The Oxford Handbook of the Learning Organization 9780198832355, 0198832354

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

t h e ox f o r d h a n d b o o k o f

T H E L E A R N I NG ORGA N I Z AT ION

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

The Oxford Handbook of

THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION Edited by

ANDERS ÖRTENBLAD

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Oxford University Press 2019 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2019 Impression: 1 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, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2019947976 ISBN 978–0–19–883235–5 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Preface

When I started many years ago, as a PhD student, to take interest in the idea of the learning organization, I was relatively skeptical towards the idea, not least because I found it so difficult to understand what was actually meant by “learning organization.” At that time I tended to agree to a large extent with those who argued that the learning organization was “only” a fashion. When I spoke with organizational actors about the idea, it was quite often that they showed interest in the idea and were aware of Peter Senge’s bestselling book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (1990). Many of the people I talked to had not read the book, though, even if there was a Swedish translation of it. In fact, I am still interested in and occupied with what is meant by “learning organization.” However, today, while I still think of myself of being skeptical, in a healthy sense, I can more clearly see the many benefits there are to the idea of the learning organization. It is both interesting and astonishing that so many organizations not only are quite bad at learning, they also seem not to be really interested in such activities—some organizations even seem to actively avoid learning. Actors in such organizations often talk about how important continuous improvement as well as innovation is, but do not really prove by action that it is important. In fact, today I am actually a bit skeptical towards those who doom the idea of the learning organization for being “only” a fashion—to me, such argumentation seems to come from an interesting kind of fashion followers, namely researchers who disparage the “practitioners” and consultants who stick to a certain fashionable management idea, while they themselves either avoid studying the fashion because it is, as they argue, “only” a fashion, or stop researching the idea when it is no longer as popular as it once were. Researchers should, of course, critically examine ideas whose popularity reasonably could be explained in terms of fashion, but it would be wrong to ignore any idea for such reasons. Any idea has both strengths and weaknesses, no matter whether it gains interest from extremely many or extremely few people. In the present book, the reader will find both praise and criticism of the idea of the learning organization. Since I am currently also the editor-in-chief of a journal called The Learning Organization (published by Emerald), I hope to see many contributions to the journal on the issues dealt with in this book, and where the authors of the works submitted to that journal build on and take further what is dealt with in this volume. Moreover, I hope to organize a workshop or conference at some point in the future, a research conference purely on the learning organization. It would be wonderful to meet as many of the contributors to this book as possible, at such a conference.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

vi   preface By bringing together, in the present book, both well-known figures in the learning organization area and those who are newer to the area, and to both include more mainstream contributions and those with a more critical touch, a dream has come true. The vast majority of previous publications on the learning organization have been either uncritical or critical, while the present book includes both. Thus, I want to whole-heartedly thank all the contributors to the book for their highly important contributions and for their openness for other perspectives and, thus, for being ready to be criticized by other contributions—all for the sake of developing the idea of the learning organization. Anders Örtenblad Stockholm, March 2019

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Contents

List of Figuresxi List of Tablesxiii List of Contributorsxv

PA RT I   I N T RODU C T ION 1. Background and Introduction

3

Anders Örtenblad

2. The Topicality of the Learning Organization: Is the Concept Still Relevant Today?

19

Siu Loon Hoe

PA RT I I   DE F I N I T ION S / M E A N I N G S OF “L E A R N I N G ORG A N I Z AT ION ” 3. Senge’s Learning Organization: Development of the Learning Organization Model

35

Hong T. M. Bui

4. Conceptualizing an Organization That Learns

51

Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick

5. Garvin’s Learning Organization: A Process Perspective on Learning for Implementation, Improvement, and Innovation

67

Patrick J. Healy

6. Learning Company: The Learning Organization According to Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell

87

Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne

7. Building Learning Organizations with Action Learning

105

Michael J. Marquardt

8. Personal Paradoxes in Learning to Design “the Learning Organization”119 Bob Garratt

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

viii   Contents

9. On Definitions of the Learning Organization: Toward a New Definition of Learning Organization

137

Hong T. M. Bui

PA RT I I I   A SP E C T S OF T H E L E A R N I N G ORG A N I Z AT ION 10. Learning in the Learning Organization: Concepts and Antecedents

151

Max Visser and Paul Tosey

11. Ambidextrous Learning Organizations

163

Alice Lam

12. How the Learning Organization Learns and Its Culture Coevolves

181

Peter Hawkins

13. A Mighty Step: Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization

197

Robert L. Flood and Hanne Finnestrand

14. From Learning Organizations to Learning Cultures and More: Evolutions in Theory, Changes in Practice, Continuity of Purpose

215

Anthony DiBella

15. Stakeholders and the Learning Organization

229

William D. Schneper, David Wernick, and Mary Ann Von Glinow

16. What Is Needed to Create Gender Inclusive Learning Organizations?243 Patricia A. Gouthro, Nancy Taber, and Amanda Brazil

PA RT I V   P R AC T IC I N G T H E L E A R N I N G ORG A N I Z AT ION 17. Interventions to Create a Learning Organization

259

Victoria J. Marsick and Karen E. Watkins, with contributions from Angela King Smith

18. Glimpses of Organizations in the Act of Learning Nancy M. Dixon

273

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Contents   ix

19. Pegasus or Clever White Horse? In Pursuit of Real Learning Organizations

289

Laurie Field

PA RT V   S T U DY I N G T H E L E A R N I N G ORG A N I Z AT ION 20. The Learning Organization Survey: Validation of an Instrument to Augment Research on Organizational Learning

303

Amy C. Edmondson, Francesca Gino, and Patrick J. Healy

21. Measurement of the Learning Organization Construct: A Critical Perspective and Future Directions for Research

317

Swee Chua Goh

22. Learning Organization and Organizational Performance

333

Kyoungshin Kim and Zhenqiu (Laura) Lu

23. How Best to Study the Learning Organization

347

Nhien Nguyen, Jens Ørding Hansen, and Are Jensen

PA RT V I   T H E U N I V E R S A L I T Y OF T H E L E A R N I N G ORG A N I Z AT ION 24. The Potential to Nurture Small Businesses to Learning Organization Form

363

Peter Wyer and Shaun Bowman

25. Contextualizing the Learning Organization: Towards Differentiated Standards

379

Anders Örtenblad

PA RT V I I   N E W, A LT E R NAT I V E P E R SP E C T I V E S ON T H E L E A R N I N G ORG A N I Z AT ION 26. Becoming a Learning Organization: A Process-Philosophical Perspective393 Robert Chia

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

x   Contents

27. The Learning Organization as a Practice of Becoming Human

405

Helen D. Armstrong

28. The Empire Strikes Back: How Learning Organization Scholars Can Learn from the Critiques

417

Jacky Hong and Carry K. Y. Mak

29. An Antenarrative Amendment to the Learning Organization: Theories to Avert the Sixth Extinction

429

David M. Boje and Grace Ann Rosile

30. The Learning Organization: A Critical Analysis and Future Directions

445

Kenneth Mølbjerg Jørgensen, Shih-wei Hsu, and Lone Hersted

PA RT V I I I   T H E L E A R N I N G ORG A N I Z AT ION I N T H E F U T U R E 31. The Future of the Learning Organization

461

Tom Boydell, Mike Pedler, and John Burgoyne

32. Suggestions for Future Research on the Learning Organization

477

Anders Örtenblad

Name Index Subject Index 

487 494

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

List of Figures

2.1 Print media indicators results

26

2.2 Google Trends results

26

3.1 Antecedents of personal mastery

39

3.2 Antecedents of mental models

41

3.3 Antecedents of team learning

42

3.4 Antecedents of shared vision

43

3.5 Foundation of systems thinking

44

4.1 Learning organization action imperatives

55

5.1 Garvin’s organizational learning process (1993)

69

5.2 Garvin’s revised organizational learning process (2000)

75

6.1 The evolution of the learning company

88

6.2 The E-Flow model

91

6.3 Four stances of the learning company

99

7.1 Five subsystems of a learning organization

107

7.2 Six components of action learning

109

8.1 Basic model of the learning organization

126

8.2 The twelve organizational capabilities and their relationships

130

8.3 The basic and complex models of the learning board

133

11.1 Three types of ambidextrous learning organizations

175

12.1 The Hawkins model of culture

187

15.1 Number of articles containing stakeholder in the abstract, title or as a keyword, 1980–2017

230

15.2 Number of works citing Senge’s (1990) The Fifth Discipline, 1990–2017

231

17.1 Action science case example

262

17.2 DLOQ profiles of responding groups

269

19.1 Schema used to classify approaches taken to justifying “learning organization” (LO) claims

291

19.2 Distribution of 2008–18 articles referring to learning organizations (LOs)

292

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

List of Tables

2.1 Recent articles on the learning organization

23

4.1 Watkins and Marsick (1996) conceptions of learning by level and dimension

54

4.2 Typologies of organizational learning

58

4.3 Dimensions of a learning organization across key scholars

59

5.1 The five practices of a learning organization

71

5.2 Common organizational learning “disabilities”

76

5.3 Enabling supportive learning environments

77

5.4 Leading learning

78

6.1 Short descriptions of the 11Cs of the learning company

90

6.2 Matrix of the 11Cs and the four stances of the learning company

100

9.1 Main characteristics in definitions of the learning organization

143

19.1 Organizations claimed to be learning organizations

293

20.1 Reliability analysis for LOS aggregate constructs

307

20.2 Reliability analysis for LOS constructs

307

20.3 Means, standard deviations, and zero-order intercorrelations

308

20.4 Reliability analysis for LOS constructs for Wildland Fire Community

308

20.5 LOS descriptive statistics by occupation group and scale reliability estimates

310

20.6 ANOVA results for between occupation group differences on the LOS with DLO vs. Facility Leaders contrasts

311

20.7 LOS constructs

312

20.8 Survey: factors enabling organizational learning

313

22.1 A meta-analysis of the LO dimensions and performance

339

28.1 Major critiques of the concept of the learning organization

420

28.2 A summary of critiques on learning organizations and suggested solutions423 30.1 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation LO

450

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

List of Contributors

Helen  D.  Armstrong is a Professor Emerita from Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada. Her theoretical and field-based research into organizational theory and the learning organization supported her later work as her expertise morphed into indigenizing curriculum, with support from a federal grant. She still contributes to related orders to her university’s library, which is celebrated as having one of the largest collections of indigenous literature in North America. David  M.  Boje is Regents Professor Emeritus at New Mexico State University, and currently affiliated with Aalborg University in Denmark. He has been a conference founder, journal founder, journal editor, and board chair of numerous international academic organizations. He is helping to set up a Sustainability Storytelling Lab at the European School of Governance where Louis Klein is dean, and is working with https:// truestorytelling.org on sustainability storytelling. He convenes the annual Storytelling Conference each December in Las Cruces New Mexico. Shaun Bowman is a Management Lecturer and Head of Assessment and Performance Evaluation at the London College of International Business Studies. Over twenty-three years of involvement in the Higher Education sector coupled with experience of working in small and large businesses, the private and public sectors, across a range of fields has given Shaun a particular multidisciplinary view of business. His research interests are small business and not for profit strategy. Tom Boydell emeritus nihil. Born 1940, Cheltenham, England—white, male, middle class, heterosexual. Initially an aeronautical engineer, he first engaged with adult learning in 1963–4, teaching in Guyana, meeting and marrying Gloria; two profoundly developmental experiences. They now have three children and four grandchildren. Drawn to ideas of Rudolf Steiner, Tom has explored leadership, management, and organizational development on all continents except Antarctica, and continues to do so wherever, and whenever, opportunities find him. He is also a professional actor and an amateur opera singer. Amanda Brazil is a PhD candidate at the University of Prince Edward Island in the Faculty of Education studying informal learning and critical incidents in the volunteer fire service. She is a founding member of the Prince Edward Island (PEI) Learning Partners Advisory Council, a member of the PEI Critical Incident Stress Management Steering Committee, and a researcher with FIREWELL (Firefighter Injury/illness

