage in adult learning. The ‘theory of margin’ proposed by McClusky (1970) suggests that to engage effectively in learning, individuals must have a positive ‘margin’ between the amount of ‘load’ upon them (this may be internal load, such as their desires and expectations, or external load such as other work and family responsibilities) and the ‘power’ they have (such as coaching support or their own abilities) to meet the learning challenges. Reducing the former and/or increasing the latter will widen the margin. While McClusky’s theory doesn’t deal with the learning process itself, its contribution is nevertheless relevant to learning in organizations. As experience has demonstrated, the high rate of attrition from many programmes, particularly longer ones (such as a year-long diploma programme, for example)

Learning as an Individual Process

15

is often less likely due to a lack of intellectual capacity and more likely due to a clash of family or other work responsibilities. It points up the need for careful selection of candidates for these programmes (particularly where organizations are sponsoring participation) and/or to provide an appropriate level of support. Another contribution, this time from Illeris (2002), does focus on the learning process itself. He maintains that any learning process involves three dimensions – cognitive, emotional and social. The cognitive part of the process directly involves the knowledge or skill that is to be learned. Examples are a manager learning how to formulate a strategy for their business or a supervisor learning how to handle grievances. The learning process will also contain an emotive element. For instance, negative emotions could constitute a barrier to learning if the learner doesn’t understand or accept what they’re being asked to learn, or has a negative impression of the credibility of the tutor. This response is not at all unusual in change management programmes, for instance. Finally there is the social dimension. The environment in which the learning takes place, and the people involved, are some elements of this dimension. Support and challenge from others, or the learner’s assessment of the relevance of the learning to their job will affect the amount of learning. Finally, interactions amongst the above elements will influence the degree of motivation to learn and to use that learning back at work – in other words, learning effectiveness. The model proposed by Jarvis (2006) uses an individual’s (life) experience as a starting point. People go through life, he suggests, coping unthinkingly with many new events that they face. However, it is when they are faced with a situation in which they don’t know how to act without thinking that ‘real’ learning occurs, triggered by the ‘state of unease’ created between what they know and what they are presented with. If they choose to ignore the unease, then learning will not occur. Where learning does occur, the learning outcomes can be cognitive, behavioural or affective. In other words, the learner will end up thinking, doing or feeling something differently, and often a combination of all three. This explanation of the learning process is particularly relevant for workplace-situated learning, because individuals inevitably bring their experience to bear on organizational problems, need to think more deeply about some problems than others, and respond to those problems in the future based on a combination of what they thought, felt and did in the past.

The Concept of Self-directed Learning The concept of self-directed learning, which is implied in some form or another in the models just discussed, can be a rather broad one, given its similarities and overlap with other forms of learner-driven activity. Essentially, however, selfdirected learning has come to be understood as a situation in which learners have

16

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

the main responsibility for planning, undertaking and evaluating the outcomes of their learning experiences (Ellinger, 2004). This can occur in either a formal or an informal context, and work alongside coaching, mentoring, networking or any other form of learning with or from others. Most obviously perhaps, individuals engage in self-directed learning in order to enhance their knowledge or their level of a particular skill. This could be driven by a need for that knowledge or skill at work or at home. Borrowing books from the library on DIY or cookery is a good example. However, their decision to learn something new could also emanate from a desire to engage in the learning process for its own sake, as the number of people who sign up for a wide range of evening classes every autumn clearly demonstrates. To put some sort of framework on it, Merriam, Caffarella and Baumgartner (2007) suggest that self-directed learning satisfies a number of goals, including: • enhancing individuals’ ability to be self-directed in their learning; • fostering transformational learning (questioning assumptions on which informational learning is based); • promoting emancipatory learning (using learning to lead to some form of action). As far as achieving the goal of enhancing ability in self-direction is concerned, being successful necessitates a combination of personal attributes and specific skills. These will be discussed later in the chapter. While much of the responsibility for achieving this goal falls to the learner, important support can also be provided from learning facilitators in terms of locating resources, identifying alternative learning strategies and helping learners plan, implement and evaluate their own learning. In situations where the learner’s intention may be more transformative, they will want to challenge the actual assumptions on which their learning is based. Rather than just accepting what is taught as truth, they want to become critically aware, through reflection, of how and why their assumptions constrain how they perceive, understand and feel about their world, so they can ultimately make meaning of it. As an outcome, the final goal of self-directed learning may be achieved – the incorporation of this understanding into a course of action. This is the ‘emancipatory’ aspect of learning. Each of these themes will be developed in the course of the chapter.

The Process of Self-directed Learning Various descriptions of the self-directed learning (SDL) process see it as either a planned process (e.g. Knowles 1975) or as a consequence of a particular event that acts as a catalyst (e.g. Spear and Mocker 1984). For those self-directed learners who plan their learning, the process typically involves, at a minimum, the identification of a learning need; the setting of goals and deadlines; the choosing of an appropriate

Learning as an Individual Process

17

learning strategy; identification of any support needed; and evaluating learning outcomes. For those who don’t, it is suggested that perhaps a particular event will generate a need to learn, and the process takes its course depending on events and resources encountered along the way. Whatever the starting point, learning appears to occur as a combination of the steps taken and the cognitive processes (in particular self-monitoring and motivation) that accompany these steps. Once the process is underway, the role of the teacher, expert, consultant or facilitator needs to be flexible in order to make the most of its self-directed nature. Guglielmino and Guglielmino (2001) maintain that as organizations strive to become learning organizations, building learning capability at the individual level is critical. They report a shift in these organizations from the ‘traditional’, teacherled model of learning to a more learner-led, ‘distributed’ model. They maintain that given the speed at which learning needs to take place for organizations to remain competitive, it needs to be promoted in all parts of the organization, and that the development of self-directed learners is the key to this. Their proposed distributed model comprises a number of elements. • Learning is self-managed, not other-managed. People take responsibility for their own learning and for sharing relevant learning with others. The role of the HRD unit thus becomes more of a resource provider than an information giver. • Content is individualized instead of predetermined. Learners can target their learning efforts to where they are needed most, increasing impact and improving learning transfer. • Application of learning is primarily immediate, rather than delayed. This is a natural consequence of the presence of the previous two elements. • Learning is primarily independent or interdependent rather than dependent. As independent learners seek others with similar learning needs for support, interdependent small groups are likely to form. • The cost to the organization is often reduced, as more options and support for self-directed learning are provided. If these elements are in place, they argue, improved organizational performance at reduced expense will result. They attribute this to the consequence of greater relevance, flexibility and focus, as well as a major saving in the cost of central learning infrastructure. However, a word of caution is advised. There is evidence from a number of studies in organizations (e.g. Smith 2002) that workplace learners (particularly those further down the hierarchy) are not prepared for selfdirected learning, and that the management support they receive is inadequate. Management support for learning will be dealt with in detail in Chapter 7.

18

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Fostering Self-directedness in Learners It appears from the above that not everyone can be an effective self-directed learner, and even if they are, they still need their efforts to be supported. Yet evidence from the literature supports the notion of self-directedness (willingness to accept responsibility for one’s self as a learner) as an important contributing factor to individual and organizational learning. One framework which may be helpful, and which deals with the interaction of the process and the personal attributes of the learner, is that put forward by Grow (1991), and is known as the staged, selfdirected model (SSDL). It will look familiar to those working in organizations because its structure is based on Hersey and Blanchard’s (1988) situational leadership model. It suggests that the style of teaching should be matched to the learner’s readiness. In parallel with the situational leadership model, a learner’s readiness is an interaction between their ability in a subject, and their motivation to learn it. Thus dependent learners are likely to be those who lack self-direction (motivation) and knowledge of the subject matter. They need to be told what to do. Interested learners have a higher degree of self-direction, but still need to be ‘taught’ the subject matter. The ‘teacher’ in this case will be more in the role of a coach, who builds on their motivation and guides them in terms of getting to grips with the material, and in suggesting learning strategies. The third stage, the involved learner, needs more of a learning facilitator, because the learner is both motivated to learn and has a reasonable grasp of the subject matter. Finally, all the self-directed learner needs is someone with whom they can consult to test assumptions and from whom they can receive occasional guidance to ensure they are getting the most from the learning process. Overall, the ‘teacher’s’ purpose is to match the learner’s stage of self-direction and prepare them to advance to subsequent stages. An example of how the model might apply in an organizational setting is provided in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Stage

Self-directed learning in stages Examples

Dependent A new employee is attending a course on health and safety in the factory. There are laws and regulations to be adhered to, one right way of performing the task, and the instructor ‘delivers’ the necessary knowledge. There may be some practice, with guidance and feedback from the instructor Interested

There is a workshop for new team leaders. It could involve some lecture content, but will also probably include questions and discussion to reflect on the material. It’s also likely to include some goal-setting involving application back at work

Involved

A seminar is being run for experienced managers. Topics of relevance are debated and discussed, overseen by a facilitator. Follow-up group actions are agreed

Selfdirected

The learner is implementing a personal development plan, perhaps as part of a broader initiative. They decide the best way of learning, and seek advice and guidance only when needed

Learning as an Individual Process

19

The Importance of Autonomy As seen above, getting to the stage of being a self-directed learner requires appropriate levels of support. It also requires that the learner has a degree of autonomy in how they go about meeting their learning needs, and in this respect the amount of time and mental space they can create around what, how and when they learn will make a difference. Learner autonomy has also been identified as an important contributing factor to learning transfer (which will be discussed in Chapter 6) through its effect on learners’ personal ability to transfer (Kirwan 2005). Those who score highly on personal ability to transfer tend to have: • the motivation to transfer • the ability and/or opportunity to reflect on learning, including new knowledge, skills or other learning, in order to see how that learning can be used • assertiveness, and being able to say ‘no’ when necessary • autonomy in their jobs, and being able to use it to ‘make things happen’.

Measuring Personal Attributes In addition to self-directedness and autonomy, there are other factors that influence the degree to which individuals will engage in this type of independent learning, and a number of frameworks that exist to measure them. For instance, Stockdale and Brockett (2011) have based an instrument on Brockett and Hiemstra’s Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO) model (Brockett and Hiemstra 1991); Guglielmino and Guglielmino (2001) make reference to their ‘self-directed learning readiness scale’ (SDLRS) (Guglielmino 1977) which has been used to assess the degree of learner readiness, a widely reported characteristic; and Harvey, Rothman and Frecker (2006) have tested the Oddi Continuing Learning Inventory (OCLI) (Oddi 1986). The factors on which these instruments are based include openness to learning opportunities; a self-concept as an effective learner; initiative; perseverance over time; acceptance of responsibility for one’s own learning; love of learning; creativity; future orientation; and ability to use basic study and problem-solving skills. Taken together, the factors represent a comprehensive view of what a self-directed learner looks like, and are summarized in Table 2.2. Indeed the frameworks cited could provide the basis for a template to identify self-directed learners within an organization, in which key questions can be asked (or evidence gathered in other ways) regarding their openness to learning opportunities, the amount of autonomy they have in their jobs, or their belief in their ability to engage in self-directed learning.

20

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Table 2.2

Characteristics of self-directed learners

Guglielmino and Guglielmino (2001)

Harvey, Rothman and Frecker (2006)

Stockdale and Brockett (2011)

Openness to learning opportunities

Learning with others

Initiative

Self-concept as an effective learner

Learner motivation/selfefficacy/autonomy

Control

Initiative and independence in learning

Ability to be selfregulating

Motivation

Informed acceptance of responsibility for one’s own learning

Reading avidity

Self-efficacy

Love of learning Creativity Future orientation Ability to use basic study and problem-solving skills

While the frameworks and instruments just described reflect a range of personal attributes that influence success in self-directed learning, it is probably no coincidence that the two themes around which they seem to cluster are those of self-directedness (e.g. love of learning; initiative; self-efficacy; self-regulation; independence in learning) and of autonomy (e.g. control; motivation; autonomy; creativity), the factors which have received most attention in the literature. In a study on motivation to learn from (formal) training programmes, Noe and Schmitt (1986) defined ‘trainability’ as a function of the trainee’s ability, their motivation and the degree to which conditions in their work environment support application of new skills and knowledge. They demonstrated that both motivation (seen in self-directedness) and ability (seen in autonomy) need to be in place for effective application. Finally, these factors are the two most in evidence at the final stage of the SSDL model discussed earlier.

Learning as an Individual Process

21

Box 2.1 Developing Self-direction in Practice Alice works for a fashion retail company that invests a lot in learning and development opportunities for its staff. She is new to the fashion business, but has been lucky to have Elaine as a boss. Elaine, who is a great believer in self-directed learning, has always been available to her when needed. When Alice started in the job, she found there was so much to learn, all of it unfamiliar, and indeed she wondered at times whether she was going to be able to make a success of it. At the start, Elaine took time to explain different product lines, customer preferences and the principles of good customer service, sometimes with small groups of newer recruits. As time went on, she set Alice some small tasks, such as dealing with a difficult customer over the phone on one occasion, and used the opportunity to give feedback and coaching. As Alice developed her knowledge and skills, Elaine began to ask her about her perceptions of what she’s learning, observations she has made, and how what she has learned might be incorporated into the business. Now, they’re at the point where Elaine just lets Alice ‘get on with it’, trusting her to network, find out what’s happening in the business and decide herself what further development she needs to make a real contribution to the success of the firm.

Transformational Learning The drive towards self-directed learning as described above is perhaps a symptom of a broader change in the way workplace learning is developing. For a start, jobs and how they are performed are becoming increasingly complex. Legal, ethical, and environmental considerations (to name but a few) as well as human resource constraints (doing more with less) are forcing those concerned with learning in organizations not just to work within the system, but to challenge from time to time the assumptions, values, beliefs and behaviours that underlie the system itself. For individuals, this may mean they have to question their goals, capabilities, values and even identities (Brooks 2004). For instance, the people remaining in a company that has just let go 20 per cent of its workforce in a cost-saving measure will inevitably begin to question the basis on which they are continuing to do what they’re doing, as pressure mounts on them to satisfy the same demands with less resources.

Transformational Learning Defined While the issue of transformational learning has been approached from a number of viewpoints, the focus in this chapter will be on those that have particular relevance for organizational contexts, and for learning at the individual level. Transformational (also called transformative) learning can be defined as ‘the process of using a prior interpretation to construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience in order to guide future action’ (Mezirow 2000: 5). In essence, according to Mezirow, transformational learning is about refining one’s perspectives in the light of new experiences, making them more inclusive

22

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

of the new information. In that context, he suggests that making sense of these experiences involves the use of different types of meaning structures, which he calls respectively frames of reference, habits of mind and points of view. A frame of reference provides a context for making meaning out of our experience. Within that frame of reference are the habits of mind and points of view. Habits of mind are sets of assumptions that will influence the interpretation of the experience, while points of view are sets of beliefs, feelings and attitudes that do the same. Thus the experience is ‘filtered’ through these mechanisms, out of which meaning is constructed. Transformational learning occurs when there is a change in either some of our habits of mind or our points of view. For example, an individual who has worked for the same large company for many years may suddenly be made redundant. Their past perceptions about their strengths, weaknesses, motivations and values, formed over time within that company, may well come to be challenged as they adapt themselves to their new situation and attempt to pick up their career. Under these conditions, the idea of a type of learning that helps with this shift in perspective has relevance. The newly redundant individual might now be reflecting on their previous career moves (habits of mind), and questioning whether they were based on an intrinsic motivation to do that job or a desire to move up the corporate ladder, for example. Or through the process of finding a new job they may reveal a hitherto undiscovered capacity to ‘sell’ themselves, something they had regarded as completely unnecessary and unimportant (points of view) in their previous job. In these situations, transformational learning is occurring.

Emancipatory Learning In itself a transformative learning process, emancipatory learning theory (Freire 2000) grew out of that author’s work conducted in the context of poverty, oppression and illiteracy some 50 years ago. The basic principle underlying the theory is emancipation of individuals and transformation of the social system where exploitation, injustice and dishonesty are allowed to exist. Although the conditions experienced by Brazilian farmers at that time and people in most organizations today (at least in developed economies) are quite different, it is nevertheless worth making reference to its contribution to adult learning in organizations. Literacy at work is still an issue even in those developed economies, some employees still view their employers as ‘oppressors’, and indeed exploitation, injustice and dishonesty are not unheard of. Freire distinguished between what he called banking education (didactic, with content decided by the teacher, and discouragement of dialogue) and problem-posing education (where teacher and learner together investigate their common reality, to see what can be learned from it). The emancipatory aspect comes from the learner developing an awareness (conscientization) of their situation and questioning the taken-for-granted assumptions on which it is based. In doing this, they begin to sense and eventually take more control over

Learning as an Individual Process

23

their learning and their lives. The concept has relevance in terms of the outlook many organizations still hold with regard to the role of learning and development activities. Banking education is still in evidence in the way in which those activities are conducted – classroom-based, with an ‘expert’ providing knowledge, and little room for challenge and questioning of underlying assumptions. Even in programmes with a culture or attitude change dimension, for example, programme content can often be prescriptive, stating what the organization’s culture or learners’ attitudes should be, thus suppressing, albeit unknowingly, the process of conscientization. In contrast, the types of learning discussed so far have their roots more in problem-posing education.

Box 2.2 Fostering Transformative Learning In a useful summary of three workplace learning programmes with transformative learning as a desired outcome, Lamm (2003) identified eight conditions that contributed to their success. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Putting participants in unfamiliar and new situations; Maximizing the diversity mix of participants; Experiencing the intensity, duration or frequency of the programme design (including distributing the programme over a number of months, having regular reflective sessions and reinforcing key messages); Creating an open, safe and trusting environment; Giving and receiving honest feedback; Incorporating an intense personal development focus; Repeated teamwork opportunities balancing action and reflection; Challenging underlying assumptions (their own and those of other participants) through reflection and facilitator/coach questioning.

Learning from Experience Inherent in transformative, emancipatory and other forms of learning is the centrality of the learners’ experience as the basis for learning. This is a (slowly) developing trend in organizations. What occurs in essence is that learners, through reflection (either individually or collectively) on new experiences, connect them with past experiences and use that learning to inform future decisions. This chapter will deal with learning from individual experience, while Chapter 3 will examine experiential learning in the context of such approaches as action learning and the development of communities of practice. A number of models exist that describe the process of learning from experience. Well known is Kolb’s (1984) model, which suggests that learning from experience requires:

24

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

• an openness and willingness to involve oneself in new experiences (concrete experience); • observational and reflective skills so these new experiences can be viewed from a variety of perspectives; • analytical abilities so that integrative ideas and concepts can be created from their observations (abstract conceptualization); • decision making and problem-solving skills so that these new ideas and concepts can be used in actual practice (active experimentation). Although very popular amongst practitioners, Kolb’s model has been criticised from a number of viewpoints, as summarized by Yeo and Gold (2011). They suggest first of all that the model decontextualizes learning, ignoring factors such as social status, emotional influence and power relations, which influence learners’ responses to their learning needs. Second, the view is expressed that Kolb oversimplifies the process of reflection, arguing that it is more a starting point for emancipatory learning rather than a single cognitive process. Finally, the Kolb model is seen as best applied to narrow problem contexts, making it more difficult to focus on the wider context. The issue of decontextualization is addressed in Jarvis’s (2006) model, referred to earlier in the chapter. It differs from Kolb’s in that it takes greater account of the social context in which learning takes place. However, as with Kolb’s, one’s experience is the starting point. While much of what we learn is unthinking, and we take for granted that we’ve learned, it is the experiences with which we cannot cope unthinkingly that start off the real learning process. When learning occurs, it is usually through some combination of reflection, action or emotion, as discussed earlier, with the outcome affecting the individual in some way or another. This may range from the acquisition of a new skill or development of an existing one; a new way of framing their previous experience; or indeed a new perception of themselves.

Reflecting on Experience – the Case for Coaching Given the importance of reflection as a component of the learning process, and the difficulties experienced by individuals in busy work environments in trying to generate the time and mental space to do so, anything that makes the learning process easier should be welcomed. In this regard, developments in the field of coaching provide one response, as many of the principles, techniques and challenges inherent in individual workplace learning are an integral part of the coaching process. While it’s fair to say that there has been a huge increase in the use of coaching for development, despite this there is dearth of empirical research concerning its effectiveness. For example Feldman and Lankau (2005), in a review of the literature, unearthed less than 20 studies that have investigated

Learning as an Individual Process

25

executive coaching systematically using quantitative or qualitative methods. In addition, a survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD 2006) indicated that 34 per cent of respondents felt that ‘lack of belief in the value of coaching’ is a barrier to coaching activity. In the same survey, 42 per cent believed a lack of data to prove the value of coaching activities to be also a drawback. Interestingly, there is a body of opinion, including Berglas (2002), that suggests the popularity of coaching has a lot to do with a demand amongst the business community for quick solutions, preferably delivered as painlessly as possible. Yet despite these reservations, its popularity continues to rise. Indeed responses to a more recent CIPD (2012) survey seem to confirm this trend. When asked ‘of the talent management activities used by your organization, what are the most effective?’ 51 per cent (the highest percentage) identified coaching. In response to the question ‘what do you anticipate will be the major organizational change affecting learning and development in organizations over the next two years?’ 47 per cent (also the highest percentage) suggested that greater integration of coaching, organization development and performance management to drive organizational change would be the main issue.

Describing Coaching Coaching in organizational settings is usually described in terms of it being a practical, goal-focused form of personal one-to-one learning (Hall, Otazo and Hollenbeck 1999). It typically takes the form of a short- to medium-term relationship between a manager or executive and a coach or consultant, in order to improve the effectiveness of the former. Its main purpose is not so much to teach a person a specific skill for now, but to enable them to learn for the future, by creating a relationship whereby the person being coached is encouraged to set performance goals for themselves and is supported in reaching those goals. Of course learning can be defined in many ways. In some cases, learning may be the acquisition of a new skill, such as how to give feedback effectively to a staff member, or how to construct and use a ‘to do’ list. At a deeper level, it may be a re-calibration (by the client!) of their understanding of a particular construct, such as what constitutes effective leadership or a reframing of the dimensions of a conflict. At yet another level, learning from a coaching intervention might result in a complete redefinition of the client’s goals or aspirations, based on insights gained during the process. While the focus of and process of coaching varies, coaching interventions usually comprise three main elements – one-to-one counselling about work-related issues; feedback on strengths and development areas as a starting point; and a focus on the improvement of effectiveness in the (client’s) current job. In this chapter, coaching will be taken to mean what has become widely known as executive coaching, that is, the use of an external coach whose sole responsibility is to help executives improve their performance (the role of one’s own manager as a coach will be discussed in Chapter 7). Although the intended role of an executive coach is quite

26

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

clear, the process should be a collaborative one, involving the coach, the manager, and their boss.

Evidence from the Literature What literature there is has dealt with the subject from a number of angles, including the demographic backgrounds and credentials of effective coaches, as well as aspects of the coaching process. In terms of outcomes and perceived effectiveness of coaching, studies such as that of Olivero, Bane and Kopelman (1997) involving managers undergoing a management development programme found that the training component alone increased productivity by 22 per cent. However, when the coaching component is included the overall gain in productivity was 88 per cent. They attribute this very sizeable gain largely to the motivational effect of feedback received from achievement of goals by the clients and its effect on their self-efficacy (confidence in their ability to achieve their goals). In another study, Hall, Otazo and Hollenbeck (1999) also interviewed 75 managers participating in executive coaching. Their respondents reported learning and changes in behaviour as a result of coaching, and rated the overall effectiveness of the coaching programme very highly. Two other studies, undertaken in 2001, also indicate positive outcomes. Kampa-Kokesch (2001) reported that 75 per cent of executives felt that the coaching programme they engaged in had added value that was significantly greater than the time and money invested. The other (Sloan 2001) looked at coaching as an additional intervention to formal executive education programmes. She found that participants working with a coach or mentor before or after their programme, or both, reported greater self-confidence, and greater skill in developing others, than those who did not. Finally, two other studies since 2000 have also found positive transfer effects for coaching interventions. Thach (2002) found that multi-rater feedback combined with individual coaching increased the leadership effectiveness of the participants (as measured by peers and direct reports) by up to 60 per cent. And Smither et al. (2003) discovered that managers who worked with an executive coach were more likely to set specific goals, solicit ideas for improvement from supervisors and receive improved ratings from direct reports and supervisors.

How Coaching Works The above results certainly appear to suggest that coaching can be beneficial. It seems that for individuals, generating confidence in their ability to achieve goals makes an important contribution. So too does the setting of those goals. Furthermore, as coaches tend to come from a wide variety of professional backgrounds, it is likely that their approaches will differ, perhaps even with the same client. For example (as seen in Box 1.1 in the previous chapter), a coach using a cognitive approach will most likely facilitate learning by changing the way a client views a particular difficulty or set of circumstances, while a behaviourist

Learning as an Individual Process

27

approach will be characterized by encouraging the client to consider the causes and consequences of their behaviour. Indeed a humanist perspective may also be brought to bear on the process as the client explores broader issues.

A Question of Time and Space The primary role of coaching in this context is in helping to create the time and mental space for individuals to reflect upon and change their thinking and behaviour. Many of the behaviours that successful coaches engage in do just that. In creating that time and space, they first spend time developing a rapport with the client. This acknowledges the need to ‘step back’ mentally from the work and establish trust, empathy and confidence in the coach’s credentials. Only when this has been achieved can the substantive work begin. The fact that coaching often takes place outside the normal physical work environment facilitates the creation of space to think. The second way in which coaching can help create the space is the way in which an effective coach will encourage the client to think through the issues under consideration. This is usually achieved by asking appropriate questions to elicit facts, opinions and feelings, and reflecting and summarizing to help clients clarify for themselves what’s on their mind. Third, good coaches help the client identify options, perhaps broadening the client’s perspective and getting them to see things in a different way. They can also challenge the client’s thinking if they see that as a barrier to behaviour change.

Box 2.3 Coaching for Transformational Learning Mild-mannered Joe is a senior manager in the public sector, an overworked executive who is trying to balance family, social life and health with a micro-managing boss in a job that he’s increasingly coming to dislike. For example, his boss (who doesn’t appear to have any home life!) regularly sends emails late in the evening regarding matters on which he wants Joe to take action. As time goes on, Joe is afraid to turn off his smartphone as he feels he might miss something important. He’s afraid to talk to his boss about it, partly because his boss is not the most approachable person in the world, but also because Joe feels that as he (Joe) is only in an acting position (covering for maternity leave) this is an opportunity to ‘prove himself’. The problem is his health is suffering, as he finds it hard to relax and get to sleep at night, which of course affects his performance during the day. As part of a leadership development programme he signed up for (it included time management and dealing with conflict as components), he’s also having a number of coaching sessions with an executive coach. While he has found the programme content interesting, he has not yet found the opportunity to apply new time-management techniques or to approach his boss about the issue. The coaching, however, is a different proposition. One of the things the coach persisted with was challenging what she called his ‘self-limiting beliefs’, forcing him to think about where the course of action he was following (accepting the situation) would be likely to lead, and at the same time encouraging him to think through the consequences of dealing with it actively. She also

28

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

worked on his self-efficacy (his belief, or indeed lack of it, that he would be successfully able to ‘stand up’ to his boss and challenge the status quo). His whole emphasis has changed from wanting to learn how to ‘get around the issue’ to looking at it in a completely different way, deciding to question the assumptions and beliefs underlying his behaviour, and in the end deciding to do something about it – transformational learning.

References Berglas, S. 2002. The very real dangers of executive coaching. Harvard Business Review, 80, 86–93. Brockett, R. and Hiemstra, R. 1991. Self-direction in Adult Learning: Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Routledge. Brooks, A.K. 2004. Transformational learning theory and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 211– 25. CIPD 2006. Learning and Development 2006, Survey Report. London: CIPD. Available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/surveys, accessed 10 July 2012. CIPD 2012. Learning and Talent Development, Annual Survey Report 2012. London: CIPD. Available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/survey-reports, accessed 13 July 2012. Ellinger, A. 2004. The concept of self-directed learning and its implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 158–77. Feldman, D.C. and Lankau, M.J. 2005. Executive coaching: A review and agenda for further research. Journal of Management, 31(6), 829–48. Freire, P. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Twentieth anniversary edition. New York: Continuum. Grow, G. 1991. Teaching learners to be self-directed: A stage approach. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 125–49. Guglielmino, L.M. 1977. Development of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. Guglielmino, P.J. and Guglielmino, L.M. 2001. Moving toward a distributed learning model based on self-managed learning. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 66(3), 36–43. Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L. and Hollenbeck, G.P. 1999. Behind closed doors: What really happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 39–52. Harvey, B.J., Rothman, A.I. and Frecker, R.C. 2006. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Oddi Continuing Learning Inventory (OCLI). Adult Education Quarterly, 56(3), 188–200. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. 1988. Management of Organizational Behaviour: Utilizing Human Resources, 5th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Illeris, K. 2002. Three Dimensions of Learning. Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde University Press/Leicester, UK: NIACE.

Learning as an Individual Process

29

Jarvis, P. 2006. Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning. London and New York: Routledge/Falmer Press. Kampa-Kokesch, S. 2001. Executive Coaching as an Individually Tailored Consultation Intervention: Does it Increase Leadership? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University. Kessels, J. and Poell, R. 2004. Andragogy and social capital theory: The implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 146–57. Kirwan, C. 2005. Management development’s black holes: A question of time and space. People Focus, 3(1), 26–27. Knowles, M. 1975. Self-directed Learning. New York: Association Press. Knowles, M. 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge Books. Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lamm, S. 2003. Best Practices on Fostering Transformative Learning in the Workplace. Paper presented to the Fifth International Transformative Learning Conference, Transformative Learning in Action: Building Bridges Across Contexts and Disciplines. Teacher’s College, Columbia University, October 23–25 2003. Available at www.transformativelearning.org/index/ tlcproceedings2003.pdf. McClusky, H. 1970. An approach to a differential psychology of the adult potential. In S.M. Grabowski, ed., Adult Learning and Instruction. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearninghouse on Adult Education, 80–95. Merriam, S. Caffarella, R. and Baumgartner, L. 2007. Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide, 3rd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Mezirow, J. 2000. Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates, eds, Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 3–33. Noe, R.A. and Schmitt, N. 1986. The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39, 497–523. Oddi, L.F. 1986. Development and validation on an instrument to identify selfdirected continuing learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 36(2), 97–107. Olivero, G., Bane, D.K. and Kopelman, R.E. 1997. Executive coaching as a transfer of training tool: Effects on productivity in a public agency. Public Personnel Management, 26(4), 461–69. Rachal, J. 2002. Andragogy’s detectives: A critique of the present and a proposal for the future. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(3), 210–27. Sloan, E.B. 2001. The Contribution of University-Based Executive Education to Corporate Executive Talent Management Results. Joint research project conducted by the international university consortium for executive education (UNICON) and Personnel Decisions International. Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions International.