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

xvi   list of contributors Remediation Enterprise: Work-participation that Enables Life & Livelihood), a Canadian team of firefighters and researchers working to advance firefighters’ workplace health and safety. Hong T. M. Bui is currently an Associate Professor in Higher Education Management at the School of Management, University of Bath, UK. She is also a Visiting Professor at IPAG Business School, France. She earned her PhD and its funding at the University of East Anglia, UK. She has background in Management, Education, Communication, and Economics. Her research covers a wide range of learning organization-related organizational behavior for innovation and sustainability. John Burgoyne is Emeritus Professor in the Lancaster University Management School, Visiting Professor at the University of Suffolk, and an Associate at Henley and Ashridge Business Schools. He is also a Fellow at The Brathay Trust and The Leadership Trust, and the Chair of the Patient Participation Group for the Central Lakes Medical Practice. He edited the journal that has become Management Learning. He is interested in: management, leadership, and organization, the development of these, and the evaluation of these initiatives. Also organizational learning and learning organization, and critical realism. Robert Chia is Research Professor of Management at the Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow. He holds a PhD in Organizational Analysis (Lancaster University). His research covers three primary areas: organization theory and strategic management; business schools and the university/industry nexus; and East–West philosophical differences and their implications for management practices. He has authored/co-authored and edited/co-edited five books, numerous book chapters, and published extensively in top international management journals. Anthony DiBella is an educator and scholar-practitioner with a PhD from the MIT Sloan School and an MA in Applied Anthropology from American University. His focus is organizational effectiveness with expertise in learning and managing across cultural boundaries. He has taught at various institutions including the College of William and Mary, the Thunderbird School of Global Management, and the U.S. Naval War College and is the author of How Organizations Learn (1998), Learning Practices (2001), and Systemic Change Management (2015). Nancy  M.  Dixon is a former Professor of Administrative Sciences at the George Washington University and currently President of Common Knowledge Associates. Her research and consulting are focused on moving organizations away from hierarchy toward becoming learning organizations. She helps organizations reach that goal through skillfully designed, high quality conversations that produce “valid information, free and informed choice and internal commitment to that choice” (Argyris). Her writing includes over fifty articles and eight books including The Organizational Learning Cycle and Perspectives on Dialogue.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

list of contributors   xvii Amy C. Edmondson is the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at the Harvard Business School. Edmondson teaches and writes on leadership, teams, and organizational learning, and her research has been published in leading academic and management journals. Her recent book The Fearless Organization examines the importance of psychological safety in the workplace in a changing world. Edmondson received her PhD in organizational behavior, AM in psychology, and AB in engineering and design, all from Harvard University. Laurie Field is a Senior Lecturer at Macquarie University, Sydney, with a long-standing interest, as both academic and consultant, in the human side of organizations and in organizational change. He is author of Managing Organisational Learning: From Rhetoric to Reality and a number of papers examining applications of learning organization rhetoric, particularly the relationship between common and competing interests and organizational learning. His current research relates to claims that educational institutions can, or should, operate as learning organizations. Hanne Finnestrand is Associate Professor of Organization development at Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norway. She holds a PhD in Action Research and Organization development from the same university. Finnestrand has previously worked as Senior Research Scientist at SINTEF Technology and Society, doing action research in the fields of organization development and socio-technical systems design. She is currently deputy editor of the international journal Systemic Practice and Action Research. Robert L. Flood is Professor of Action Research at Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. He was awarded Doctor of Science (Hull University) for a sustained and authoritative contribution to the field of “systems thinking.” Robert is also Doctor of Philosophy (City University, London). He has authored numerous books including Rethinking the Fifth Discipline. He is founding and current editor (1987–) of the international journal Systemic Practice and Action Research. Bob Garratt is an international consultant and academic. His experience covers five continents and has been influential in developing the concepts of the “Learning Organization” and the “Learning Board” in business, government, and civil society organizations. He is a director of Garratt Learning Services, London; Visiting Professor at Cass Business School; Professor Extraordinaire at the University of Stellenbosch; and previously on the faculties of Imperial College, London, and the University of Cambridge. He is Past Master of the Worshipful Company of Management Consultants. Francesca Gino is the Tandon Family Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, Boston, USA. Her research focuses on understanding the psychology that drives our decisions at work, and how people and leaders can make different choices so as to thrive in their work. Gino also studies common biases that prevent leaders and organizations from learning effectively.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

xviii   list of contributors Swee Chua Goh is Professor Emeritus of Organizational Behaviour and was also the Interis Research Fellow at the Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Canada. He received his PhD from the University of Toronto. His primary research interests are in the areas of organizational learning, performance management in public sector organizations, knowledge management, management of change, and evaluation capacity building. He has published his research in the Academy of Management Journal, European Management Journal, The Learning Organization, and Journal of Knowledge Management. Patricia  A.  Gouthro is a Professor in the Graduate Studies in Lifelong Learning program in the Faculty of Education at Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. She is past-president of the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (CASAE) and has served as an editor for the International Journal of Lifelong Education (IJLE). Her research interests include women’s learning, multiliteracies, and the narrative arts. Jens Ørding Hansen is a Senior Researcher at Nordland Research Institute, Bodø, Norway, where he heads the Department of Business and Industry. He holds a PhD in International Management from the University of Agder, Norway. His research interests include corporate governance, corporate finance, and organization studies. He has taught finance, economics, and accounting at colleges and universities in Denmark, China, and Vietnam. At Nordland Research Institute he works on several Horizon 2020-funded projects focusing on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Peter Hawkins PhD is Professor of Leadership at Henley Business School and author of many books and papers on leadership, systemic team coaching, coaching, and supervision. He is chairman of Renewal Associates and has consulted to leading organizations, boards and executive teams throughout the world. He trains and supervises organizational development consultants and systemic team coaches in Europe, America, Africa, and Asia. Patrick  J.  Healy is a graduate student in learning sciences at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He previously worked as a Research Associate at Harvard Business School, aiding faculty in research on a range of topics, including general management, leadership, teamwork, and organizational learning. Prior to that, Healy designed, developed, and delivered online courses for Harvard Business School Online and the International Monetary Fund. He has a BA in Economics from Dartmouth College and specializes in online learning and instructional design. Lone Hersted is Assistant Professor, PhD, and works at the Department of Culture and  Learning at Aalborg University. Her research and teaching is concerned with organizational learning, relational leading, leadership training, action research, and dialogical process. Currently she is working with an action research project for management learning involving the leading teams at thirty-eight vocational schools

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

list of contributors   xix in Denmark. Furthermore she is actively involved in an action research project in a public institution for citizens with deaf-blindness and hearing-loss. Siu Loon Hoe is Principal Lecturer and Consultant, Smart Health Leadership Center, at the Institute of Systems Science, National University of Singapore (NUS). He obtained his PhD in Management and MBA in International Business from The University of Western Australia (UWA) and BSc from NUS. Siu Loon was formerly a research fellow and tutor on the adjunct faculty of UWA Business School. He currently serves on the editorial boards of The Learning Organization, Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, and Development and Learning in Organizations. Jacky Hong is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Macau, Macau. He received his PhD from Lancaster University. Since early 2000, he has been researching and publishing papers on the broader themes of organizational learning and knowledge management in the Asian context in journals such as Journal of Management Studies, Organization Studies, and Journal of World Business. He is on the editorial review board of Journal of World Business and Management Learning among others. Shih-wei Hsu is an Assistant Professor in Organizational Behaviour, Business School, University of Nottingham Ningbo China. He obtained his PhD at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. His research interests are in alternative organizations, poststructuralism, knowledge management, organizational learning, Taoism, and critical leadership studies. He is currently working on a research project that applies the theory of unlearning to develop an alternative learning paradigm. He is also involved in a research project that seeks to explore alternative leadership styles in the context of social movement. Are Jensen is an Associate Professor at Nord University Business School (Norway) and holds a PhD in Entrepreneurship. Research interests include organizational behavior and learning, entrepreneurship, and corporate governance. He teaches entrepreneurship, research methodology, and statistics. Are also participates in a H2020 project related to Responsible Research and Innovation. Besides researching entrepreneurs, Are used to be one. This helps him understand the difficulties founders are faced with on a daily basis. Kenneth Mølbjerg Jørgensen PhD, is Professor in Organizational Learning in the Department of Business and Management at Aalborg University. His research interests comprise power, storytelling, ethics, and sustainability in organizations. He is currently involved in regional projects concerning sustainability. He is the head of the Sustainable Storytelling Lab at The European School of Governance (EUSG). Kenneth has authored, co-authored, and edited numerous books, articles, and book chapters in amongst others Scandinavian Journal of Management and Business Ethics—A European Perspective.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

xx   list of contributors Kyoungshin Kim is a Visiting Professor at Sungkyunkwan University in Korea. She received her PhD degree in Human Resource and Organization Development from the University of Georgia. She also obtained her PhD in Organization and Human Resources from Sungkyunkwan University. Her research interests include the learning organization, organizational performance, intangible assets, leadership, and leader behaviors. Her work appeared in Human Resource Development Quarterly and European Journal of Training and Development. Angela King Smith is a change management and organizational effectiveness leader, and has experience in both private and public sectors. She is an administrator at a large urban school district. Angela is currently pursuing her doctoral degree in Learning, Leadership, and Organizational Development from the University of Georgia. She holds her MBA from Clark Atlanta University and her BS in Business Administration from the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. Alice Lam is Professor of Organisation Studies at the School of Management, Royal Holloway University of London. She holds a PhD from the London School of Economics. She has researched extensively on how societal institutions influence work organization, learning, and knowledge creation within firms. More recently she has examined the role of careers as a vehicle for knowledge transfer across organizational and institutional boundaries. Her research has been published in Human Relations, Organization Studies, Journal of Management Studies, and Research Policy. Zhenqiu (Laura) Lu is an Associate Professor of Quantitative Methodologies at the University of Georgia. She obtained her PhD on Quantitative from the University of Notre Dame and an MA on Mathematics from the Temple University, PA. Her research interests include Structural Equation Modeling, Hierarchical Linear Modeling, longitudinal data analysis, Bayesian estimation methods, and general linear modeling. Her publications have appeared in a number of journals including Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Multivariate Behavioral Research, and European Journal of Training and Development. Carry  K.  Y.  Mak is a Senior Instructor in the Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau, where she also received her PhD. Before joining academia, she has worked as a business executive in Macau. Her research interests include organizational learning, cross-cultural management, strategic management, and organization behavior in the international context. Her recent publication on political sensemaking and sensegiving in multinational corporations has appeared in Organization Studies. Michael J. Marquardt is Professor Emeritus of Human and Organizational Learning at George Washington University. He is the author of 26 books and over 100 professional articles in the areas of learning organization, action learning, global leadership, and team dynamics. Over one million copies of his publications have been sold in a dozen languages worldwide. He is a co-founder and first President of the World Institute for Action Learning. Dr. Marquardt has introduced action learning to thousands of organizations in every corner of the globe.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

list of contributors   xxi Victoria  J.  Marsick is Professor of Adult Learning & Leadership, Department of Organization & Leadership, Teachers College, Columbia University. Victoria’s scholarship examines naturally occurring, informal learning at work—in individual learners, and through their collaborative work with others in, and on behalf of, groups, communities, and organizations. She has written on transformative learning, team learning, action learning, and organizational learning—often with Watkins. Her most recent book is Strategic Organizational Learning (with Martha Gephart). Nhien Nguyen is an Associate Professor at the Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). She is also a senior researcher at Nordland Research Institute, Norway, and an Associate Editor of The Learning Organization journal. She has participated in several EU innovation projects as scientific coordinator and work package leader. Her research expertise includes innovation management and strategy, innovation policy, responsible research and innovation (RRI), organizational learning and unlearning, and the learning organization. Anders Örtenblad is Professor of Work Life Research at the University of Agder, Norway. He is Editor-in-Chief of The Learning Organization, and has published articles on the learning organization and organizational learning in journals such as Human Relations, Management Learning and International Journal of Management Reviews. Among books he has edited are a series of books on adaptation of various management ideas for various industries, sectors, national cultures, and religions; one of them is Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context. Mike Pedler is Emeritus Professor at Henley Business School, University of Reading and founding editor of the journal Action Learning: Research and Practice. As a researcher he is interested in questions of learning and unlearning and with how organizing processes can become more effective through engaging all those concerned. Reflecting on and writing about what he does is an important aspect of his practice. He has written and co-authored books and papers on management self-development, action learning, leadership, and the learning organization. Grace Ann Rosile PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Management at New Mexico State University. She studies organizational storytelling, ethics, indigenous ethics, and pedagogy. She is author of numerous academic articles and book chapters, most recently focused on Ensemble Leadership Theory and Ensemble Storytelling. She is founder of HorseSense At Work, offering management development and teamwork training. She also wrote and developed seven educational films and edited one book on Tribal Wisdom for Business Ethics. William D. Schneper is an Associate Professor of Organization Studies and Management at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA. His research interests are at the intersection of corporate governance, strategic management, and international business. His current research focuses upon the impact of stakeholders on firm performance and behavior, and the role of the modern business corporation in society.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

xxii   list of contributors His publications have appeared in a number of high quality research outlets including Administrative Science Quarterly, International Business Review, and Organization Science. Nancy Taber is a Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at Brock University. She teaches in the areas of critical adult education and socio-cultural learning, with a focus on gender and militarism. Her research explores the ways in which learning, gender, and militarism interact in daily life, popular culture, museums, academic institutions, and military organizations. Her publications include “Gendered Militarism in Canada: Learning Conformity and Resistance.” She is currently using the genre of fiction to explore the complexities of women’s lives. Paul Tosey PhD is a freelance consultant and researcher and formerly Senior Lecturer and Head of PhD programs at Surrey Business School University of Surrey, UK, where he is now an Honorary Visiting Fellow. His research interests include organizational learning, inquiry-based learning, qualitative research methods, and modes of personal/ professional development including Clean Language. He has published widely on these themes and is a former editor of The Learning Organization journal. Max Visser is an Associate Professor of Management, Accounting & Organization at the Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, the Netherlands. His research interests include the relations between organizational learning, management control, accountability and performance, in particular in governmental, public sector, and non-profit organizations, and from both descriptive and normative perspectives. His publications appeared in Academy of Management Review, Management Learning, Journal of Business Ethics, Human Resource Management Review, and The Learning Organization, among others. Mary Ann Von Glinow is the Knight Ridder eminent Scholar Chair in International Management and CIBER Director at Florida International University in Miami, FL, USA. She is a former President of the Academy of Management and the Academy of International Business. She is the Senior Editor of the Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS). Her research is largely related to “contextualization” in IB Research but spans a number of conceptual disciplines. Karen E. Watkins is Professor of Learning, Leadership & Organizational Development of the Department of Lifelong Education, Administration & Policy at The University of Georgia. Karen’s scholarly interests include action research, informal and incidental learning, and organizational learning culture assessment. She has published numerous books, articles, and chapters, and, with Marsick, developed the Dimensions of a Learning Organization Questionnaire (1997) used in over seventy published studies. David Wernick is University Lecturer in the Department of Management and International Business at Florida International University in Miami, Florida, USA. His research focuses on global business strategy, innovation, and sustainable enterprise. He is the author of numerous academic and policy-oriented studies on global business,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

list of contributors   xxiii including the book chapter “Innovation in Africa: A View from the Peaks and Hilltops of a Spiky Continent,” in Innovation in Emerging Markets. Peter Wyer is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Dean of the London College of International Business Studies. Internationally respected in entrepreneurship and business education, Peter specializes in supporting growth-seeking small businesses and for long periods divided his time between research and academic program development roles in university business schools and provision of direct support to small enterprises. His research focuses predominantly upon small business strategy development processes and incorporates a comparative dimension that examines small business development in developed, developing, and transitional economic contexts.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Pa rt I