30

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Smith, P.J. 2002. ‘Modern’ learning methods: Rhetoric and reality – further to Sadler-Smith et al. Personnel Review, 31(1), 103–13. Smither, J.W., London, M., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y. and Kucine, I. 2003. Can working with an executive coach improve multisource feedback ratings? A quasiexperimental field study. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 23–44. Spear, G. and Mocker, D. 1984. The organizing circumstance: Environmental determinants in self-directed learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(1), 1–10. Stockdale, S. and Brockett, R. 2011. Development of the PRO-SDLS: A measure of self-direction in learning based on the personal responsibility orientation model. Adult Education Quarterly, 61(2), 161–80. Thach, E.C. 2002. The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership effectiveness. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23, 205–21. Yeo, R.K. and Gold, J. 2011. (Re)interpreting experiential learning theory for management development: A critical enquiry. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1–6.

Chapter 3

Learning as a Social Process

Introduction When people are asked to recall some of their most significant learning experiences, they very often respond with something they learned from someone else, such as a parent, colleague or mentor. In organizational situations also, it’s not at all uncommon to hear individuals report on return from a training or development programme, for example, that they feel they learned more on the programme from fellow participants than from any other source, including perhaps even the tutor. In this chapter, two more important contributions to organizational learning, around how people learn from and with others, are discussed. The notions of social cognitive learning theory and then critical reflection will be presented. Their applications, particularly to situated learning (including action learning and the operation of communities of practice) will then be dealt with. As will be seen, learning with others draws on insights from both the social cognitivist and constructivist approaches, as discussed earlier. At the centre of the former approach are the ideas that learning occurs most frequently in a social environment and that people can learn from observing others. For the latter, it’s that learning is about making sense of experience, often in a group setting.

The Contribution of Social Cognitivism In the context of social learning processes, it is generally regarded that the influence of Albert Bandura has been the most significant. According to Gibson (2004), a number of elements of his theory are important in the context of adult learning. They are: • • • •

observational learning variables reciprocal determinism self-regulation of behaviour self-efficacy.

32

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Observational Learning Variables In the case of a potential learning event or observation, the learner’s attention must first of all be directed to the learning event – the event must be something that appears interesting or attractive in some way. It could be a modelled behaviour that the learner wants to be able to reproduce, such as being assertive with a difficult customer, for example. Next, information from that event or observation must be stored in memory and retained (noting what the model/expert actually did in the circumstances will not provide a learning opportunity if it is not remembered). Storage may either be in the form of mental images (what it looks like when one is being assertive) or verbally (useful words or phrases), or both. The next step involves translating the learning into performance. Actions taken are compared with the stored information and adjusted until the behaviour matches the modelled behaviour (usually with the aid of feedback). Finally, if the learned behaviour produces positive outcomes for the learner (such as successfully calming down the irate customer) the learner’s motivation to use that behaviour will be reinforced.

Reciprocal Determinism The essence of this construct is that behaviour, the cognitive and personal factors surrounding it and environmental influences all operate interactively to influence learning. Any given situation will determine the relative strength of the interacting factors. This too has important implications for learning in organizational settings, as inevitably issues such as the learner’s personality, their role within the organization, the multiplicity of (often conflicting) demands placed upon them or perceived to be placed upon them and a number of other situational constraints can make learning easier or more difficult. For example, a team leader may be asked to take part in a workshop on people management as part of an intervention to change the way the organization manages its people. They may have a number of views on issues such as why the organization is embarking on this initiative, their own abilities as a team leader, or the practicality of such a change in approach at this time. All of these factors will affect the degree to which they engage in the workshop and learn from it, but they will also affect each other. For instance, a lack of confidence in their ability to develop new people management behaviours could well lead them to be defensive about a need for change. On the other hand they may have great confidence in their ability but be cynical around the reasons for change. Their learning will be the result of these interactions.

Self-regulation of Behaviour Self-regulation of behaviour is seen as another important element. People consistently assess their performance against standards they have observed and internalized. In other words, they evaluate their own performance. Thus an individual who handles a challenging negotiation will measure what they have

Learning as a Social Process

33

achieved against what they think they should have achieved, based on what they have learned from observing. If they feel they have performed well, the intrinsic reinforcement arising from meeting that standard can be powerful, and works with self-efficacy (discussed next) to regulate further effort.

Self-efficacy A fourth element of Bandura’s theory, and indeed a central theme in motivation, learning and performance in general is the notion of self-efficacy. According to Bandura, it can be defined as ‘a judgment of one’s capability to accomplish a certain level of performance’ (1986: 391). It is about the degree of belief an individual has in their capacity to meet and overcome challenges they are likely to face in given situations, and is influenced by past successes and failures amongst other things. Individuals with a high level of self-efficacy are more likely to persist longer in learning activities, and be better able to overcome obstacles and challenges that arise.

The Role of Locus of Control In the context of motivation, Rotter (1954) was responsible for introducing the notion of ‘locus of control’, a construct that has important implications in the context of motivation to learn and to perform at a higher level. Locus of control refers to the perceived source of control over one’s behaviour, and may be classed as internal or external. People with an internal locus of control tend to attribute success or failure to their own efforts, while those with an external locus of control see success or failure as more to do with outside forces. Although not much work seems to have been done in this area in organizational settings recently, some early studies involving managers (e.g. Baumgartel, Reynolds and Pathan 1984) found significant relationships between locus of control and efforts to apply knowledge. They have supported the view that those with an internal locus of control will make a greater effort to learn and apply new skills and knowledge, seeing success at this as being something under their own control. Its link with self-efficacy is through the notion of attribution (Heider 1958). In general terms, attributing success to internal causes helps improve self-efficacy, while attributing failure to external causes helps maintain it.

Self-efficacy and Locus of Control in Learning As indicated, self-efficacy is about the amount of confidence and belief people have in their ability to take on new challenges and learn from them, and it plays a major part in determining the amount of effort that will be applied to a task. Evidence from a number of studies (e.g. Chiaburu and Lindsay 2008) clearly points to a

34

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

strong relationship between higher self-efficacy, motivation to transfer learning and learning itself. Like all personal characteristics, people possess self-efficacy to differing degrees. Those with higher levels tend to foresee fewer obstacles to learning application, and tend to report greater confidence concerning their ability to surmount obstacles that might arise. Examples of obstacles cited can be resource issues such as finance and staffing levels, or making time away from normal dayto-day operational responsibilities to devise and implement strategic plans. In practice, one’s degree of self-efficacy is a function of the difference between their perception of the demands of challenging situations, and their perception of their ability to meet those demands. If the gap between the perceptions is too large, they will not be motivated to close it. This is because they believe that they will fail to do so (either because their ability is too low, or the demands too high, or both), and that failure will consequently reduce their self-efficacy further. By not attempting to close the gap in the first place, they can at least maintain their selfefficacy. This response would be typical for example in the case of someone being asked to make a presentation to a large group of people at short notice. They may feel that the demands (preparing at home in their own time, dealing with difficult questions from the audience) are much greater than their ability (other priorities, a fear of standing up in front of groups) and decide to say no, in order not to, as they put it, make a fool of themself. If, on the other hand, the gap is very narrow, or their perception of their ability is greater than their perception of the demands of the task, they will not be motivated to close it either, as doing so does not improve their self-efficacy in any way. In that case they might decide that the presentation should really be made by one of the juniors. The role played by locus of control is also significant here. In the above example, if the individual goes ahead and makes the presentation, their motivation to do so again will be influenced primarily not by whether they succeed or fail, but by how they attribute the cause(s) of that success or failure. Attributing successes internally and failures externally will help preserve their self-efficacy and thus their motivation.

Box 3.1 Attribution, Self-efficacy and Motivation Supposing a new team leader has come away from a management development programme with a particular item in their action plan – to improve their skill in conducting efficient and effective meetings. They begin to practise on the regular Friday morning team meeting, and as would be expected, don’t get quite the result they’d hoped for straight away, with the meeting over-running its allocated time. They may react in a number of ways. For instance, they might console themself with the idea that these meetings are as much a social occasion where team members, who work fairly autonomously, use the opportunity to catch up with each other, and that attendees are rarely prepared. In this case, failure to start and finish on time is attributed to external causes (external locus of control). This enables them to maintain self-efficacy, that is, the belief that they can actually run meetings (if given the chance!). In the same way, if they

Learning as a Social Process

35

had managed to be very successful the first time out, it would help theyr motivation to go on and perform even better if they were to attribute the success to their own efforts (‘I insisted on clarity as to the objective of each agenda item’, or ‘I made sure we started on time, even though there were only three people there’), that is, using an internal locus of control. Conversely, people who attribute failure to internal causes, for example, (‘I’m not assertive enough with people who ramble on’) or success to external causes (‘there were no really contentious issues today’) do not improve their self-efficacy and consequently may make it harder to motivate themselves for more difficult challenges.

The Role of Feedback Perhaps the most important way in which changes in self-efficacy and motivation are enabled is through the feedback process. Feedback can be a very powerful mechanism for changing behaviour. However, the way in which either positive or negative feedback is given is extremely important. Badly given feedback will tend to widen the gap between perceptions of demands and ability discussed above, while properly given feedback should help close it.

Box 3.2 Feedback Guidelines The following guidelines are worth adhering to, in order to ensure that the giving of feedback will have the desired effect.

• • • • • • • • •

Feedback should be intended to be helpful. Feedback should be given directly to the person, face to face. Feedback should be specific rather than general. Feedback should always describe facts or behaviours, rather than being seen to make any judgement of a person. Feedback should focus on the effects of the behaviour. Feedback should be given when the person appears ready to accept it. Feedback should include only things that the person can do something about. Feedback should never cover more issues than a person can handle at any one time. Properly given feedback should give people the opportunity to check that they have understood it properly.

The Role of Reflection With all the types of learning discussed so far, one crucial component common to all is the process of reflection. As long as individuals choose not to ignore an experience and therefore reflect on it, they are beginning the real process of learning. While reflection is often seen as an individual activity, in practice it

36

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

can also take the form of a social activity. Indeed Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) describe it in terms of a social interaction in which individuals develop new explicit knowledge out of tacit knowledge (tacit and explicit knowledge will be dealt with in Chapter 4). A process of collective reflection and discussion can help individuals to refine an idea (tacit knowledge) which they may not be well able to articulate into something more concrete (explicit knowledge). As with many other aspects of adult learning, reflection has been studied from a number of perspectives, using differing but often overlapping terms. For this chapter, the emphasis will be on what is called critical reflection, as the term captures the notion of reviewing past experience with a view to improving future experience.

Critical Reflection According to van Woerkom (2004), within the field of Human Resource Development (HRD) critical reflection is seen to have an instrumental function in relation to problem solving, as well as an ‘emancipatory’ role in helping individuals make free choices in their relationship with their organization. Critical reflection is about taking time and stepping back to see an experience in a broader context, and to question the beliefs, goals and practices underlying that experience. The process is characterized by a number of elements, outlined by York-Barr et al. (2001). They include: • • • •

a deliberate slowing down to consider multiple perspectives maintaining an open perspective active and conscious processing of thoughts examination of beliefs, goals and practices.

Within today’s fast-moving organizations, it is easy to see how these conditions can be difficult to achieve. Considering multiple perspectives (in solving a new problem, for example) requires time and mental space, and perhaps a high degree of autonomy in one’s work to enable it to happen. Similarly, an open perspective, which enables the consideration of alternative points of view, particularly those that seem counter-intuitive, can be difficult to maintain when the pressure is on. Yet to process thoughts actively and consciously requires all of the above. Finally, re-examining the beliefs, goals and practices underlying a course of action forces one to consider whether the action taken (theory-in-use) is in keeping with what is seen as appropriate (the espoused theory). Espoused theory and theory-in-use will be discussed later in the chapter. The importance of critically reflecting on performance was examined in a study by van Woerkom (2003). She first operationalized critically reflective work behaviour in terms of seven activities carried out individually or in interaction with others – reflection, experimentation, learning from mistakes, career awareness,

Learning as a Social Process

37

critical opinion sharing, asking for feedback and challenging groupthink. She found evidence that critically reflective work behaviour has positive effects on individuals and organizations, through the development of competencies that enable them to challenge and change work practices.

Critical Reflection in Practice As suggested earlier, while reflection is primarily an individual cognitive process, it can often be more effective when it takes place in the company of one or more others. In this regard, Gray (2007) presents a range of processes that can be used in organizational settings to facilitate critical reflection. Some of the main ones in use are discussed below.

Storytelling This process is often seen either in a one-to-one situation, such as a coaching session, or indeed where a ‘story’ is being told to a wider audience, such as a team or a group of fellow professionals. The story is usually the articulation of a particular problem (which may or may not have been solved), and its meaning can be explored (jointly, in the case of a coaching session) or by means of questions from an audience in the wider scenario. The benefits of storytelling are that it enables questioning of attitudes, feelings and behaviours that contribute to our decision making, while at the same time summarizing the learning from an incident into more memorable form. However, for the benefit to be truly felt, the storyteller (reflector) must be honest, and in particular, critical of themselves where necessary.

Reflective conversations Typical of what occurs in coaching and particularly mentoring contexts, a reflective conversation involves the telling of a story, the relating of an event, with the coach or mentor there to listen, to ask questions, to criticise or to give advice. Once again, the discussion of critical incidents and how they were handled provides the basis for the reflection. The hoped-for outcome of this process is the provision of new insights to a problem, new perspectives to understand it, or indeed new options for solving it.

Reflective dialogue A reflective dialogue very often takes place in group settings, and typically involves a facilitator. Participants are encouraged to discuss, to support and to challenge viewpoints, assumptions and assertions. It follows essentially the same process as a reflective conversation, although the (usually) greater number of participants

38

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

means that there is more likely to be debate and disagreement. As long as this disagreement is constructive, it will add to the process. The telling of stories is at the heart of each of the three processes just described. By challenging the assertions and assumptions of the storyteller, as well as offering support for points of view from one’s own experience, the meaning of the experience being discussed is explored and learning thus enhanced. A number of tools exist to facilitate this activity. For example, analysis of ‘critical incidents’ (also a well-established qualitative research technique, discussed in Chapter 8) can highlight actions taken, their consequences, and the resulting learning. Significant learning can also be derived from the use of a ‘reflective journal’, which although an individual activity to begin with, can facilitate learning in a wider group if thoughts are shared.

Box 3.3 Completing a Reflective Journal To enhance their skills in reflection, learners are typically asked to provide a record of up to 10 experiences together with a reflection on the learning that was achieved as a result of that experience. The experiences can be from work, home or leisure, and ideally come from a variety of sources. It works best if it includes some or all of: a description of the experience; the learner’s responses to this experience; feelings, thoughts and ideas; action-tendencies; behaviour; and learning. A sample format, involving an individual being asked to make a presentation to the senior management team, is shown.

• • • •

•

My feelings: I was really nervous about the event. I had never presented at this level before and I was afraid about making a fool of myself in front of the group My thoughts: How would I cope? How would I remember what I had to say? What would they think of me? My action-tendencies: I considered asking my boss to ask someone else My behaviour: I decided to practise the presentation at home and to record myself making it. I did it on my own first and then I asked my sister, who had lots of experience of making presentations, to listen to me. I was fine on the day. I forgot a few things but nobody noticed and there was very favourable comment afterwards on some of the ideas I was putting forward My learning: I now know that I can do this but that I will need to practise until I gain more confidence and to take advantage of opportunities that come my way. My timing is a bit off – I tend to speak too quickly when I’m nervous so I need to watch that

Situated Learning As seems clear by now, reflection is an essential part of the learning process. However, discussions on learning in general and reflection in particular tend to address them as abstract concepts, as something that takes place away from the

Learning as a Social Process

39

learning activity and (mostly) inside the learner’s head. Situated learning broadens the description, and sees learning as not just about developing knowledge, but also involving a process of ‘understanding who we are and in which communities of practice we belong and are accepted’ (Handley et al. 2007: 644). Thus the learning process and the situation in which it takes place are seen as inseparable. The community (in which what is practised is learned, and what is learned is practised) is the context in which learning takes place, and individuals bring to that community their own values and norms which of course may conflict or complement one another. In a related way, the practice of action learning also takes place within a community (often called the action learning set), and brings to it those same values and norms. In both instances, the context in which learning takes place is integral to the learning process. Both processes will be discussed in more detail shortly.

Situated Learning and the Transfer of Learning Problem The notion of situating learning in its context has important implications for organizational learning. A great deal of learning interventions in organizations are still individually focused, with a strong reliance on the classroom as a learning environment. While there is also an implicit assumption that individual learning automatically leads to organizational learning, research shows that the rate of ‘learning transfer’ (transfer back to the workplace and maintenance over time) is typically very low. Learning transfer is an important concept and will be discussed further in Chapter 6. Situating learning in the workplace is one way of minimizing the learning transfer problem, as many of the barriers to transfer such as organizational climate or lack of management support exist in the workplace itself (Kirwan 2009), causing difficulties with both transition and maintenance.

Single- and Double-loop Learning The interaction of problem-based practice, individual reflection and collaborative learning is at the centre of situated learning. Despite this, and the fact that in situated learning problems with learning transfer are minimized, learning doesn’t always occur as effectively as it might. In this context, Argyris (1991) discusses a construct he has developed to explain why many organizations do not make the most of the opportunities this approach provides. He distinguishes between a number of different types of learning, in particular what he calls single- and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning is said to occur when an individual or group solves a problem, but without questioning the cause of the problem. To take an example, a trained customer service agent may follow company policy, and refund without quibble the price paid by a customer who bought an appliance

40

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

that doesn’t work. From the customer’s positive reaction in situations like this, she’s learned that it pays dividends to behave that way. Therefore, every time someone returns that appliance, they go away happy. This is fine up to a point, but no doubt costly in terms of replacement. What is occurring here is single-loop learning – solving a problem but without questioning the assumptions underlying it. If instead she were in a position to question why so many of the same appliance are being returned (and not all organizations are very good at allowing this to happen), then the company might be able to discover what the underlying problem is, whether it be technical, transport or whatever. The process of investigating underlying causes with a view to finding a more permanent solution is at the heart of double-loop learning.

Theories of Action and Worldviews Argyris and Schon (1974) first drew attention to a situation in organizations which may affect the extent to which double-loop learning takes place. They proposed two theories of action, relating to the difference between what people say they do, or would like others to think they do (espoused theory) on the one hand, and what they actually do (theory-in-use) on the other. For example, managers of people are highly unlikely to admit that developing the skills of their employees through training is a bad thing (espoused theory), but yet will almost always cancel their attendance at learning events when such events conflict with (real or imagined) operational requirements. In the same context, once again Argyris (1977) identifies another condition that exists in many organizations and which also has an inhibiting effect on double-loop learning. He differentiates between what he calls Model I and Model II worldviews. The Model I worldview, he suggests, is both competitive and defensive. In this view, the theory-in-use is one of control of tasks and the environment surrounding them, and winning at all costs. Should anything go wrong, the emphasis is on self-protection, discouraging enquiry and suppressing negativity, conditions which inhibit communication and promote defensiveness. He suggests that the predominant worldview in most organizations is closer to Model I, and interestingly observes that it can be particularly prevalent among professionals, where often their high level of intelligence and expertise (and the confidence that goes with it) can blind them to the possibility that they may be contributing to a problem they’re trying to solve. He equates a Model I worldview with the use of single-loop learning. The Model II worldview, on the other hand, is all about the provision of valid information to make decisions, free and informed choice and commitment. In such an environment, there tends to be a minimum of defensiveness, a greater amount of challenging of assumptions and a much greater likelihood of double-loop learning.

Learning as a Social Process

41

Situated Learning in Practice Learning interventions situated in participants’ own work have always been popular. For example, placing people in project teams or task forces or seconding them to different departments has long been a way of helping them get a better understanding of a new area of activity, such as marketing or finance, or to develop new skills such as selling or negotiating. These skills can be incorporated into a development plan and facilitated by coaching or other formal interventions. In addition, however, two situated and social learning processes that are attracting increasing attention – communities of practice and action learning – will now be discussed.

Communities of Practice The idea of ‘communities of practice’ (CoPs), mostly associated with the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) are a means of bridging the gap between learning events and the application of that learning. They can be defined as a learning environment where groups of people who share a common set of problems or a particular interest in a subject deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis. As such, it is deeply rooted in the constructivist tradition. In addition to being directly linked to practice, learning within such a community is also self-directed, two conditions that have already been seen as conducive to effective adult learning. Furthermore, the ongoing interaction provides a forum for the dissemination and validation of new knowledge. Communities of practice can exist for people managers, for project managers, for sales people, for users of specific IT applications, for personality test users, indeed almost any group of individuals that share common learning needs. Wenger (2000) suggests that communities can be defined along a number of dimensions which work together, and it is against these dimensions that effectiveness can be assessed. First, the community needs a level of learning energy. Important in this regard is the maintenance of a spirit of enquiry and the openness to opportunities to address gaps in its knowledge. Second, it needs a ‘depth of social capital’. This is about a sense of community and trust generated by interaction over time, and is critical in developing the ability of the community to address real problems that confront it. Finally, it needs a degree of selfawareness. The community must be able to reflect on how it’s developing, the skills and knowledge it’s acquiring, and how it makes decisions, reconsidering the assumptions on which they’re made if necessary (that is, engaging in double-loop learning). Brown and Duguid (1991) also discuss the need for workplace learning to be understood in the context of the communities being joined or formed – as they

42

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

say, the central issue is not learning about practice but becoming a practitioner. They argue that most training courses, and the conventional learning theory on which they tend to be based, emphasize the importance of abstract knowledge over practice and as a result separate learning from working. Instead, they argue for a concept of ‘learning-in-working’ to represent the evolution of learning through practice. In support of this, Ropes and Tholke (2010) point to some important shortcomings in the widespread assumption that individual learning inevitably leads to organizational learning. First, there is the issue of the focus of much formal learning. It still tends to concentrate on the knowledge aspect rather than the practice aspect, with consequent challenges for learning transfer. Second, they argue that learning takes place in a social system, and therefore others are affected in some way by one’s learning. For these reasons, they suggest that formalizing the social aspect of learning by developing communities of practice is one way of achieving more effective learning.

Communities of Practice in Operation The basis on which CoPs operate is as a self-directed social learning environment, focused on situated practice. New ideas, concepts, problems and issues can be introduced to the group, either by group members or by the organization. Central to the practice of CoPs is the narration of ‘war stories’, in essence the relation of critical incidents that describe what have turned out to be significant learning events. These stories, such as success in being awarded a contract against stiff opposition, or the handling of a sensitive interpersonal management issue, help shed light on particular issues, and in time act as a repository for accumulated wisdom. As a result, collective insights are developed and a shared understanding of problems, their causes and their solutions evolves (Brown and Duguid 1991). In this regard, Wenger (2000) describes the two particularly important components that continually interact to advance the learning of individuals and community members. They are competence and experience. Through interactions within and outside the group, members experience new situations, and bring insights and questions from that experience to the ‘community’, where they are examined, challenged, and either dismissed or integrated into the body of competence that the group collectively holds. Thus both the content (competence) and process (experience) of group functioning are involved. Although CoPs originally developed as spontaneous, self-directed entities, Borzillo, Probst and Raisch (2008) suggest that organizations can, if they take a balanced approach, construct and support such groups for greater organizational effectiveness. The balance to be struck is that between providing them with enough

Learning as a Social Process

43

support to make the most of them on the one hand, and controlling them too much, perhaps limiting their autonomy and creativity on the other. They suggest, based on research from a number of sources, that the necessary components for success include clear objectives, sponsorship (by key people in the organization), leadership roles (defined within the community), routines (processes for getting their work done), community boundary-spanning activities (links with other entities or communities to stimulate new thinking) and the use of measurements to assess their outputs.

Do Communities of Practice Work? It is difficult to determine whether CoPs improve organizational performance directly, as many other factors are involved. However, evidence from work by Chu and Khosla (2010) suggests that they can be instrumental in improvements on four dimensions. First, they maintain that CoPs promote responsiveness within the organization, in that they provide a forum for issues and problems within the community’s area of interest to be surfaced, discussed and responded to. Second, CoPs can enhance working efficiency through the sharing of knowledge, minimizing the need to ‘reinvent the wheel’. Third, CoPs facilitate innovative learning, by bringing together in the community varying degrees of experience and points of view. Finally, they propose that participation in CoPs increases the core competency of the members and of the group. Overall, therefore, it appears that these communities can play a role in the creation, retention and transfer of knowledge throughout the organization. Creation, retention and transfer of knowledge are the main aims of organizational learning, which is the subject of Chapter 4.

Box 3.4 Cultivating Communities of Practice Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) propose seven principles to guide the development of communities of practice in general. Many of them are directly relevant to organizational settings, so a short summary is presented here. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Design for evolution. Build on what’s already there when possible, and don’t be too prescriptive about the boundaries. Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives. Encourage interaction with similar and different communities to share learning and see more possibilities. Invite different levels of participation. The community will have different levels of interest and relevance for different people, but at least they can remain connected. Develop both public and private community spaces. The community should encourage the building of individual relationships as well as group events.

44

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

5. 6. 7.

Focus on value. Although not easily measurable, members should look for evidence that the community is contributing to personal or organizational development. Combine familiarity and excitement. Familiarity encourages openness, but it is necessary to challenge existing thinking at regular intervals to provoke new thinking. Create a rhythm for the community. Regular events and features keep it moving.

Action Learning Originating with the work of Reg Revans more than 60 years ago action learning, like communities of practice, is based around the notion that work and learning are hard if not impossible to separate. It also emphasizes the importance of reflection as an ongoing part of the process. Action learning interventions have two intended outcomes – the solving of organizational problems and the development of the participants engaged in doing so. As with other constructivist approaches, it seeks to bridge the gap between learning and its application by situating the learning directly in the context of the work. Indeed Revans himself positions it as ‘a simple and direct approach in adapting to the accelerating rate of change’(Revans 1998: 23). In many respects, an action learning intervention operates in a manner not unlike that of a community of practice. In a summary of the nature of action learning programmes, Smith and O’Neil (2003a, b), for example, describe them in terms of the following characteristics: • • • • • • •

Participants tackle real problems Participants meet in small stable learning groups Each set holds intermittent meetings over a fixed programme cycle Problems are relevant to a participant’s own workplace realities A supportive collaborative learning process is followed in a set The process is based on reflection, questioning, and refutation Participants take action between set meetings to resolve their problem.

Typically the process follows a cycle that involves actively working to make sense of a situation, implementing the solution they have constructed, experiencing the results of their actions, rethinking the situation based on the results and acting again. By working on unfamiliar problems in unfamiliar settings, fresh questions are induced. These questions unfreeze and shape underlying assumptions. As assumptions are questioned, they are either confirmed, modified or rejected, and new ‘mental models’ are created.

Learning as a Social Process

45

The link between the action learning process and learning application (transfer) lies in the philosophy of action learning, in which desired outcomes are the ‘doing of something different’, put succinctly by Johnson (1998: 297). Only when we can transfer our knowledge, skill, behaviours, beliefs, or insights to something practical, thus providing evidence that we are able to apply it, can we claim that we have really learned. In other words, learning is about changing.

Given this description, the value of action learning as a technique, particularly where complex skills and knowledge such as those involved in management roles are concerned, can be seen. In these situations there is a large degree of overlap between the learning situation and the application situation, so that many of the barriers to transfer that might otherwise be in place are already dealt with.

Does Action Learning Work? While action learning interventions may sometimes receive less favourable ratings from participants on some dimensions (Jennings 2002), their real-world learning credentials are in no doubt. Evaluations of action learning interventions (Wills and Oliver 1996; Yorks et al. 1998) have demonstrated various positive outcomes such as cost savings and value added from implementation of action learning projects, as well as other important personal learning outcomes. More recently, in a comprehensive summary of the outcomes of within-organization action learning programmes conducted in the previous 10 years, Leonard and Marquardt (2010) came to the following conclusions. Action learning, they say: • Develops broad leadership skills. • Improves the ability of managers to develop integrative solutions to conflict situations. • Depends for success on questioning, taking action, learning from group members, listening, group diversity, feelings of confidence and well-being, a safe environment, and the presence of a coach. • Involves team-level processes of skilled coaching, diversity, self-directed team processes, effective team presentations and review of team processes, as well as organization-level processes of ensuring implementation of solutions, alignment and importance of the problem, support of top decision makers and the leveraging of organizational resources.

46

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Box 3.5 Action Learning in Practice A very useful format for encouraging reflection on real-world issues in a group setting is the reflecting team. Based on a constructivist approach, the process brings the collective experience of the group members to bear on the particular problem under discussion. Once the group meets, it typically follows five steps. The entire process (Steps 1–5) should take no more than 30 minutes. Step 1 The ‘problem owner’ tells the group about the problem, issue or question. The group listens. Step 2 The group now asks clarifying questions. These may be to seek more detailed information regarding:

• The facts of the situation (who is involved; how long has the issue

been going on; what have you tried so far; what, who, where, when, how, etc.) • Feelings (how does x make you feel, why is y so difficult, etc.) At this stage, the problem owner listens. There is no discussion, and no advice is given yet. Step 3 The group members give their perception of the problem (how I see the problem is …; if I understand you correctly …; what strikes me about this is …). This step is just about airing perceptions, and different ways in which the issue might be looked at. The problem owner listens. Step 4 At this point, the problem owner may wish to reformulate the question, based on the questions and observations of the group so far. (e.g. what I particularly want advice on is …). Step 5 It is only at this stage that the group members give advice. This can be written on cards if desired. The advice is not discussed at this point.

The meeting just described is an example of an action learning set in operation, and is likely to be one of a number of meetings members will arrange, typically over a period of months. Following a catching-up, some agenda setting, establishment of ground rules and a review of progress since the last session (Pedler 2008) the set may then address one or more issues of relevance to individuals or the group as a whole. These issues must be ‘real’. The purpose of the initial round of questioning is to establish as much pertinent information about the case being discussed before making observations. The reason for stating observations rather than giving advice in the next step is to minimize defensiveness on the part of the ‘problem’ owner, but also to separate the diagnosis phase from the solution phase of the process. As each set member brings a different perspective to bear on the issue, they may have different observations, all of which are valid. It is only when the problem owner has absorbed all the perspectives offered and clarified the specific aspect of

Learning as a Social Process

47

the problem they would like advice on that it is presented. Of course the problem owner may accept it wholly, partly or not at all, but in any event needs to thank the members for offering it.