I N T RODUC T ION

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 1

Backgrou n d a n d I n troduction Anders Örtenblad

It is now around thirty years since the learning organization was “born” as an idea in its own right. Maybe it is more correct to say ideas of the learning organization, in plural, since there are several somewhat different definitions and meanings of “learning or­gan­ iza­tion” (see, e.g., Örtenblad 2018; see also Chapters 3–9 in this volume). After thirty years, there is reason to sum up what we know so far about the “learning organization,” but also to look forward—what more do we need to know about this idea, and which areas are there reason to investigate further? Or is it that the best we can do is to simply abandon the idea of the learning organization, and instead move on to do research in and let practice be inspired by other ideas, and let the idea quietly fade away (see Pedler and Burgoyne 2017, for a discussion of whether or not the “learning organization” is still alive)? As of now, 2019, the idea of the learning organization is by no means dead, even if there are those who suggest we should abandon it (e.g., Grieves 2008). Nevertheless, some have suggested that the learning organization is nothing but a short-lived fashion (e.g., Kezar 2005; Mastenbroek 1996), but anyone who for that reason would decline fur­ ther studying the idea would be the worst kind of fashion-follower. As shown by Hoe (Chapter 2 in this volume), the number of published works on the learning or­gan­iza­ tion, authored by scientific researchers, is actually increasing. But not everything that is popular is “good.” Consequently, it can be debated whether it necessarily is a good thing being a learning organization—and this is something that is discussed in the book (see, e.g., DiBella, Chapter 14 in this volume; Nguyen, Hansen, and Jensen, Chapter 23 in this volume). It has, though, at least been shown that the implementation of a learning organization in fact can lead to improved performance (see Kim and Lu, Chapter 22 in this volume). Besides, the absence of learning by organizations such as banks, oil com­ pan­ies, and online casinos and betting companies—just to mention a few industries where some organizations’ actions seem to lead to disasters for humans and/or the planet—could be taken as an indication that there is a need for something such as the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

4   Anders Örtenblad learning organization (given that the learning organization is something good—for all stakeholders). Accordingly, a wiser question than whether or not the idea of the learning organization should be allowed to die, is how come the idea is not realized more often— which obviously is not the case—if it is such a good idea? There are, of course, many plausible answers to the question of why the idea of the learning organization has not been put into practice more often. One answer, which could be deduced from a number of chapters in the present book, is that the idea ­simply is not really up-to-date—that features and perspectives, such as gender inclusivity (Gouthro, Taber, and Brazil, Chapter 16 in this volume), care about the environment (Boje and Rosile, Chapter 29 in this volume), caring about humans (Armstrong, Chapter 27 in this volume), multiple voices (Schneper, Wernick, and Von Glinow, Chapter 15 in this volume; Jørgensen, Hsu, and Hersted, Chapter 30 in this volume), collective, non-cognitive, and unintentional learning (Chia, Chapter 26 in this volume), triple-loop learning (Flood and Finnestrand, Chapter 13 in this volume), unlearning (Hong and Mak, Chapter 28 in this volume), organizational size (Wyer and Bowman, Chapter 24 in this volume), organizations learning from each other/inter-organizational learning (DiBella, Chapter 14 in this volume), and ambidexterity (Lam, Chapter 11 in this volume), were simply not that deeply elaborated in the original versions of the learning organization, at least not explicitly. The present book, thus, contributes by updating the idea, through consider­ ing incorporating a number of features and angles into the idea. Other features were definitely there already when the idea first originated, but are developed and further elaborated in this book—such as learning (Visser and Tosey, Chapter 10 in this volume; Hawkins, Chapter  12 in this volume) and systems thinking (Flood and Finnestrand, Chapter 13 in this volume). Another reason for why the idea of the learning organization has not been more frequently practiced is the confusion that arises from its many different versions and interpretations. Scholars approach the learning organization from very different assump­ tions about what organizations are and how and why learning occurs. The confusion may very well appear appealing to both researchers and practitioners­(see, e.g., Örtenblad 2007; Weir and Örtenblad 2013), but there is simultaneously a clear risk that it makes those who genuinely want to put the learning organization idea into practice paralyzed. This question too is dealt with in the present book. Several definitions are elaborated in depth (Chapters 3–8 in this volume) and compared (Bui, Chapter 9 in this volume; but see also, especially, Healy, Chapter 5 in this volume), while other chapters deal with how the learning organization could be measured (see, especially, Edmondson, Gino, and Healy, Chapter 20 in this volume; Goh, Chapter 21 in this volume), something that facili­ tates precision. Moreover, the confusion that the idea of the learning or­gan­iza­tion is associated with is also discussed (see, e.g., Nguyen, Hansen, and Jensen, Chapter 23 in this volume; Örtenblad, Chapter 32 in this volume). All-in-all, the overall aim of the book is to help to examine and develop the learning organization area. In this respect, the intention is to take a fairly giant leap for the learn­ ing organization community, and—hopefully—at least a tiny but important step for humankind. Just as could be expected from any “learning book,” some but not all

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Background and Introduction   5 questions­, which could be put about the learning organization, are answered. Other questions are posed but left unanswered for other scholars and further research to dig into. A good place to start doing a summary is among the people who were the founders of the learning organization concept. Although it is, of course, difficult to say exactly where and by whom the idea of the learning organization was founded, it is easier to know who were the first to use the term “learning organization” in print. It is reasonable to count Bob Garratt as among the first to write on the learning organization and when doing so to explicitly use the term “learning organization” in the title of his work (The Learning Organization: And the Need for Directors Who Think (1987)). Others, who before that had used the term in print, can be assumed to have done so more “by mistake” or with other connotations than those that the learning organization is associated with today, such as organized learning (e.g., Hofstetter 1967; Huczynski and Boddy 1979) and an organization where learning is taking place (Argyris and Schön  1978: 111; Hedberg 1981: 22) (see also Örtenblad 2018). The idea of the organization as a learning unit may, however, be quite a bit older than the term “learning organization.” According to Mike Pedler (personal communication, March 2019), Revans sketched out “the enterprise as a learning system” as early as in 1969, and Geoffrey Holland talked about “learning com­ pan­ies” in 1986 (see also Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne, Chapter 6 in this volume). In fact, Bob Garratt is one of the contributors to this book, discussing how his own definition of the learning organization was developed (Chapter 8 in this volume). Others of those who were early to formulate versions of the learning organization have also contributed with chapters to this book. Thus, Karen Watkins and Victoria Marsick have contributed (Chapter 4 in this volume), as well as Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne (Chapter 6 in this volume), and Michael Marquardt (Chapter 7 in this volume). By also inviting scholars to write about those major figures’ definitions who have not themselves been able to contribute to this volume, practically all of the most well-known definitions and meanings of the learning organization are covered in this book. Thus, there is a chapter on the definition that probably is the most well-known in the world, namely Peter Senge’s, authored by Hong Bui (Chapter 3 in this volume). Senge’s famous book The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (Senge 1990), has—according to personal communication with Diane Nakashian, Peter Senge’s executive assistant (January 2019)—sold around two million copies (of which one million in China). Another very well-known definition of the learning organiza­ tion, the one by David Garvin, is addressed here by Patrick Healy (Chapter 5 in this volume). Furthermore, there are chapters in the book that take a closer look and elabor­ ate certain aspects of the learning organization concept, such as “learning,” “culture,” and “systems thinking” (Chapters 10–16). It would, though, be a mistake to only include contributions from those major figures who have founded and coined the concept. A book that has as an ambition to also make an inventory of what more there is a need to know about the learning organization should also give options for critique of “the old” and to suggest new ideas and perspec­ tives. At least some of those who developed the concept criticize their own perspectives, answer others’ critique of their approaches or the learning organization in general, and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

6   Anders Örtenblad suggest a future for their definitions, in their “definition chapters” (see, e.g., Watkins and Marsick, Chapter 4 in this volume; Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne, Chapter 6 in this volume). In addition, other scholars offer important contributions to the further devel­ opment of the learning organization concept, in this book. They criticize the old, and offer new, constructive perspectives and even outlines for new definitions of the learn­ ing organization. Thus, this book contributes by offering suggestions regarding how the gap could be filled between the many works that have approached the learning organiza­ tion as an ideal and the far fewer works that exclusively have criticized the learning or­gan­iza­tion (see Driver 2002). It may be clear already to the reader, but deserves to be emphasized further, that this book by no means is without internal controversies. It has, in fact, never been the inten­ tion to design a unitary, uniform book. The belief is instead that controversy could help to develop the idea of the learning organization. Instead of hiding controversies, they are in this book brought into the light. For example, there are those, among the con­ tribu­tors, who see it as less problematic to find organizations that to some or a consider­ able extent are actual learning organizations (Marsick and Watkins, with contributions from King Smith, Chapter 17 in this volume; Dixon, Chapter 18 in this volume), whilst others view it as more problematic (Field, Chapter 19 in this volume). There are those who suggest that one unified definition is the way forward for the learning organization (e.g., Bui, Chapter 9 in this volume), whilst there also are those who suggest that mul­ tiple definitions are a better way forward (e.g., Örtenblad, Chapter 25 in this volume). The existence of such contradictions within the community could be taken as a sign that the community is vital. It is important to point out right from the beginning that this book deals with “learn­ ing organization” explicitly, not with “organizational learning,” which is a concept that other handbooks have been devoted to (Dierkes, Berthoin Antal, Child, and Nonaka 2001; Easterby-Smith and Lyles 2003). However, that does not at all mean that there are no overlaps between these two concepts, and the concept of “organizational learning” does also occasionally appear in the book. It is rather a question of whether the learning organization is part of/included in the organizational learning concept (e.g., EasterbySmith 1997) or if organizational learning is part of/included in the learning organization concept (e.g., Örtenblad 2002, 2018). However, there are also differences between the two concepts (see Örtenblad 2001, for an overview). For instance, quite a few scholars have suggested that the learning organization is a theme that consultants and practi­ tioners take interest in, while organizational learning is the more academic theme (e.g., Argyris 1999; Argyris and Schön 1996; Easterby-Smith 1997). Accordingly, it is probably correct to say that since it was founded, the idea of the learning organization has gener­ ally had a normative, slightly functionalistic orientation to it. If so, this could explain the fact that there are so relatively few critical studies on the learning or­gan­iza­tion, that is, studies that propose other perspectives than mainstream and capitalist perspectives (see Driver 2002, for a discussion). This book has as an ambition to add a more researchoriented approach to the idea of the learning organization. In the remainder of this chapter, the chapters in the book are presented in more depth.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Background and Introduction   7

Outline of the Book Part I: Introduction In addition to the present chapter, there is one more chapter in this introductory part of the book. Siu Loon Hoe is the author of Chapter 2, “The Topicality of The Learning Organization: Is the Concept Still Relevant Today?” One background for this chapter is those, especially from a management fashion perspective, who have claimed that the learning organization is merely a short-lived fashion (e.g., Kezar 2005; Mastenbroek 1996), which, thus, should not be given too much attention. Hoe investigates the current interest in the learning organization concept, and concludes that the interest among ­scientific researchers is increasing, and more or less has been increasing all the way since the beginning of the 1990s. Hoe also discusses the current relevance of the learning organization concept.