References Argyris, C. 1977. Double-loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–34. Argyris, C. 1991. Teaching smart people how to learn. Reflections, Winter 4(2), 4–15. Argyris, C. and Schon, D. 1974. Theory in Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baumgartel, H., Reynolds, M. and Pathan, R. 1984. How personality and organization-climate variables moderate the effectiveness of management development programmes: A review and some recent research findings. Management and Labour Studies, 9, 1–16. Borzillo, S., Probst, G. and Raisch, S. 2008. The governance paradox: Balancing autonomy and control in managing communities of practice. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1–6. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. Chiaburu, D.S. and Lindsay, D.R. 2008. Can do or will do? The importance of self-efficacy and instrumentality for training transfer. Human Resource Development International, 11(2), 199–206. Chu, M.T. and Khosla, R. 2010. Benchmarking of Communities of Practice Model for R&D Organizations. Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance, 73–82. Gibson, S.K. 2004. Social learning (cognitive) theory and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 193– 210. Gray, D.E. 2007. Facilitating management learning: Developing critical reflection through reflective tools. Management Learning, 38(5), 495–517. Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R. and Clark, T. 2007. Within and beyond communities of practice: Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 641–53. Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley. Jennings, D. 2002. Strategic management: An evaluation of the use of three learning methods. The Journal of Management Development, 21(9/10), 655–65. Johnson, C. 1998. The essential principles of action learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(6/7), 296–300.

48

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Kirwan, C. 2009. Improving Learning Transfer: A Guide to Getting More out of What You Put into Your Training. Farnham: Gower. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Leonard, H.S. and Marquardt, M.J. 2010. The evidence for the effectiveness of action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 7(2), 121–36. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Pedler, M. 2008. Action Learning for Managers. Farnham: Gower. Revans, R.W. 1998. ABC of Action Learning. London: Lemos and Crane. Ropes, D. and Tholke, J. 2010. Communities of practice: Finally a link between individual and organizational learning in management development programs. Proceedings of the European Conference on Intellectual Capital, 504–12. Rotter, J.B. 1954. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Smith, P.A. and O’Neil, J. 2003a. A review of action learning literature 1994– 2000: Part 2 – signposts into the literature. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(4), 154–66. Smith, P.A. and O’Neil, J. 2003b. A review of action learning literature 1994– 2000: Part 1 – bibliography and comments. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(2), 63–9. van Woerkom, M. 2003. Critical Reflection at Work. Bridging Individual and Organizational Learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. van Woerkom, M. 2004. The concept of critical reflection and its implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 178–92. Wenger, E. 2000. Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–46. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Wills, G. and Oliver, C. 1996. Measuring the ROI from management action learning. Management Development Review, 9(1), 17–21. York-Barr, J., Sommers W., Ghere, G. and Montie, J. 2001. Reflective Practice to Improve Schools: An Action Guide for Educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Yorks, L., O’Neil, J., Marsick, V.J., Lamm, S., Kolodny, R. and Nilson, G. 1998. Transfer of learning from an action–reflection–learning program. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 11(1), 59–73.

Chapter 4

Learning in Organizations

Introduction As we have seen in the previous chapters, learning can and does occur spontaneously, unintentionally and informally in all sorts of organizational situations. It can happen when people reflect on their experiences either individually or in collaboration with others, when people are thrown into situations where they have to think quickly to solve a problem, and when an organization’s managers experience the previously unforeseen consequences of a decision made. However, the focus in this chapter will be more about how the organization itself can seek to understand and facilitate the direction of this effort towards the dissemination of learning and ultimately organizational success. It is about the systems, practices, routines and relationships that promote the combination and exchange of knowledge necessary for success.

Background Although the construct of organizational learning has developed from a number of research perspectives, at its simplest it is seen as a change in an organization’s knowledge that occurs as a result of its experience. This may be expressed, according to Easterby-Smith, Crossan and Nicollini (2000), in terms of changes in beliefs (cognitions) or changes in actions (behaviours). Put simply, organizational learning makes organizations do things differently, or at least think about them differently. Heraty and Morley (2008) suggest that within the literature, organizational learning issues have tended to converge around a number of themes. They include development of a shared vision of what the organization is about, translated into strategies for action; an organization structure that develops systems and routines that facilitate learning and shared understanding; and a commitment to continuous individual and group learning and development. These characteristics are managed within an infrastructure that promotes and rewards learning. All of these themes will be dealt with in the course of the chapter.

50

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Organizational learning begins with individual learning, the latter being a necessary but not sufficient condition for the former to occur. Learning processes at both an individual and a social level were the focus of Chapters 2 and 3. Organizational learning processes are those that enable such individual learning (which may be either tacit or explicit) to be made accessible to other organization members. Before moving on, the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge should be clarified. Nonaka (2007) describes tacit knowledge as highly personal, hard to formalize and therefore difficult to pass on to others. While it includes some particular technical skills, it is often the case that a person with a high degree of tacit knowledge can’t articulate what it is they really know, it being based on a combination of ingrained, taken-for-granted beliefs and perspectives. A person who always seems to know just the right thing to do in a crisis, but who can’t articulate how they know, is probably someone with a high degree of tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is usually formal and systematic, and can easily be communicated to others. For example, procedures manuals for dealing with emergencies specifically state how they should be responded to. In effect these manuals are repositories of explicit knowledge. According to the framework of McGrath and Argote (2001), knowledge is embedded in the three basic elements of organizations – members (the people in the organization), tools (the hardware, software and other aspects of technology) and tasks (the organization’s purpose, goals and intentions). Combinations of these elements form sub-networks, such as social networks (member–member), division of labour (member–task) and organizational routines (task–task). According to the framework, organizational performance is related to the internal compatibility of these sub-networks and their external compatibility with other sub-networks. For example, a member–member network such as a community of practice (discussed in Chapter 3) creates organizational knowledge through its activities and exchanges. A member–task network develops knowledge by building specialized skill through the performance of increasingly complex tasks (which is facilitated by specialization). The development of new surgical procedures is an example of this type of network in action, where the expertise of the surgeon and the challenges presented by the procedure interact. And task–task networks build up stores of knowledge through the data gathered in the formation of organizational routines, such as when information collected by, say, a mobile phone company during the billing process (e.g. consumption, usage patterns) can interact with sales and marketing routines to target customers more efficiently. The role of each of these different elements in organizational learning will now be discussed. The structure proposed by Argote and Miron-Spektor (2011), who have categorized organizational learning into three subprocesses – creating, retaining and transferring knowledge – will be used to do so.

Learning in Organizations

51

Creating Knowledge Discussion around the creation of organizational knowledge often takes place in the context of innovation and creativity, and the organizational conditions that foster them. Innovation can be described simply as ‘the production or emergence of a new idea’ (Gupta, Tesluk and Taylor 2007: 886). They suggest these new ideas may be technology, product, process or other ideas, and may emerge at any level in an organization. They also suggest that innovation is not just about the idea itself, but also the process that gives rise to it.

Individual Influences on Creativity For instance, creativity is often seen as an individual personality trait (in contrast to innovation, which tends to be seen as an organizational characteristic). On that level, Hirst, Knippenberg and Zhou (2009) came up with some interesting findings on the relationship between what is called an individual’s goal orientation and team creativity. Goal orientation (Dweck and Leggett 1988) can be one of two types – a learning orientation, where the emphasis is on mastering a task; or a performance orientation, where an individual is more concerned with not performing any worse than others. In situations where team members possess a learning orientation and team processes promote creativity, innovation will be enhanced. Amabile (1997) suggests the particular importance of three influences on individual creativity – expertise, creative thinking skills and intrinsic task motivation. Expertise in this case is a combination of appropriate technical skills in areas such as engineering, finance or marketing, as well as experience, developed over time, in solving problems in those areas. Creative thinking skills may include a cognitive style that is conducive to looking at problems in different ways, as well as the development of techniques for doing so. Finally, the degree of intrinsic task motivation will determine the extent to which individuals will engage their expertise and their creative thinking skills to produce a creative product or idea.

Group Influences on Creativity Creativity has also been studied at group level, with group composition and group processes the primary focus of attention. In terms of group composition, Taylor and Greve (2006) found evidence that teams with a larger number of members, more diverse experience and a longer history of working together achieved not just higher performance, but higher variations in performance. The issue of direct versus indirect experience has also received attention (Gino et al. 2010), with the conclusion that a team or unit directly involved in solving problems will promote creativity and learning through the development of transactive memory systems (to be discussed later in the chapter). This finding of course is an argument for the use of various forms of experiential learning, discussed in previous chapters.

52

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

As regards group processes, while it might be expected that organizational routines inhibit creativity, Feldman and Pentland (2003) suggest that some can actually facilitate it and be a source of flexibility and change. They argue that routines are usually carried out by people, with different information, different preferences and different interpretations of what they’re dealing with, and that they interact with other routines in ways that are not always predictable. For these reasons, organizational routines always have the potential for change. Furthermore, some organizational routines and practices, such as openness to new ideas, willingness to experiment, and a supportive learning environment facilitate the creation of knowledge (Garvin, Edmondson and Gino 2008). Routines and practices also have an important role in retaining knowledge, and will be discussed in more detail shortly. At group level the influence of social networks on knowledge creation is another area of interest to researchers. Issues of relevance here are the strength of ties (frequency of interactions between members) between the networks and the density or sparsity (the number of ties interacting members have with other members) of the network. According to work by McFayden, Semadeni and Cannella (2009) stronger ties and sparser networks lead to greater knowledge creation. Of particular interest in this regard also (e.g. Kane and Alavi 2007) is the role of knowledge management tools such as online communities of practice in fostering creativity and innovation. As these communities and other social networks have

Box 4.1 Encouraging Creativity – is Brainstorming Useful? Since its introduction by Osborn (1957), the technique of brainstorming is often promoted in the search for creative ideas and solutions. But is it all it’s cracked up to be? Its four rules are well known – generate quantity; avoid criticism; combine and improve on previous ideas; and encourage freewheeling. However, a recent review of the literature on the effectiveness of brainstorming (Litchfield 2008) has revealed some interesting findings. For instance, there is a small amount of evidence that suggests individuals may in fact produce a greater number of ideas than groups, although people may feel better about their productivity when working in groups. On the issue of ‘no criticism’, conflicting findings have emerged, suggesting that the rule is not as simple as it sounds. Some people, it appears, may be inhibited by a feeling that their ideas will be criticised anyway, despite the rule, and may self-censor. Furthermore, the rule may be interpreted as lack of any constructive comment, which may also inhibit contributions. On the question of building on other ideas, it makes sense that the more categories that exist the higher will be the number of ideas generated. Finally, the encouragement of freewheeling in practice comes back to the dilemma between originality and feasibility. In organizations, both are usually required, which tends to inhibit brainstorming in its purest sense. Nevertheless, Litchfield offers some advice on how to get the best from brainstorming, by offering a goalbased view. He suggests idea generation would be more productive if the brainstorming session facilitator specified whether ideas should be innovative, practical or both. These goals could perhaps be specified at different stages of the process, adding a structure to the event without overly constraining it.

Learning in Organizations

53

an even more important role in knowledge retention and knowledge transfer, they will be discussed in that context later in the chapter.

Influences at Organizational Level At an organizational level, research on knowledge creation has mostly considered technological innovation, development of new products and services and the effects of interorganizational linkages. As these factors are somewhat outside the scope of this book, they will not be dealt with here. However, based on evidence from other aspects of organizational functioning, it would not be surprising to find that the work environment in which these individuals and groups work affects creativity and knowledge creation. An important study by Amabile (1997) highlighted a number of factors that either stimulate or obstruct creativity, and linked them to individual and team creativity discussed earlier. In her ‘componential theory of organizational creativity and innovation’ she suggests that these factors, which include management practices, resources and organizational motivation influence creativity through their influence on individuals’ and teams’ expertise, task motivation and creativity skills, as discussed above. These factors provide a useful summary of the effects of the work environment on creativity and innovation, and are described in Table 4.1. Table 4.1

Work environment effects on creativity

Organizational encouragement

An organizational culture that encourages creativity through the fair, constructive judgement of ideas, reward and recognition for creative work, mechanisms for developing new ideas, an active flow of ideas, and a shared vision of what the organization is trying to do

Supervisory encouragement

A supervisor who serves as a good work model, sets goals appropriately, supports the work group, values individual higher contributions and shows confidence in the work group

Work group supports

A diversely skilled work group in which people communicate well, are open to new ideas, constructively challenge each other’s work, trust and help each other and feel committed to the work they are doing

Sufficient resources

Access to appropriate resources, including funds, materials, facilities and information

Challenging work

A sense of having to work hard on challenging tasks and important projects

Freedom

Freedom in deciding what work to do or how to do it; a sense of control over one’s work

Organizational impediments

An organizational culture that impedes creativity through internal political problems, harsh criticism of new ideas, destructive internal competition, an avoidance of risk and an overemphasis on the status quo

Workload pressure

Extreme time pressures, unrealistic expectations for productivity and distractions from creative work

54

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

What is clear from the list in Table 4.1 is the necessity for a number of conditions to be in place at the same time. Fostering creativity requires support and encouragement from peers, managers and the organization in general. This suggests the creation of a culture of innovation, which will need to be carefully nurtured to ensure that it doesn’t impede the process. Openness, freedom of communication, dialogue and trust are just some of the conditions that must exist. Finally, a balance between work that is challenging and a situation in which work pressures or lack of resources force a concentration on operational rather than strategic issues must be sought.

Retaining Knowledge Knowledge produced from responding to learning opportunities needs to be retained over time for it to be considered organizational learning. To retain knowledge, organizations need ‘knowledge repositories’, that is, locations where that knowledge is stored. Individual employees can be knowledge repositories, given that through their experience they have developed expertise and ways of looking at and solving problems. Repositories can also be found in roles and organizational structures – for instance, marketing departments may collect a variety of customer information, such as what types of people are buying particular products, which can be then be used to develop new ones. Standard operating procedures are another. These procedures are usually the culmination of how best to complete certain tasks (lean manufacturing, for example) and incorporate iterations of best practice. Perhaps less tangibly but no less important, the culture of an organization will have within it values and artefacts that provide guidance on how to succeed. Knowledge may be ‘embedded’ either in these structures and processes or in the heads of individual organization members (Argote and Ingram 2000). In general, research has focused on three aspects of knowledge retention – organizational members, organizational routines and what are called transactive memory systems.

Organizational Members Having people in an organization who act as ‘knowledge repositories’ can be a great advantage as well as a great challenge, as their knowledge is mostly of the tacit variety referred to earlier. The advantage is obvious – individual have immediate access to frameworks, templates and solutions to organizational problems by virtue of their experience. The disadvantage of course is trying to get that knowledge out of their heads, and making it available for use by others. This issue will be discussed more fully in terms of knowledge transfer, for which it has important implications. The concept of ‘organizational forgetting’ (de Holan and Philips 2004) is also relevant in this respect, as knowledge inevitably decays over time, and evidence in the literature supports this contention. The decay can be

Learning in Organizations

55

accidental forgetting, through shortcomings in organizational ‘memory systems’, or purposeful forgetting to enable new thinking to emerge, and may involve new or established knowledge. Of course the more established the knowledge, the greater will be the decay of (mostly tacit) knowledge attributable to turnover of those organizational members. The effect of turnover As would be expected, turnover of members has both positive and negative consequences for organizations. On the positive side, turnover can allow new thinking and ways of doing things into the organization. Dissatisfied individuals may leave for opportunities elsewhere, and be replaced by those with different strengths and/or greater levels of motivation. On the negative side, turnover can have differing effects, depending in particular on structural issues. Rao and Argote (2006) for example examined how knowledge embedded in an organization’s structure can protect the organization from the disruption caused by turnover. They found that turnover affected the performance of organizations where groups were low in structure (where there were no roles or routines) more than those that were highly structured (with specialized roles and routines). This research supports earlier work by Carley (1992) which found evidence suggesting that while teams in general (less structured) learn faster and better than hierarchies (more structured), the latter are less affected by high turnover rates. Finally, Shaw et al. (2005), in a study of turnover and organizational performance, demonstrated that the loss of ‘social capital’ (created when relationships facilitate action among people and lost when turnover disrupts communication networks and hinders action) through turnover increasingly impedes performance.

Routines Organizational routines are essentially patterns of activities – the repetitive, interdependent actions – in which an organization engages to carry out its function. Organizations may have routines for recruitment and selection, for training and development, for constructing their annual budget, for developing new products or services, and so on. They are commonly thought of in terms of structure, and therefore stability, but Feldman and Pentland (2003), for example, argue that they also possess a dynamic aspect, in particular the reflective actions built in to the process (either consciously or unconsciously) that enable changes to be made to the routine to enable it to overcome problems it encounters. To take an example, an organization’s initial customer service training programme may have become very refined, due to the volume of staff joining. However, by periodically reviewing its delivery, incorporating changes in customer behaviour, using the experience of participants, and so on, it can become a stable but flexible operation.

56

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Transactive Memory Systems Transactive memory is a concept developed by Wegner (1986) to describe a shared system that people in close relationships develop for encoding, storing and retrieving information in different domains. It is based on the premise that individuals cannot possess all of the knowledge they need to do their work, but become specialized in different domains. This type of arrangement is quite typical of cross-functional project teams, which may contain design, engineering and marketing professionals for example. As everybody in the group doesn’t have to know everything, knowledge can be stored more efficiently in the group than it could in individuals. In one study on this subject using computational modelling, Ren, Carley and Argote (2006) explored the relationship between transactive memory and group performance. Group performance was defined in this case along two dimensions – time taken to complete tasks, and the quality of group operation. They found that factors such as group size, task environment and knowledge environment have significant effects. In terms of the time taken, large groups in dynamic and volatile environments (characteristic of many of today’s work environments) benefit more from knowing what others know than small groups and groups in stable environments. This makes sense, as the more that is going on, the more knowledge is generated in the process. In terms of the quality of group operation, however, small groups benefit more from transactive memory than larger groups. This can be explained by the fact that each group member is more closely involved in the transactions, and thus in a position to learn more directly.

Box 4.2 Capturing Tacit Knowledge A perennial problem for organizations is what to do when experienced people leave. The loss of a wealth of knowledge and skills that have been developed over a period of years is a major issue especially in difficult economic climates, when organizations worldwide shed large numbers of staff. The knowledge lost is very likely to be of the tacit variety. Ambrosini and Bowman (2001) summarize the characteristics of tacit knowledge as difficult to write down or formalize, personal, practical and context-specific. This of course makes it difficult to get at. Nevertheless, they suggest a number of ways in which this can be achieved, depending on what they call the ‘degree of tacitness’. They argue that in between the extremes of very explicit knowledge that can easily be communicated and deeply ingrained (tacit) knowledge that cannot, is tacit knowledge that can be articulated, albeit not always perfectly. To elicit this, they suggest the use of ‘causal maps’. This is a primarily skill-focused process that highlights issues of importance and the links between them. During the process, respondents are asked to reflect on what they (successfully) do, and pressed to explain why, which uncovers their reasoning on what may have up to now been taken for granted. The process can be undertaken with either a semi-structured interview, or indeed by means of a self-questioning technique in which

Learning in Organizations

57

participants essentially interview themselves (this can minimize interviewer bias). In this way constructs of importance are elicited. A summary of the process includes:

• • • •

Preliminary interviews about what causes success (from the point of view of the respondent) Setting up the map with the preliminary constructs as starting points Beginning the process with questions such as: ‘What causes that? ‘How does it happen?’ If necessary, asking further questions such as: ‘Could you give me an example?’

Transferring Knowledge Argote and Ingram (2000) define knowledge transfer as the process through which one unit (e.g. group, department or division) is affected by the experience of another. The role of members, tools and tasks and the sub-networks formed by combination of these three elements has already been discussed in terms of creating and retaining knowledge. As far as transferring knowledge is concerned, they suggest that this can be achieved in principle by either moving or modifying the knowledge repositories (reservoirs) or the sub-networks. However, this can present difficulties because effectiveness in organizational learning depends on the compatibility between the basic elements described. It becomes even more complicated in trying to move or modify networks, as exact conditions are next to impossible to replicate. Having said that, for tacit knowledge in particular, moving members can be a powerful way of facilitating knowledge transfer in organizations, as they bring their tacit (as well as their explicit) knowledge with them to the new context. In that regard, work by Gruenfeld, Martorana and Fan (2000) produced interesting if somewhat conflicting results. They found that moving individual members between groups didn’t necessarily result in ideas moving directly from their original group to their new group. However, it was more likely that when those members moved back to their original group, significantly more unique ideas were generated by both themselves and other members of the original group. Despite this, however, they found that the ideas generated by those returning members were less likely to be used. Although more work is needed to explain such outcomes, they definitely suggest that temporary group changes can have significant effects on group-level learning, particularly in terms of the amount of influence exerted by members moving between groups. For explicit knowledge, perhaps the surest chance of success lies in the transfer of knowledge that is codified and embedded in routines, particularly technological ones. This type of knowledge has been found to transfer more readily than knowledge not embedded in technology, particularly where the technology is not complex, and is well understood. Even for non-technological routines, repeated use of the

58

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

routine facilitates learning and knowledge transfer. For example, a personnel selection process (routine) for external recruitment could involve a review of applications, setting up of an interview schedule, conducting the interviews and selection of the successful candidate(s). Over time, suppose it becomes apparent that there are significantly more ‘no-shows’ for morning interviews than for afternoon interviews. Examination of the pattern might uncover that most of those not showing up for morning interviews live more than 50 kilometres away. A simple change to afternoon interviews for candidates in that position could solve the problem. In that case, knowledge has been transferred through use of the routine, and becomes part of the routine from then on.

Factors Affecting Knowledge Transfer Attention has focused on what factors affect the degree of knowledge transfer in organizations. Not surprisingly, it has been demonstrated (e.g. Darr and Kurtzberg 2000) that the similarity of the task environment (between units) has been shown to improve knowledge transfer. This would explain how knowledge transfers more readily across organizations that are embedded in a network, such as a franchise or chain, than it does across independent organizations. Also, Szulanski (2000) found a number of factors influencing transfer. First, the reliability of the source (the degree to which recipients of the new knowledge trust where it has come from) predicted difficulty of transfer during the initiation stage of the transfer process. Second, the recipient’s ability to absorb knowledge affected difficulty during the implementation stage of the process. And finally the ‘causal ambiguity’ of the knowledge, that is, the extent to which it is not well understood by the recipient, predicted the difficulty of transfer throughout all phases of the transfer process, with greater ambiguity resulting in greater difficulty. The message here would appear to be that unambiguous knowledge, as part of familiar routines and from trusted sources, stands the best chance of being readily accepted into existing practices.

Social Networks Characteristics of social networks also affect the degree of knowledge transfer. Either strong (higher degree of social contact) or weak ties (infrequent and distant relationships) between units can promote transfer, the former being more important where the knowledge is difficult to codify, as is the case with tacit knowledge. In addition to tie strength, the effect of social cohesion has also been studied (Reagans and McEvily 2003). Although in their view both characteristics affect an individual’s motivation to share knowledge they distinguish between the two, arguing that while tie strength is more about relationships between individuals, cohesion has more to do with links to mutual third parties, whose existence strengthens the likelihood of cooperation. As so much of the knowledge in organizations is tacit in nature, and

Learning in Organizations

59

such knowledge is inevitably more difficult to transfer, the idea that higher degrees of social contact facilitate the process is particularly important. It may happen easily in work teams or communities of practice (both forms of social network), but may require more effort where individuals don’t actually work together. The development of stronger relationships between individuals generates trust in the reliability of the source of the knowledge as well as reducing its causal ambiguity, both of which have just been discussed.

Absorptive Capacity In Chapter 1 the constructivist model underlying learning was discussed, emphasizing the importance of building on prior knowledge at individual and group levels. At an organizational level, this is also important. For an organization or organizational unit to first recognize and then assimilate new knowledge is an important aspect of effectiveness. This is its absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 1990), and is based on the level of prior knowledge it possesses. Absorptive capacity refers not only to the acquisition or assimilation of information by an organization or organizational unit but also to their ability to exploit it. It is possible that knowledge transfer can negatively affect the performance of the recipient unit, if the knowledge (such as a set of routines) to be transferred is inappropriate for the new context, or cannot be adapted (e.g. Baum and Ingram 1998). This is not surprising, as we have seen in earlier chapters the importance of the ‘situated’ nature of learning and knowledge. Finally, a metaanalytic review by van Wijk, Jansen and Lyles (2008) confirms the importance of the factors described above (characteristics of the knowledge, the organizations and the networks) in facilitating transfer within and between organizations. In terms of implications, they (like others) recommend that organizations seeking to improve knowledge transfer need to focus particularly on developing strong and trustworthy relationships between units. As well as fostering co-operation these relationships will also support the transfer of ambiguous knowledge. At the same time, they are helping to improve absorptive capacity, an important organizational characteristic in helping the assimilation and application of knowledge.

60

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Box 4.3 Knowledge Transfer in Practice It is clear that the movement of people between units of an organization can play an important role in the transfer of knowledge within that organization. Below are some practical options to be considered. Action

Consequences

Second individuals to other units or departments

Individuals bring their own set of skills to the new environment. Exposure to other types of knowledge challenges their own, adjusting their ‘mental models’. They bring those refined mental models, as well as specific subject matter expertise, back to their original environment

Place individuals on project teams or task forces

Similar consequences to secondments, but have the advantage of having use of a review/reflective process built into the work of the project team

Move intact project teams on to new projects

The team uses its collective experience to address new problems, generating new learning in the process

‘Pair up’ individuals with different sets of skills

One can learn from the other, either through vicarious learning or direct experience

Regular review in current job

Even without moving anyone, the conducting of regular ‘learning reviews’ can highlight significant learning from current performance. Can be operated like a community of practice or action learning set

The Role of e-Learning The role of technology in organizational learning, particularly in the retention and transfer of knowledge, has been highlighted earlier in this chapter. For example, technology itself plays a big part as a tool in the performance of tasks. And we have seen that in the sub-networks (interactions) between members, tools and tasks it can contribute to organizational learning. At another level, technology has also been used to assist in the development of organizational skills and knowledge for quite some time. The rate at which new applications with the potential to transform what we learn and how we learn it is staggering. While there are almost no limitations on the possibilities for the use of different technologies in facilitating learning, the challenge for those in the world of learning and development is to ensure that the important principles of learning, articulated in earlier chapters, are not compromised in a rush to find applications for the latest technology.

Learning in Organizations

61

What is e-Learning? In a review of the academic and practitioner literature on e-learning, Bondarouk and Ruel (2010) describe it as any learning situation which uses computer network technology, primarily through Intranets or the Internet, when and where it is required. Although the development of e-learning has opened up a huge range of other learning possibilities, it still tends to be thought of in terms of on-line delivery of or support for training courses of some description. It is this particular aspect that will be the focus of the remainder of the chapter. In e-learning contexts a distinction is usually made between different models – synchronous and asynchronous. With synchronous learning, the tutor and the learner need to be present (albeit virtually) at the same time. One example is a ‘chat room’ or instant messaging forum where participants may listen to input, ask questions and discuss issues (either verbally or in written form) although they may be in different physical locations. With asynchronous learning, simultaneous presence at the ‘session’ is not a factor, and the form of communication will be written, such as through e-mail or message boards. Indeed much of the development in e-learning to date has been around asynchronous learning, which offers great flexibility for participants in when and how they learn. However, with technological advances, the distinction between synchronous and asynchronous learning is becoming blurred, as a growing trend in organizations is to use what is called a blended learning approach. This combines one form with the other, and indeed may also include more traditional classroom components as well.

Some Research on e-Learning Different aspects of the use of e-learning technology and how participants interact with it have been studied. Garavan et al. (2010) looked at a range of personal and motivational factors affecting participation in e-learning. Not surprisingly, they found motivation to learn to be significantly related to participation, with important implications for matching the e-learning programme to participants’ needs. Research has also been undertaken on the role of the ‘instructor’, as developments in e-learning have caused a rethink of their role. What Hernandez, Gorjup and Cascon (2010) found, in a comparison of online and face-to-face modes of learning, was that the role of the instructor was seen as more relevant and more valuable by those learning through the latter mode. This may have something to do with the level of control experienced by the learner, although a study by Fisher, Wasserman and Orvis (2010) found that while learners strongly favoured having control over their learning, outcomes were more affected by the complexity of the training content.

62

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

What are the Advantages of Using e-Learning? The growth in e-learning as a response to organizational learning needs has been driven by a number of factors. Reviews by Welsh et al. (2003) and by Derouin, Fritzsche and Salas (2005) summarize the main reasons organizations are likely to engage in e-learning. First of all, e-learning is seen to provide a consistent training experience that can be delivered anywhere, and indeed any time. For example, a multinational company may have a need to deliver a co-ordinated message regarding health and safety policy or corporate values. Putting that message on a formal e-learning footing will ensure that the message reaches its destination without being subject to a range of different interpretations. Second, the time within which an e-learning programme can be delivered is potentially much shorter than that for a traditional face-to-face programme. The same event can be delivered simultaneously in many locations, and thus can be very useful for acquiring data that is time-sensitive. Third, for this and for other reasons, training via e-learning can be more convenient for the learner. The need for all learners (or at least a group of learners) to be gathered in the one place is diminished, as is the need to travel long distances to a central location. Furthermore, the learning can be engaged with at any time of the day. Related to the previous point, the learner is also in a position to have greater control over the pace of learning, as most programmes enable the learner to stop and start when they wish. Fourth, and perhaps as a result of this, e-learning can reduce overloading the learner with information. A fifth important advantage of e-learning, from an organizational point of view, is the ease with which involvement, progress and completion of modules can be monitored. Finally, once an e-learning programme has been developed, the costs of running it tend to be very small, and consequently can result in significantly lower delivery costs.

What are the Disadvantages? On the other hand, effective e-learning programmes are not usually cheap to produce, may require bespoke software to be developed and can take a while to get from the idea stage to the implementation stage. For this reason they are unlikely to be a quick answer to an organizational learning issue. A second criticism often levelled at e-learning programmes is that they don’t engender the sort of peer interaction that is so often found useful, particular in the realms of social cognitive and constructivist approaches (although blended learning approaches can offset some of these disadvantages). Third is a possible perception that learning is taking place merely by the fact that information is being transmitted. However, this is also an issue with other forms of learning where proper measurement of outcomes is not in place.