Part II: Definitions/Meanings of “Learning Organization” The expression of any idea or concept is never totally unambiguous and 100 percent clear. Even if no competing, explicitly expressed definitions exist, there are always differ­ ent interpretations of the one that does. In the case of the learning organization concept, there are in fact several—indeed many—variant definitions, and these variants differ somewhat in comparison with one another. This is a fact that any scholar/researcher— or practitioner or consultant—with the intention of using the concept necessarily needs to both live with and take into consideration. For that reason, in this book quite a few different definitions/meanings of the learning organization are explicitly presented. The chapters in Part II provide an overview of well-known definitions which practitioners and researchers can constructively compare with each other. In this part of the book, six entire chapters are dedicated to one each of the most well-known and oft-cited def­i n­itions, and in a further chapter, these—and other, less well-known definitions—are compared and discussed. The majority—but not all—of these chapters are authored by the originators of the definitions discussed. Some chapters focus more on definition of the learning organization, while others focus more on the meaning of the concept. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 present three versions of the learning organization that all ­ori­gin­ated in the United States. The version of the learning organization that probably is the most well-known worldwide is presented first. In Chapter  3, “Senge’s Learning Organization: Development of the Learning Organization Model,” Hong T. M. Bui pre­ sents the “learning organization guru,” Peter Senge’s version of the learning or­gan­iza­ tion. First, she discusses both how Senge defines the “learning organization” and what he might mean by the concept. The focus of Bui’s chapter is to develop a set of “ante­ cedents” for each of the five disciplines of Senge’s learning organization. Bui argues that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

8   Anders Örtenblad these sets of antecedents could help practitioners and scholars to apply and study the learning organization in a more holistic and effective way. The next chapter presents another well-known version of the learning organization. In this case, the founders of the version—Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick— present their own model of the learning organization in Chapter 4, “Conceptualizing an Organization That Learns.” Watkins and Marsick trace the evolution of their model, elaborate on their definition, and compare their model with other models of the learn­ ing organization. They also show how their model can be used to measure to what extent any organization is a “learning organization,” via use of their famous Dimensions of a Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ). Further, they present a review of how this measuring tool has been used by many other researchers, worldwide. Watkins and Marsick also discuss some published critiques of the learning organization concept, and suggest how such critiques could be addressed. In Chapter 5, “Garvin’s Learning Organization: A Process Perspective on Learning for Implementation, Improvement, and Innovation,” the late Harvard Business School pro­ fessor David Garvin’s version of the learning organization concept is presented. This is done by Patrick J. Healy—who worked closely with Garvin on his research and teaching on organizational learning. Healy provides background on Garvin’s perspective of the learning organization as a set of processes to be managed, elaborates on key practices of Garvin’s learning organization, and briefly comments on how such learning could be measured. He then describes how Garvin—alone as well as together with colleagues— further developed the learning organization model, compares Garvin’s model with other models of the learning organization, and discusses the impact and future of Garvin’s learning organization model. Chapters 6, 7, and 8 all present versions of the learning organization in which the con­ cept of “action learning” plays a more or less influential role. First among these chapters is the version of the learning organization concept that has come to be known as the “learning company.” Those who developed this version also present it, namely Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne, authors of Chapter 6, “Learning Company: The Learning Organization According to Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell.” The authors explain how they came to call their version “learning company” instead of “learning organization,” and how the concept of the “learning company” originally was defined. Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne continue by bringing up various forms of critique that their learning company model (as well as various learning organization models) has gained, and suggest how such critique could be responded to. Finally, they suggest a possible future for the “learning company” concept, based on an overview of changes that have occurred since the concept first was developed, and suggest changes to their original definition so that the learning company concept is fit for meeting the needs of the present as well as of the future. In Chapter  7, “Building Learning Organizations with Action Learning,” Michael J. Marquardt postulates that the most effective and powerful way to develop a learning organization is via action learning. In this chapter, Marquardt first presents the systemsbased model of action learning which includes the five subsystems of (1) learning,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Background and Introduction   9 (2)  organization, (3) people, (4) knowledge, and (5) technology. He then discusses ­specific actions and strategies, which show how action learning can build and sustain each of the subsystems of a learning organization. Chapter 8 is authored by Bob Garratt, who was among the very first authors to use the term “learning organization” in the title of a work (Garratt 1987). Bob Garratt was deeply inspired by action learning theory. His chapter, “Personal Paradoxes in Learning to Design ‘the Learning Organization,’ ” is a personal story of the evolution of his own ver­ sion of the learning organization, but also of another, related concept that he became famous for, namely the “learning board.” Garratt describes how he met and was inspired by various people, such as Reginald Revans—the guru of action learning­—and John Burgoyne, Mike Pedler, and Tom Boydell, a trio that has contributed two chapters to the present book (Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne, Chapter 6 in this volume; Boydell, Pedler, and Burgoyne, Chapter 31 in this volume). Garratt also discusses questions such as whether organizations and communities can learn. In a final chapter in this part of the book, Chapter 9, “On Definitions of the Learning Organization: Toward a New Definition of Learning Organization,” Hong  T.  M.  Bui comments on and compares the definitions that are brought up in Chapters 3–8, which Bui calls “mainstream definitions,” along with some less oft-cited definitions, and sug­ gests a new definition, building on and developing the existing definitions. She then presents a few suggestions for further research, which all stem from her new definition of the learning organization.

Part III: Aspects of the Learning Organization The third part of the book deals with and elaborates certain aspects of the learning organization/learning organization concept. Thus, while the previous part of the book deals with definitions/meanings of the “full” learning organization/learning or­gan­iza­ tion concept, this part of the book deals with certain aspects of it. It is worth mentioning that the set of aspects that are brought up in this part of the book is not offered as a com­ plete set of aspects—there are many more aspects of the learning organization than those presented here. First in this part of the book is a chapter by two scholars who previously have authored extensively on “levels of learning.” In Chapter 10, “Learning in the Learning Organization: Concepts and Antecedents,” Max Visser and Paul Tosey deal in depth with the learning prefix of the learning organization, which is—to say the least—so very important for the concept. They review three central perspectives of the learning or­gan­ iza­tion—namely, Mike Pedler, John Burgoyne, and Tom Boydell’s perspective; Peter Senge’s perspective; and Victoria Marsick and Karen Watkins’ perspective—according to how these conceptualize “learning.” Visser and Tosey conclude that there are many similarities regarding how “learning” is conceptualized in these three perspectives, but that there also are differences, and suggest some areas where further research would be appreciated.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

10   Anders Örtenblad In Chapter 11, “Ambidextrous Learning Organizations,” Alice Lam deals with a concept that probably more often is connected with organizational learning—ambidexterity. Not least for this reason it is especially important to elaborate on ambidexterity­—that is, the capacity to deal with the exploitation–exploration (see March  1991) tension—in relation to the learning organization, which Lam does in this chapter. Lam argues that previous literature on organizing and learning has tended to use dualistic perspective based on over-simplified polarized concepts, and that previous literature on ambidex­ terity has focused on senior management teams in managing the exploitation–ex­plor­ ation tension. Lam proposes three types of “ambidextrous learning organizations,” involving also individuals and teams other than the senior management teams, which she calls “partitional,” “contextual,” and “alliance,” and suggests for which organizational contexts these three ambidextrous learning organization types would fit. Just like the former two chapters, the next chapter has also a strong connection to “learning,” but it also connects to “culture.” In Chapter 12, “How the Learning Organization Learns and Its Culture Coevolves,” Peter Hawkins claims that most of the previous lit­ erature on the learning organization has stuck to individual learning. Hawkins deals with four sub-questions, namely (1) the nature of learning; (2) how teams learn; (3) how organizations learn as systems; and (4) how organizational cultures evolve, and calls for—­within both research on and practice of the learning or­gan­iza­tion—increased attention to learning in and between many levels, and to collective learning, which looks at how learning happens both in and between the many nested systemic levels that indi­ viduals are parts of. In Chapter  13, “A Mighty Step: Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization,” Robert L. Flood and Hanne Finnestrand deal with the systemic aspect of the learning organization. This aspect is often associated with Senge, in that “systems thinking” is the fifth discipline that his famous book refers to (Senge 1990). Flood and Finnestrand argue that systems theory has been misused in the learning organization literature in general, and by Peter Senge in particular. The authors revisit Senge’s argu­ ment according to several different understandings of systems thinking, and interpret the learning organization on the basis of one of these understandings, namely the crit­ic­al systems perspective, which they also suggest as an alternative to Senge’s systems thinking. The use of such an alternative, which Flood and Finnestrand support, would imply a paradigm shift—at least among the research community, but probably also among practitioners. Like Chapter 12, Chapter 14 too deals with the culture aspect of the learning or­gan­iza­ tion. Chapter 14 is titled “From Learning Organizations to Learning Cultures and More: Evolutions in Theory, Changes in Practice, Continuity of Purpose,” and authored by Anthony DiBella. The author discusses and analyzes the increasingly popular trend of using the concept of “learning culture” instead of “learning organization.” DiBella uses the words “description” and “prescription” in referring to distinctive orientations in the­ ory and practice. A descriptive approach assumes that all organizations have learning capabilities, while a prescriptive approach assumes that learning takes place only when certain conditions are met. Either way, DiBella concludes that more emphasis should be

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Background and Introduction   11 placed on organizations learning from each other, and no matter the approach used, learning should produce outcomes that benefit humankind and planet Earth. Chapter  15, “Stakeholders and the Learning Organization,” authored by William D. Schneper, David Wernick, and Mary Ann Von Glinow, deals with the various stake­ holders that are, should, and could be involved in work on the learning or­gan­iza­tion. Schneper, Wernick, and Von Glinow review previous works that have used or commented on stakeholder perspectives related to the learning organization, especially Senge’s fam­ ous book (1990). The authors suggest that stakeholder theory is included in many more works on the learning organization than previously has been and currently is the case. Schneper, Wernick, and Von Glinow also suggest, regarding connections between stake­ holders and the learning organization, specific areas for further research, methods to be used in such research, as well as to study stakeholders in relation to the learning organ­ ization, and offer advice for teaching. Chapter 16, finally, deals with an aspect that until recently has been too neglected when it comes to the learning organization, namely gender. Patricia A. Gouthro, Nancy Taber, and Amanda Brazil have for this reason authored “What Is Needed to Create Gender Inclusive Learning Organizations?” By “learning organization” Gouthro, Taber, and Brazil refer to Senge’s five disciplines (Senge 1990). They use a critical feminist approach to analyze Senge’s five disciplines, and explore how the five disciplines could be used to illuminate barriers that women face in, especially, universities, fire services, and militaries. Gouthro, Taber, and Brazil also suggest what it would take for a learning organization to be gender inclusive, and argue that Senge’s five disciplines need to be reconceptualized in a critical feminist way to make the learning organization concept useful, and that further research on the learning organization should take into account not only complexities for women but also for other marginalized groups.

Part IV: Practicing the Learning Organization One of the important debates on the learning organization which is dealt with in this part of the book is whether there are or ever have been any true learning organizations “for real.” Two of the three chapters that together make up this part of the book are posi­ tive, in the sense that they believe that organizations that at least come close to how they define the learning organization do exist. The author of the third chapter is more doubt­ ful. These chapters—especially the first two—also offer insights into how the learning organization concept could be implemented and, thus, both how the learning or­gan­iza­ tion could be realized in practice and how the concept could be concretized. In Chapter 17, “Interventions to Create a Learning Organization,” Victoria J. Marsick and Karen E. Watkins, with contributions from Angela King Smith, offer some case studies on efforts to create learning organizations. The main point of departure for these efforts has been the authors’ use of their own DLOQ model, the use of which is intended to be diagnostic of an organization’s learning strengths and weaknesses, but not spe­cif­i c­ al­ly prescriptive for correcting the latter. Its findings, then, should be taken as a “guiding

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

12   Anders Örtenblad star” rather than as a precise blueprint. In sum, every organization needs to individualize its own path to sculpt itself into a learning organization—an optimal course determined in relation to contextual factors, rather than the vision of a pre-set outcome. By illustra­ tion, the chapter presents a few cases in which the authors (alone or together with colleagues/students) have engaged in or supported DLOQ-guided interventions to create learning organizations. Cases showing examples of efforts to create learning organizations are also presented by Nancy M. Dixon in Chapter 18, “Glimpses of Organizations in the Act of Learning.” Dixon offers glimpses of what makes learning happen in two organizations, one of which was founded on “learning organization” principles. The other is nearer the beginning of the process of becoming a learning organization. Dixon concludes that although the practices differ between the two, both organizations recognize the capability of employees to learn, problem solve, and guide the organization. In contrast with the last two chapters, in Chapter 19, “Pegasus or Clever White Horse? In Pursuit of real Learning Organizations,” Laurie Field presents the results of a system­ atic analysis of papers published during the last decade that claim one or more or­gan­iza­ tions are “learning organizations.” This analysis does not find any trustworthy accounts of organizations that come close to the learning organization ideal, enthusiastically described by commentators like Senge. The recurring and widespread weaknesses highlighted by this analysis give rise to suggestions for improving learning organization scholarship, most notably the urgent need for (a) agreed criteria that enable dif­fer­en­ti­ ation between organizations which are, or are not, learning organizations, (b) explicit standards (e.g., how much double-loop learning, and over what period of time?), (c) building on previous conceptual foundations (e.g., the distinction between “learning organization” and “organizational learning”), and (d) adherence to standard social science requirements for collecting and presenting trustworthy field data.

Part V: Studying the Learning Organization Especially, but not only, because the concept of the learning organization is both am­bigu­ous and vague (e.g., Caldwell 2012; Grieves 2008; Örtenblad 2007), there is a need to develop further understandings on how best to conduct studies on the learning or­gan­iza­tion and/or studies where the concept of the learning organization is involved. This part of the book contains four chapters. The three first all deal with how the learn­ ing organization could be measured. First in this part of the book is Chapter 20 by Amy C. Edmondson, Francesca Gino, and Patrick J. Healy, “The Learning Organization Survey: Validation of an Instrument to Augment Research on Organizational Learning.” Building on past research on or­gan­iza­ tional learning and the learning organization, Edmondson, Gino, and Healy report on the development and validation of an instrument to measure several features that op­er­ation­al­ize the notion of a learning organization: the Learning Organization Survey (LOS), developed by Garvin and two of the authors of this chapter: Amy C. Edmondson and Francesca Gino (Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino 2008). In the chapter, Edmondson,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Background and Introduction   13 Gino, and Healy also suggest how researchers and practitioners can benefit from the use of this survey. They conclude that the LOS is a valid and reliable tool for measuring the learning organization. While Chapter 19 focuses on one measure, Swee Chua Goh reviews, compares, and critically examines four measures in Chapter  21, “Measurement of the Learning Organization Construct: A Critical Perspective and Future Directions for Research.” Goh first reviews and compares three measures of the learning organization and one measure of organizational learning. Among these four measures is one measure that previ­ ously was co-developed by Goh himself, and one measure that was developed by two other contributors to the present book­—Karen Watkins and Victoria Marsick’s DLOQ. Further, Goh suggests that the measures mainly have been used testing the hypothesis that being a learning organization is linked to organizational performance. Goh then presents a more critical analysis of learning organization measures, and suggests some new approaches and further areas of research using learning organization measures. In Chapter 22, “Learning Organization and Organizational Performance,” Kyoungshin Kim and Zhenqiu (Laura) Lu get even closer to the relation between the learning organ­ ization and performance, than Swee Goh did in Chapter 21. Kim and Lu review some previous studies that focus on the learning organization and organizational perform­ ance and conclude that these studied works support that the learning or­gan­iza­tion not only correlates but also predicts organizational performance. Finally, the authors sug­ gest how future studies of the relation between the learning organization and perform­ ance best could be conducted, and call for more research that could develop knowledge on the relation between the learning organization and non-financial performance. The final chapter in this part of the book is a bit different from the three previous chapters, in that it discusses issues that need to be solved before any study that involves the learning organization construct is conducted, rather than methods for the studies per se. In Chapter 23, “How Best to Study the Learning Organization,” Nhien Nguyen, Jens Ørding Hansen, and Are Jensen suggest that there are certain challenges and obs­ tacles connected to the learning organization concept that have conspired to dampen general interest in this apparently timely concept. The authors list four questions that, if answered, would help to overcome these challenges and obstacles. These questions deal with the need, the definition and operationalization, the appropriateness, and the real­ iza­tion of the learning organization concept. For each of the four questions, Nguyen, Hansen, and Jensen contrast several “best” and “non-best” practices, assumptions, and mindsets to adopt when tackling these fundamental questions, but conclude that there are no easy answers, thus suggesting that any researcher aiming to use the learning organization construct should avoid simplistic and one-sided approaches.