Learning in Organizations

63

Evidence for the Effectiveness of e-Learning Outcomes As with other types of learning intervention, the Kirkpatrick taxonomy – reactions, learning, behaviour change and organizational impact – can be used as a structure to examine the different outcomes from e-learning (Derouin, Fritzsche and Salas 2005). In terms of reactions, the evidence certainly seems to indicate reasonably positive attitudes in general to e-learning. Although results regarding satisfaction with e-learning over traditional classroom training appear mixed overall, according to a meta-analysis by Allen et al. (2004), results from a number of studies indicate higher levels of satisfaction in organizational settings. It is fortunate that as e-learning programmes make tracking of participants’ progress easier, there is reasonable data available at the second level, learning. Having said that, research to date doesn’t seem to have uncovered any major differences between e-learning and other approaches, according to another meta-analysis of studies, this time by Machtmes and Asher (2000). On the question of changes in work behaviour following e-learning, there is certainly some support in the literature for transfer of e-learning back to the workplace (e.g. Thomson NETg 2003, Skillsoft 2004). Finally, although little empirical evidence exists regarding the organizational impact of e-learning learning interventions, a shortcoming shared with other types of learning intervention, evaluation studies in organizational settings (O’Leonard 2004, Overton 2004) have found positive effects, although it must be said the outcomes were not compared with those from traditional learning methods.

Implications of Mixed Results The observation that studies of e-learning effectiveness have yielded such mixed results suggests that the interaction between the learner and the technology is a complex one. Nevertheless, a review by Welsh et al. (2003) offers suggestions to explain some of the differences. First of all, although more research is needed, there appears to be a consensus that people who are already more familiar with a technological environment, such as young people or those who use computer and related technology on a regular basis, will produce better results through e-learning than those who don’t. Second, they suggest that e-learning can be more effective where learning outcomes involve less complex knowledge and intellectual skill, as opposed to more complex skills, or ‘soft’ skills. On balance, however, their review found that e-learning can be more effective than traditional classroom training. Of course it is very difficult to compare approaches, as a variety of factors such as the quality of the technology in use, or the quality of the face-to-face instruction can be moderating factors. Third, the cost-effectiveness (efficiency) of e-learning also depends on a number of other factors. Where learners are dispersed

64

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

geographically, where large numbers are involved and where learners already have some familiarity with the technology in use, e-learning generally proves to be more efficient. Finally, a further issue of interest to providers and organizations is the rate of attrition involved with e-learning interventions compared with others. Perhaps the most relevant finding concerns the conditions under which leaners are most likely to complete a course. These include where there is a clear rationale for completing the course (a promotional requirement, for example); where there are specific incentives to complete it; and where learners see the content as relevant to their job needs.

Box 4.4 Making More of e-Learning With the intention of improving e-learning practice, Bedwell and Salas (2010) challenge conventional beliefs about e-learning and offer ten practical considerations to do so. They are paraphrased here. 1.

E-learning is becoming increasingly sophisticated, with more options than ever before. Success hinges on the ability to place greater emphasis on content/ design and effectively match delivery mechanisms with learning outcomes. 2. E-learning is not the answer to all training and development needs, but rather one potential delivery mechanism. 3. Blended learning is a popular training solution, promising better results and cost savings, but the choice of delivery mechanism should be driven by business goals, as these promises aren’t always fulfilled. 4. E-learning will not be successful unless the purpose is clearly defined prior to design and development. It should only be used when the purpose maps to the medium. 5. The purpose drives selection of the most appropriate type of e-learning, but a programme should not be developed without consideration of how its effectiveness will be evaluated. 6. Learning principles are critical to e-learning success. Regardless of the type of training, learning elements of good training still apply and must be incorporated. 7. Years of research suggest several principles of multimedia design for consideration. Rather than reinventing the wheel, practitioners should rely on what works. 8. Instructorless environments still need instructors. 9. E-learning is based on pre-programmed instruction and therefore is not designed for individualized attention. Although technology is moving toward intelligent adaptive systems, adaptation is still programmed into the system, including intelligent tutors. 10. Contrary to popular belief, there are recurring costs associated with e-learning.

Learning in Organizations

65

References Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., Burrell, N. et al. 2004. Evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning: A comparison using meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 54, 402–20. Amabile, T. 1997. Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58. Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. 2001. Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6), 811–29. Argote, L. and Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–69. Argote, L. and Miron-Spektor, E. 2011. Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–37. Baum, J.A.C. and Ingram, P. 1998. Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1980. Management Science, 44, 996–1016. Bedwell, W.L. and Salas, E. 2010. Computer-based training: Capitalizing on lessons learned. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(3), 239–49. Bondarouk, T. and Ruel, H. 2010. Dynamics of e-learning: Theoretical and practical perspectives. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(3), 149–54. Carley, K. 1992. Organizational learning and personnel turnover. Organization Science, 3(1), 20–46. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–52. Darr, E. and Kurtzberg, T. 2000. An investigation of partner similarity dimensions of knowledge transfer. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 28–44. De Holan, P. and Philips, N. 2004. Rememberance of things past: The dynamics of organizational forgetting. Management Science, 50(11), 1603–13. Derouin, R.E., Fritzsche, B.A. and Salas, E. 2005. E-learning in organizations. Journal of Management, 31(6), 920–40. Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L. 1988. A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–73. Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicollini, D. 2000. Organizational learning: Debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 783– 96. Feldman, M. and Pentland, B. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118. Fisher, S.L., Wasserman, M.E. and Orvis, K.A. 2010. Trainee reactions to learner control: An important link in the e-learning equation. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(3), 198–208.

66

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Garavan, T.N., Carbery, R., O’Malley, G. and O’Donnell, D. 2010. Understanding participation in e-learning in organizations: A large-scale empirical study of employees. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(3), 155–68. Garvin, D., Edmondson, A. and Gino, F. 2008. Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, March, 109–16. Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E. and Todorova, G. 2010. First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 93–101. Gruenfeld, D.H., Martorana, P.V. and Fan, E.T. 2000. What do groups learn from their worldliest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 45–59. Gupta, A., Tesluk, P. and Taylor, M. 2007. Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organization Science, 18(6), 885–97. Heraty, N. and Morley, M. 2008. Dimensionalizing the architecture of organizationled learning: A framework for collective practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 472–93. Hernandez, A.B., Gorjup, M.T. and Cascon, R. 2010. The role of the instructor in business games: A comparison of face-to-face and online instruction. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(3), 169–79. Hirst, G., Knippenberg, V. and Zhou, J. 2009. A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behaviour, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–93. Kane, G. and Alavi, M. 2007. Information technology and organizational learning: An investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science, 18(5), 796–812. Litchfield, R.C. 2008. Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-based view. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 649–68. Machtmes, K. and Asher, J.W. 2000. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 14, 27–46. McFayden, M., Semadeni, M. and Cannella Jr, A. 2009. Value of strong ties to disconnected others: Examining knowledge creation in biomedicine. Organization Science, 20(3), 552–64. McGrath, J. and Argote, L. (2001). Group processes in organizational contexts. In M.A. Hogg and R. Scott Tindale, eds, Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 603–27. Nonaka, I. 2007. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 162–71. O’Leonard, K. 2004. HP Case Study: Flexible Solutions for Multi-cultural Learners. Oakland, CA: Bersin & Associates. Osborn, A. F. 1957. Applied Imagination. New York: Scribner. Overton, L. 2004. Linking Learning to Business: Summary Report 2004. Reading, UK: Bizmedia Ltd.

Learning in Organizations

67

Rao, R. and Argote, L. 2006. Organizational learning and forgetting: The effects of turnover and structure. European Management Review, 3(2), 77–85. Reagans, R. and McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–67. Ren, Y., Carley, K. and Argote, L. 2006. The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science, 52(5), 671–82. Shaw, J., Duffy, M., Johnson, J. and Lockhart, D. 2005. Turnover, social capital losses, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 594–606. Skillsoft. 2004. EMEA e-Learning Benchmark Survey: The User’s Perspective. Middlesex: Skillsoft. Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 9–27. Taylor, A. and Greve, H. 2006. Superman or the Fantastic Four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723–40. Thomson NETg. 2003. Thomson Job Impact Study Final Results. The Next Generation of Corporate Learning: Achieving the Right Blend. Naperville, IL: NETg. van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. and Lyles, M. 2008. Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 830–53. Wegner, D.M. 1986. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen and G.R. Goethals, eds, Theories of Group Behaviour. New York: Springer-Verlag, 185–208. Welsh, E.T., Wanberg, C.R., Brown, K.G. and Simmering, M.J. 2003. E-learning: Emerging issues, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 245–58.

This page has been left blank intentionally

Chapter 5

The Learning Organization

Introduction In the previous chapter, the various ways in which the organizational knowledge necessary to achieve sustainable competitive advantage can be created, retained and transferred were described. This is the concept of organizational learning, the process by which combinations of structures, routines and networks facilitate learning and organizational improvement. The concept of the learning organization, on the other hand, represents the type of organization that excels in the use of these processes, and that has embedded such structures, routines and networks into its way of operating. Learning organizations make widespread use of the individual and collective learning processes discussed in previous chapters for the purposes of organization development. Thus, a learning organization is one that is good at organizational learning.

What is a Learning Organization? Interest in the concept of a learning organization has been somewhat inconsistent since it first emerged as a subject of interest in the 1960s, although the 1990s have seen a resurgence of interest. Simple definitions of what constitutes a learning organization are not that easy to find, as over the years, the concept has evolved from a number of different viewpoints. Argyris (1993), for example, sees a learning organization as the consequence of the generalization of knowledge generated by individuals in a way that makes it actionable. Actionable knowledge is also a feature of Denton’s (1998) approach, which suggests that in such organizations, learning must result in a change in its behaviour. A technological bias features in the work of Marquardt and Kearsley (1999), who describe a learning organization as having a strong capacity to collect, store and transfer knowledge and so transform itself, and which uses technology to optimize both learning and productivity. On the other hand, Schein (1996) maintains that organizational learning and thus the development of a learning organization is about helping managers analyse their own cultures and build on their strengths. Watkins and Marsick’s (1993) idea of a learning organization is based on team-building, in which the organization’s

70

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

capacity for innovation and growth is constantly being enhanced, leading to continuous growth and transformation. And finally there is the ‘systems thinking’ view (Senge, 1990) which is about developing people who learn how to surface and restructure mental models collaboratively. To put some structure on the above and thus provide a working definition for the purposes of this chapter, two descriptions capture the essence of the learning organization. First, Senge (1990: 3) suggests it is ‘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’. Put more simply perhaps, Garvin (1993: 80) describes it as ‘an organization skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights’. Whatever the definition, at its core is the creation of knowledge through the collective experience of an organization’s members, which can be used by the organization towards the achievement of improved performance and thus competitive advantage.

What does a Learning Organization Look Like? In accordance with the descriptions above, organizations that wish to lay claim to the title need not only to be able to generate new knowledge, but to use it in a practical way – to practise what they preach, as it were. This is not as easy as it sounds. Many organizations are in a position to generate new knowledge, such as from customers, from the collective wisdom of their members or from the world at large, yet in reality do not use this information as well as they might. Garvin for example would see the ability to transfer knowledge quickly around the organization as one of the key components of a learning organization, as well as the ability to experiment and learn from experience. Indeed the two practices go together, and it is probably in this arena that improvements in the practice of learning most closely affect organizations’ ability to become learning organizations. A useful set of descriptors of what a learning organization might look like in practice is provided by Yang, Watkins and Marsick (2004). They suggest four perspectives.

A Systems Perspective In terms of systems thinking, based primarily around the work of Senge (1990), learning organizations can not only adapt to changes in their business environment, but also have the ability to create their own future to an extent. Although Senge does not go into specifics about how this can be achieved, he places his five ‘disciplines’ at the centre of these efforts. The so-called ‘fifth discipline’ – systems thinking – is

The Learning Organization

71

based upon seeing interrelationships between organizational events and processes rather than linear cause–effect chains, and in being able to see the overall process of change rather than ‘snapshots’. The other four disciplines are team learning, where the emphasis is on the learning activities of the group rather than on the development of team process; shared visions, which are manifested in an ability to build a shared picture for the future that helps generate real commitment rather than compliance; shared mental models, which are internal images of how the world works; and personal mastery, which involves continually clarifying and deepening personal vision, focusing energies, developing patience and seeing reality objectively.

A Learning Perspective Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell (1991) identified 11 (albeit overlapping) areas in which a learning organization facilitates the learning of its members and as such transforms itself. The approach is based on incorporating the traditional elements of management to support learning at all organizational levels. For instance, they recommend adopting a learning approach to strategy as well as participative policy making. In essence this means involving as many people as is appropriate in these activities to both provide input and help disseminate output. Other priorities include the establishment of a learning climate and self-development for everyone. These principles are about creating opportunities for individuals to engage in learning within the workplace as well as removing barriers preventing them from doing so.

A Strategic Perspective This approach is based on a need to understand the main strategic drivers necessary to build learning capability. Goh (1998), for example, contends that learning organizations have five core strategic building blocks. These include clarity and support for mission and vision; shared leadership and involvement; a culture that encourages experimentation; the ability to transfer knowledge across organizational boundaries; and teamwork and co-operation. Further, the strategic building blocks require two main supporting foundations. The first is an effective organization design that is aligned with and supports them. The second consists of the appropriate employee skills and competencies needed for the tasks and roles described therein. These strategic building blocks can serve as practical guidelines for operational and managerial practice, and along with the two supporting foundations they can also provide advice for management and organizational consultants.

An Integrative Perspective Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1996) provide an integrative model of a learning organization. They describe the process of learning within a learning organization

72

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

as integrated with the work of the organization. In practice, organization members are aligned around a common vision, yet are aware of and can adapt to their changing environment. As a by-product of their day-to-day work, they generate new knowledge which they use, in turn, to create innovative products and services to meet customer needs. The authors identified seven distinct but interrelated dimensions of a learning organization at individual, team and organizational levels. These include continuous learning; inquiry and dialogue; team learning; empowerment; embedded systems; system connection; and strategic leadership. The learning organization is viewed as one that has the capacity to integrate people and structures in order to move towards continuous learning and change.

Learning Organization Building Blocks Another influential view of what constitutes a learning organization comes from the work of Garvin, Edmondson and Gino (2008). Recall that Garvin’s description of a learning organization, outlined earlier, suggests it’s about creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge and modifying behaviour to reflect this. He and his colleagues offer three broad factors, also called ‘building blocks’, seen as essential for organizational learning and adaptability. They are a supportive learning environment, concrete learning processes and practices and leadership that reinforces learning. A supportive learning environment comprises a number of elements. Psychological safety is one. It must be acceptable for people to question authority but also for them to be able to own up to mistakes. To do this the same learning environment must demonstrate an appreciation of differing approaches and points of view. It must therefore be open to new ideas and tolerate a degree of risk taking. Finally, supportive learning environments allow time to reflect on what’s being done and how it’s being done. The second building block, concrete learning processes and practices, is concerned with the generation, interpretation and dissemination of internal and external knowledge around the organization. It is about having systematized ways of capturing and sharing data from customers and the business environment as well as from employees through their experience, the projects they undertake and the business problems they solve. These processes and practices serve the purpose of getting information to those who will use it. The third building block, leadership that reinforces learning, necessitates leaders throughout the organization who are willing to encourage dialogue, to listen to alternative points of view, and in general to foster a culture of learning. While this applies to leaders at all levels, the specific role of the line manager in this regard will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. A summary of the five perspectives just discussed is outlined in Table 5.1 for comparison purposes.

Table 5.1

Comparison of different approaches to the learning organization

Systems perspective (Senge 1990)

Learning perspective (Pedler et al. 1991)

Strategic perspective (Goh 1998)

Integrative perspective (Watkins and Marsick 1993, 1996)

Building blocks (Garvin et al. 2008)

Team learning

A learning approach to strategy

Clarity and support for mission and vision

Continuous learning

Psychological safety

Shared visions

Participative policy making

Shared leadership and involvement

Inquiry and dialogue

Appreciation of differences

Mental models

Informating

A culture that encourages experimentation

Team learning

Openness to new ideas

Personal mastery

Formative accounting and control

The ability to transfer knowledge across organizational boundaries

Empowerment

Time for reflection

Systems thinking

Internal exchange

Teamwork and cooperation

Embedded system

Experimentation

Reward flexibility

Aligned organization design

System connection

Information collection

Enabling structures

Appropriate employee skills and competencies

Srategic leadership

Analysis

Boundary workers as environmental scanners

Education and training

Intercompany learning

Information transfer

Learning climate

Leadership that reinforces learning

Self-development for everyone

74

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Integrating the Perspectives Despite the different starting points for the approaches outlined above, some common themes can be seen within them. To begin with, at the strategic level, a sense of vision (and in particular shared vision) is apparent in all taxonomies. Clear goals, and support for those goals are critical if the organization is to make use of learning opportunities that arise from the challenges it faces. There is also the necessity for leaders (at all levels) to share the vision. This should result in better performance because activities can be directed more precisely towards the goals, but also because the more people that understand and share the vision, the greater will be the amount of learning. A second important theme that appears to be central to learning organizations has to do with the creation of a learning structure that is flexible and adaptable to changes in the external environment. This structure should facilitate the creation, retention and transfer of practical knowledge that can be used within and across organizational boundaries. A third theme encompasses the idea of a learning climate, where personal mastery, self-development for everyone, education and training and continuous learning (primarily experiential) are embedded in the way the organization goes about its business. This type of climate also encourages experimentation, empowerment and dialogue and structures teams so that they work with and learn from each other. The strength of a learning climate will also be seen in psychological safety, in time given for reflection and in shared leadership and involvement.

A Model for Learning Organizations The frameworks just discussed provide between them some 40 labels (although they are not mutually exclusive) to describe aspects of what it is believed learning organizations should look like. That there are so many is a good indicator of the range of challenges facing organizations seeking to attain learning organization status. In addition, it is evident that these aspects need to be integrated for optimum performance. Finally, the likelihood of all the elements being in place at the same time is quite small. Based on these observations, it is perhaps not surprising that becoming a learning organization is seen more as an aspiration than a reality, and that valid and reliable models of what learning organizations look like are hard to come by. In one attempt to bring order, Watkins and Marsick (2003) have conducted a significant amount of research to develop the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ). The model on which the questionnaire is based comprises seven elements, all of which are included in the above frameworks in some way. The first is to create continuous learning opportunities. In learning organizations, learning is designed into work so that people can learn on the job and opportunities are provided for ongoing education and growth. The second is

The Learning Organization

75

to promote inquiry and dialogue. In this situation, individuals develop productive reasoning skills to express their views and the capacity to listen and inquire into the views of others. The culture is such that it supports questioning, feedback and experimentation. Third, there is a necessity to encourage collaboration and team learning. What this means for the organization is that work is designed to use groups to access different modes of thinking. Groups are expected to work and learn together, and collaboration is valued and rewarded. Fourth, it is imperative to create systems to capture and share learning. Both high- and low-technology systems to share learning are created and integrated with work. Of particular importance is that access is provided to these systems, and that they are maintained. Fifth, there is a requirement to empower people toward a collective vision. People in the organization become involved in setting, owning and implementing this vision. Responsibility is distributed close to decision making so that people are motivated to learn toward what they are held accountable to do. The sixth requirement is to connect the organization to its environment. Individuals are helped to see the effect of their work on the entire enterprise. In doing this they scan the environment and use information to adjust work practices, and the organization is linked to its communities. Finally the organization must provide strategic leadership for learning. Leaders have to model, champion and support learning, and must use learning strategically for business results. A model of how these dimensions fit together is shown in Figure 5.1. Global

Provide strategic leadership for learning Connect the organization to its environment

Organization

Empower people towards a collective vision Create systems to capture and share learning

Teams

Encourage collaboration and learning

Individuals

Promote enquiry and dialogue Create continuous learning opportunities

Figure 5.1

Dimensions of the learning organization

Continuous learning and transformation

76

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

In the full version of the DLOQ, questions are also asked concerning both the financial performance (the state of financial health and resources available for growth) and the knowledge performance (enhancement of products and services because of the learning and knowledge capacity of the organization). What is presented in Box 5.1 is the shorter form, primarily to prompt questions that should help identify key priorities in moving the organization towards being a learning organization. Box 5.1 Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire The questionnaire below is the short version of the DLOQ, based on the above model. In this questionnaire, you are asked to think about how your organization supports and uses learning at an individual, team, and organizational level. From this data, you and your organization will be able to identify the strengths you can continue to build on and the areas of greatest strategic leverage for development toward becoming a learning organization. Please respond to each of the following items. For each item, determine the degree to which this is something that is or is not true of your organization. If the item refers to a practice that rarely or never occurs, score it a one (1). If it is almost always true of your department or work group, score the item as six (6). Fill in your response by marking the appropriate number. No.

Rarely or never (1)

1

In my organization, people help each other learn

2

In my organization, people are given time to support learning

3

In my organization, people are rewarded for learning

4

In my organization, people give open and honest feedback to each other

5

In my organization, whenever people state their view, they also ask what others think

6

In my organization, people spend time building trust with each other

7

In my organization, teams/groups have the freedom to adapt their goals as needed

8

In my organization, teams/groups revise their thinking as a result of group discussions or information collected

9

In my organization, teams/groups are confident that the organization will act on their recommendations

Almost always (6)

The Learning Organization

10

My organization creates systems to measure gaps between current and expected performance

11

My organization makes its lessons learned available to all employees

12

My organization measures the results of the time and resources spent on training

13

My organization recognizes people for taking initiative

14

My organization gives people control over the resources they need to accomplish their work

15

My organization supports employees who take calculated risks

16

My organization encourages people to think from a global perspective

17

My organization works together with the outside community to meet mutual needs

18

My organization encourages people to get answers from across the organization when solving problems

19

In my organization, leaders mentor and coach those they lead

20

In my organization, leaders continually look for opportunities to learn

21

In my organization, leaders ensure that the organization’s actions are consistent with its values

77

Total From Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. 2003. Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132–51. Reproduced with permission. Note: The Dimensions of a Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) is copyrighted and may be used in research pending permission of the authors. No adaptations may be used without the express permission of the authors.

Why are There so few Learning Organizations? Given the popularity of the idea of a learning organization, and the attractiveness for organizations in thinking of themselves in those terms, it is reasonable to ask the question ‘Why are there so few learning organizations?’ One answer lies of course in the challenge of being all the things theorists have suggested being a learning organization involves – it is next to impossible. Or perhaps the term

78

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

itself is the problem. It can be argued that every organization, to some extent, engages in at least some of the practices outlined in Table 5.1. Or some units of larger organizations may even engage in all of them. Are those units learning organizations? Perhaps a realistic aim for an organization is to take on as many of the characteristics of a learning organization as possible, with a goal of continuous improvement in the field of organizational learning rather than try to achieve something that may in practice be impossible? In any event, Harper and Glew (2008) observe that as some 80 per cent of change efforts typically fail, it is reasonable to suggest that the majority of organizations have at least some of what they call ‘learning impairments’. Based on a survey of 250 respondents from a variety of organizations, they identified a range of over 1,000 factors seen to block learning, mostly characterized either as leadership failures, organizational factors, and external and future factors. Although presented in the negative, the results support the models of learning organizations described earlier, in that they cover the same ground. Some of the most significant are summarized in Table 5.2. Table 5.2

Factors working against being a learning organization

Factor

Description

Leadership does not set the example for learning

The idea of organizational learning is not championed, and lessons from previous experience are not incorporated

Management is insular

Management is isolated from the rest of organization and the external environment

Management is arrogant, ignorant and complacent

Strong egos and previous success cause managers not to be willing to recognize or admit their mistakes

Poor top-down communication

Information is provided on a need-to-know basis, with little explanation

Not soliciting ideas

Management is unwilling to seek good ideas from employees

Lack of upward communication

Upward communication is ignored or channels are blocked, and management considers constructive criticism to be an insult to existing processes

Lack of empowerment to learn and change

Lower-level employees are not encouraged to experiment with new approaches or initiate change

Ineffective mental models

Management is not up to date with current realities and is unwilling to consider new possibilities and try different approaches

Preoccupation with the short term and bottom line

Management focuses on cutting costs to enhance current profitability rather than taking the time to learn and invest in the future

Lack of holistic approach to change

Changes are either too few, too many, too late or not implemented well

The Learning Organization

Table 5.2

79

Continued

Factor

Description

Lack of communication about change

Management does not provide sufficient communication before, during, or after change

Fear and anxiety about change

Management’s fear of looking bad causes it not to ask for advice from others

Change in leadership

Turnover, rotation, restructuring and the general lack of continuity causes employees to resist change

Inadequate training

Top management does not provide sufficient time and funding for job-specific and advancement-related training

Inadequate system for knowledge acquisition and sharing

There is no common database to contribute, store, access and disseminate information

Unwillingness to use appropriate technology

Managers and employees do not embrace new technology, including capitalizing on the full value of the Internet

Lack of multidirectional communication

Departments are not communicating with each other

Lack of performance measurement and accountability for poor performance

People who do exceptional work are not rewarded and those who do poor work continue doing poor work

Creating a Learning Organization It would seem clear from the discussion above that becoming a learning organization is an end to which many organizations aspire, given its links with performance and competitive advantage in the knowledge economy. How therefore can the various characteristics outlined, which scholars and practitioners agree are of critical importance, be integrated to create such an entity? Interestingly, one drawback identified by Garvin (1993) is that too often, scholars prescribe what learning organizations should look like in very broad, aspirational terms (recall Senge’s definition earlier in the chapter), avoiding the question of how the aim can best be achieved. As a guide, he suggests the use of what he calls the three Ms – meaning (generating a well-grounded definition of a learning organization that is actionable and easy to apply); management (clear guidelines for practice, with plenty of operational advice); and measurement (using better tools to assess and monitor the organization’s rate and level of learning).

80

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Where to Start Any of the frameworks outlined earlier in this chapter could provide a starting point. For instance, instruments such as the DLOQ (Watkins and Marsick 2003) or the one based on the building blocks approach of Garvin, Edmondson and Gino (2008), both discussed earlier, would serve as a reliable means of getting a sense of current realities. Supporting (or challenging) data could also be obtained from learning climate surveys, staff engagement surveys or indeed relevant existing organizational sources. Either instead of or in addition to this, key figures in the organization could be interviewed, or focus group meetings organized, the emphasis being on asking the questions prompted by the frameworks discussed. Once the issues are identified, the solutions will need to come from a number of areas. Perhaps the first (and without doubt one of the most significant) stumbling block is likely to be in the area of ‘strategic leadership for learning’. Leaders at the top level who genuinely believe (rather than just espouse the belief) that learning is the way to sustainable competitive advantage for their organization are in short supply, and it is probably unrealistic to think that those who do not can be developed to the degree that would be needed to promote and empower people towards a collective vision and maintain a focus on long-term organizational development. In that case, new people may be required to join the organization. Some guidance on what to look for in such people is provided in Chapter 6 in terms of recruitment and selection practices that facilitate organizational learning. A second area of focus is on creating and developing the structures, systems and processes that will help the creation, retention and transfer of knowledge throughout the organization, already discussed in Chapter 4. In truth, many organizations are good at capturing information through customer databases, operational data and so on but are less good at making real use of this information for organizational learning, often focusing on using it more to analyse the past than plan the future. A third area of focus concerns the promotion of enquiry and dialogue and the creation of continuous learning opportunities at individual and team level. For this to be enabled, two particular sets of conditions need to be in place. To begin with, the organization (particularly its human resources department) needs to understand the variety of adult learning approaches that can be employed to further the development of the knowledge, skills and attitudes of its members. Options in this regard were discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. Then, as the workplace is where most practical learning is going to take place, managers at local level need also to have the people management skills to make the most of learning opportunities and to support the learning efforts of those for whom they’re responsible. This issue will be dealt with in Chapter 7. Finally, as far as measurement and monitoring of organizational development efforts are concerned, Chapter 8 provides some

The Learning Organization

81

frameworks and tools that can help keep track of these efforts, enabling adjustment at all stages of the process.

References Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass:. Denton, J. 1998. Organizational Learning and Effectiveness. London: Routledge. Garvin, D.A. 1993. Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 78–91. Garvin, D.A., Edmondson, A.C. and Gino, F. 2008. Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, March, 109–16. Goh, S.C. 1998. Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 63(2), 15–20. Harper, S.C. and Glew, D.J. 2008. Is your organization learning-impaired? Industrial Management, March–April, 26–30. Marquardt, M.J. and Kearsley, G. 1999. Technology-based Learning: Maximizing Human Performance and Corporate Success. Boston, MA: St. Lucie Press. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. 1991. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Schein, E.H. 1996. Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 9–20. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Century. Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. 1993. Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. 1996. In Action: Creating the Learning Organization. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. 2003. Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132–51. Yang, B., Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. 2004. The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 31–55.

This page has been left blank intentionally

Chapter 6

The Role of Human Resource Management

Introduction The message from earlier chapters would seem to suggest that most real learning in organizations takes place in informal, on-the-job settings, where individuals learn with and from each other. This is partly true. In addition, however, important contributions are made by formal, off-the-job interventions and formal jobbased learning opportunities such as those found in communities of practice and action learning sets. Indeed even where individuals attend formal off-the-job programmes, there is often much work still to be done to make sure that learning actually gets applied back in the workplace. In whatever way learning occurs, it is likely that it will be made easier through support and monitoring on the part of the organization. This is where the role of the Human Resources (HR) department is significant. This department can influence (for better or for worse, it has to be said) the degree to which learning in organizations is created, retained and transferred. As such, its contribution will be discussed in detail here. Before discussing the specific areas in which HR policies can contribute, we shall first look at what has been said concerning the role of HR in organizational effectiveness in general.

HR Challenges According to Thite (2004), HR has a vital role in helping to harness the knowledge that flows through the organization. The very nature of this knowledge, often tacit, acquired informally and not necessarily related to organizational goals, can make this quite a challenge. Issues such as culture (internal) and the competitive environment (external) can further complicate matters. Furthermore, measuring the contribution of HR in this regard is difficult, given its personalized and contextdependent nature, so that decisions about where to invest resources are not always easy ones. Amongst all those challenges, Storey and Quintas (2001) identify five that are particularly relevant in the so-called knowledge economy. They are: developing and sustaining a knowledge and innovation-centric culture; accessing tacit

84

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

knowledge; securing trust and commitment; handling non-traditional employees, and organizational vulnerabilities such as heavy dependence on key knowledge workers. Currie and Kerrin (2003) add that unwillingness of employees to share knowledge with others is also a critical factor in influencing the contribution of HR practices to organizational learning. Some of these issues have already been discussed in previous chapters. In broad terms, Thite suggests some HR strategies that need to be introduced and cultivated. First, there is a need for a ‘trusting HR philosophy’, an environment in which employees and managers trust each other and treat each other fairly. Second, the notion of ‘learning to learn’ needs to become part of the fabric of the organization. To this end, competencies that enable people to self-manage and self-develop, to work in teams and to think in different ways need to be developed. Third, HR systems that are knowledge-oriented and that are designed to promote a learning environment need to be in place, in order to help build up the organization’s knowledge stocks.

HRM and Organizational Performance Much reference has been made throughout this book and others to the particular organizational needs thrown up by the knowledge economy, and the consequent individual needs of knowledge workers. Although it can be argued that all workers are now knowledge workers (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), nevertheless organizations must create conditions in which the experience, insights and other contributions to learning of all organization members are brought into the open, where they can become a source of competitive advantage. As discussed earlier, this requires the development and maintenance of a ‘learning climate’. One way in which this process might be got underway is by entering into a ‘psychological contract’ with employees in which they generate and share knowledge in return for the opportunity to develop their professional skills in a meaningful way (Thite 2004). In return for trust in the individual’s capabilities, the organization gets commitment. Of course this relationship also needs to work in the opposite direction.

Trust and Commitment At a general level, it would appear that the way in which HR practices encourage organizational learning is by working to create an organizational social climate in which employees are motivated to act in the best interests of the organization, rather than focusing purely on self-interest. In effect, this is about generating commitment to the organization and its way of doing business, rather than compliance with its rules and regulations. This makes sense: indeed a review of

The Role of Human Resource Management

85

the literature by Hislop (2002) identifies a number of studies that support the links. For example, commitment has been linked to turnover intentions, with the nonetoo-surprising conclusion that the higher the level of commitment, the less the desire to leave the organization. In addition, links have also been established with ‘affective commitment’, (in practice a sense of loyalty to the job) which in turn has consequences for the amount of ‘controllable absence’ of employees. Affective commitment also seems to make a difference in terms of the amount of effort people put into their jobs, and indeed their motivation to take on other tasks. There are practical implications for generating and maintaining organizational commitment. The commitment of an individual to their organization is certainly facilitative of knowledge-sharing. A second implication, in relation to turnover, is that the longer the same individual stays with the organization, the more organizationally relevant and useful knowledge they gather and which they can share. So the consequences of commitment are that not only are employees better at sharing knowledge with others, but they are also around longer to do so. Of course the other side of commitment is trust. Unless individuals have trust in their organization and how it deals with them they will not be inclined to share the knowledge (particularly tacit knowledge) they have built up.

The Psychological Contract The reasons for any individual’s commitment to the organization in which they work are no doubt personal and therefore difficult to predict. Nevertheless, one issue which has been linked to commitment is a mutual arrangement described as the ‘psychological contract’, essentially the perceptions held by the employee and the organization about what each expects from the other. It is different from a typical employment contract, in that these mutual expectations are rarely written down. According to Hislop the contract is usually about fairness, trust and ‘delivering on the deal’.

HRM Factors Affecting Organizational Learning Within the literature, a number of sets of organizational HRM practices are put forward as facilitative of organizational knowledge-sharing and learning. For example, Cabrera and Cabrera (2005); Lin and Kuo (2007); and Perez, Montes and Vasquez (2006) describe between four and seven areas in which these practices can have a significant impact on learning. As can be seen from Table 6.1, their frameworks contain a number of similar elements. These will now be dealt with.

86

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Table 6.1

HRM factors affecting organizational learning

Lin and Kuo (2007)

Perez et al. (2006)

Cabrera and Cabrera (2005)

Staffing

Selective hiring

Staffing

Appraisal Training and development

Performance appraisal Training

Training and development

Compensation and reward

Compensation and reward

Work flow Rewards and compensation

Work design

Employee participation Culture Technology

Recruitment and Selection Practices Perhaps a good place to start is with recruitment and selection practices, because if the ‘right’ people aren’t recruited into and promoted within the organization, an opportunity is lost to improve organizational learning. Organizations that are good at fostering organizational learning tend to try and attract new employees who will contribute to learning within the organization (through introducing new ways of thinking, for example). On top of this, decisions around who is recruited and promoted should also be based on the candidates’ demonstrated ability to share learning. Furthermore, as seen in Chapter 4, a diversity of personalities and backgrounds will add to creativity and potential productivity. Thus these organizations place significant emphasis on finding the skills, knowledge and attitudes that emphasize the fit between the individual and the organization, rather than merely focusing on specific job requirements. The rationale behind this approach is that while it is regarded as relatively easy to develop job-specific competencies, attitudes and values that are in line with those of the organization are much harder to develop. In practice, it is fairly widely accepted that a policy of enabling employees to ‘work their way up’ through the organization, as well as recruiting people externally at different levels of seniority to fill specific requirements, is probably the best option for providing a balance of capability to both exploit existing knowledge and to explore new knowledge. Alongside this policy however, improving organizational learning capability also demands a search for attitudes and skills that facilitate knowledge-sharing. One practice that might help in this regard is that organizations are increasingly using competency frameworks to guide them in terms of the skills,

The Role of Human Resource Management

87

.

knowledge and attitudes they seek to recruit. Although very few organizations have specific competencies that relate to knowledge-sharing, evidence of knowledgesharing behaviour in practice, as well as good communication and interpersonal skills, are reasonable indicators.

Performance Appraisal, Compensation and Reward Generally speaking the purpose of performance appraisal systems is twofold – to improve organizational productivity by providing developmental feedback and to link rewards to performance (Seeong and Lewis 2009). To improve organizational learning, it follows that the dimensions of performance on which people are appraised and rewarded should be those that facilitate the process. Hence those who communicate well, who use experience as a starting point for learning and who share their knowledge and skills with others should benefit. However, from an organizational learning point of view, a number of issues with conventional appraisal systems arise. For a start, some organizations just use them as part of their reward mechanisms, linking pay or other benefits to overall organizational performance, rather than for any developmental purpose. Due to the presence of so many contributing factors to organizational performance as well as the absence of clear links between organizational learning and performance any motivational effect can be lost. Rewards need to be linked to effort rather than results (one doesn’t always lead to the other) if they are to serve as a motivator (Vroom 1964). Thus with no developmental component, little or nothing will be gained from the process. A second issue concerns the (usually) individual focus of the reward system. If the sharing of knowledge amongst team members is an important element of organizational learning, then individuals may be less inclined to collaborate with others (to land a new client, for example) if their reward system is individually structured. A team-based reward may be more appropriate. In summary, therefore, it would appear that the best use of an appraisal system where promoting organizational learning is a priority is to reward the demonstration of organizational learning behaviours on the one hand, but to also use the process to give feedback for development.

Work Design According to Cabrera and Cabrera (2005), to facilitate knowledge-sharing the design of work should emphasize interdependency, frequency of interaction and work flow (areas in which HR departments can have significant influence). They suggest that one of the ways of achieving this is to think of work in terms of a sequence of assignments on which people collaborate, rather than as discrete individual jobs (as seen in job descriptions). This is an argument for team-based structures: when people collaborate on work-based projects, action learning takes place. Indeed communities of practice (discussed along with action learning in

88

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Chapter 3), which are for the most part naturally occurring entities, also operate on this principle of learning through collaboration and interdependence.

Technology The role of technology, particularly in the context of the retention and transfer of knowledge, has already been discussed in Chapter 4. However, in the context of the above discussion, McDermott and O’Dell (2001) also suggest that technology should match the existing culture (discussed next) to enhance the value of the human networks that exist. In essence their message is that if knowledge-sharing is not already part of the organization’s culture, technology alone will not facilitate its development in any way.

Culture The importance of an appropriate organization culture to promote knowledgesharing and thus organizational learning cannot be overestimated. In a way, the sum total of the conditions just discussed represents aspects of organizational culture, from the more visible such as the reward system or the design of jobs, to the less visible such as the levels of commitment and trust demonstrated by the organization’s members. Although it can be argued that the HR function doesn’t determine culture, it can influence it for better or for worse. Culture is not something that can be intervened in directly, rather it is through the implementation of HR practices such as those just discussed that this is likely to be achieved. Thus hiring people that ‘fit’ the organization, setting up systems that appraise and reward them on the basis of their efforts at knowledge-sharing and developing work structures that make the most of opportunities to collaborate and learn from each other will in time build the culture needed to sustain best organizational learning practice. Finally, McDermott and O’Dell offer some advice for overcoming what they call ‘cultural barriers’ to knowledge-sharing, through visibly demonstrating its importance and building on the organization’s invisible core values. They suggest five guidelines for how the two should be aligned, which are summarized here: 1. To create a knowledge-sharing culture, make a visible connection between sharing knowledge and practical business goals, problems or results. 2. It is far more important to match the overall style of the organization than to directly copy the practices developed by other organizations. Make the visible artefacts of knowledge-sharing match the style of the organization, even if the goal is new behaviour and approaches. 3. Link sharing knowledge to widely-held core values. Don’t expect people to share their ideas and insights simply because it is the right thing to do. Align the language, systems and approach with those values. The values linked do not need to obviously support sharing knowledge, but people do

The Role of Human Resource Management

89

need to genuinely believe in them. They cannot simply be the ‘espoused values’ in the company’s mission statement. 4. Human networks are one of the key vehicles for sharing knowledge. To build a sharing culture, the networks that already exist should be enhanced, and enabled with tools, resources and legitimization. 5. Recruit the support of people in the organization who already share ideas and insights. Ask influential people and managers to encourage and even pressure people to share their knowledge. Build sharing knowledge into routine performance appraisal. Don’t start out a new campaign and new structures for sharing knowledge. Find the knowledge-sharing networks that already exist and build on the energy they already have.

Box 6.1 Measuring Engagement in Commitment-Based HR practices Collins and Smith (2006) conducted a field study involving 136 technology companies to develop and test a theory of how human resource practices affect the organizational ‘social climate’ conditions that facilitate knowledge exchange and combination and resultant firm performance. They found commitment-based HR practices to be positively related to the organizational social climates of trust, co-operation and shared codes and language. In turn, these measures were related to the organization’s capability to exchange and combine knowledge, which predicted revenue from new products and services as well as sales growth. As part of that study they used two diagnostic instruments. The first examined whether an organization uses a commitment-based approach to its HR practices (16 items) and the second (eight items) measured the extent to which it supports knowledge exchange and combination. Respondents scored the instrument from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree. The questions are reproduced below, with permission. Commitment-based HR Practices Selection Policies 1. 2. 3. 4.

Internal candidates are given consideration over external candidates for job openings Employees are selected on the basis of overall fit to the company The selection system focuses on the potential of the candidate to learn and grow with the organization All employees are made aware of internal promotion opportunities

Incentive Policies 1. 2. 3. 4.

Employee bonuses or incentive plans are based primarily on the performance of the organization Salaries for employees are higher than those of competitors Shares of stock are available to all core employees through stock purchase plans Goals for incentive plans are based on business-unit or company performance

90

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Training and Development Policies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Employees are provided with multiple career path opportunities to move across multiple functional areas of the company Training is provided focused on team-building and teamwork skills training The company sponsors social events for employees to get to know one another The company offers an orientation programme that trains employees on the history and processes of the organization Job rotation is used to expand the skills of employees There is a mentoring system to help develop employees Performance appraisals are used primarily to set goals for personal development Performance appraisals are used to plan skill development and training for future advancement within the company

Knowledge Exchange and Combination 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Employees see benefits from exchanging and combining ideas with one another Employees believe that by exchanging and combining ideas they can move new projects or initiatives forward more quickly than by working alone At the end of each day, our employees feel that they have learned from each other by exchanging and combining ideas Employees at this company are proficient at combining and exchanging ideas to solve problems or create opportunities Employees in this company do not do a good job of sharing their individual ideas to come up with new ideas, products, or services (reverse coded) Employees here are capable of sharing their expertise to bring new projects or initiatives to fruition The employees in this company are willing to exchange and combine ideas with their co-workers It is rare for employees to exchange and combine ideas to find solutions to problems (reverse coded)

From Collins, C.J. and Smith, K.G. 2006. Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544–60. Reproduced with permission.

The Contribution of Training and Development In terms of HR practices that improve organizational learning, training and development activities have a particularly relevant role to play, as both classroombased and work-based learning operate on the same underlying principles. In terms of promoting organizational learning, Perez, Montes and Vasquez (2006) argue that training programmes should be thought of in wider terms that just those of skill construction. Similarly, Kamoche and Mueller (1998) believe that they should be oriented towards developing a culture of commitment to learning. In the same way, others such as Ulrich, Jick and Von Glinow (1993) contend that training programmes can be used as a tool to improve organizational communication, through sharing of

The Role of Human Resource Management

91

best practices and the consequent generation of new knowledge. Bandura (1997), whose important contribution has already been considered in Chapter 3, suggests that the inclusion of techniques such as modelling and vicarious learning, role playing, mastery experiences and coaching will improve an individual’s selfefficacy, resulting in a greater degree of shared learning from a greater confidence in their abilities. Team-based training is also offered as a means of improving organizational learning, as well as cross-training (Cabrera and Cabrera 2005). The idea behind this emphasis is to facilitate knowledge-sharing within and between teams and groups. Allied to this, training in communication skills has a role to play. Finally, at a group level, the value of formalized socialization and orientation programmes shouldn’t be underestimated, as they are seen as an early opportunity to present organizational values and norms, which of course can include those related to organizational learning. Finally, in the overall scheme of things, the results of an investigation undertaken by Lin and Kuo (2007) suggest that the above practices don’t affect organizational performance directly, but do so through their effect on organizational learning. If you wish to enhance organizational performance, using the above practices to foster organizational learning would appear to be the starting point.

Is there Still a Role for Traditional Classroom Training? None of the discussion in the previous chapters is intended to suggest that formal, classroom-based activity should not be part of an organization’s learning and development efforts. Although the growing importance of experiential learning, reflection thereon and the use of real-life work-based issues as a vehicle for learning cannot be overestimated, it is suggested that formal classroom sessions can be effectively integrated into the process, rather than being the default position, as is often the case with more traditional organizations. In particular, Clark and Mayer (2008), while they concur with others on the value of constructivist learning models, nevertheless hold strong views concerning what they consider as a danger in overly focusing on behavioural activity at the expensive of cognitive activity in learning environments. They make an argument for ‘evidenced-based instruction’ (content that is backed up by theory and practice). Indeed in one study, Stull and Mayer (2007) found no support for the idea that ‘learning by doing’ always leads to deeper learning than ‘learning by viewing’. The evidence to support this finding comes from research that has demonstrated that because learning depends on appropriate psychological activity rather than just behavioural activity, too much behavioural activity can get in the way of learning, given that working memory has a limited capacity.

92

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Issues with Traditional Classroom Training It would appear from the above, therefore, that traditional classroom instruction still has an important part to play in the generation, retention and transfer of knowledge around the organization. Nevertheless, some important issues arise that need to be addressed if its contribution is to be optimized. These primarily relate to the transfer of learning problem, alluded to in Chapter 3. Because the main activity related to learning (for example, a training or development programme) is taking place off the job, the problem of the skills and knowledge acquired making the transition back to the workplace and surviving there over time is a significant one. The factors influencing learning transfer will shortly be described, but first a model of how they interact (Kirwan 2009) is presented in Figure 6.1. The model consists of factors relating to the individual (the trainee), the training/learning intervention itself, and also to the work environment. Motivation to learn Is the training seen as an opportunity to learn and develop?

Programme content/design Is the programme content perceived as relevant? Does it show in a practical way how the learning can be best used on the job? TRAINING/LEARNING INTERVENTION

Peer support Is there help from peers in applying new learning?

Motivation to transfer Does the participant have a desire to apply the learning?

Organizational climate for transfer Do other workplace factors enable or inhibit the use of new learning?

Personal ability to transfer Can the participant make the time and ‘mental space’ to apply the learning?

Manager support and coaching Is there help from the boss in applying new learning?

Learning and behaviour change Learning and transfer outcomes

Figure 6.1

Model of learning transfer from a training/learning programme

The Role of Human Resource Management

93

Influences on Learning Transfer The seven factors outlined above that influence learning outcomes will now be discussed.

Motivation to Learn This factor describes the degree to which individuals are prepared to join and take part in a training or development programme. It is a personal characteristic, and is concerned primarily with perceptions they have before the programme, such as how it might relate to their needs, or what choice they have in attending it. The creation of motivation to learn is important for learning transfer as it has direct effects on subsequent motivation to transfer. While motivation to learn is primarily a personal characteristic, it can also be influenced indirectly by factors relating to the learning intervention itself or by work environment factors.

Programme Content and Design This factor deals with the degree to which the programme has been designed and delivered to make it easier for participants to transfer learning back to the job. It also looks at the extent to which participants regard the programme content as appropriate to their needs. Issues such as the relevance of the content, how it builds on what the participant already knows, the credibility of the trainers or facilitators and the balance of theory and practice are all important indicators of the likelihood of learning transfer taking place. The importance for learning transfer of appropriate content and delivery lies in matching the content to the learning needs expressed and the delivery to the various relevant characteristics of the learner and the environment in which the learning will be applied.

Motivation to Transfer This factor is about the commitment of the participant to applying back at work the skills and knowledge learned. It is affected by such questions as whether they want to apply new learning, whether they believe they can do so and whether they feel their effort will be noticed. A central factor in the model, motivation to transfer, is perhaps influenced by more personal, programme design and work environment factors than any other. In its turn it has a strong relationship with actual learning transfer. Unless motivation to transfer is activated, then the chances of significant learning transfer taking place are greatly diminished.

Personal Ability to Transfer This factor is also central to the model, and relates to how much time, energy and mental space participants can find in their work lives to help transfer learning to the

94

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

job. Although principally a personal characteristic, it can be affected by a number of other factors, particularly in the work environment. For instance, the amount of time learners get to reflect on what they learned, the amount of opportunity they get to apply that learning back at work and the amount of autonomy they have to say ‘no’ to distractions that prevent them from doing so will all influence the degree to which they can translate their desire (motivation to transfer) into reality (personal ability to transfer).

Manager Support and Coaching Within the work environment, the role of the participant’s manager is one that can have a significant impact on the degree to which learning transfer will be facilitated, largely through its influence on the above factors. Through feedback, support, challenge and coaching, managers of learners help to create the time and mental space so necessary for effective transfer to take place. Manager support and coaching plays a particularly important part immediately before and after a learning event. Before the event, discussion of specific learning needs and potential applications of the learning should be on the agenda. Following the event, support for implementation of the participant’s action plan and coaching to ensure the learning is consolidated are critical elements in the learning transfer process.

Peer Support Peers at work can also have an influence on how easy or otherwise it will be for the learner to transfer learning. Peer support concerns issues such as whether peers are open to new ideas, whether they provide practical support (such as filling in for their colleague while they are away on a training programme, for example), or whether they offer different perspectives that encourage experimentation and new learning. The effect of peer support is exerted mostly through its effect on motivation to transfer, and depends to a large extent on the degree of interdependency amongst the peers themselves. The greater the degree of interdependency, the greater will be the influence of peer support.

Organizational Climate for Transfer This factor deals with conditions in the work environment that make it more or less conducive to the use of learning on the job. Components of this factor include whether the organization in general supports learning, whether particular human or financial resource constraints exist within the organization, and in general how easy or otherwise it is to get new things implemented in the workplace. Not surprisingly, the level of support from peers and the manager will also contribute to such a climate. In turn, a positive organizational climate for transfer has effects on both motivation to transfer and personal ability to transfer. When such conditions exist, motivation is increased through a general level of confidence on the part of

The Role of Human Resource Management

95

the learner that barriers to application will be surmountable, and that both the time and mental space necessary to do so will be more easily found. A participant’s motivation to learn, their motivation to transfer that learning and their personal ability to do so are individual characteristics, but can be influenced to a greater or lesser extent by factors in the work environment. For instance, the amount of manager support and coaching (and to a lesser extent peer support) received before, during and after the programme independently and positively affects motivation to transfer. In addition, the manager support and coaching received facilitates learners in making the time and mental space to transfer learning (personal ability to transfer). On top of that, the organizational climate for transfer will affect their desire to transfer, as well as their ability to do so. Finally, the model includes mention of learning transfer and behaviour change outcomes. As seen throughout the earlier chapters of the book, different types of learning outcome may be appropriate.

The Importance of Motivation and Ability The motivation factors in the model are critical to effective outcomes from any organizational learning intervention. To begin with, motivation to learn describes the degree to which individuals are prepared to take part in the intervention. It refers to perceptions they have concerning participation in the intervention, such as how it might relate to their needs, or what choice they have regarding involvement. Motivation to transfer is about the commitment of the participant to applying the skills and knowledge learned when they are back at work. It is affected by questions such as whether they want to apply new learning, whether they believe they can do so, and whether they feel their effort will be noticed. Motivation to transfer is perhaps influenced by more personal, intervention design and work environment factors than any other. In its turn it has a strong relationship with actual learning transfer. Unless motivation to transfer is activated, the chances of significant learning transfer taking place are greatly diminished. Finally, personal ability to transfer relates to how much time, energy and mental space participants can find in their work lives to help transfer learning to the job. Although principally a personal characteristic, it can be affected by a number of other factors, particularly in the work environment.

Learning and Development and Learning Transfer The role of a learning and development (L&D) department in facilitating learning transfer is therefore a critical one, ensuring that a number of conditions are in place. First, the content of programmes delivered should be based on a valid and reliable learning needs analysis, to ensure that the skills and knowledge delivered are what are needed. Second, the design of the programme should incorporate

96

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

best principles for learning transfer, including such issues as a proper balance of theory and content, the adoption of adult learning principles and opportunities for reflection. Together, these conditions will have a positive effect on participants’ motivation to transfer. Although many of the other influences on learning transfer relate to the individual or to the work environment, L&D can nevertheless play a role here as well. One of the key positive work environment influences, for example, is the support provided by the local manager. Clearly, therefore, the development of managers as internal coaches will be instrumental in facilitating transfer. Other influences, such as the climate for learning, which has been cited as an important contributor to organizational learning, can also be of significance. Although a fuller discussion of these influences can be found elsewhere (Kirwan 2009), Table 6.2 presents a summary of a range of factors that affect learning transfer along with actions that can be taken to improve learning transfer and thus organizational learning. Table 6.2

Improving learning transfer

Factors to be considered

Actions to be taken

Participant motivation to learn: • Expectancies regarding the usefulness of the training • Job involvement and organizational commitment • Locus of control • Goal orientation • Self-efficacy

Managers can: • Work on expectancies • Work on locus of control • Work on goals • Work on commitment • Work on confidence

Content and design of the intervention: • Training needs analysis • Objectives and outcomes • The balance of theory and practice • Identical elements • Overlearning • Variety of methods • Distributed vs massed learning • Using analogies • Facilitating learning • Action learning • Developing adaptive expertise

Assess the training need: • Set clear objectives for the training • Balance the content in terms of theoretical and practical knowledge • Provide relevant reference material • Set pre-programme work • Deliver the programme in modular form • Make the training as relevant to the work situation as possible • Vary the training methods and media • Provide ‘ideas and applications’ notebooks • Provide opportunities to practice • Have participants create an action plan • Consider including an action learning component • Include some inter-module application work

The Role of Human Resource Management

Table 6.2

97

Continued

Factors to be considered

Actions to be taken

Post-programme activities: • Goal-setting • Self-management • Relapse prevention • Action planning • Coaching

Promote goal-setting (and give sufficient time to it on the programme) Have participants construct an action plan Conduct a self-management session at the end of the programme Encourage participants to meet with their manager Hold refresher/problem-solving sessions Encourage participants to maintain contact with each other Encourage participants to monitor their own behaviour following the programme Review content and learned skills Suggest participants develop a mentoring relationship Consider getting an executive coach Be clear about the purpose of the coaching Decide whether coaching will be stand alone or with a development programme Build coaching into the process from the start Use many sources of information

Peer, manager and organizational support: • General enthusiasm for change • Listening, questioning and discussing • Positive and critical feedback • Willingness to ‘plug the gaps’ • Support from co-participants • Empowerment • Delegation • Using listening and empathy • Creating and maintaining a supportive climate • Communicating effectively • Exerting a wider influence with others • Feedback and coaching • Resources and workloads • Urgency and deadlines • Autonomy and creativity

Use ‘buddy’ systems Get a critical mass on the same programme Involve managers in the learning process before training Involve managers in the learning process after training Develop managers as coaches Establish pre- and post-training discussions as part of participants’ joining instructions Consider refunds of fees/expenses and/ or awards Set up post-training presentations to peers and knowledge-sharing sessions Hold ‘alumni’ sessions Establish communities of practice

98

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Table 6.2

Concluded

Factors to be considered

Actions to be taken

Motivation to transfer: • Readiness to learn • Clearly identified needs • Development of greater assertiveness and confidence • Use of a network of co-attendees supportive work environment • Learning seen as developmental • Personal capacity for transfer • Motivation to transfer • Ability and opportunity to reflect • Using peers and others • Goal-setting • Having autonomy • Being assertive

Encourage and allow time for reflection Use peers for support Include coaching as part of the learning process Develop assertiveness Use a learning log Construct a personal development plan

Resistance to change: • Stakeholders • Organizational culture • Power and politics • Local resistance

Encourage buy-in at appropriate levels Make a business case for the intervention Use adult learning principles Treat the organization’s learning disabilities

Learning outcomes: • Single and double-loop learning

Be aware of different learning outcomes

Where to now for the L&D Function? All the evidence that has been presented within the chapters of this book regarding how individual and organizational learning is created, retained and transferred at the very least suggests that the role of L&D departments is likely to come under increasing scrutiny into the future. Currently within most organizations they still tend to be associated with classroom training and programmes of events for the semester and, despite their name changes over the years, are finding that stereotype hard to shake off. Traditional ‘training’ is about the imparting of knowledge and skills to enable an individual to perform a new job or a current job better. While it still has a role to play in supporting organizational learning, it is just one component of a broader response. Although a major discussion of the future of L&D is beyond the scope of this book, a number of interesting observations are offered, particularly in the practitioner literature (Eyre 2011; O’Connell 2008; Sheppard and Knight 2011) on the way in which the role of L&D and its practitioners is changing. They are briefly outlined on three dimensions. First, the shift in the way in which knowledge and skills are acquired now means that a much greater proportion of future learning and

The Role of Human Resource Management

99

development activity is likely to occur in workplace settings. Practitioners are seeing the value of basing learning on experience and using reflection to consolidate it. Second, this will have implications for the role of L&D professionals. As the knowledge repository for specific expertise on learning theory and practice they will need to make sure that their professional advice is heard and implemented at the highest organizational levels, as they seek to influence the business agenda and incorporate best learning practice into the organization’s routines, processes and culture. To do this effectively they will need to make the move from ‘trainers’ to ‘internal consultants’, developing both a wider range of subject-matter expertise and influencing skills. Finally, as they strive to become more strategic business partners, their performance will be evaluated not just by what they do in the classroom and the workshop but by the contribution they are seen to make to improving business performance.

References Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman. Cabrera, E.F. and Cabrera, A. 2005. Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720–35. Clark, R.C. and Mayer, R.E. 2008. Learning by viewing versus learning by doing: Evidence-based guidelines for principled learning environments. Performance Improvement, 47(9), 5–13. Collins, C.J. and Smith, K.G. 2006. Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544–60. Currie, G and Kerrin, M. 2003. Human resource management and knowledge management: Enhancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceutical company. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 1027–45. Eyre, E. 2011. L&D undergoing a renaissance during interesting times. Training Journal, January, 8–10. Hislop, D. 2002. Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment: A review and research agenda. Employee Relations, 25(2), 182–202. Kamoche, K. and Mueller, E. 1998. Human resource management and the appropriation-learning perspective. Human Relations, 51, 1033–60. Kirwan, C. 2009. Improving Learning Transfer: A Guide to Getting More out of What you put into Your Training. Farnham: Gower. Lin, C. and Kuo, T. 2007. The mediate effect of learning and knowledge on organizational performance. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107(7), 1066–83. McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. 2001. Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76–85.

100

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. O’Connell, G. 2008. Crystal clear. People Management, March, 40–42. Perez Lopez, S., Montes Peon.J.M. and Vasquez Ordas, C.J. 2006. Human resource management as a determining factor in organizational learning. Management Learning, 37(2), 215–39. Seeong, S. and Lewis, G.B. 2009. Can performance appraisal systems inspire intrinsically motivated employees? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(2), 158–67. Sheppard, R. and Knight, J. 2011. L&D: Partnering for success. Training Journal, April, 46–50. Storey, J. and Quintas, P. 2001. Knowledge management and HRM. In J. Storey, ed., HRM – A Critical Text. pp. 339–363. London: Thomson Learning. Stull, A.T. and Mayer, R.E. 2007. Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–20. Thite, M. 2004. Strategic positioning of HRM in knowledge-based organizations. The Learning Organization, 11(1), 28–44. Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Von Glinow, M. 1993. High impact learning: Building and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 52–66. Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

Chapter 7

The Role of the Line Manager

Introduction Previous chapters have examined the contribution to organizational learning made through the adoption of a variety of workplace learning techniques. How the Human Resources (HR) function and in particular its Learning and Development (L&D) component can facilitate the process has also been discussed. These contributions are both necessary and extremely valuable. However, there is an additional contribution that will determine to a large extent whether organizational learning practices will be promoted and sustained, or whether they will disintegrate and eventually disappear. This is the contribution made by the line manager – the person charged with the achievement of the department or unit’s performance goals, and with creating conditions in the workplace where employees can give of their best.

The Particular Role of the Line Manager The role of the line manager as a facilitator of workplace learning has perhaps only been recognized relatively recently. Given that the job of the manager has undergone many changes since the end of the nineteenth century when it was first identified as a field of expertise in itself, it is not always easy to define. Various perspectives (Stewart 1985; Drucker 1993) describe managers’ responsibilities in terms of objective setting, planning, decision making, organization of structure and work, motivating, communicating, measurement and control and development of self and others. More recent classifications, for example, Gosling and Mintzberg (2003), have described the role as managing one’s self, managing one’s relationships with others, managing the context, managing organizations and managing change. Whatever the classification, it would seem clear that a manager’s job comprises a variety of roles and tasks that must be integrated for effective performance. Managers’ ability to perform depends also on the cross-functional networks to which they belong, rather than their position in the hierarchy, as organizations become flatter, with increasing importance being placed upon external relationships as sources of power and influence, and even of career development.