Part VI: The Universality of the Learning Organization The sixth part of the book deals with a subject that has become increasingly popular during recent years, the universality of the learning organization (see also Örtenblad 2013, 2015). However, such thinking is by no means new to learning or­gan­iza­tion scholars.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

14   Anders Örtenblad Several had already suggested in the early 1990s that the learning or­gan­iza­tion may need to be adapted to fit particular organizations (see, e.g., Hawkins 1994: 79; Marquardt and Reynolds 1994: 109; Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell 1991: 2; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, and Smith 1994: 15; Watkins and Marsick 1993: 8; see also Marsick and Watkins, with contributions from King Smith, Chapter 17 in this volume). One study that discusses whether there is a need to adapt the learning organization model to fit certain types of organization is presented in Chapter 24, “The Potential to Nurture Small Businesses to Learning Organization Form,” in which Peter Wyer and Shaun Bowman relate the learning organization to size as contextual factor. Wyer and Bowman emphasize that small businesses are not merely little big businesses, and demonstrate in which respects they differ from large organizations. The authors use case study to examine the relevance of the learning organization concept for small busi­ nesses. They conclude that size does matter, consider the nature, form, and complexity of small business learning, and suggest a model of the learning organization that is adaptable to growth-seeking micro and small enterprises. In Chapter 25, “Contextualizing the Learning Organization: Towards Differentiated Standards,” Anders Örtenblad discusses the need to find differentiated standards of the learning organization for organizations in different, generalized contexts, in more gen­ eral terms, and suggests how such studies could be conducted. Örtenblad justifies why there is a need for developing differentiated standards of the general learning or­gan­iza­ tion concept—or “overview definition of the learning organization” as he calls it—for organizations in different generalized contexts, such as organizations in a certain indus­ try, sector, or national culture. The author also suggests how studies that aim to test the relevance of the learning organization for organizations in any certain generalized context, as well as concretizing the concept for the specific type of organizations, could best be conducted.

Part VII: New, Alternative Perspectives on the Learning Organization This part of the book contains a number of chapters that not only criticize previous ­perspectives—especially the dominating functionalistic perspective—­but also, in a con­ structive way, offer inputs to new, alternative perspectives on the learning organization. Suggestions for rethinking the learning organization concept have also been offered in a few other chapters of the book. In this part, though, the very aim and essence of the chapters is to rethink the learning organization. Hence, in this part of the book the pre­ vious “older” writings are constructively challenged, and suggestions for what the learning organization could be in the future are put forward. First in this part of the book is Robert Chia, with Chapter 26, “Becoming a Learning Organization: A Process-Philosophical Perspective.” Chia argues that much literature on the learning organization assumes that learning is cognitive, anticipatory, and inten­ tional. Inspired by the “practice turn” in social theory, Chia suggests a becoming,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Background and Introduction   15 process-philosophical perspective of the learning organization. This perspective views learning as a non-cognitive, non-deliberate, and unintentional activity, which often goes on unnoticed and is achieved through the collective aggregation of a multitude of trial-and-error coping actions. The author argues that learning in a learning or­gan­iza­tion according to this perspective happens spontaneously as people make necessary adjust­ ments as they go along and this aggregates into established organizational practices and predispositions. Chia suggests that the true learning organization is an or­gan­iza­tion able to be attuned to subtle changes in the environment and to respond to these; a “serial innovator” that constantly sees new opportunities. Next, Helen D. Armstrong presents—against the backdrop of her critical and famous article from the very beginning of the century (Armstrong 2000)—a humanistic per­ spective, in Chapter 27, “The Learning Organization as a Practice of Becoming Human.” Armstrong argues that (too) little has happened since her previous work on the learning organization was published. The author offers a retrospective review of the learning organ­ ization that goes far further back than the era when the learning organization as a concept was established (e.g., Garratt  1987; Senge  1990; Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell 1991; Garvin 1993; Watkins and Marsick 1993; Marquardt and Reynolds 1994). Armstrong argues that much of the existing literature on the learning organization still coaches organizations on ways to exert power and control over their employees. She then suggests, mainly utilizing Mary Parker Follett’s ideas, a way to create learning organiza­ tions as a practice of “becoming human” so as to diminish the extent and effects of those efforts to exert power and control. In Chapter 28, “The Empire Strikes Back: How Learning Organization Scholars Can Learn from the Critiques,” Jacky Hong and Carry K. Y. Mak systematically review several major, critical works on the learning organization, and offer suggestions as to how the gap between the mainstream perspective of the learning organization and the critics could be filled, in terms of outlining what they call “learning organization 2.0.” The authors thus suggest that the learning organization community learns from its past errors. The major difference between learning organization 2.0 and learning or­gan­iza­tion 1.0 is that the former (1) includes “unlearning,” and (2) takes a stakeholder approach to the learning organization. Hong and Mak also offer some possible directions for future research. In Chapter 29, “An Antenarrative Amendment to Learning Organization: Theories to Avert Sixth Extinction,” David M. Boje and Grace Ann Rosile start with what they view as a failure of existing learning organization approaches to have a true impact when it comes to changes of the current hegemony that privileges profiteering and cares very little—if anything—about the planet. On the basis of a prospective, change-oriented, and antenarrative perspective of storytelling, they construct an alternative perspective of the learning organization that could avert the sixth mass extinction. In such a learn­ ing organization as the authors suggest, multiple voices are allowed, less focus than what normally is the case is put on formal hierarchy, and organization members are allowed collectively to intervene at the antenarrative level to prospectively author new, more ethical and counter-hegemonic stories­—and, thus, achieve “together learning,” as Boje and Rosile call it—through which a better future could be constituted.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

16   Anders Örtenblad Finally, Kenneth Mølbjerg Jørgensen, Shih-wei Hsu, and Lone Hersted present, in Chapter 30, “The Learning Organization: A Critical Analysis and Future Directions,” an interesting, new, and alternative perspective on the learning organization. From a pol­it­ical perspective (inspired by, e.g., Foucault), the authors discuss the learning or­gan­ iza­tion discourse in terms of three narratives: 1st generation learning organization, emphasizing corrections of errors; 2nd generation learning organization, emphasizing reflection, self-management, and self-directed learning according to corporate per­form­ ance goals; and 3rd generation learning organization, emphasizing reflexivity, com­ munity, co-creation, and creativity. Jørgensen, Hsu, and Hersted propose that the 3rd generation learning organization—where people’s voices, experience, knowledge, and need for freedom are seriously taken into account, where multiple voices are invited into the processes of learning, strategizing, and decision making, and where care is given to human beings and to the environment—should gain increased influence in learning organization practice and theory.

Part VIII: The Learning Organization in the Future What next? There are two chapters in the last part of the book, both of which suggest ways ahead for the learning organization. In Chapter 31, “The Future of the Learning Organization,” Tom Boydell, Mike Pedler, and John Burgoyne suggest that the learning organization has to leave more functionalistic perspectives behind, and instead enter into what they call “Stance 3,” i.e. “doing better things—together,” and “Stance 4,” i.e. “doing things that matter—to the world.” Boydell, Pedler, and Burgoyne suggest that they, as well as any other scholar in the learning organization area, must now propagate Stances 3 and 4 and their occurrence in studies on the learning organization as well as in any def­ inition of the learning organization concept, to ensure care for the planet and for life. In Chapter 32, “Suggestions for Future Research on the Learning Organization,” Anders Örtenblad suggests some possible areas that further research into the learning organiza­ tion could well deal with. He does this partly on the basis of reasonings and suggestions put forward by the other contributors to this volume, although without merely summar­ izing the points they make. Partly, Örtenblad bases the suggestions for further research on what has not been dealt with in the other chapters of the book. One of the suggested areas is further measures to deal with the vagueness and ambiguity that the learning organization concept hitherto has been associated with.

References Argyris, C. 1999. On Organizational Learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. London: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Background and Introduction   17 Armstrong, H. D. 2000. “The Learning Organization: Changed Means to an Unchanged End.” Organization 7 (2): pp. 355–61. Caldwell, R. 2012. “Systems Thinking, Organizational Change and Agency: A Practice Theory Critique of Senge’s Learning Organization.” Journal of Change Management 12 (2): pp. 145–64. Dierkes, M., A. Berthoin Antal, J. Child, and I. Nonaka (eds.). 2001. Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Driver, M. 2002. “The Learning Organization: Foucauldian Gloom or Utopian Sunshine?” Human Relations 55 (1): pp. 33–53. Easterby-Smith, M. 1997. “Disciplines of Organizational Learning: Contributions and Critiques.” Human Relations 50 (9): pp. 1085–106. Easterby-Smith, M., and M. A. Lyles (eds.). 2003. The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Oxford: Blackwell. Garratt, B. 1987. The Learning Organization: And the Need for Directors Who Think. Aldershot: Gower. Garvin, D. A. 1993. “Building a Learning Organization.” Harvard Business Review 71 (4): pp. 78–91. Garvin, D.  A., A.  C.  Edmondson, and F.  Gino. 2008. “Is Yours a Learning Organization?” Harvard Business Review 86 (3): pp. 109–16. Grieves, J. 2008. “Why We Should Abandon the Idea of the Learning Organization.” The Learning Organization 15 (6): pp. 463–73. Hawkins, P. 1994. “Organizational Learning: Taking Stock and Facing the Challenge.” Management Learning 25 (1): pp. 71–82. Hedberg, B. 1981. “How Organizations Learn and Unlearn.” In Handbook of Organizational Design, ed. P. C. Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck, pp. 3–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hofstetter, A.  N. 1967. Special Research Training Program for Public School Personnel. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University. Huczynski, A., and D. Boddy. 1979. “The Learning Organisation: An Approach to Management Education and Development.” Studies in Higher Education 4 (2): pp. 211–22. Kezar, A. 2005. “What Campuses Need to Know about Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization.” New Directions for Higher Education 131: pp. 7–22. March, J. G. 1991. “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2 (1): pp. 71–87. Marquardt, M. J., and A. Reynolds. 1994. Global Learning Organization: Gaining Advantage through Continuous Learning. New York: Irwin. Mastenbroek, W. F. G. 1996. “Organizational Innovation in Historical Perspective: Change as Duality Management.” Business Horizons 39 (4): pp. 5–14. Örtenblad, A. 2001. “On Differences Between Organizational Learning and Learning Organization.” The Learning Organization 8 (3): pp. 125–33. Örtenblad, A. 2002. “A Typology of the Idea of Learning Organization.” Management Learning 33 (2): pp. 213–30. Örtenblad, A. 2007. “Senge’s Many Faces: Problem or Opportunity?” The Learning Organization 14 (2): pp. 108–22. Örtenblad, A. (ed.). 2013. Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Örtenblad, A. 2015. “Towards Increased Relevance: Context Adapted Models of the Learning Organization.” The Learning Organization 22 (3): pp. 163–81.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

18   Anders Örtenblad Örtenblad, A. 2018. “What Does ‘Learning Organization’ Mean?” The Learning Organization 25 (3): pp. 150–8. Pedler, M., and J.  Burgoyne. 2017. “Is the Learning Organization Still Alive?” The Learning Organization 24 (2): pp. 119–26. Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne, and T. Boydell. 1991. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. Ross, and B. Smith. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. London: Nicholas Brealey. Watkins, K. E., and V. J. Marsick. 1993. Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Weir, D., and A. Örtenblad. 2013. “Obstacles to the Learning Organization.” In Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context, ed. A. Örtenblad, pp. 68–85. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 2

The Topica lit y of the Le a r n i ng Orga n iz ation: is th e Concept Stil l R eleva n t Today? Siu Loon Hoe

Introduction For any organization to stay competitive, there is a need to continually learn and adapt to changes in the market environment. Many management ideas and tools have been developed to address this challenge. One such concept is the learning organization described in The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, by Peter Senge (1990). The learning organization seeks to harness the power of groups of individuals to solve complex problems using systems thinking, that is, bringing together different parts of the organization to see things as a whole for growth. Almost three decades have passed since the origination of the concept. Thus, two pertinent questions raised here are, “What is the current level of interest in the learning organization concept?” and “Is the concept still relevant today?” In order to evaluate the topicality and usefulness of the learning organization concept from different perspec­ tives and minimize subjectivity in the discussion, a triangulation research method was adopted (Heale and Forbes 2013). The chapter includes a review of authors who have recently and explicitly commented on the topicality of the learning organization, a quali­ta­tive content analysis of recent journal publications on learning organizations jus­ tifying the need for the concept, and quantitative research using print media indicators and Google Trends to identify the number of publications related to learning or­gan­iza­ tion among scientific and casual researchers over time.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

20   Siu Loon Hoe The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the level of interest in the learning or­gan­iza­tion and its usefulness at the present time, taken to be circa 2018. The main sections of the chapter are: an overview on the state of the learning organization and explicit views on its topicality offered by authors recently; a review of justifications used in recent publications on the need for the learning organization; an examination of  the current level of interest based on bibliographic databases and Google Trends searches for the keyword “learning organization”; a discussion in response to the two questions raised; and finally, a discussion of the limitations of the study and suggestions for further research.

The State of the Learning Organization Concept The learning organization concept was popularized by Senge (1990). It is associated with five key disciplines or characteristics, namely, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. Over the years, the concept has evolved and been further developed by many researchers and practitioners (Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino 2008; Marquardt 2011; Marsick and Watkins 2003; Örtenblad 2018). However, not all of these developments follow Senge’s (1990) version of the learning organization. For example, research questionnaires such as the Dimensions of a Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) (Yang, Watkins, and Marsick 2004) and the Learning Organization Survey (LOS) (Garvin et al. 2008) measure different attributes of a learning organiza­ tion beyond the five disciplines. Many other learning organization studies related to management topics such as innovation and leadership have also been conducted (Allouzi, Suifan, and Alnuaimi 2018; Delić, Slåtten, Milić, Marjanović, and Vulanović 2017). Recently, several authors have explicitly commented on the topicality of the learning organization (Adžić 2018; Grieves 2008; Pedler and Burgoyne 2017; Vince 2018). Their arguments provided some insights on the usefulness of the concept today. Adžić (2018) mentioned that the learning organization is an example of a management fad with low practical value. The evidence provided includes the failure of British car producer, Rover, used as a prime example of a learning organization, and falling interest in the topic based on a bibliographic database. The arguments presented were that the learning organ­ ization is a post-industrial innovation which warrants a change in mindset towards cooperation and flexibility against a backdrop of poor competitiveness, skills, and industrial relations. Despite the misgivings, the author supported the idea of learning in organizations and the importance of organizational learning and knowledge manage­ ment to achieve better performance. In an attempt to provoke a debate, Grieves (2008) had earlier said that the learning organization ideal should come to a natural end. Its usefulness is questioned due to the subjectivity of its construct and its measurement. In addition, there seemed to be a lack of certainty in systems thinking to influence

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

The Topicality of the Learning Organization   21 outcomes and the other four disciplines merely provide a general structure as part of the learning organization narrative. The example of Siemens, a German conglomerate, was highlighted to demonstrate the difficulties in identifying and implementing a learning organization. The other shortcomings of the concept include overlooking humanistic values and ethical code of practice. Vince (2018) proposed framing the learning organization as a paradox to ensure its continuing relevance. The idea of dualism suggests that the concept incorporates both positive and negative developmental influences that shape an organization. An example of positive influence is enhancing culture while a negative influence is exclusion of reflection. With the recognition that tensions would always be involved in the or­gan­iza­ tion of learning, one would then acknowledge that the learning organization concept is always relevant in pursuit of growth, innovation, and change. Pedler and Burgoyne (2017) suggested that the changing nature of work, an emphasis on performance over learning, and the operation of the concept under different names render a clear response to the question on whether the learning organization is still alive difficult. Their sample study yielded mixed results from both proponents and opponents of the concept. The former viewed the learning organization as being of interest in some quarters and as a back­ ground assumption operating under different labels. The latter thought otherwise and said that the concept was less frequently mentioned recently. In summing up the views from the critics and advocates on the usefulness of the learning organization today, both sides acknowledge the relevance of learning in or­gan­ iza­tions to improve performance but significant enhancements to the concept are required. Some of these enhancements include a more objective approach to construct development and scale measurement, incorporating other dimensions to the concept, and taking into consideration the effect of an evolving work environment.

The Need for Learning Organization Qualitative content analysis is a research method used to analyze text data such as art­ icles and books (Kondracki, Wellman, and Amundson  2002). The analysis involves comparisons of content followed by the interpretation of the underlying context (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). A qualitative content analysis was conducted on the views of authors who have recently published on the topic of the learning organization and provided justifications of the need for the concept. The purpose was to understand its perceived usefulness among researchers and practitioners today. In order to take into consideration the evolution of the concept including the different definitions, views, and interpretations, the research methodology involved complying with a “narrower” scope for the “term” or label while accepting a “broader” scope for the “content” of the learning organization. The keyword search was limited to simply, “learning organization.” Related topics such as “organizational learning” and “know­ledge management” were deliberately excluded to avoid any ambiguity and possible overlaps

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

22   Siu Loon Hoe associated with the concept. However, the “content” included subtopics such as DLOQ and LOS that are beyond the five disciplines mentioned earlier. The main advantage of this methodology is staying faithful to the initial conception of the idea but the down­ side is that it ignores the many enhancements that have been added to the model over the years (Örtenblad 2007). Using a keyword search for “learning organization,” a total of ninety-eight documents was returned in Scopus for the period between January and end September 2018. Scopus is an abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature that covers scientific journals, books, and conference proceedings. Of these documents, seventy-eight were journal articles, nine were conference proceedings, four were book chapters, and seven were others. After reviewing the contents based on relevance to the learning or­gan­iza­ tion concept, the final sample size consisted of twenty-four journal articles (see Table 2.1). With regard to the justifications provided by the various authors on the need for learning organization in the studies, ten were related to building an organizational cul­ ture. Among these, six were connected to employee development such as commitment, shared aims, empowerment, involvement, and engagement (Chai and Dirani  2018; Karve and Aggarwal-Gupta 2018; Liu and Liu 2018; Melhem 2018; Ravichandran and Mishra 2018; Song, Chai, Kim, and Bae 2018). Another four were linked to better care delivery in the healthcare environment (Gelmon, Bouranis, Sandberg, and Petchel 2018; He and Chen 2018; Mirza et al. 2018; Westergren et al. 2018). There were five studies that articulated improving performance as a reason for the learning organization (Boshier 2018; Gouthro, Taber, and Brazil 2018; Khunsoonthornkit and Panjakajornsak 2018; Siddique 2018; Ward, Berensen, and Daniels 2018). These per­form­ance outcomes were associated with competitive advantage, reduced public funding, organizational commitment, revenue growth, and work goals. Four studies used developing innovation capacity as the rationale for the learning organization (Gil, Rodrigo-Moya, and Morcillo-Bellido 2018; Hamdani and Susilawati 2018; Janežiča, Dimovskia, and Hodoščekb 2018; Syam, Akib, Patonangi, and Guntur 2018). These innovations could be either product- or service-based. Three studies were related to the need for knowledge sharing as part of the learning organization (Borge, Filstad, Olsen, and Skogmo 2018; Othman and Elsaay 2018; Ricciardelli, Manfredi, and Antonicelli 2018). Such knowledge-based activities could lead to better problem solving and improved decision-making capabilities. Finally, two of the studies did not provide any explicit justifications for the inclusion of the learning organization concept in the articles (Kaminska and Borzillo 2018; Langenus and Dooms 2018). An analysis of the content suggests that the majority of recent authors view the learn­ ing organization as a relevant concept for organizational culture development, and in particular, to better engage employees and enhance service delivery. In one particular study (Gelmon et al. 2018), the five disciplines were specifically mentioned as practices associated to help overcome challenges in implementing change. Influencing or­gan­iza­ tional performance outcomes, growing innovative capability, and knowledge sharing among co-workers were also reasons suggested to demonstrate the usefulness of the learning organization. In order to influence organizational performance outcome in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

The Topicality of the Learning Organization   23

Table 2.1  Recent articles on the learning organization S/No.

Justification used for including the learning Country/ organization concept in the study Region

Industry/ Sector

United Arab Service Emirates

Reference

1.

To maintain superior performance outcomes in the emerging knowledge economy.

2.

To build an inter-organizational network to Europe improve the dimensions of sustainability.

Maritime

Langenus and Dooms (2018)

3.

To create a patient-safety culture.

Healthcare

Mirza et al. (2018)

4.

That leadership affects culture and learning Spain structure, and both impact on innovation capacity.

Education

Gil et al. (2018)

5.

To store knowledge and experience in Italy ensuring sustainability of communities and resources.

Social

Ricciardelli et al. (2018)

6.

To ensure competitive advantage in the cities.

China

Public

Boshier (2018)

7.

To create a culture leading to greater involvement of employee and team building.

India

Healthcare

Ravichandran and Mishra (2018)

8.

To capture knowledge and share information Egypt in the design process to improve project performance.

9.

To overcome challenges in implementing the patient-centered care model such as shifting patterns of care use and refining care processes.

United States

Healthcare

Gelmon et al. (2018)

10.

Links to and facilitates person-centered nutritional care and patient safety.

Sweden

Healthcare

Westergren et al. (2018)

11.

To create and sustain a learning environment United as a motivator for performance, engagement, States and retention.

Healthcare

Ward et al. (2018)

12.

To react more quickly to changing external environments, embrace innovations in internal organization, and improve student outcomes.

Education

Janežicˇa et al. (2018)

13.

To overcome the challenges faced by the India organization when the commitment and buy-in from the employees is not sustained.

Public

Karve and Aggarwal-Gupta (2018)

14.

To embed new thinking and practices that continuously renew and transform the organization in ways that support shared aims.

Education

Liu and Liu (2018)

Abu Dhabi

Slovenia

Canada

Siddique (2018)

Construction Othman and Elsaay (2018)

(continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

24   Siu Loon Hoe

Table 2.1  Continued S/No.

Justification used for including the learning Country/ organization concept in the study Region

Industry/ Sector

Reference

15.

To invest in limited human resource and develop talents.

Lebanon

Finance

Chai and Dirani (2018)

16.

To drive product innovation.

Indonesia

Chemical

Hamdani and Susilawati (2018)

17.

To take up the learning organization model Canada because of reduced public funding and pressures to attend to the performance demands of the global marketplace.

Education

Gouthro et al. (2018)

18.

Has a direct effect on organizational per­form­ance and commitment, and that organizational commitment has a direct effect on or­gan­iza­tional performance.

Thailand

R&D

Khunsoonthornkit and Panjakajornsak (2018)

19.

The impact of learning organization on employee empowerment.

Jordan

Utilities

Melhem (2018)

20.

To address challenges to the emergence of a learning organization posed by a context of generational diversity and an enterprise social networking system.

France

High technology

Kaminska and Borzillo (2018)

21.

To examine the structural relationships among learning organization culture, self-efficacy, work engagement, and job performance

South Korea Education

Song et al. (2018)

22.

To develop the police toward working in a more knowledge-based manner.

Norway

Public

Borge et al. (2018)

23.

To explain the implementation of entrepre- Indonesia neurial competence of principals based on creativity and innovation in realizing good school governance.

Education

Syam et al. (2018)

24.

To create a learning culture in facilitating better organized healthcare delivery.

Healthcare

He and Chen (2018)

China

Source: Scopus database (January to end September 2018).

cities through competitive advantage, Boshier (2018) posited that individuals should develop personal mastery and a shared vision within the political system. The sample was also grouped by the country or region of origin where the entity was studied and by industry or sector. By region, seven studies were conducted from Europe and Central Asia, six were from East Asia and Pacific, five were from the Middle East and North Africa, four were from North America, and two were from South Asia. By industry or sector, six were from healthcare, six were from education, three were from the public sector, and the rest of the nine were from a unique industry or sector such as construction, high technology, and chemicals.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

The Topicality of the Learning Organization   25 It is observed that the current level of interest in the learning organization remains relatively strong in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. North America seemed to be lagging or exhibiting a lower level of interest in the concept in recent times. Finally, healthcare and education organizations seemed to be embracing the learning organiza­ tion concept. Summing up the analysis of recent articles on learning organization, the main justifi­ cations provided in the studies were related to its role in improving organizational cul­ ture, performance, and innovation capacity. Compared to North America, there were more studies originating from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. There were also more studies that focused on healthcare and education organizations.