102

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Implications for Management Skills Although many of the classic definitions of management are still popular today, it is fair to say that the role of the manager has been changing in accordance with changing perceptions of how organizations work and their associated practices and technologies. This change in the ‘organizational landscape’ has involved the development of more flexible, ‘organic’ forms, moving away from more ‘mechanistic’ forms (Morgan, 1997). This has had an effect on the particular capacities and predispositions required of managers. Newer forms of organization require all organization members to exercise more discretion, use more initiative and in general assume a much greater responsibility for their own management. In addition, managers in this environment must be more accountable for their own performance, as well as the performance of others. Against this background, the role of the line manager as a facilitator of learning assumes much greater importance. Two recent studies support these earlier classifications, and reflect the complex range of skills that effective managers are still required to demonstrate. On the positive side, Whetten and Cameron (2002) conducted a qualitative survey of 402 individuals rated highly as managers and identified the 10 most frequently cited characteristics as follows: • • • • • • • • • •

verbal communication (including listening) managing time and stress managing individual decisions recognizing, defining and solving problems motivating and influencing others delegating setting goals and articulating a vision self-awareness team-building managing conflict.

Looking at management capabilities from the other end of the spectrum, a study by Camp, Vielhaber and Simonetti (2001), which involved 166 focus groups with 830 managers and focused on why managers fail, identified the following, in order of importance: • • • • • •

ineffective communication skills poor interpersonal skills failure to clarify expectations poor delegation and empowerment inability to develop teamwork lack of trust and integrity

The Role of the Line Manager

• • • •

103

inability to motivate others poor planning failure to monitor performance and feedback failure to remove performance roadblocks.

It would seem from the above that in the view of many, some distinct characteristics of what might be called the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ managers become apparent. For instance, the ability of a manger to communicate effectively seems to be particularly highly rated. Setting goals, providing vision and clarifying expectations are also prominent. Motivating others appears on both lists, as does developing teamwork and effective delegation. More specifically in a learning context, Heraty and Morley (2008) offer some further direction. In their review of the elements necessary to support organizational learning, they cite the role of the manager as a facilitator of learning as significant. They also cite reduced hierarchy and broader jobs as well as a team approach to work design, factors which also involve important roles for the manager. They support the view that managers should be perceived as coaches and partners in the learning process, rather than experts in organizational learning as such. The manager’s job is to create the conditions where collaboration can take place, thus facilitating learning, including learning across organizational boundaries where appropriate. Work by Ellinger and Bostrom (1999) also examined the role of managers as facilitators of learning. Although their results indicate the importance of a number of factors including managers’ beliefs (which will be discussed later in the chapter), it is the managers’ behaviours that will be discussed now. Their study suggested the existence of two broad clusters of behaviours relevant to the role – empowering behaviours and facilitating behaviours – which between them account for a high proportion (37 per cent) of the effect. Examples of these behaviours are described in Table 7.1. It seems that managers who demonstrate these behaviours are creating the challenging conditions where individuals are encouraged to perform, yet at the same time are providing an appropriate level of support so that the individual still retains the optimum level of belief in their ability to perform.

104

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Table 7.1

Empowering and facilitating behaviours

Empowering behaviours

Facilitating behaviours

Holding back and not providing the answers

Creating and promoting a learning environment

Framing questions in a way that encourages individuals to think through issues

Getting individuals to see things differently through the use of different perspectives and analogies

Transferring ownership for problem solving to individuals

Setting and communicating expectations

Removing obstacles for them where possible

Giving and receiving feedback

Source: From Ellinger, A. and Bostrom, R. 1999. Managerial coaching behaviours in learning organizations. Journal of Management Development, 18(9), 752–71. Reproduced with permission.

Still on the subject of empowering behaviours, Zhang and Bartol (2010) examined the relationship between an empowering style of leadership and creativity. Empowering leadership has been defined by Ahearne, Mathieu and Rapp (2005) as highlighting work significance, providing participation in decision making, conveying confidence that performance will be high and removing bureaucratic constraints, much the same description of empowering behaviours as that outlined above. It is also relevant because in Chapter 4 it was argued that creativity is one of the key contributors to organizational learning, and through it innovation, effectiveness and survival. They suggested that the relationship is significantly affected by three mechanisms – psychological empowerment, creative process engagement and intrinsic motivation. Once again, this is about allowing the space for individuals to perform, using and developing their skills and abilities while making a meaningful contribution. Another insight into how this might be achieved is provided in work by Beck and Plowman (2009). They contend that organizational success depends on learning to deal effectively with ‘rare and unusual’ events, that is, novel problems requiring more creative solutions. They argue that middle managers are particularly well placed to view and interpret these events for their staff, thus facilitating learning. Finally, to further support the importance of the above, the issue can be looked at from the opposite perspective. The study by Harper and Glew (2008) on what inhibits learning in an organization, already discussed in Chapter 5, identified a number of factors that relate to the role of the line manager, such as a reluctance to address performance issues, shortcomings in communication upwards, downwards and across, a lack of empowerment and an unwillingness to experiment.

The Role of the Line Manager

105

Facilitating Behaviours In a somewhat more specific context, that is, managers’ role as facilitators of learning, the results of a study undertaken by Beattie (2006) provide a useful categorization of behaviours seen as important. Indeed analysis of the data from her study suggests a hierarchy of developmental behaviours, those same behaviours which have been discussed above. These are shown in Figure 7.1

Category

Behaviours

Challenging

Challenging perceptions and assumptions

Developing developers

Development of people skills in those with people management responsibility

Empowering

Delegating; Trusting

Thinking

Reflective or prospective thinking; Clarifying

Assessing

Providing feedback and recognition; Identifying development needs

Advising

Instructing; Coaching; Guiding; Counselling

Being professional

Role modelling; Standard setting; Panning and preparing

Informing

Sharing knowledge

Caring

Supporting; Encouraging; Being approachable; Reassuring; Being committed/involved; Empathising

Figure 7.1

Facilitating behaviours

Increasing complexity

Source: From Beattie, R.S. 2006. Line managers and workplace learning: Learning from the voluntary sector. Human Resource Development International, 9(1), 99–119. Reproduced with permission.

106

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

The hierarchical structure in Figure 7.1 is interesting. Those behaviours at the bottom of the hierarchy are regarded as more likely to be seen in any even vaguely people-oriented manager, easier to develop and consequently practised by most managers. These include caring, informing and being professional. Being caring involves being approachable, building confidence in employees’ ability and showing an understanding of their situation. Being professional means clarifying expectations with regard to what performance is acceptable and structuring learning opportunities to enable that to happen. Behaviours further up the hierarchy are considered more demanding, somewhat harder to acquire and therefore less in use by managers. Within the hierarchy, advising, assessing and thinking are seen to include behaviours such as instructing, coaching, guiding and counselling, as well as providing feedback and recognition. A further important aspect of this cluster is taking time to reflect on what has happened, and how such incidents will be dealt with in the future. At the top end of the hierarchy lie behaviours such as empowering and challenging. Arguably, empowering (this is about real empowerment, not just giving people a bit of leeway), developing others and challenging individuals to perform at a high level and justify their decisions can be seen as behaviours requiring the greatest amount of skill to develop and maintain. Empowering necessitates having trust in employees and not being afraid to delegate appropriately to them. Challenging individuals to perform better also requires skill, and for this reason these issues will be dealt with in more detail.

A Model for Facilitating Learning It might be useful at this point to suggest a model through which these elements exert their effect on the learning and performance of individuals in the workplace, before looking at them in more detail. The model is shown in Figure 7.2. Elements of the model will be dealt with in turn, but first it is appropriate to say a word or two concerning managers’ motivation to be managers in the first place. Possessing particular sets of skills is one thing. While it is necessary, it is not sufficient to succeed in managing people effectively and facilitate their learning. The impact of the manager’s belief in the importance of effective people management is raised in an analysis of the role of managers as facilitators of learning conducted by Ellinger and Bostrom (2002). A series of interviews with line managers in a variety of organizations identified a number of themes relating to how they perceived their role, including particular beliefs they hold and behaviours they engage in. For example, a high proportion of the managers interviewed held some relevant beliefs such as: • A belief in their role in facilitating the learning and development of their staff;

The Role of the Line Manager

107

• A belief that coaching (which is about helping people grow and develop) is different from management (which is more about telling people what to do); • A belief that although the roles of manager and coach are distinct, managers in learning organizations gradually shift from the former to the latter with experience. The importance of these beliefs for effective management of people is a critical starting point, and is all too often underestimated or even ignored. Without a genuine interest in people and their development it is difficult to sustain such a style and continue to facilitate learning in the long term. This issue has also gained attention in the academic literature in the context of managers’ implicit person theories (IPTs), based on work on social psychological theory by Dweck (1999). An implicit person theory is a belief about the personal characteristics such as ability and personality that affect human behaviour, and tends to take one of two viewpoints. Entity theorists believe that such characteristics are essentially fixed, while those who believe they can change and be developed are categorized as incremental theorists. Heslin, Vandewalle and Latham (2006) conducted a number of studies to determine the extent to which managers’ IPTs affected their approach to coaching their staff. Not surprisingly, they found that entity theorists got significantly less positive assessments from the staff they coached. What was also interesting from a developmental point of view was that even for those categorized PROVIDING CLARITY planning and preparing

identifying development needs

challenging

GETTING THE WORK DONE delegating/ trusting

standard setting

instructing/ guiding

MANAGING PERFORMANCE providing feedback and recognition

clarifying/ reflective thinking LEARNING AND MOTIVATION

Figure 7.2

A model for facilitating learning

108

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

as entity theorists, it was possible to persuade them to adopt an incremental IPT and thus stimulate their coaching behaviours. The persuasion process used in the study had a number of different elements, including counter-attitudinal idea generation (getting the managers to take a point of view in opposition to their own), reflection on and advocacy of that idea. This observation reinforces the notion that being a good coach is not something that happens by accident, but perhaps of even greater significance is the possibility that skills in this area can be developed.

Box 7.1 Manager Support for Learning It might be reasonable to expect that managers who are incremental theorists will score more highly on measures of management support for learning than others. Management support also featured in Chapter 4 as one of the most important work environment influences on learning transfer, so being able to assess the level of management support being provided could be useful in identifying at least some of the barriers to organizational learning. The questions below are taken from the ‘manager support and coaching’ factor that is part of the Learning Transfer Evaluation© instrument which will be discussed further in Chapter 8. The scale is scored from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5). A maximum score of 40 denotes an extremely high level of manager support. Question

Score (1–5)

1

My manager discusses my ideas and gives me feedback on my efforts to put learning into practice

2

My manager discusses the training and development I have attended after training

3

My manager ‘opens doors’ for me in the wider organization

4

My manager is generally open to new ideas and changes

5

My manager works with me to set performance goals following training

6

My manager gives me encouragement and support in trying out new things

7

My manager demonstrates listening and empathy

8

My manager discusses training and development needs with me before training

Total

Leader–member Exchange Managers who understand the people they manage know that each individual is different – different in terms of their ability, and different in terms of their motivation to do the job. At one extreme, some will require plenty of guidance

The Role of the Line Manager

109

(to help improve their ability) and plenty of support or recognition (to help with their motivation) to keep them performing. At the other extreme, some will require very little of either, and can be delegated to with ease. In this way, different approaches to learning, different levels of ability and motivation and indeed different leadership styles can all be accommodated in the process of facilitating engagement in learning. One framework which has been developed to take account of these differences is that known as Leader–member exchange (LMX). First introduced as the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) model (Dansereau, Graen and Haga 1975), it differs from other leadership approaches in that its particular focus is on each dyadic relationship (i.e. between two people, in this case a boss and direct report) that leaders have with their followers, rather than on characteristics of the leader, leader behaviours, or aspects of the leadership situation. The approach is based on a fundamental assumption that leadership is potentially different for each leader–follower relationship, in that the leader’s behaviour is likely to differ depending on the follower. An important feature of the relationship is the degree of ‘negotiating latitude’ allowed to the follower. In essence this is about the degree of autonomy they have in determining how to accomplish tasks. Thus higher levels of negotiating latitude equate with greater levels of empowerment (as described above), higher levels of trust in the ability of the follower and lower levels of control by the leader.

Box 7.2 Measuring the Quality of the Relationship Determining the quality of a relationship such as LMX should be reasonably straightforward. In practice, almost all instruments used in the context of employee engagement and organizational climate surveys, or as part of a 360-degree assessment exercise contain questions about the working relationship between bosses and their direct reports. More specifically, Scandura and Graen (1984) report the use of a seven-item ‘LMX scale’ to measure the quality of the exchange. In any event, anyone wishing to do so informally might consider the following questions:

• • •

How would I characterize my working relationship with them – do I know where I stand? How well do they understand my motivations, my development needs and my problems? How far would they go in helping me (when I really need it) to deal with challenges I encounter in my work?

Implications There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that relationships with a high degree

110

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

of leader–member exchange have positive consequences, including learning. For example, a meta-analysis (a review of a number of studies) by Gerstner and Day (1997) found many instances where employees in a ‘high LMX’ relationship (i.e. a higher level of trust, support and interaction) were more satisfied with their work and their bosses, were more committed to their organization, experienced greater clarity about their role and in general performed better than those in ‘low LMX’ relationships. From some more recent work (Bezuijen et al. 2009) and of particular interest for this chapter is the finding that high LMX relationships also have indirect effects on engagement in learning activities on the part of followers. Interestingly, the link between the two is that in high LMX relationships, leaders are seen to set more specific and challenging goals, and provide more learning opportunities with which to achieve them. Goal-setting will be discussed shortly in the context of the performance management process.

Exploring the Model The model described in Figure 7.2 can be used as a starting point to look more closely at what managers can do to facilitate learning for their staff with a view to maximizing individual and organizational performance.

Providing Clarity planning and preparing

identifying development needs

standard setting

Planning and Preparing First, if we think of individual and organizational learning as a process, then perhaps the obvious place to start is for the manager to provide the necessary clarity for staff to do their job. Unless reasonable clarity is provided (recognizing that the degree of clarity necessary will depend on the situation and the people involved, a significant component of the LMX approach) then managing the resulting performance is made all the more difficult.

Identifying Development Needs Second, while desired performance should be determined primarily by the objectives of a unit or department, in the context of individual and organizational learning the manager should consider in parallel the learning needs that can be met through exposure to appropriate experiences and responsibilities. These needs are likely to have emerged as an ongoing aspect of a performance management process.

The Role of the Line Manager

111

Standard Setting Finally, in terms of performance, clear and relevant expectations are the critical starting point. The role of goal-setting is an important one here. Research has clearly shown, particularly in the work of Locke and Latham (2002), for example, that in general terms, setting specific and challenging goals results in better performance. For learning goals, the positive effects seem to apply as well. For example, Seijts et al. (2004) demonstrated that a specific learning goal (with a focus on ways in which a goal might be achieved) resulted in higher performance than a specific performance goal (focusing just on the outcome). Indeed, the nature of the LMX relationship will also determine the extent to which the focus is on the former or the latter. This has implications for the role of the manager. Managers are usually the ones responsible for goal-setting for their staff, irrespective of whether these goals are set in a participative or non-participative way.

Box 7.3 The Performance Matrix Communicating all of the above to employees in a clear and concise manner is thus critical if they are to gain the most from the proposed learning experience. One way in which this can be facilitated is by constructing a simple ‘performance matrix’ which enables both manager and employee to see clearly what is expected, and where necessary, how a task is to be undertaken. An example is shown below. Outcomes

Tasks

Behaviours

Desired Actual At the broadest level, what is required of individuals is usually expressed in terms of outcomes – the final results required. Providing a written report outlining sales figures for the last quarter, or conducting a fair and balanced interview are examples of outcomes. For some employees, particularly those who enjoy a high degree of ‘negotiating latitude’ with their manager, this level of detail may be sufficient. However, for those who have more to learn, or indeed are slower to learn, it may be appropriate for the manager to specify in some detail how the task should be performed to achieve the stated outcome. For the above example, the manager could include a list of what she’d like to see in the report or how long it should be (‘make sure to include comparisons with last year’ or ‘keep it to four pages’). In the right circumstances this should help build the individual’s confidence by providing guidance as to how the task should be completed. At an even more specific level (perhaps in the case of someone who lacks both confidence and ability) the manager might want to highlight specific behaviours to be considered when performing the tasks (‘this needs to be accurate, so take care with it…’). The matrix can be used for example to make clear to a new person what their main responsibilities are and how they should go about them. It can also be used to identify a problem with some aspect of their performance, by comparing the actual (performance)

112

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

with the desired (expectations). Finally, it can be used as a basis for setting objectives for employees. They can be set in terms of outcomes (e.g. acquiring a certain number of new customers); tasks (e.g. prepare a list of prospects to be contacted); or behaviours (e.g. not to be too pushy when making contact).

Getting the Work Done challenging delegating/trusting

Challenge Clear goals and expectations are an essential starting point, and in most cases matters are straightforward from there on. However, where the focus is on generating learning that will improve performance, the right balance must be struck between the individual’s level of comfort in what they’re doing and their level of anxiety about the outcome – the tasks need to provide challenge. As defined before, employee engagement in learning activities is about a desire to master new knowledge, skills and abilities. Managers can help with this by providing appropriate learning opportunities. Particular examples are challenging job assignments such as taking on new or unfamiliar responsibilities, or joining task forces or project teams that work across boundaries. By exposing the employee to novel situations that require new ideas, approaches and skills, learning is facilitated. However, this only works up to a point. Overly challenging experiences can cause great uncertainty in the learner and as a result can hinder learning. This issue is well discussed by DeRue and Wellman (2009). They suggest that too many challenges at the same time can cause the learner to divert focus from problem solving and learning-related processes to worries about failure and negative evaluation of their performance. Thus beyond a certain level of challenge, performance will decrease.

Delegation and Organizational Learning The concept of challenge is inherent in the notion of delegation. All of the chapters so far have argued for the benefit of learning from experience, and reflection on that experience. In addition, empowerment has been seen to be a critical component of effective performance and motivation. Thus there are several reasons why effective delegation is important. As the individual most likely to be delegating or distributing the work to be performed, the way in which the line manager goes about this task will have important implications for learning, development and performance. For example, Manikutty (2005) suggests that in order to optimize learning, these tasks or assignments should: • Test a certain aspect of the assignee’s competence and potential; • Give enough autonomy to the assignee to enable them to take decisions;

The Role of the Line Manager

113

• Be ‘stretch’ assignments where the individual is charged with delivering a difficult-to-attain result. Although delegation has long been regarded as an essential management tool, the academic literature on the subject has been surprisingly sparse. The practitioner literature (for example Danby 2009; Fleming 2009) provides plenty of examples of what should and shouldn’t be delegated, ways in which it should be carried out and its benefits and drawbacks. What is not dealt with in detail, however, is investigation of why managers do or don’t delegate, or indeed empirical evidence of the effects of delegation on motivation and performance. Having said that, reports of findings drawn together by Schriescheim, Neider and Scandura (1998) offer some guidance: • Managers delegate when they need extra help to complete tasks; • The degree of confidence managers have in their staffs’ ability has a major influence on the amount they will delegate; • Higher-level, more experienced managers tend to delegate more than lower-level managers; • Delegation tends to occur in work units characterized by less conflict and stress. Not surprisingly, their review also indicated that reluctance on the part of managers to delegate can be attributed to a perception that the task to be delegated is too difficult or too important, and/or that they don’t have confidence in the ability of that individual to undertake the task to be delegated. This observation is particularly pertinent in the context of managing performance, and the specific role of the manager as a coach. It will be discussed later in this chapter.

Delegation, Performance and Satisfaction In relation to delegation and performance or satisfaction, there is certainly some evidence for a relationship with each, although in general the strength of these relationships is not seen as overwhelmingly positive. There is reason to suspect that the quality of LMX affects both of these outcomes. Bear in mind that, as discussed earlier, high LMX relationships are characterized by high degrees of trust, support and interaction: it is not surprising that delegation should be more effective under these circumstances. This would also go some of the way towards explaining the link found by Chen and Aryee (2007) between delegation and what they call organization-based self-esteem, that is, the value that organization members place on themselves as functioning members of the organization. Once again, higher levels of self-esteem are associated with higher levels of performance and satisfaction.

114

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

So, despite the overwhelming support amongst practitioners for the idea of delegation, and at the same time the lack of a body of evidence to support its effectiveness, it is interesting to speculate on why it is seen as so important. Perhaps its benefits are now so taken for granted that interest in the study of delegation has waned. However, where it would seem to make a difference is in the balance of challenge and support, allied to real-life work issues that a delegation opportunity demands. Effective delegation involves achieving the right balance of trust and control, while providing the appropriate levels of freedom to perform. In that context, some tips for effective delegation are now summarized in Table 7.2. Table 7.2

Delegation for organizational learning

Do

Why?

Consider the level of ability of the person to whom you’re delegating to accomplish the task

This will enable you to decide the appropriate level of challenge for them – neither too much nor too little

Provide the appropriate level of ‘stretch’, depending on the balance between their ability and the demands of the task

A serious challenge successfully overcome is highly motivational for individuals

Consider the level of motivation of the person to whom you’re delegating to accomplish the task

If their motivation to undertake a delegated task is low, then you need to find out why, and act accordingly

Regularly discuss learning needs arising from performance of new tasks, and provide appropriate support

This is part of the ongoing coaching process, and is essential to maintain and improve performance

Focus on team performance

This will help share the learning arising from task performance

Accept that mistakes will be made

They are an inevitable part of the learning process

Box 7.4 Empowering Yourself Not all bosses are perfect! There are many instances where individuals find that their boss’s leadership style doesn’t allow them to perform with the degree of freedom they would like, thus narrowing their range of learning opportunities and impeding their development. This may be true for some or all aspects of the individual’s work. One of the ways of doing this is to demonstrate to the boss that you can be trusted with greater responsibility – in effect you’re increasing your own level of ‘negotiating latitude’. The ‘levels of freedom’ (Oncken and Wass 1999) are indicated overleaf.

The Role of the Line Manager

Level

Description

1

Wait until you’re told what to do

2

Ask what’s to be done

3

Recommend what’s to be done

4

Make decisions yourself, but let the boss know immediately

5

Make decisions yourself and report only routinely

115

For most people in most aspects of their work, it’s better to be further up the scale, as this enables greater control over one’s time as well as greater freedom to perform. This is in effect self-empowerment. How it’s done is to determine the level you’re at for a certain piece of work, and decide what level you’d like to be at. Slowly closing the gap is recommended, for example consistently making good recommendations (level 3) over time, and, seeing that they are acceptable, making decisions in that area (level 4) from a certain point onwards. Based on the premise that ‘it’s easier to beg forgiveness than to seek permission’, most bosses will be glad.

Managing Performance providing feedback

reflecting/clarifying thinking (see model p. 107)

Although it can be argued that ‘performance management’ should be taking place at all times for organizational learning to be maximized, literature on some of the more formal aspects of the process is of interest. Basically a cyclical process, managing performance comprises a number of elements: • • • •

Establishment of goals at the start of the cycle; Monitoring performance against those goals; Rewarding good performance through intrinsic or extrinsic rewards; Improving poor performance through feedback.

Although on the surface of it this process seems straightforward, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that much more value could be derived from it. A lot of this is down to managers and how they approach managing performance. Some reports (e.g. Brown, Hyatt and Benson 2010) suggest that managers hate conducting appraisals, believing them to be very stressful and not worth the effort. It is quite probable that the reluctance of many (some would even say most) managers to give negative feedback is behind this, and once again evidence from the literature (including Ilgen, Fisher and Taylor 1979, to cite an early and influential example) supports the argument. The consequence for learning is that real feedback on performance, which of course is a vital element, may not reach its intended target, or may become sufficiently diluted to render it useless.

116

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Box 7.5 Reflecting on Practice As we saw earlier in the book, many organizations that are serious about learning have developed structured ways of highlighting learning from both successful and unsuccessful undertakings. Individual managers can do this in less formal, though no less valuable ways. Following the completion of a potential learning experience such as handling an industrial dispute or migrating to a new customer database, for example, a set of questions such as the following can be asked:

• • • •

What were the most positive aspects of the project (in terms of either task or process)? Why was that the case? What were the greatest difficulties we encountered during the project (in terms of either task or process)? Why do we think that was the case? What did we learn? How might we use that learning the next time?

Elements of Performance Management What makes for good performance management? In the formal setting, Brown and colleagues suggest that the quality of a good performance appraisal is characterized by four indicators. First of all, employees need to be clear about the role and purpose of the appraisal. For example, is it more summative (in the case of deciding performance ratings or bonuses)? Or does it have a more formative, developmental aspect (with an emphasis on identifying what learning has occurred)? Second, the extent of communication and flow of information between the manager and the employee is important. Whether the appraisal involves discussion and dialogue between the parties and the opportunity to challenge opposing points of view will determine the amount of learning that ensues. Third, the whole process will be more effective if there is a higher level of trust between the parties. If the employee trusts the motives of the manager (with reference to the first point), trust which will be facilitated by the confidence that the manager understands their (the employee’s) job, they will be more likely to use the experience as a learning opportunity. Finally, employees want to be treated fairly, particularly in relation to others. Of course these principles apply in the case of informal, ongoing performance management as well.

The Value of Feedback The extent of any learning challenge, discussed earlier, is determined by the size of the gap between the learner’s perception of the demands of the situation and their perception of their current skills and ability to meet those demands. Experience suggests that if this gap is too wide, then engagement in learning-orientated behaviours will be inhibited. Thus the key is to keep the gap at the right level. In

The Role of the Line Manager

117

the case where the individual feels there is too much challenge, feedback from the manager can achieve one or both of two things: • Help build up the learner’s perception of their capabilities, or • Help modify their perception of the task demands. Of course it can always work in the other direction, where an individual may not wish to engage in learning because they see no challenge at all. In that case, the manager’s feedback may be aimed at lowering the learner’s perception of their abilities, or raising their perception of the task demands. In these circumstances, the ability of a manager to give appropriate, timely and specific feedback to others is arguably one of the most important skills they can develop. Feedback can be given when helping someone with on-the-job training. It is also an essential part of coaching. We’ll now look at giving feedback in more detail.

Giving Feedback Feedback, either as part of coaching or more specifically in training, aims to close the gap described above. It does this either by making individuals feel more confident about what they can do, or less worried about what they have to do, or both. This is why the way in which either positive or negative feedback is given is extremely important. Badly given feedback will tend to widen the gap, while properly given feedback should help close it. It is worth remembering that: • Positive feedback isn’t always helpful (its meaning may not be clear, or it may be seen as insincere if repeated too often). • Negative feedback isn’t always unhelpful (it may create the ‘energy’ to improve actual performance). • Both positive and negative feedback can be motivational. • The same rules apply to giving negative feedback as apply to giving positive feedback. • The words used (i.e. how it is said) are very important in giving helpful and honest feedback.

Feedback Guidelines We saw in the previous section how important feedback is when attempting to improve performance. Yet most people do not like giving feedback, particularly if it’s negative feedback. Perhaps they don’t know how to, or perhaps they are afraid of the reaction of the person receiving the feedback. The guidelines below should help make it easier.

118

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

1. Feedback should be intended to be helpful. Getting pleasure from telling someone about a mistake they’ve made with some figures just because you don’t like them is not helpful at all, and in fact may just make the problem worse. 2. Feedback should be given directly to the person, face to face. This helps make sure that the person understands exactly what you mean. 3. Feedback should be specific rather than general. It is very different saying to someone ‘You’re always late’, instead of saying ‘You have been late two days in the last week’. In the first case, it is easy for them to say to you ‘No, I was here early the last two days’. The same applies with positive feedback. To say to one of your staff ‘You’re great’ is not nearly as useful or motivational as describing something specific they did, e.g. ‘I really liked the way you kept calm when that caller was insulting you this morning’. 4. Feedback should always describe facts or behaviours, rather than being seen to make any judgment of a person. To take the previous example, it is far better to tell a person that they have been late on a number of occasions than to suggest or imply that they are lazy, or not committed to their work. 5. Feedback should focus on the effects of the behaviour. This is true of positive as well as negative feedback. With positive feedback, it can be very motivating for the person to know what good their hard work led to: ‘thanks to you noticing that the time of the meeting had changed we were able to call her before she left home’. With negative feedback, focusing on the effects of the behaviour is the best way to get them to accept it: ‘because you were late, we had one less person to answer the phones and had some complaints from callers about how long they had to wait’. 6. Feedback should be given when the person appears ready to accept it. If your staff member is still angry after an argument with a customer at the counter, they will probably not be in the mood to hear more criticism from you. Your best move might be to mention that you would like to talk about the incident a little later. 7. Feedback should include only those things that the person can do something about. A manager complaining ‘if only you were more like Deirdre’, or ‘I think you’re too old for this job’ is at best useless and at worst insensitive and insulting. 8. Feedback should never cover more issues than a person can handle at any one time. You should resist the temptation to list all the things that a person is doing wrong. It will only distract from the main message you want to give them. 9. Finally, properly given feedback should give a person the opportunity to check that they have understood you properly. You should be aware of their body language, and ask questions to make sure they know what you mean.

The Role of the Line Manager

119

Integrating the Elements – Internal Coaching We have examined the behaviours demonstrated by managers that, taken together, seek to create and maintain a climate for learning in the workplace. Perhaps another way of describing these behaviours collectively is internal coaching – a set of practices gaining in popularity as a means of optimizing performance under certain sets of working conditions. Within the practitioner literature in particular, much of the discussion concerning managers’ ability to promote and sustain learning within their areas of responsibility relates to this role. As discussed in Chapter 2, coaching is described in terms of a one-to-one process in which one person (the coach) assists another (the client) to learn. The relationship is about enabling them to learn for the future, by creating a relationship whereby the person being coached is encouraged to set performance goals for themselves and is supported in reaching those goals. Having said this, it is possible to generate this learning in other ways. Some of it can be ‘taught’ by an expert in that area. Or an individual may attend seminars or read up on the subject. Yet what sets coaching apart from other ways is that the coaching process operates largely by means of asking powerful questions rather than giving advice, with the implication that at all times the responsibility for learning and the actions taken as a result remain with the person being coached. This description is also relevant to at least some aspects of the manager–employee relationship. Indeed Hamlin, Ellinger and Beattie (2006) note that the concepts of ‘coaching’ and ‘facilitation of learning’ are often used interchangeably in the literature and thus suggest they are synonymous. Given the description of coaching, ‘coaching’ managers, by assisting individuals in terms of self-discovery and learning, thus help create a workplace climate where learning thrives.

Managerial Coaching Behaviours A number of studies have managed to categorize these managerial coaching behaviours (Ellinger and Bostrom 1999; Beattie 2002a, b, 2004; Hamlin 2004). Examples of themes that consistently run through the descriptions include: • Encouraging employees to think through issues rather than simply providing answers • Giving and receiving feedback • Clearly communicating expectations • Getting employees to look at problems from different perspectives • Providing support, encouragement and empathy • Being challenging • Inclusion in communication and decision-making processes.

120

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

All of these behaviours have been discussed already. Thus a manager skilled in internal coaching will be likely to find it easier to generate the sort of climate that facilitates learning than one who isn’t.