Current Level of Interest in the Learning Organization Management fashions are relatively transitory collective beliefs produced by a commu­ nity and promoted to consumer organizations that a certain technique leads to manage­ ment progress (Abrahamson and Fairchild  1999). A common quantitative research method used to determine management fashions and evaluate the topicality of concepts is the use of print media indicators. This method is based on the premise that the number of publications on a topic found in bibliographic databases reflects its level of interest. Print media indicators were used to better understand the level of interest in the learning organization. Four different databases that cover a wide range of topics and media were identified to determine the level of interest in the learning organization over time. The selected databases were ABI/INFORM, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCO. ABI/INFORM is a business database that covers full-text journals, dissertations, work­ ing papers, key business, and economics periodicals. Web of Science is an abstracts and citations database for science and social sciences journals. EBSCO includes a research database covering topics such as business and science. The search procedure consisted of a keyword search on “learning organization” from the period 1990, the time when The Fifth Discipline was first published, to the third quar­ ter (3Q) 2018. The search field included all document types in the available databases. The results are presented in Figure 2.1. A linear trend line or best fit straight line was added to determine whether the number of publications is increasing or decreasing at a steady rate over time. The figure shows an increasing trend on the number of documents across all four identified bibliographic databases. The results suggest that there is a growing level of interest among scientific researchers focusing on the learning or­gan­iza­ tion since 1990. Scientific researchers are defined as formal investigators who adopt a more rigorous approach to examine a topic using bibliographic databases. Google Trends is a real time daily and weekly index of the volume of queries that users enter into Google (Choi and Varian 2012). The maximum query share in the time

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

26   Siu Loon Hoe Print Media Indicators

250

1400 1200

200

1000 800

150

600

100

400

50

200

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 3Q 2018

0

ABI/INFORM Linear (ABI/INFORM)

Scopus Linear (Scopus)

EBSCO Linear (EBSCO)

Web of Science Linear (Web of Science)

Figure 2.1.  Print media indicators results. 100

Google Trends

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Google Trends

Linear (Google Trends)

Figure 2.2.  Google Trends results.

period specified is normalized to be 100, and the query share at the initial date being examined is normalized to be zero. Unlike bibliographic databases which cater to scientific researchers, Google Trends provides an avenue for the casual researchers who are informal investigators preferring to conduct simple internet searches on topics of interest. Applying the same procedure for the bibliographic database search, the Google Trends results were graphed (see Figure 2.2). The data from Google Trends is only available from 2004 onwards. The graph shows a decreasing trend on the number of documents searched using the keyword “learning organization” since 2004. The results suggest that there is a declining level of interest among casual researchers inquiring about the concept.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

The Topicality of the Learning Organization   27

Discussion Returning to the twin questions of “What is the current level of interest in the learning organization concept?” and “Is the concept still relevant today?,” in terms of current level of interest, it is evident that there is a growing level of interest among the scientific community as shown by the increasing trend lines from the four bibliographic data­ bases. Although the number of publications fluctuates between 1990 and 2018, overall, the trend is on the rise. This rise in the level of interest among scientific researchers could be due to the fact that the concept is now more accepted in mainstream manage­ ment thought and has reached a certain degree of maturity in the theory development cycle. Of course, it may also be possible that scientific researchers create and follow management fashions (Bort and Kieser 2011). Through a combination of factors such as authors’ reputation, accessibility of avenues for publishing, and development of em­pir­ic­al research methodology, it becomes increasingly more attractive to study a concept and, consequently, creating a management fashion. On the other hand, there is a declining level of interest among casual researchers as shown by the downward trend line from Google Trends. This result suggests that the concept is less popular among casual researchers now than it was in the 2000s. One pos­ sible explanation of the decline among casual researchers could be a lack of promotion of the learning organization in mainstream media such as newspapers, television, and books and the proliferation of other new management ideas over time. Geographically, the greater proportion of research documents coming from coun­ tries outside of the United States suggests that interest in the concept has shifted from the country of origin to other parts of the world especially Europe, Central and East Asia, and the Middle East. Such shifts from one geographical area to other areas over time could be due to socio-economic factors. The rise in employment, education, and income may cause a shift in management thought and practice. For example, the em­phasis may change from an authoritative to a more democratic style of management. This emphasis, in turn, would require a different approach such as the learning or­gan­iza­tion recommended by Senge (1990) to build the organization and develop the employees. Sector-wise, healthcare and education organizations seem to favor learning or­gan­iza­ tion initiatives. One possible explanation could be that such organizations tend to focus more on collaborative effort to achieve social outcomes. The nature of these industries requires individuals and groups to work jointly in a more complex ecosystem with many stakeholders where profit may not be the only measurement of success. Another more straightforward explanation could be that there is easier access to healthcare and educa­ tion organizations compared to commercial organizations to conduct these learning organization studies. From a relevance or usefulness perspective, the views are mixed because it is sub­ject­ive depending on what, who, when, and how the issue is raised. For every opponent of the concept (Adžić  2018; Grieves  2008), there seems to be a success story to counter it

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

28   Siu Loon Hoe (Sheaff and Pilgrim 2006; Sinclair 2017). Rover and Siemens were two commercial com­ panies that were named as examples of failure of the learning organization concept (Adžić  2018; Grieves  2008). However, there are also many success stories of public en­tities such as the British National Health Service and a Canadian public library showing good progress on the learning organization path (Sheaff and Pilgrim 2006; Sinclair 2017). Given the ongoing debate regarding the definition and interpretation of the learning organization, it may be difficult to provide a verdict. Nonetheless, as a general term, the learning organization may indeed be of little prac­ tical value because it is too broad and generic. The subjective nature of the construct and its measurement also make it a challenge to derive any conclusive evidence on its ef­fect­ ive­ness as a management concept (Grieves 2008). However, if one delves deeper into the specific practices of the learning organization such as team learning and systems think­ ing for the purpose of organizational culture development, employee development, and performance improvement, it is difficult to argue that these practices are futile manage­ ment actions that would result in poor desired outcomes. Therefore, it is posited that the learning organization is still relevant today especially for its role in improving or­gan­iza­ tional culture, performance, and innovation capacity. Some caveats to the proposition should, however, be noted. Perhaps some types of organizations are more conducive to introduce and promote the learning organization concept (see Dixon, Chapter 18 in this volume). The nature of the organization such as the extent of tasks, people orientation, and politics and ethics play a crucial role in deter­ mining the success of organizational culture development. In addition, some industries or sectors may be more favorable for developing learning organization programs (see Örtenblad, Chapter 25 in this volume). External forces such as technological and social changes in the environment could affect the way managers and employees interact among themselves and with other key stakeholders to stay competitive. Consequently, there is a need to be selective in applying the concept in organizations within specific industries or sectors to determine its relevance or usefulness. Some of the examples may include healthcare and education organizations.

Limitations and Further Research There are some limitations related to the study in this chapter: firstly, the restricted scope on the selection of the publications for content analysis. The present content analysis was based on a single keyword search on “learning organization” and those articles that were published between January and September 2018. Secondly, there is the issue of bias arising from the composition of bibliographic databases (Benders, Nijholt, and Heusinkveld 2007). Although four of the more popular and relevant databases or infor­ mation service providers were selected, there may be a need to include other databases in order to present a more holistic picture on the current level of interest in the learning organization.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

The Topicality of the Learning Organization   29 Therefore, further research could expand on the number of documents selected for content analysis by including related topics such as organizational learning and know­ ledge management and extending the period for those publications before 2018. It would also be useful to include more bibliographic databases as part of the print media indica­ tors. Any discussion on the relevance or usefulness of a concept should take into account the megatrends which drive the world today. Only by understanding how businesses and governments are being impacted in the present can one more accurately assess the relevance of a concept. Thus, further research could include an examination of meg­ atrends such as digitalization in relation to the relevance of the learning organization.

Conclusion Although the level of interest in the learning organization among casual researchers has declined, the level of interest among scientific researchers has grown. There is also relatively more interest in the concept outside of the United States and among health­ care and education organizations. The learning organization concept is still relevant today because of its role in improving organizational culture, performance, and innov­ ation capacity.

References Abrahamson, E., and G.  Fairchild. 1999. “Management Fashion: Lifecycles, Triggers, and Collective Learning Processes.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (4): pp. 708–40. Adžić, S. 2018. “Learning Organization: A Fine Example of a Management Fad.” Business and Economic Horizons 14 (3): pp. 477–87. Allouzi, R. A. R., T. S. Suifan, and M. Alnuaimi. 2018. “Learning Organizations and Innovation Mediated by Job Satisfaction.” International Journal of Business and Economics Research 7 (1): pp. 7–19. Benders, J., J. Nijholt, and S. Heusinkveld. 2007. “Using Print Media Indicators in Management Fashion Research.” Quality & Quantity 41 (6): pp. 815–29. Borge, B.  H., C.  Filstad, T.  H.  Olsen, and P.  Ø. Skogmo. 2018. “Diverging Assessments of Learning Organizations during Reform Implementation.” The Learning Organization 25 (6): pp. 399–409. Bort, S., and A. Kieser. 2011. “Fashion in Organization Theory: An Empirical Analysis of the Diffusion of Theoretical Concepts.” Organization Studies 32 (5): pp. 655–81. Boshier, R. 2018. “Learning Cities: Fake News or the Real Deal?” International Journal of Lifelong Education 37 (4): pp. 419–34. Chai, D. S., and K. Dirani. 2018. “The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ): A Validation Study in the Lebanese Context.” The Learning Organization 25 (5): pp. 320–30. Choi, H., and H. Varian. 2012. “Predicting the Present with Google Trends.” The Economic Record 88 (1): pp. 2–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

30   Siu Loon Hoe Delić, M., T.  Slåtten, B.  Milić, U.  Marjanović, and S.  Vulanović. 2017. “Fostering Learning Organization in Transitional Economy: The Role of Authentic Leadership and Employee Affective Commitment.” International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 9 (3/4): pp. 441–55. Garvin, D., A. Edmondson, and F. Gino. 2008. “Is Yours a Learning Organization?” Harvard Business Review 86 (3): pp. 109–16. Gelmon, S., N.  Bouranis, B.  Sandberg, and S.  Petchel. 2018. “Strategies for Addressing the Challenges of Patient-Centered Medical Home Implementation: Lessons from Oregon.” Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 31 (3): pp. 334–41. Gil, A., B.  Rodrigo-Moya, and J.  Morcillo-Bellido. 2018. “The Effect of Leadership in the Development of Innovation Capacity: A Learning Organization Perspective.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 39 (6): pp. 694–711. Gouthro, P., N. Taber, and A. Brazil. 2018. “Universities as Inclusive Learning Organizations for Women? Considering the Role of Women in Faculty and Leadership Roles in Academe.” The Learning Organization 25 (1): pp. 29–39. Grieves, J. 2008. “Why We Should Abandon the Idea of the Learning Organization.” The Learning Organization 15 (6): pp. 463–73. Hamdani, N. A., and W. Susilawati. 2018. “Application of Information System Technology and Learning Organization to Product Innovation Capability and Its Impact on Business Per­ formance of Leather Tanning Industry.” International Journal of Engineering and Technology 7 (2): pp. 131–5. He, G., and Z.  Chen. 2018. “Creating a Learning Culture for Medical Consortia in China.” Health Care Manager 37 (1): pp. 25–32. Heale, R., and D. Forbes. 2013. “Understanding Triangulation in Research.” Evidence-Based Nursing 16 (4): p. 98. Hsieh, H.-F., and S.  Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): pp. 1277–88. Janežiča, M., V.  Dimovskia, and M.  Hodoščekb. 2018. “Modeling a Learning Organization Using a Molecular Network Framework.” Computers & Education 118: pp. 56–69. Kaminska, R., and S. Borzillo. 2018. “Challenges to the Learning Organization in the Context of Generational Diversity and Social Networks.” The Learning Organization 25 (2): pp. 92–101. Karve, S., and M. Aggarwal-Gupta. 2018. “Training Delivery and Evaluation for a Government Regulatory Firm (C) Case Report.” Asian Journal of Management Cases 15 (1): pp. 50–8. Khunsoonthornkit, A., and V. Panjakajornsak. 2018. “Structural Equation Model to Assess the Impact of Learning Organization and Commitment on the Performance of Research Organizations.” Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 39 (3): pp. 457–62. Kondracki, N., N. Wellman, and D. Amundson. 2002. “Content Analysis: Review of Methods and Their Applications in Nutrition Education.” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 34 (4): pp. 224–30. Langenus, M., and M.  Dooms. 2018. “Creating an Industry-Level Business Model for Sustainability: The Case of the European Ports Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 195 (10): pp. 949–62. Liu, Q., and L. Liu. 2018. “Exploring Organizational Learning in Universities’ Responses to a Quality Assurance Reform: Experiences from Ontario, Canada.” Quality in Higher Education 24 (1): pp. 29–42. Marquardt, M. 2011. Building the Learning Organization: Achieving Strategic Advantage Through a Commitment to Learning. London: Nicholas Brealey.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

The Topicality of the Learning Organization   31 Marsick, V., and K. Watkins. 2003. “Demonstrating the Value of an Organization’s Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire.” Advances in Devel­ oping Human Resources 5 (2): pp. 132–51. Melhem, Y. 2018. “Beyond Empowering Your Workforce: Learning Organization and Employee Empowerment—The Case of Irbid District Electricity Company (IDECO).” International Journal of Learning and Change 10 (3): pp. 220–41. Mirza, I., L. O. AbdelWareth, M. Liaqat, P. Anderson, B. Palmer, A. Turner, F. Pallinalakam, H. B. Ali, E. Tantia, S. Lari, T. Tiexiera, P. Suchy, D. Bosler, and K. Kottke-Marchant. 2018. “Establishing a Clinical Laboratory in a Tertiary/Quaternary Care Greenfield Hospital in the Middle East: Recounting the Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi Experience.” Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 142 (9): pp. 1023–35. Örtenblad, A. 2007. “Senge’s Many Faces: Problem or Opportunity?” The Learning Organization 14 (2): pp. 108–22. Örtenblad, A. 2018. “What Does Learning Organization Mean?” The Learning Organization 25 (3): pp. 150–8. Othman, A.  A.  E., and H.  Elsaay. 2018. “A Learning-Based Framework Adopting Post Occupancy Evaluation for Improving the Performance of Architectural Design Firms.” Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 16 (3): pp. 418–38. Pedler, M., and J.  Burgoyne. 2017. “Is the Learning Organization Still Alive?” The Learning Organization 24 (2): pp. 119–26. Ravichandran, N., and R. Mishra. 2018. “Toward Building HR Competencies: A Shift from the Non-Learning Toward the Learning Organization.” International Journal of Healthcare Management 11 (3): pp. 233–8. Ricciardelli, A., F.  Manfredi, and M.  Antonicelli. 2018. “Impacts for Implementing SDGs: Sustainable Collaborative Communities After Disasters. The City of Macerata at the Aftermath of the Earthquake.” Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 18 (4): pp. 594–623. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Sheaff, R., and D. Pilgrim. 2006. “Can Learning Organizations Survive in the Newer NHS?” Implementation Science 1 (27): pp. 1–11. Siddique, M. 2018. “Learning Organization and Firm Performance: Making a Business Case for the Learning Organization Concept in the United Arab Emirates.” International Journal of Emerging Markets 13 (4): pp. 689–708. Sinclair, T. 2017. “Building a Learning Organization in a Public Library.” Journal of Library Administration 57 (6): pp. 683–700. Song, J.  H., D.  S.  Chai, J.  Kim, and S.  H.  Bae. 2018. “Job Performance in the Learning Organization: The Mediating Impacts of Self-Efficacy and Work Engagement.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 30 (4): pp. 249–71. Syam, H., H.  Akib, A.  A.  Patonangi, and M.  Guntur. 2018. “Principal Entrepreneurship Competence Based on Creativity and Innovation in the Context of Learning Organizations in Indonesia.” Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 21 (3): pp. 1–13. Vince, R. 2018. “The Learning Organization as Paradox: Being for the Learning Organization Also Means Being Against It.” The Learning Organization 25 (4): pp. 273–80. Ward, A., N. Berensen, and R. Daniels. 2018. “Creating a Learning Organization to Help Meet the Needs of Multihospital Health Systems.” American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 75 (7): pp. 473–81.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