Creating a Climate for Learning We have seen throughout this chapter the vital role that line managers can play in optimizing the amount of learning resulting from the regular, day-to-day activities of the organizational unit for which they’re responsible. A range of behaviours (and as we have seen, some attitudes as well) have been identified that need to be demonstrated to co-ordinate the efforts of those in the unit effectively, thus enabling both better organizational performance and personal development. The necessity of some of those behaviours, such as planning and delegating, are obvious from a performance point of view, yet if they are used in the right way they can also have important developmental consequences. On the other hand, challenging and empowering are strongly people-oriented behaviours that also have longterm consequences for performance. Also, we have seen in earlier chapters that learning is a social process. Thus the role of the line manager becomes one of creating a climate where learning from shared interpretation of experience and implementation of that learning combine to drive organizational performance, and at the same time provide real development opportunities for the individuals within that organization.

References Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Rapp, A. 2005. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945–55. Beattie, R.S. 2002a. Developmental managers: Line managers as facilitators of workplace learning in voluntary organizations. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Glasgow. Beattie, R.S. 2002b. Going native: Ethnographic research in HRD. In J. Stewart, J.J. McGoldrick and S. Watson, eds, Understanding Human Resource Development: A Research-Based Approach. London: Routledge, pp. 315–338. Beattie, R.S. 2004. Line managers, HRD and ethics. In J. Woodall, M. Lee and J. Stewart, eds, New Frontiers in Human Resource Development. London: Routledge. pp. 58–79. Beattie, R.S. 2006. Line managers and workplace learning: Learning from the voluntary sector. Human Resource Development International, 9(1), 99–119.

The Role of the Line Manager

121

Beck, T.E. and Plowman, D.A. 2009. Experiencing rare and unusual events richly: The role of middle managers in animating and guiding organizational interpretation. Organization Science, 20(5), 909–24. Bezuijen, X.M., van den Berg, P.T., van Dam, K. and Henk, T. 2009. Pygmalion and employee learning: The role of leader behaviors. Journal of Management, 35(5), 1248–67. Brown, M., Hyatt, D. and Benson, J. 2010. Consequences of the performance appraisal experience. Personnel Review, 39(3), 375–96. Camp, R., Vielhaber, M. and Simonetti, J.L. 2001. Strategic interviewing: How to hire good people. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chen, Z.X. and Aryee, S. 2007. Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 226–38. Danby, P. 2009. Setting the right direction. Business Strategy Review, Winter, 59–63. Dansereau, F., Graen, G. and Haga, W.J. 1975. A vertical dyad approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 13, 46–78. DeRue, D.S. and Wellman, N. 2009. Developing leaders via experience: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859–75. Drucker, P.F. 1993. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: HarperBusiness. Dweck, C.S. 1999. Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Ellinger, A. and Bostrom, R. 1999. Managerial coaching behaviours in learning organizations. Journal of Management Development, 18(9), 752–71. Ellinger, A. and Bostrom, R. 2002. An examination of managers’ beliefs about their roles as facilitators of learning. Management Learning, 33(2), 147–79. Fleming, R.S. 2009. The role of effective delegation in professional and organizational success. The Business Renaissance Quarterly, 153–61. Gerstner, C.R. and Day, D.V. 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–44. Gosling, J. and Mintzberg, H. 2003. The five minds of a manager. Harvard Business Review, 81(11), 54–63. Hamlin, R.G. 2004. In support of universalistic models of managerial and leadership effectiveness: Implications for HRD research and practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2), 189–215. Hamlin, R.G., Ellinger, A.D. and Beattie, R.S. 2006. Coaching at the heart of managerial effectiveness: A cross-cultural study of managerial behaviours. Human Resources Development International, 9(3), 305–31.

122

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Harper, S.C. and Glew, D.J. 2008. Is your organization learning-impaired? Industrial Management, March, 26–30. Heraty, N. and Morley, M. 2008. Dimensionalizing the architecture of organizationled learning: A framework for collective practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 472–93. Heslin, P.A., Vandewalle, D. and Latham, G.P. 2006. Keen to help? Managers’ implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology, 59, 871–902. Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D. and Taylor, M.S. 1979. Consequences of individual feedback on behaviour in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–71. Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–17. Manikutty, S. 2005. Manager as a trainer, a coach and a mentor. Vikalpa, 30(2), 57–64. Morgan, G. 1997. Images of Organization, 2nd edn. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Oncken Jr, W. and Wass, D.L. 1999. Management time: Who’s got the monkey? Harvard Business Review, November–December, 179–86. Scandura, T.A. and Graen, G.B. 1984. Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428–36. Schriescheim, C.S., Neider, L.L. and Scandura, T.A. 1998. Delegation and leader– member exchange: Main effects, moderators and measurement issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 298–318. Seijts, G.H., Latham, G.P., Tasa, K. and Latham, B.W. 2004. Goal setting and goal orientation: An integration of two different yet related literatures. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 227–39. Stewart, R. (1985). The Reality of Management, 2nd edn. London: Pan Books. Whetten, D.A. and Cameron, K.S. 2002. Developing Management Skills, 5th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. 2010. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–28.

Chapter 8

Evaluating Organizational Learning

Introduction The preceding chapters demonstrated the variety of alternatives that exist when considering ways of improving individual learning and by implication organizational learning. At both individual and group levels, an understanding of behaviourist, cognitive, social cognitive, humanist and constructivist perspectives enables those with responsibility for learning within organizations to design and support a wide range of learning options. These include personal development plans, guided reflection on experience, action learning sets and communities of practice. They also include more ‘traditional’ classroom-based interventions delivered either separately to or in conjunction with one or more of the above. For the purposes of this chapter, we shall refer collectively to the interventions to be evaluated as ‘workplace learning’. Illeris (2003) suggests that the term can be used to describe any planned event, experience or activity that seeks to achieve a change in employees’ knowledge, skills or attitudes. Furthermore, he proposes that it may be of any duration, may take place on or off the job, and may or may not lead to a qualification. One of the biggest challenges facing those with responsibility for workplace learning interventions is demonstrating that these interventions make a tangible difference to the organization. In some organizations, this is an integral part of the way they operate. In others, it’s more likely that the management of the organization make the assumption that if they’re spending the same as everyone else (typically between 1 and 5 per cent of payroll) they’re engaging in ‘best practice’. However, this focus on activity rather than impact has two serious drawbacks. First, learning and development departments are less likely to be taken seriously; second, and more importantly, their activity will be seen not as an investment but as a cost. Consequently, in difficult times, the absence of evidence that learning and development resources are being spent wisely will often mean that its activity gets scaled down until ‘things get better’.

124

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Evaluating the Effects of Organizational Learning Practices The wide range of organizational learning options discussed in the previous chapters presents an equally wide range of evaluation challenges. Evaluating formal classroom training for example, which tends to be delivered under more controlled conditions, may be more straightforward. However, with work-based experiential learning, where objectives and outcomes are often harder to identify much less quantify, great care is needed if valid and reliable results are to be achieved. On the positive side, many work-based learning interventions have a significant advantage over classroom interventions in that the transfer of learning problem (Kirwan 2009) is not as acute. Transfer of learning has been defined by Broad and Newstrom (1992: 5) as ‘the effective and continuing application, by trainees to their jobs, of the knowledge and skills gained in training – both on and off the job’. As more experiential learning approaches (because of their ‘situated’ nature) tend to forge closer links between learning and the transfer of that learning, this has implications for the ease with which learners can apply on the job what they learn through these interventions.

The Challenge of Evaluation Griffin (2011) argues that evaluation of workplace learning interventions faces a number of challenges. Perhaps the most significant of these is that there do not appear to be any shared assumptions about what aspects of learning should be evaluated or what methods should be used. He observes that often in the academic world the methods may be valid but the results of little practical value to practitioners, while on the other hand practitioners may use methods that are not scientifically based. He suggests a need for a scientifically robust but practitioner-friendly framework to guide evaluation, although the lack of a single conceptual model of workplace learning on which to base it makes this more difficult. From the practitioner side, there are of course other challenges. They include in particular a perception that evaluation is not necessary, but also a lack of capability and insufficient resources directed towards the undertaking of evaluations. A further layer of complexity can be attributed to the reasons behind why organizations evaluate their workplace learning interventions. On one hand, they may want to prove (or at least provide evidence) that the intervention has had an impact on some aspect of organizational performance, such as increasing productivity or lowering the level of absenteeism. Evaluations of this nature usually look for relationships between aspects of the intervention, such as knowledge gained or behaviour changed, and relevant organizational measures. On the other

Evaluating Organizational Learning

125

hand, evaluations may want to improve both the content and delivery of future interventions in the light of findings from earlier (e.g. pilot) interventions. In these cases, emphasis should be put on the content and delivery of the interventions themselves, as well as other factors contributing to learning and application of that learning. Finally, many change programmes or interventions may want to affect an organization’s culture in some way, and so need to examine a broader range of conditions surrounding the intervention.

Evaluation Frameworks The need for a scientifically robust but practitioner-friendly framework to guide evaluation of workplace learning is a strong one. Within the literature, early frameworks such as those of Kirkpatrick (1979) and Jackson and Kulp (1979) focused primarily on outcomes rather than examining the broader context. Warr, Bird and Rackham (1970) looked at evaluation across a broad range of factors using the CIRO approach: context, input, reaction and outcomes. More recent models such as those of Holton (1996) and Kraiger (2002) also take account of individual and work environment characteristics that can influence the effectiveness of the intervention.

The ‘Learning System’ One of the main reasons for the growth of alternative forms of learning within organizations has been to bridge the gap between learning and practice. Because the trend has been to base the learning on experience at work, it is all the more important to take into account all the factors that might influence it. This is the learning system, and it comprises a number of elements: • Outcomes from the intervention. These may involve some or all of cognitive (thinking differently), behavioural (behaving differently) or affective (feeling differently) outcomes. • The intervention itself, in particular its objectives and its link with the learning need which gave rise to it, as well as the degree to which it incorporates best practice principles. • The work environment surrounding the intervention. This is particularly important, as estimates from research suggest that only somewhere between 10 (Broad and Newstrom 1992) and 34 per cent (Saks and Belcourt 2006) of skills and knowledge gained from training is still being applied by employees on the job a year later. These perspectives will shortly be looked in more detail. Although workplace learning interventions can differ in many ways and seek many different outcomes,

126

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

they are essentially based on the same broad learning principles – to get people thinking, doing or feeling differently. Consequently, the same basic methodologies (with some variations, it has to be said) can be adapted and employed to evaluate the results. Thus in the context of our discussion, we shall use as examples of different types of interventions that characterize workplace learning: coaching, a purely individually focused intervention; classroom sessions, individual within a group; and action learning, a primarily group-focused intervention.

Further Evaluation Considerations All research methods have their strengths and their weaknesses. Administering a survey questionnaire to look for correlations between variables can be fast and efficient. However, as the literature indicates, learning can be a complex matter, and while correlations indicate relationships between elements, they don’t help the evaluator to understand processes or individual meaning in those elements. With more descriptive research, on the other hand, these difficulties can be more easily overcome, although it is time-consuming, and analysis is often more difficult. In practical terms, the use of more than one method in evaluation should help achieve the best of both worlds. Sometimes referred to as multi-method research or triangulation, the use of multiple and independent methods (usually complementary qualitative and quantitative methods) should, according to Gill and Johnson (1991), have greater validity and reliability than a single-method approach, assuming the same conclusions are reached. By obtaining corroborating evidence from different evaluation methods, the trade-offs that must be made in conducting any research (McGrath 1981) can be dealt with. Triangulation is a means of minimizing the negative effects of these compromises in research and is defined by Loveridge (1990) as using multiple methods to capture a sense of reality. While different types of triangulation exist, the gathering of data either from different sources or by using different methods are the most common. Interestingly, in a review of research strategies employed over the previous 20 years, Scandura and Williams (2000) seemed concerned that the use of single-source data had been increasing during the 1990s and suggested a need for greater use of triangulation in order to strengthen the conclusions drawn and reduce threats to their validity. In fact, Patton (1990: 187) went so far as to ‘offer as a methodological rule the principle that multiple methods should be used in every investigation’.

The Learning Effectiveness Audit We now describe a comprehensive framework within which evaluation of the different components can be approached. As indicated above, it provides a basis

Evaluating Organizational Learning

127

for the evaluation of outcomes, inputs and the effects of work environment factors in learning effectiveness. The model is shown in Figure 8.1. WORK ENVIRONMENT Peer, Manager and Organization Support Motivation and Ability to Learn and Transfer

FRAMEWORKS, TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

INPUTS Intervention Content and Design

Figure 8.1

OUTCOMES Reactions, Learning, Behaviour, Results, ROI

The learning effectiveness audit

Evaluating Learning Outcomes Amongst the frameworks for measuring outcomes at different levels already described, the most enduring seems to be that of Kirkpatrick, alluded to earlier. As such it will be used here as a basis for discussion. Kirkpatrick proposed a taxonomy of outcomes at four levels – reactions, learning, behaviour and organizational impact. These will be described briefly.

Participant Reactions to the Event Evaluation at this level measures how well trainees liked a particular programme, and in many respects is really no more than a measure of ‘customer satisfaction’. At this level, facilitators are interested in the answers to questions concerning the subject matter, learning techniques, performance of the course leader, suggestions for improvement and so on. Despite their shortcomings (they are limited in scope, lack links with learning transfer and are often used as the only indication of effectiveness for many programmes), reactions evaluations will at the very least give an indication of what is ‘going down well’ or otherwise. Reactions evaluations can be used to ascertain specific views concerning pace, depth and breadth of content, and teaching and facilitating styles, as well as practical matters such as timing, programme support or even choice of venue.

128

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

The Amount of Learning that has Taken Place Getting a favourable reaction to a particular programme does not however ensure that learning will take place (learning can sometimes be painful!). Learning from an intervention can take many forms, involving changes in knowledge, skills or attitudes. Different learning outcomes may happen simultaneously, sometimes resulting in a change in behaviour, sometimes not.

Changes in Behaviour at Work For most organizational learning interventions, in practical terms this is the outcome they want to achieve. Evaluation at this level is about finding out the extent to which learning from an intervention is being applied in practice. We want to know if managers are running their meetings better, front-line employees are treating their customers better, or salespeople are closing sales better.

Measuring Organizational Impact This is usually the most difficult to measure, due to complication by other factors. As such it is rarely attempted in any meaningful way by most organizations. The primary difficulty they encounter is in determining how much of the improvement is due to the intervention compared to other factors such as management style, staff morale or favourable economic conditions. This type of evaluation often compares figures before and after such as productivity, accident rates, absenteeism, sales figures, or cost savings.

A Word of Caution Reporting on the widespread use of the Kirkpatrick framework, a meta-analysis (an analysis of studies already undertaken) and later update by Alliger and colleagues (Alliger and Janak, 1989; Alliger et al. 1997) came up with some interesting propositions. Generally speaking: • Outcomes at the reactions level are unrelated to those at other levels; • Outcomes at the learning level are no better predictors of subsequent job performance than utility (how useful was the programme) reactions; • While some correlations between outcomes at behaviour levels and organizational impact levels have been observed, they are influenced by many variables.

Evaluating Organizational Learning

129

Measurement at Different Levels The main implication from the above is that each level of evaluation has its own purpose. Given what has been said, evaluation at the reactions level is very easy to do, but provides information that is of limited use. At the other end of the spectrum, measurement of the contribution of workplace learning interventions to overall organizational performance, particularly to the degree where a return on investment (Phillips 2003), can be calculated is seen by many as the ultimate goal for organizations, and the main reason they allocate precious resources to learning and development. Realistically however, evaluation at this level is notoriously difficult to do validly and reliably. It can be time-consuming and therefore expensive, and in the case of shorter interventions could cost as much as the intervention itself. Nevertheless the observations outlined above may guide us on where to focus. Given that the link between evaluation at the behavioural level and evaluation at the organizational impact level are stronger than those between other levels, perhaps measurement at the former can serve as a useful proxy for the latter, in situations where measurement at the level of organizational impact may be unrealistic. Evaluation at the behavioural level is more straightforward, can be measured validly and reliably and has the advantage of being able to be more closely linked to the intervention.

How to Measure Outcomes Table 8.1 summarizes a list of methodological options for evaluating outcomes of workplace learning interventions. We will look at some of the most popular. Table 8.1

Learning outcome measurement options

Reactions

Learning

Behaviour

Results

Questionnaires

Tests

Behavioural questionnaires

Performance data (internal)

Group review

Simulations

Focus groups

Performance data (external)

Self-assessment

Interviews

Trainer assessment

Observation Action plans and assignments Critical incidents Customer feedback

130

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Questionnaires Perhaps the most used (and in many cases overused) method of gathering data relating to outcomes is the questionnaire. Critics argue that questionnaires, particularly where assessments of skill are concerned, are highly subjective. However, this can be reduced to some extent by asking other stakeholders in the learning process, the subject’s boss, peers or subordinates for example, to complete them – in effect a form of triangulation as discussed earlier. Although difficult to construct in a form that is simultaneously understandable, valid and reliable, they have nevertheless become an essential tool in the evaluation process. Ranking scales, semantic differential questionnaires or Likert scales are common examples. If a workplace learning intervention has been designed in a systematic way, it should have a set of objectives that the intervention is designed to achieve. If those objectives can be described in application-oriented terms so much the better. Once these are clear, it becomes easier to see what specific skills, behaviours or competencies need to be exhibited by participants following the intervention to demonstrate success. This is becoming increasingly important as more and more programmes, particularly in the area of management, are built around the development of a set of competencies to be acquired or desired behaviours to be demonstrated (Burke 1997; Warr, Allan and Birdi 1999). In these cases, measuring outcomes essentially becomes a relatively straightforward process of asking questions within the relevant competency areas, or about the desired behaviours.

Interviews If time and resources allow, a properly structured and conducted interview can glean a large amount of rich data concerning learning outcomes. In the same way as responses to questionnaires are good for answering the ‘what’ questions, data gathered through interviews can be extremely useful in answering the ‘how’ questions (indeed it is becoming increasingly popular to use the two forms in tandem). How they are used will depend to an extent on whether the emphasis is on describing events or explaining them. Sometimes both emphases will be needed. On the one hand, there may be a need to describe the relevant behaviours, attitudes and events in force during the process of learning. In this situation, a more structured interview may be called for. On the other hand, it may be necessary to explain the process in detail, looking at the range of factors influencing outcomes, and identifying possible causes and consequences. In this situation, a less structured interview may be a better option. The structured form tends to take up less time, is easier to conduct for the less experienced interviewer, and, as the questions are usually predetermined, can obtain the desired information. However, if the format is too structured, below-the-surface issues may be ignored. The unstructured interview, by contrast, requires greater skill on the part of the interviewer, but can be more powerful at gaining richer information (Denzin 1970) such as perceptions, feelings or attitudes. In practice, given that sometimes both

Evaluating Organizational Learning

131

emphases will be needed, a semi-structured format (Remenyi et al. 1998) with an interview guide is regularly used. The guide helps to provide some structure, and also helps to provide consistency if data is being collected from a number of different sites and/or interviewers. This facilitates the making of comparisons during analysis. In practice, a properly conducted interview can be a very versatile tool in evaluating outcomes from a range of interventions. With coaching, for example, evaluation of outcomes by means of an interview actually mirrors the process of coaching itself, and so seems like a natural way of gathering information. For something like action learning, a semi-structured or unstructured interview may be the only way that estimates of learning outcomes might be made, particularly as learners themselves may have difficulty in articulating what effect the intervention has had on them.

Focus Groups So far we have seen that questionnaires can help gather data quickly, and provide ‘hard’ data, but that such data can often suffer from a lack of depth. Alternatively, while interviews can provide this depth, the time and cost involved in gathering sufficient views to make the data reliable can be off-putting. For many evaluators, therefore, the use of the focus group has been seen as providing a reasonable trade-off between these two aims. Focus group meetings are a popular means of gathering evidence around different types of outcome from workplace learning interventions. Assuming they are used in the right way (in particular, that the right questions are asked) they can also be quite effective. At the start of a process, they can be used where the objective is to gather views in a general way, and to get a sense of themes that might be emerging. For example, evaluators can use focus groups in just this way to identify themes around which they can design a survey questionnaire for future evaluations. At the other end of the process, they can be particularly useful for providing depth to a more quantitative survey. For instance, a survey administered following an intervention might ask questions concerning the level of management support participants experienced in putting their learning into practice. Suppose overall average scores are in the medium range, and survey results also indicate a wide variation in scores on this dimension. Further analysis of these results via a focus group would be able to get behind both the high and the low scores, providing greater explanation as to how and why some participants’ managers are very good and others very poor at giving support. In this way, what good and bad management support actually looks like could be identified. Data of this nature can be far more useful in making plans to improve outcomes from future interventions.

132

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Other Measurement Options In practice, one or more of the three methods just described are used in almost all evaluations. However, there are some others that can be called upon that may be more appropriate in certain situations.

Observation Observing participants to record changes in their behaviour provides immediate feedback regarding skill application. This technique is in regular use in the training of participants in skills such as presenting, interviewing, negotiating and customer handling, to name but a few, and for these types of skills it can be both valid and reliable. It can also be used before, within or after a training event. Used before and after training events, it can provide a clear picture of pre- and post-training performance, and enable comparison. Used within training events, feedback from the observer(s) can guide practice and enable mastery of the skill. For data gathered through this method to be valid and reliable it needs to be clear what specific behaviours are being observed, and what the ‘correct’ behaviour is. Of course best results will be obtained if the people doing the observing are skilled in doing so. They need mastery of the skill in which the training is being conducted (procedural knowledge), as well as a sound knowledge of the principles behind it (declarative knowledge). In reality, however, this is not always practically possible. In those situations, some others in the training group may be given guidelines and asked to observe. While this form of observation is not quite as valid, it is nevertheless usually more achievable. Also, where more than one observer is involved, shortcomings arising from a lack of depth in their collective knowledge of the subject can be offset by the number of viewpoints they can provide. This may not be a major issue during the training, as observers will usually have the back-up of the facilitator. However, if follow-up observations are to be made back at work, care must be taken as to who carries them out. The provision of a clear template and set of guidelines for the observer will help with the accuracy of data collected in this way. Technology can also help. The (small) size and relatively small cost of a variety of devices with which observations can be made continues to make the process easier. Performance on a presentation skills course, for example, or difficulties encountered in chairing a meeting can be recorded unobtrusively using audio or (better still) video equipment. What these instruments capture can strongly reinforce observations made by an observer. In addition, they are not subject to any biases, and have the benefit of being able to be retained for further reflection.

Evaluating Organizational Learning

133

Examination of Action Plans Although not in itself an evaluation method, we saw that having a specific plan to put into practice skills or knowledge gained from a learning event will increase the possibility of their transfer to the job. The value of stating objectives in the action plan as specifically and measurably as possible will be realized when it comes to measurement of their achievement or otherwise. Actual changes in onthe-job behaviour (learning transfer) can be compared with predicted changes as described in the action plan. The value of this process can be further enhanced if the individual includes, while creating the action plan, a reflection on their current capabilities in the area of competence being developed. Changes can be measured by interview, by questionnaire, or indeed by any appropriate means at a specified date following the event.

Self-diaries Before an intervention, self-diaries can provide a baseline measure of efficiency or effectiveness on some dimension. Maintaining a self-diary involves recording actions, decisions and other activities at work for a specific period of time. The same process is then followed under the same conditions after the training. Evaluation becomes the measurement of the difference between the two. For example, a selfdiary could be useful during a coaching intervention, where one of the goals of the process might be to get the client thinking about how they spend their time on particular aspects of their job. A typical morning’s entries could include the number of and time spent on phone calls, the number of interruptions, by whom, how much time was spent on identified key result areas, and so on. However, the use of self-diaries does rely heavily on the commitment and honesty of the person completing them.

Critical Incidents Not unlike the diary approach, but for specific incidents, this requires the learner to describe in detail a particular work-related incident of relevance to the intervention. How they behaved, decisions they took and so on are recorded. Quite apart from any evaluative need, these descriptions can also serve as useful inputs to the learning process, given that they encourage reflection. During or following the intervention, similar incidents (when they arise) can be described and different behaviours noted and discussed. The technique could be used for example to evaluate the outcomes of a negotiating skills course, in which the participant describes matters such as their feelings before a particular negotiation session, how they planned it, what strategies they used during it, what the outcome was and so on. It could also be useful in the context of participation in an action learning process, where feelings about what the participant has achieved through their

134

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

involvement can be examined, compared and contrasted with the way in which they would have dealt with similar situations before the intervention.

Other Sources of Data The use of instruments that gather information from sources other than trainees is increasing. Gaining steadily in popularity amongst the management community are instruments such as 360-degree-type feedback instruments. Conger and Xin (2000), for example, found in a survey of executive education that 76 per cent of respondents felt that such instruments would be used extensively in the twenty-first century, particularly in the area of behaviour change and outcomes linked to programme objectives. That’s heartening. So too are a review and a study, by Alliger et al. (1997) and May and Kahnweiler (2000) respectively, that support this development. However, great care must be taken with the use of these instruments. Atkins and Wood (2002) describe research into the validity of 360-degree feedback with some external criteria. Their results add to the evidence that self-ratings tend to be more lenient than those of observers such as peers or supervisors, and that ratings by observers agree more with each other than with the self-rating. They also warn that mixing self and others’ ratings is not a good idea from the point of view of providing an accurate picture. All of this makes sense. Different people will view an individual’s performance from different angles, and indeed it is the diversity of these viewpoints that makes the data they generate so valuable. Finally, there is a logistical difficulty that can arise when trying to generate reports from more than one source. Before and after measures of on-thejob behaviour are valid and reliable measures of transfer where respondents have been able to experience or observe that behaviour on a regular basis. However, generating sufficient reports to make them so can sometimes be a problem, as can finding programmes that measure behaviours or competencies in this way. Despite these potential problems, gathering data through this multi-source mode offers an additional means of triangulating to that discussed earlier, that of gathering data from the same sources, but using different methods.

Control Groups Another very important consideration when evaluating any learning intervention is the use of control groups. These are essential if changes in behaviour resulting from an intervention are to be isolated and attributed solely to the intervention itself. It is often the case, particularly with lengthy development-type programmes, that learning or change in behaviour can occur independently of the training being attended. Measurement of changes in the dimensions being studied in a group which is matched in terms of appropriate characteristics to the experimental group, and which has not undergone the training will allow the researcher to determine with greater validity the actual effect of the training. In this regard a scientific approach originally proposed by Solomon (1949) uses three control groups in

Evaluating Organizational Learning

135

addition to the experimental group. He suggests that due to the Hawthorne effect (a positive effect on the performance of a group brought about by paying special attention to that group) a control group may perform better on the after-training test as a result of having undergone the before-training test. Therefore, in his ‘fourgroup design’ one control group receives before and after testing and no training, one receives before and after testing and a training placebo, and one receives aftertraining testing only. While the practical difficulties in carrying out this type of evaluation in practice are enormous, if proof rather than evidence of change is required the use of control groups needs to be considered.

Differences and Similarities Although the practical emphasis may change, the basic principles remain the same whatever the type of learning intervention being considered. For all types, reactions or perceptions of learning may be gathered by means of a questionnaire, particularly if a large number of participants are involved, making it easier to track themes that arise. Perhaps for coaching or action learning, asking individuals or the group at different stages of the process is likely to be more appropriate. Behavioural change in any event should be linked to the intervention’s objectives, with the choice of method dependent on scale and resources. The same applies for evaluation at the impact level, bearing in mind that for most interventions, evidence rather than outright proof is being sought. Even evaluation of e-learning or blended learning components can follow the same principle. Perhaps the single most important question here is ‘what could reasonably be expected to change in the organization as a result of this intervention?’ (which of course should be asked before the intervention is designed!).

Two Things to Watch Out For Throughout the previous chapters, we have seen that different learning experiences may give rise to different types of learning outcomes. In particular these outcomes have related to learners thinking differently, feeling differently or doing something differently as a result. Measuring these often subtle changes is not always easy, but an understanding of two issues that arise in this context will help in their interpretation.

Alpha, Beta and Gamma Change Golembiewski, Billingsley and Jaeger (1976) originally highlighted the complexity of change that occurs in many learning interventions, and explained it by proposing three types of change that can occur – alpha, beta and gamma change. Alpha change is described as a straightforward variation in the level of

136

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

knowledge or skill on some dimension along a fixed scale. For a simple skills course, for example, it could reflect a measurable improvement in the performance of task such as making a travel reservation or negotiating a better price for a product. For a management programme, alpha change might include improved time and priority management, more effective meetings, better handling of conflict or better skill in delegating. Beta change can be described as involving some ‘recalibration’ of the measurement scale, for example where participants may have reassessed their level of prior knowledge on some dimension in between two measurements. For instance, an individual may feel, following a programme they attend, that they didn’t learn anything new as such, but what they did learn was simply a reinforcement of what they feel they were doing all along. What may have happened is that their procedural skills and knowledge have been placed in a declarative context (procedural and declarative knowledge were first encountered in Chapter 1) so they now have a framework into which they can place what they know. For another, the intervention might allow the individual the opportunity to take stock of their understanding of certain relevant competencies (how to manage performance, for example) which may change as the intervention progresses. Finally, gamma change can be described in terms of involving a reconceptualization, or a major change in the frame of reference within which the learning takes place. Some examples of gamma change outcomes might include participants coming away from a programme with greater self-insight regarding their style, their strengths or weaknesses, or their development needs. Perhaps they have found a new degree of clarity around their role, or a general broadening of their horizons and what is possible within that role. These outcomes are not easy to measure, but are valid outcomes nonetheless.

Response-shift Bias The above issue is likely to manifest itself where self-reporting measures are concerned, in a phenomenon known as response-shift bias. Some early research by Terborg, Howard and Maxwell (1980) reported a number of studies showing that self-reports including pre- and post-ratings are subject to this phenomenon. It arises when the intervention changes the participant’s evaluation standard (beta change) for the dimension being measured. It is more likely to occur with interventions where outcomes other than the acquisition of straightforward knowledge or simple skills are involved. To take an example, a participant on a team leader development programme may rate themself pre-course as a 5 (out of 7, say) on the dimension of communication skills. As a result of attendance at the programme, their knowledge of what constitutes good communication skills expands. When asked to rate themself at the end of the programme, they now realize their pre-course level of communication skill was really only a 3, and given what has been learned, is now a 5. Ordinary pre- and post-course measures would conclude that the programme was ineffective. To get around this Howard and Dailey (1979) recommend what is in effect a three-test approach. First, the

Evaluating Organizational Learning

137

normal pre-course level is rated. After the training, participants give two ratings: the first is the level they perceive themselves to be at currently (the usual postcourse rating); the second rating is how they now perceive themselves to have been just before the programme started. They call this second measure the ‘then’ measure. The response-shift is the difference between the ‘pre’ and the ‘then’ measure, and indeed can be used as a measure of learning. The difference between the ‘post’ and ‘then’ measures represents the true (behaviour level) effect of the programme. Results from a number of studies bear this out. In five out of eleven studies carried out by Howard and others during 1979, analyses comparing pre/ post and then/post measures showed very different conclusions, that is, different levels of improvement. More recent work by Sprangers and Hoogstraten (1989) and Mann (1997) lends support to the usefulness of this technique for evaluating different learning outcomes and giving a truer picture of the amount of change that has taken place.

A Word on Return on Investment The prospect of being able to calculate a return on investment (ROI) (Phillips 2003) from workplace learning activity is an enticing one. Should this be possible, L&D professionals everywhere would be in a position to convince their stakeholders of the value to the organization of investing in a range of learning interventions. Its methodology appears relatively simple – divide the net programme benefits by the programme costs and multiply the result by 100 to get a percentage figure. It is perhaps for this reason that it has gained attention in the business world (although interestingly, the academic literature doesn’t have much to say about it). However, behind this apparent simplicity lies a range of assumptions and methodologies that have as many detractors as they have proponents. For this author in particular, the methodology appears to take little or no account of the variety of factors that influence learning effectiveness described in this and other chapters. Furthermore, practical experience would suggest that ROI methodology is not as well understood as it might be (by practitioners at least). To some, it represents only the percentage figure at the end of the process, while for others it is a term to describe any methodology that assesses organizational impact (see Avolio, Avey and Quisenberry 2010). For a number of reasons, therefore, treatment of this specialist topic is outside the scope of this book.

Evaluation of Inputs Inputs to a workplace learning intervention can involve a number of options. For a training course in safety procedures, or a leadership development programme, there will be varying amounts of content that needs to be delivered. For a coaching intervention, there may be little or no ‘content’ as such (or it may be decided as

138

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

the coaching progresses), but other inputs may be important. For example, the skills of the coach and their ability to help the client will contribute greatly to the success of the intervention. For an action learning programme, the ‘content’ may well be the elements of a work-based problem, but once again the competence of the set adviser, the collective experience of the set members and their willingness to contribute to each other’s development will be significant. Similarly, in terms of design, there will be variations. Training courses tend to incorporate many of the same design elements such as tutor input, exercises, group discussions and the like. Work-based interventions may not have an obvious design, but the principles outlined in earlier chapters and the evidence for their effectiveness will provide a template for evaluation. And indeed coaching has a design, as models of coaching exist and their use is encouraged. As far as inputs to the process are concerned, therefore, a range of factors known to influence the application of learning back on the job were discussed in detail in Chapter 6. All of the input features discussed there and in this chapter have implications for the effectiveness of learning interventions. There is a strong body of evidence (Cheng and Hampson 2008; Blume et al. 2010) supporting the contribution that these conditions can make to learning events. Table 8.2 summarizes the most critical, and suggests some questions that should be asked. Table 8.2

Evaluating intervention inputs

Content

Why is the individual/group participating? Has a learning needs analysis of any sort been carried out?

Objectives

Have objectives been set for the intervention, either at individual or group level?

Balance of theory and practice Is there an appropriate balance of declarative and procedural knowledge? Is enough time allowed for practice? Links with real-world practice

Does the learning situation reflect the practice situation (where appropriate)?

Variety

Does the intervention use a variety of learning techniques to accommodate different learning styles?

Distributed vs massed

Is the intervention delivered in modular form?

Facilitator skills

Is the trainer, coach or facilitator capable? Are they seen as credible by the learners?

Evaluating Organizational Learning

139

How to Measure Inputs The range of inputs to different workplace learning interventions can be extensive. As mentioned earlier, inputs to formal, classroom-type interventions may include specific content, an associated learning needs assessment, written materials and tutors with expert knowledge. On the other hand, a coaching intervention might primarily involve a coach with process skills and a client with a wealth of experience to unlock. With an action learning programme, apart from the people involved there may be no obvious inputs, as the process may take time to get going and may pursue a number of different directions.

Links with Learning Needs Assessment Perhaps the first area to investigate is the learning needs assessment. It’s not uncommon for learning interventions of all sorts to be repeated each year on the basis of participant reactions from the previous year, or because an influential manager believes there is a need for one. More valid and reliable evidence is required to determine whether a proposed intervention is the best response to a particular learning need. In terms of more content-oriented programmes, it is important to ensure that what is taught on the programme is compared with the sort of content implied by the needs analysis. In addition, questions should be asked concerning the elements outlined in Table 8.2 in relation to its transfer-enhancing factors. For more process-oriented interventions, such as an action learning intervention, the focus may well be more on the design elements. For instance, what level of experience do participants already possess? Are the objectives around individual changes in thinking, doing or feeling? Are outcomes expected at group level?

Meetings with Facilitators In reality, what an intervention says it’s going to do and what it actually does can be different, for a number of valid reasons. In that case it is difficult to understand exactly from reading programme materials and objectives what actually happened during the intervention. It is therefore important to talk with the designer and/ or facilitator of the programme to determine the way in which it was delivered, and any changes in content or process, to better understand its contribution to organizational learning. Feedback from facilitators can also sometimes provide useful triangulation, comparing their perceptions with those of participants. If circumstances permit, ‘sitting in’ on a workshop or coaching session to see how it works in reality can also be valuable.

140

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Evaluation of the Work Environment As discussed in earlier chapters, one of the reasons behind the search for new ways of delivering workplace learning, in particular situating learning in the learners’ work and building on their experience, has been the need to address important facilitating and inhibiting factors in the work environment to learning transfer. Earlier, in Chapter 6, a model for learning transfer was proposed and its components discussed, identifying a range of input, outcome and work environment factors that affect transfer. These factors are now summarized in Table 8.3. The focus here will be on the work environment factors in the model. They include manager, peer and organization support issues, and their effect on the learner’s motivation and ability to apply their learning on the job. Table 8.3

Learning transfer factors of the learning transfer evaluation instrument

Factor

Description

Motivation to learn

The degree to which individuals are prepared to enter and participate in the programme

Programme content and design

The degree to which the programme has been designed and delivered to make it easier for participants to transfer learning back to the job, and to which participants regard the programme content as appropriate to their needs

Motivation to transfer

The direction and persistence of effort in applying back at work skills and knowledge learned

Personal ability to transfer

The extent to which individuals have the time, energy and mental space in their work lives to help transfer learning to the job

Manager support and coaching

The extent to which supervisors/managers support and reinforce use of learning on the job

Peer support

The extent to which peers reinforce and support the use of learning on the job

Organizational climate for transfer

The extent to which the work environment is conducive to the use of learning on the job

Learning

The extent to which participants have gained new insights into themselves and/or their role as a result of attending the programme

Evaluating Organizational Learning

141

How to Measure Work Environment Factors As with other forms of evaluation measurement, a number of choices present themselves. In this case, the choice of measure(s) is likely to run along two dimensions – proving or improving on one hand, and breadth or depth on the other. It is likely that measurement of work environment effects will be more concerned with improvement, as evaluators look to identify characteristics that can be changed to support future learning interventions. Ultimately therefore, a more complete understanding of how those factors exert their effects will be sought, which will involve a deeper level of analysis. As indicated earlier, an increasing trend is to use a combination of methods to make the most of the data that is available. This usually means quantitative or qualitative choices. In that regard, some of the main options for examining the work environment are presented.

Quantitative Options On the quantitative side, it is not at all uncommon for organizations (particularly larger ones) to make regular use of employee engagement surveys, organization climate surveys or any one of a number of such instruments to get a sense of employee perceptions of their relationship with their work and the organization in general. Many of these describe at least some conditions around manager support, the climate for innovation, facilitating and inhibiting factors relating to ‘getting the job done’ and so on. If the organization already uses such instruments, they can quickly provide at least some sense of how easy or difficult it is likely to be for organizational learning to succeed. There are also more specific options. To take one example, the Learning Transfer Evaluation (LTE), a 50-item instrument based on the learning transfer model in Chapter 6, was developed by this author. It measures the effects of a range of individual factors, learning intervention factors and particularly work environment factors known to influence learning transfer, and can be used to provide recommendations for optimizing the value of those interventions.

Qualitative Options Instruments such as those described above provide important data in their own right. However, they also have a use in highlighting important work environment influences, for further investigation in greater depth if necessary. Methods such as interviews, focus groups, descriptions of critical incidents or any others discussed earlier in the chapter can be employed. For example, an assessment of the degree of manager support for learning might show up as a medium score overall, but with indications of a high level of variation in scores. Following that up with an interview process or series of focus group meetings with relevant people could

142

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

‘get behind’ that data, and perhaps at the end of the process be able to describe what high and low levels of manager support look like.

A Final Word on Learning With regard to the types of organizational learning interventions that have been discussed throughout this book, it’s not unusual that the resultant learning hasn’t actually translated into changed behaviour back at work. It’s clear that there are times when more than one learning outcome is valid. Admittedly, for most learning interventions, the objective is a change in behaviour of some description, particularly where the development of knowledge and skills is concerned. But organizational learning interventions increasingly deal with issues where this is not the most important outcome. At an individual level, a primary objective may be to help participants clarify their role or gain new insights into themselves. Or indeed it may be to get them to think about their role in a completely different way. To take another example, in the case of teams it may be important to focus on understanding personality differences between members. While behaviour change in some form may be the desired outcome ultimately, it may not be a specific outcome for the intervention. Understanding and allowing for these outcomes helps us to better understand the process of organizational learning, and will enable those with responsibility for making it happen to guide their efforts and resources to where they are most needed.

References Alliger, G.M., Tannenbaum, S.I., Bennett W. Jr., Traver, H. and Shotland, A. 1997. A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 341–58. Alliger, G.M. and Janak, E.A. 1989. Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42, 331–41. Atkins, P.W.B. and Wood, R.E. 2002. Self-versus others’ ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: Validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 871–904. Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B. and Quisenberry, D. 2010. Estimating return on leadership development investment. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 633–44. Blume, B.D., Ford, J.K., Baldwin, T.T. and Huang, J.L. 2010. Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105. Broad, M.L. and Newstrom, J. 1992. Transfer of Training: Action-Packed Strategies to Ensure High Payoff from Training Investments. New York: Addison Wesley. Burke, L.A. 1997. Improving positive transfer: A test of relapse prevention training on transfer outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(2), 115–28.

Evaluating Organizational Learning

143

Cheng, E.W.L. and Hampson, I. 2008. Transfer of training: A review and new insights. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 327–41. Conger, J.A. and Xin, K. 2000. Executive education in the 21st century. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 73–101. Denzin, N.K. 1970. The Research Act in Sociology. London: Butterworth. Gill, J. and Johnson, P. 1991. Research Methods for Managers. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Golembiewski, R.T., Billingsley, K. and Jaeger, S. 1976. Measuring change and persistence in human affairs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 133– 57. Griffin, R. 2011. Seeing the wood for the trees: Workplace learning evaluation. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(8), 841–50. Holton, E.F. III. 1996. The flawed four level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 5–21. Howard, G.S. and Dailey, P.R. 1979. Response-shift bias: A source of contamination of self-report measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 144–50. Illeris, K. 2003. Workplace learning and learning theory. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(4), 167–78. Jackson, S. and Kulp, M.J. 1978. Designing guidelines for evaluating the outcomes of management training. In R.O. Peterson, ed., Determining the Payoffs of Management Training. Madison, WI: ASTD. pp. 1–42. Kirkpatrick, D.L. 1979. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training and Development Journal, 33(6), 78–92. Kirwan, C. 2009. Improving Learning Transfer. A Guide to Getting More out of What You Put into Your Training. Farnham: Gower. Kraiger, K. 2002. Decision-based evaluation. In K. Kraiger, ed., Creating, Implementing, and Managing Effective Training and Development: State-ofthe-art Lessons for Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 331–376. Loveridge, R. 1990. Triangulation – or how to survive your choice of business school PhD course. Graduate Management Research, 5(3), 18–25. Mann, S. 1997. Implications of the response-shift bias for management. Journal of Management Development, 16, 328–37. May, G.L. and Kahnweiler, W.M. 2000. The effect of a mastery practice design on learning and transfer in behaviour modelling training. Personnel Psychology, 53, 353–73. McGrath, J.E. 1981. Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 25(2), 179–211. Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Phillips, J.J. 2003. Return on Investment in Training and Performance Improvement Programs, 2nd edn. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and Swartz, E. 1998. Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. London: Sage.

144

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Saks, A.M. and Belcourt, M. 2006. An investigation of training activities and transfer of training in organizations. Human Resource Management, 45(4), 629–48. Scandura, T.A. and Williams, E.A. 2000. Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1248–64. Sprangers, M. and Hoogstraten, J. 1989. Pretesting effects in retrospective pretest–post-test designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (2), 265–72. Solomon, R.L. 1949. An extension of control group design. Psychological Bulletin, 46, 137–50. Terborg, J.R., Howard, G.S. and Maxwell, S.E. 1980. Evaluating planned organizational change: A method for assessing alpha, beta, and gamma change. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 109–21. Warr, P.B., Allan, C. and Birdi, K. 1999. Predicting three levels of training outcome. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 351–76. Warr, P. Bird, M. and Rackham, N. 1970. Evaluation of Management Training. London: Gower Press.

AUTHOR index

Ahearne, M. 104 Alavi, M. 52 Allan, C. 130 Allen, M. 63 Alliger, G.M. 128, 134 Amabile, T. 51, 53 Ambrosini, V. 56 Argote, L. 1, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57 Argyris, C. 1, 39, 40, 69 Aryee, S. 113 Asher, J.W. 63 Atkins, P.W.B. 134 Avey, J.B. 137 Avolio, B.J. 137 Baldwin, T.T. 142 Bandura, A. 10, 31, 33, 91 Bane, D.K. 26 Bartol, K.M. 104 Baum, J.A.C. 59 Baumgartel, H. 33 Baumgartner, L.M. 6, 16 Beattie, R.S. 105, 119 Beck, T.E. 104 Bedwell, W.L. 64 Belcourt, M. 125 Bennett W. Jr. 142 Benson, J. 115 Berglas, S. 25 Bezuijen, X.M. 110 Blanchard, K. 18 Billingsley, K. 135 Bird, M. 125 Birdi, K. 130 Blume, B.D. 138 Bondarouk, T. 61 Borzillo, S. 42 Bostrom, R. 103, 104, 106, 119 Bourhis, J. 65 Bowman, C. 56

Boydell, T. 71 Broad, M.L. 124, 125 Brockett, R. 19, 20 Brooks, A.K. 21 Brown, J.S. 41, 42 Brown, K.G. 67 Brown, M. 115, 116 Burgoyne, J. 71 Burke, L.A. 130 Burrell, N. 65 Cabrera, A. 85, 86, 87, 91 Cabrera, E.F. 85, 86, 87, 91 Caffarella, R.S. 6, 16 Cameron, K.S. 102 Camp, R. 102 Cannella Jr, A. 52 Carbery, R. 66 Carley, K. 55, 56 Chen, Z.X. 113 Cheng, E.W.L. 138 Chiaburu, D.S. 33 Chu, M.T. 43 Clark, R.C. 91 Clark, T. 47 Cohen, W.M. 59 Collins, C.J. 89, 90 Conger, J.A. 134 Crossan, M. 49 Currie, G 84 Dailey, P.R. 136 Danby, P. 113 Dansereau, F. 109 Darr, E. 58 Day, D.V. 110 De Holan, P. 54 Denton, J. 69 Denzin, N.K. 130 Derouin, R.E. 62, 63

146

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

DeRue, D.S. 112 Duffy, M. 67 Duguid, P. 41, 42 Drucker, P.F. 101 Dweck, C.S. 51, 107 Easterby-Smith, M. 49 Edmondson, A.C. 52, 72, 80 Ellinger, A.D. 1, 16, 103, 104, 106, 119 Ellinger, A.E. 4 Eyre, E. 98 Fan, E.T. 57 Feldman, D.C. 24 Feldman, M. 52 Fincham, R. 47 Fisher, C.D. 115 Fisher, S.L. 61 Flautt, R. 30 Fleming, R.S. 113 Ford, J.K. 142 Frecker, R.C. 19, 20 Freire, P. 22 Fritzsche, B.A. 62, 63 Garavan, T.N. 2, 61 Garvin, D.A. 52, 70, 72, 73, 79, 80 Gerstner, C.R. 110 Ghere, G. 48 Gibson, S.K. 31 Gill, J. 126 Gino, F. 51, 52, 72, 80 Glew, D.J. 78, 104 Goh, S.C. 71, 73 Gold, J. 24 Golembiewski, R.T. 135 Gosling, J. 101 Graen, G. 109 Gray, D.E. 37 Greve, H. 51 Griffin, R. 124 Grow, G. 18 Gruenfeld, D.H. 57 Guglielmino, L.M. 17, 19, 20 Guglielmino, P.J. 17, 19, 20 Gupta, A. 51 Haga, W.J. 109 Hall, D.T. 25, 26 Hamlin, R.G. 119 Hampson, I. 138 Handley, K. 39

Harper, S.C. 78, 104 Harvey, B.J. 19, 20 Heider, F. 33 Henk, T. 121 Heraty, N. 2, 49, 103 Hersey, P. 18 Heslin, P.A. 107 Hiemstra, R. 19 Hirst, G. 51 Hislop, D. 85 Hollenbeck, G.P. 25, 26 Holton, E.F. III. 125 Honey, P. 7 Hoogstraten, J. 137 Howard, G.S. 136, 137 Howton, S.W. 4 Huang, J.L. 142 Hyatt, D. 115 Ilgen, D.R. 115 Illeris, K. 15, 123 Ingram, P. 1, 54, 57, 59 Jackson, S. 125 Jaeger, S. 135 Janak, E.A. 128 Jansen, J. 59 Jarvis, P. 15, 24 Jennings, D. 45 Jick, T. 90 Johnson, C. 45 Johnson, J. 67 Johnson, P. 126 Kahnweiler, W.M. 134 Kamoche, K. 90 Kampa-Kokesch, S. 26 Kane, G. 52 Kearsley, G. 69 Kerrin, M. 84 Kessels, J. 13 Khosla, R. 43 Kirkpatrick, D.L. 63, 125, 127, 128 Kirwan, C. 19, 39, 92, 96, 124 Knight, J. 98 Knippenberg, V. 51 Knowles, M. 13, 16 Kolb, D. 23, 24 Kolodny, R. 48 Kopelman, R.E. 26 Kraiger, K. 125 Kucine, I. 30

AUTHOR INDEX

Kulp, M.J. 125 Kuo, T. 85, 86, 91 Kurtzberg, T. 58 Lamm, S. 23, 48 Lankau, M.J. 24 Latham, B.W. 122 Latham, G.P. 107, 111 Lave, J. 41 Leggett, E.L. 51 Leonard, H.S. 45 Levinthal, D.A. 59 Lewis, G.B. 87 Lin, C. 85, 86, 91 Lindsay, D.R. 33 Litchfield, R.C. 52 Locke, E.A. 111 Lockhart, D. 67 London, M. 30 Loveridge, R. 126 Lyle, E.R. 1 Lyles, M. 59 Mabry, E. 65 Machtmes, K. 63 Manikutty, S. 112 Mann, S. 137 Marquardt, M.J. 45, 69 Marsick, V.J. 48, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 80 Martorana, P.V. 57 Mathieu, J. 104 Mattrey, M. 65 Maxwell, S.E. 136 May, G.L. 134 Mayer, R.E. 91 McCarthy, A. 2 McClusky, H. 14 McDermott, R. 43, 88 McEvily, B. 58 McFayden, M. 52 McGrath, J. 50 McGrath, J.E. 126 McKenzie, J. 2 Merriam, S.B. 6, 16 Mezirow, J. 21 Mintzberg, H. 101 Miron-Spektor, E. 50, 66 Mishkin, M. 6 Mocker, D. 16 Money, A. 143 Montes Peon, J.M. 85, 90 Montie, J. 48

Morgan, G. 102 Morley, M. 2, 49, 103 Mueller, E. 90 Mumford, A. 7 Neider, L.L. 113 Newstrom, J. 124, 125 Nicollini, D. 49 Nilson, G. 48 Noe, R.A. 20 Nonaka, I. 36, 50, 84 O’Connell, G. 98 Oddi, L.F. 19 O’Dell, C. 88 O’Donnell, D. 66 O’Leonard, K. 63 Oliver, C. 45 Olivero, G. 26 O’Malley, G. 66 Oncken Jr, W. 114 O’Neil, J. 44 Orvis, K.A. 61 Osborn, A. F. 52 Otazo, K.L. 25, 26 Overton, L. 63 Pathan, R. 33 Patton, M.Q. 126 Pedler, M. 46, 71, 73 Pentland, B. 52, 55 Perez Lopez, S. 85, 86, 90 Petri, H.L. 6 Phillips, J.J. 129, 137 Philips, N. 54 Plowman, D.A. 104 Poell, R. 13 Probst, G. 42 Quintas, P. 83 Quisenberry, D. 137 Rachal, J. 14 Rackham, N. 125 Raisch, S. 42 Rao, R. 55 Rapp, A. 104 Reagans, R. 58 Remenyi, D. 131 Ren, Y. 56 Revans, R.W. 44 Reynolds, M. 33

147

148

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Ropes, D. 42 Rothman, A.I. 19, 20 Ruel, H. 61 Saks, A.M. 125 Salas, E. 62, 63, 64 Scandura, T.A. 109, 113, 126 Schein, E.H. 69 Schmitt, N. 20 Schon, D. 1, 40 Schriescheim, C.S. 113 Seeong, S. 87 Seijts, G.H. 111 Semadeni, M. 52 Senge, P. 70, 73, 79 Shaw, J. 55 Sheppard, R. 98 Shotland, A. 142 Simmering, M.J. 67 Simonetti, J.L. 102 Sloan, E.B. 26 Smith, K.G. 89, 90 Smith, P.A. 44 Smith, P.J. 17 Smither, J.W. 26 Snyder, W.M. 43 Solomon, R.L. 134 Sommers W. 48 Spear, G. 16 Sprangers, M. 137 Stewart, R. 101 Stockdale, S. 19, 20 Storey, J. 83 Stull, A.T. 91 Sturdy, A. 47 Swartz, E. 143 Szulanski, G. 58 Takeuchi, H. 36, 84 Tannenbaum, S.I. 142 Tasa, K. 122 Taylor, A. 51 Taylor, M.S. 115 Taylor, M. 51 Terborg, J.R. 136 Tesluk, P. 51

Thach, E.C. 26 Thite, M. 83, 84 Tholke, J. 42 Titsworth, S. 65 Todorova, G. 66 Traver, H. 142 Ulrich, D. 90 van Dam, K. 121 van den Berg, P.T. 121 Vandewalle, D. 107 van Wijk, R. 59 van Winkelen, C. 2 van Woerkom, M. 36 Vargas, Y. 30 Vasquez Ordas, C.J. 85, 90 Vielhaber, M. 102 von Glinow, M. 90 Vroom, V. 87 Wanberg, C.R. 67 Warr, P.B. 125, 130 Wass, D.L. 114 Wasserman, M.E. 61 Watkins, K.E. 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 80 Wegner, D.M. 56 Wellman, N. 112 Welsh, E.T. 62, 63 Wenger, E. 41, 42, 43 Whetten, D.A. 102 Williams, B. 143 Williams, E.A. 126 Wills, G. 45 Wood, R.E. 134 Xin, K. 134 Yang, B. 45, 70 Yeo, R.K. 24 York-Barr, J. 36 Yorks, L. 45 Zhang, X. 104 Zhou, J. 51

index

Absorptive capacity 59 Action learning 39, 44–47, 138 Action plans 133 Adult learning 6–15 Approaches 6–11 Models 14–15 Affective learning outcomes 15, 125 Alpha change 135–136 Andragogy 13–14 Assertiveness 19 Autonomy 19–20, 94 Attribution 33, 34 Banking education 22–23 Behaviourism 6–7 Beta change 135–136 Blended learning 61, 64 Causal maps 56 Causal ambiguity 58, 59 Challenge 112, 116, 117 Classroom training 39, 63, 91–92, 139 Coaching 9, 24–28, 94, 95, 107–108, 119–120 Cognitivism (see also social cognitivism) 7–8, 9 Commitment 84–85, 89 Communities of practice 41–44 Competitive advantage 1 Conscientization 22–23 Constructivism 10–11 Control groups 134–135 Creativity 51–54 Critical incidents 133–134 Critical reflection (see also reflection) 36–37 Culture 88–89 Declarative knowledge 8, 132, 136 Decontextualization (of learning) 24

Delegation 112–114 Dialogue 72, 74, 75, 80, 116 DLOQ (Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire) 74, 76–77, 80 Double–loop learning 39–40, 41 e-learning 61–64 Asynchronous 61 Advantages 62 Disadvantages 62 Effectiveness 63 Synchronous 61 Emancipatory learning 22–23, 24 Empowering behaviours 103–104, 106, 114–115 Entity theorists 107–108 Espoused theory 36, 40 Evaluating learning 123–412 Inputs 137–139 Outcomes 127–128 work environment 140–142 Evaluation frameworks 125 Evidence-based instruction 91 Experiential learning 23–24 Explicit knowledge 36, 50 Facilitating behaviours 103–105 Feedback 35, 37, 115, 116–118, 119, 134 Focus groups 131, 141 Formal learning 10, 42, Frames of reference (for learning) 22 Gamma change 135–136 Goal orientation 51, 96 Habits 6, 7 Habits of mind (in learning) 22 Human Resource Management (role of) 3, 83–99

150

Making Sense of Organizational Learning

Humanism 6, 8 Implicit person theories 107 Incremental theorists 107–108 Individual learning 39, 42, 50 Innovation 51–54, 104 Internal coaching 96, 119–120 Interviews 129, 130–131, 133, 141 Knowledge creation 51–54, 74, 80 Knowledge management 2, 52 Knowledge retention 53, 54,74, 80 Knowledge transfer 53, 54, 57–60, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 80 Leader-member exchange (LMX) 108–110 Learning needs 93, 94, 95, 110, 138, 139 Learning & Development (L&D) departments 95 Learning climate 71, 74, 84 Learning Effectiveness Audit (LEA) 126–127 Learning environment 52, 72 Learning impairments 78 Learning objectives 7, 124, 138, 139 Learning Organization, the 1, 2, 17, 69–81 Learning orientation 51 Learning outcomes 15, 45, 92, 127–128, 137 Learning philosophies 6–11 Learning processes 50, 69, 72 Learning styles 7 Learning system, the 125 Learning transfer 19, 39, 92–96, 140 Learning transfer evaluation (LTE) instrument 108, 140, 141 Line manager (role of) 101–120 Locus of control 33, 34, 35 Management skills 80, 102 Manager support 92, 94, 95, 108, 140 Managing performance 107, 115 Mechanistic organizations 102 Mental models 60, 70, 71 Mental space 24, 27, 92, 93, 140 Model I and II worldviews 40 Models of learning 14–15 Motivation 13, 33–35, 85, 104, 108, 109, 112 Motivation to learn 92, 93, 95, 140 Motivation to transfer 92, 93, 96, 98, 140

Negotiating latitude 109, 114–115 Network density 52 Network ties 52 Networks (see also sub-networks) 50, 52, 89 Observation (as measurement) 129, 132 Observational learning variables 31, 32 Oddi Continuing Learning Inventory (OCLI) 19 Organic organizations 102 Organizational forgetting 54 Organizational learning 2, 49–60, 86–88 Pedagogy 13 Peer support 92, 94, 140 Performance appraisal 87, 89, 90, 116 Performance matrix 111–112 Performance orientation 51 Personal ability to transfer 19, 92, 93–95, 140 Personal mastery 71, 74 Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO) 19 Personal vision 71 Planning and preparing 107, 110 Points of view (in learning) 22 Problem-posing education 22–23 Procedural knowledge 132, 136 Programme content and design 23, 92, 93, 140 Psychological contract 84, 85 Questionnaires 129, 130 Reciprocal determinism 31, 32 Recruitment and selection practices 86–87 Reflecting team 46 Reflection (see also critical reflection) 24, 35–36, 38 Reflective conversations 37 Reflective dialogue 37 Reflective journal 38 Reinforcement 6, 33 Response-shift bias 136 Return on investment 129, 137 Routines (for organizational learning) 49, 50, 52, 55, 57, 58 Schema, schemata 7 Self-diaries 133 Self-directed learning 15–21

Index

Self-directed learning readiness scale (SDLRS) 19 Self-efficacy 20, 26, 28, 31, 33–35 Self-esteem 13, 113 Self-regulation 20, 31, 32 Sharing knowledge 85, 88–89, 105 Single-loop learning 39–40 Situated learning 38–39, 41 Social cognitivism (see also cognitivism) 9–11, 31 Social learning 31, 41 Social networks 58–59 Systems (for organizational learning) 2, 49, 75, 80, Systems thinking 70 Shared vision 49, 71, 74 Socialization 91 Staged, self-directed model (SSDL) of learning 18, 20

151

Standard setting 105, 107, 110–112 Storytelling 37 Strategic leadership for learning 75, 80 Sub-networks (see also networks) 50, 57 Tacit knowledge 50, 56–57 Tasks (in organizational learning) 50 Team-based training 91 Team learning 71, 72, 75 Theory of margin 14 Theory-in-use 36, 40 Tools (in organizational learning) 50, 57 Transactive memory 56 Transformational (transformative) learning 21–22, 27–28 Trust 84–85, 113–114, 116 Turnover 55, 85 Vicarious learning 60, 91

If you have found this book useful you may be interested in other titles from Gower Understanding Information and Computation: From Einstein to Web Science Philip Tetlow Hardback: 978-1-4094-4039-0 e-book: 978-1-4094-4040-6

Knowledge Sharing in Professions: Roles and Identity in Expert Communities Alexander Styhre Hardback: 978-1-4094-2097-2 e-book: 978-1-4094-2098-9

A Handbook of Practical Wisdom: Leadership, Organization and Integral Business Practice Edited by Wendelin Küpers and David J. Pauleen Hardback: 978-1-4094-3993-6 e-book: 978-1-4094-3994-3

Visit www.gowerpublishing.com and • • • • • •

search the entire catalogue of Gower books in print order titles online at 10% discount take advantage of special offers sign up for our monthly e-mail update service download free sample chapters from all recent titles download or order our catalogue