32   Siu Loon Hoe Westergren, A., E. Edfors, E. Norberg, A. Stubbendorff, G. Hedin, M. Wetterstrand, S. Rosas, and P. Hagell. 2018. “Computer-Based Training in Eating and Nutrition Facilitates PersonCentered Hospital Care: A Group Concept Mapping Study.” CIN—Computers Informatics Nursing 36 (4): pp. 199–207. Yang, B., K. Watkins, and V. Marsick. 2004. “The Construct of the Learning Organization: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 15 (1): pp. 31–55.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Pa rt I I

DE F I N I T IONS/ M E A N I NG S OF “L E A R N I NG ORGA N I Z AT ION ”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 3

Senge’s Le a r n i ng Orga n iz ation: Dev el opm en t of the Lea r n i ng Orga n iz ation Model Hong T. M. Bui

Since the publication of Senge’s The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization in 1990, and a revised and updated version in 2006, it has become one of the best-selling books on management of all time. More than a million copies had been sold at the beginning of the millennium (Smith 2001). It is considered one of the most pragmatic, normative, and inspirational management books (Roper and Pettit 2002). Peter Senge has been named “Strategist of the Century,” one of the outstanding people who have had the greatest impact on the way business is conducted by the Journal of Business Strategy (Smith 2001). He has been “ahead of his time and his arguments are insightful and revolutionary” (Van Maurik 2001: 201). Senge is also the founding chairperson of the Society for Organizational Learning (SoL), which has transitioned into the Systems Leadership Institute (SLI). He has worked with large corporations to tackle issues related to sustainability, including Coca-Cola, Schlumberger, Unilever, and Seventh Generation. At the age of 71 (in 2018) Senge is still an active facilitator for various systems leadership programs provided by SLI. It should be noted that Senge did not write the book as a scholar or researcher, or mean to be a definitive addition to the “academic” literature of learning organization. He wrote the book from his immense experience working directly with industries and corporates, and for practicing and aspiring managers and leaders (Smith 2001). Senge has worked with leaders in business, education, healthcare, and government to build learning organizations in those sectors. His practitioner’s perspective on learning organizations has encountered enormous criticism. For example, his model of learning

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

36   Hong T. M. Bui organization was seen as “the emperor’s new clothes” (Kiedrowski 2006) or a “romantic image” (Fenwick 1997) because the idea is inspirational but too abstract to apply to real life. Smith (2001) states that Senge’s (1990) The Fifth Discipline has nothing to do with the theory as it does not mention or use any theory to express his idea at all, which is true. Similarly, Örtenblad (2007) considers Senge’s learning organization to be a “whispering game model” because he thinks it is not easy to understand what Senge meant by “learning organization.” Caldwell also thinks that Senge’s idea neither guides organizational change (2012a) nor focuses on distributed leadership (2012b). Despite all the above and possibly more critics, the two editions of the Fifth Discipline have been cited around 60,000 times by academics and researchers according to Google Scholar, far higher than any other book about learning organization. Many academics and scholars find the idea inspiring, and have developed his idea into theory (e.g., Bui and Baruch 2010a, 2010b, 2012; Edmondson and Moingeon 1998; Wen 2014). After nearly a decade since I developed a conceptual framework from Senge’s (1990) learning organization idea, tested it empirically, and observed other scholars and researchers developing it as well, I have realized that I need to develop the model further to reflect my better understanding of Senge’s learning organization idea. Therefore, in this chapter, I revisit Senge’s learning organization concept, and see how it has been applied in practice, and conceptualized in theory over the years in order to develop a more comprehensive model of learning organization that can be applied to any type of organization. The chapter is important for both learning organization practitioners and scholars for two reasons. First, it shows why the concept is still relevant to organizational management in the twenty-first century. Second, it provides a good picture of how Senge’s philosophy of learning organization can be applied in a global context.

What is Senge’s Learning Organization and its Applications? Seeing himself as an idealistic pragmatic allowed Senge to explore and advocate some quite “utopian” and abstract ideas, particularly to bring human values to the workplace (Smith  2001). Senge (1990: 3) defines a learning organization as an “organization 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.” People interpret what Senge meant by “learning organization” in various ways (see more in Örtenblad 2007) based on their mental models and experience. The learning or­gan­iza­tion suggested by Senge focuses on people, people’s learning and people learning together, and the role of the organization to nurture and support people’s learning journey. Senge (1990, 2006) emphasized the freedom of individual and organizational learning to maximize the level of knowledge shared and created in an organization. According to him,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Senge’s Learning Organization   37 the desire and aspiration for learning seem intrinsic and unlimited if the or­gan­iza­tion is set up properly for its members to work and learn at the same time. However, what Senge meant by “learning organization” does not lie only in the above definition of learning organization, but also in the title of his book, The Fifth Discipline, i.e., systems thinking. According to him, a learning organization is an organization that has a bigger picture of how to maximize people’s learning ability and potential toward a shared vision of both individual and organizational growth. In analyzing Senge’s rhet­ oric­al vision of the learning organization, Jackson (2000), using a fantasy theme ana­ lysis, a method of rhetorical criticism underpinned by the symbolic convergence theory, identified four major fantasy themes, namely living in an unsustainable world, getting control but not controlling, new work for managers, and working it out within the micro world. He states that it is the dramatic qualities of Senge’s socially rooted vision, which embrace community and altruism, and its ability to inspire followers that have helped Senge’s learning organization to stand out from other competing conceptions. Senge’s learning organization is so inspirational that it possesses a power to nurture creative practitioners to make it true. He attempts to build organizations that serve humans not enslave them (Amidon 2005). Therefore, I understand that a learning organization in Senge’s view is an organization that can mobilize and integrate the power of systems learning from individual level to team level and organizational level with appreciation of the wider context of which the organization is a part. Senge’s model of learning or­gan­ iza­tion seems to include the definition, the five disciplines (personal mastery, mental models, team learning, shared vision, and systems thinking), and the four fantasy themes above. A number of scholars within the learning organization area consider Senge’s model to be the most suitable framework for organizational development, incorporating it into their work (Bak 2012; Boyle 2002; Caldwell 2012a, 2012b; Elkin, Zhang, and Cone 2011; Fillion, Koffi, and Ekionea 2015; Gagnon et al. 2015; Garcia-Morales, Llorens-Montes, and Verdu-Jover 2006; Jamali, Khoury, and Sahyoun 2006; Rifkin and Fulop 1997; Wheeler 2002). For example, adopting Senge’s five disciplines, Reed (2001) used qualitative data to assess to what extent a medium-sized company was successful at achieving each discipline. An and Reigeluth (2005) adopted parts of Senge’s model, including team learning, shared vision, and systems thinking to investigate the learning organization in the healthcare sector. However, they simplified personal mastery with individual learning, which may mean that a proper foundation for a learning organization is not created. In addition, they omitted mental models, an important discipline of learning or­gan­iza­tion. McChristy (2005) analyzed a process of creating a learning organization in an office supply chain, CopierCareer.com, and Xerox. It seems that these organizations adopted Senge’s model successfully. Unfortunately, McChristy (2005) did not make it clear how those organizations managed the process of being learning organizations. Kiedrowski (2006) quantitatively assessed a Senge learning organization intervention to determine if it would result in improved employee satisfaction in the banking and finance sector. He claims that Senge’s disciplines are valuable as a part of change effort in an organization but are not sufficient as a total change methodology. This claim is reasonable because in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

38   Hong T. M. Bui this study the simplest modifications of learning organization were used. These examples suggest the need to develop Senge’s model further to make it more applicable to organizations and their managers.

Development of Senge’s Learning Organization Model Amidon (2005) states that Senge has designed a set of practices in a robust way that build organizations that serve humans, and might lead to a knowledge-worker utopia. Though Senge’s (1990, 2006) The Fifth Discipline philosophy is inspirational, it still seems to be difficult to translate into a model that would enable systematic evaluation of the process of creating learning organizations. That is why several attempts have been made to develop such model (e.g., Bui and Baruch 2010a, 2010b, 2012; Edmondson and Moingeon 1998; Wen 2014). This section aims to go beyond those attempts and to provide a more holistic model of Senge’s learning organization philosophy. This is done by looking at how each discipline has been developed and/or should be developed. Specifically, this chapter proposes sets of key components for each discipline of learning organization. As Senge (1990, 2006) stated that the five disciplines are interwoven and inseparable in the process of becoming a learning organization, it should be noted that all their antecedents are also intertwined and interconnected.

Personal Mastery Senge (1990: 141) defines personal mastery as “the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively . . . Personal mastery goes beyond competence and skills, though it is grounded in competence and skills. It goes beyond spiritual unfolding or opening, though it requires spiritual growth. It means approaching one’s life as a creative work, living a life from a creative as opposed to reactive viewpoint.” He considers it to be the spiritual foundation of the learning organization. Based on their understanding of Senge’s articulation of personal mastery, Bui and her colleagues have attempted to develop a set of antecedents for personal mastery at least three times. For example, Bui and Baruch (2010a, 2012) proposed five antecedents namely personal vision, personal values, motivation, individual learning, and development and training. Bui, Ituma, and Antoconapoulou (2013) extended the list of the antecedents by adding competence and organizational culture and tested this in an international comparative study. However, their empirical studies (Bui and Baruch 2012; Bui et al. 2013) showed that individual learning and motivation do not seem to be in the set of the antecedents for personal mastery.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Senge’s Learning Organization   39 Looking at personal mastery again, there seem to be two crucial factors that are still missing. One is personal experience. The other is spiritual growth. If the latter is articulated in Senge’s learning organization philosophy guided by the meaning in life, the former is mainly guided by the avenues to find meaning in life (Frankl 1984) and the “theory U”—a flow from current habitual self to future self in a U shape (Scharmer 2007). According to Frankl (1984), people can find meaning in life through experience; while according to Scharmer (2007), by moving through the “U” process, individuals experience a profound opening of their minds, their hearts, and their wills, which, in turn, results in a shift of awareness of future opportunities. It is argued that personal experience is, therefore, an important foundation of personal mastery to lead a proactive and meaningful life. According to Senge (1990) personal mastery requires spiritual growth. However, not many people understand that requirement at work until “the spirituality movement” (Ashmos and Duchon 2000: 134) where organizations create room for spiritual growth, which is related to meaning, purpose, and a sense of community. This new spiritual dimension embodies employees’ search for simplicity, meaning, self-expression, and interconnectedness to something higher (Marques, Dhiman, and King 2007). Rupčić (2017) stated that spirituality (not religions) is a missing and powerful leverage when building learning organizations. Karakas (2010) added evidence through a literature review study of around 140 articles on workplace spirituality that spirituality can improve employees’ performances and organizational effectiveness. All the possible antecedents of personal mastery are illustrated in Figure 3.1.

Spiritual Growth Personal Experience

Personal Vision

Development & Training

Personal Mastery

Organizational Culture

Competence

Personal Values

Figure 3.1.  Antecedents of personal mastery.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

40   Hong T. M. Bui

Mental Models According to Senge (1990: 8) mental models are “deeply ingrained assumptions, ­generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action.” In other words, they are constructed by individuals based on their personal life experiences, perceptions, and understandings of the world (Jones, Ross, Lynam, Perez, and Leitch  2011). Mental models are powerful in influencing human behavior (Senge 1990). However, it seems to be one of the most abstract disciplines in Senge’s learning organization philosophy. Senge (2006) stated that reflective practice is the most crucial factor contributing to mental models. Bui and Baruch (2010a) conceptually proposed three antecedents of mental models, namely organizational culture, leadership, and organizational commitment. Later on Bui and Baruch (2012) em­pir­ic­al­ly tested these three antecedents of mental models with data from the international context of higher education. The findings supported their conceptual framework. Bui and Baruch’s studies (2010a, 2010b, 2012) identified factors related to or­gan­iza­ tional dimensions only, while mental models, according to Senge (1990, 2006) are rooted in individuals’ assumptions and generalizations. According to Edmondson and Moingeon (1998), individual cognition is a critical source of mental models. Jones et al. (2011) add that personal experience is obviously an important part of mental models. The studies above ignore the fact that personal experience and personal values are two further important antecedents of mental models. First, personal values are defined as a relatively permanent perceptual framework which shapes and influences the general nature of an individual’s perceptions and behaviors (England 1967). This definition supports the argument that mental models are rooted in an individual’s own set of values, beliefs, and aspirations (Schwarz et al. 2006; Senge 2006). In addition, in a broader sense, mental models allow other meaningful representations to be included such as personal values (Christensen and Olson  2002). Second, personal backgrounds refer to the family where an individual is born and grows up, an education which she/he inherits, a religion she/he may relate to, and a societal culture in which she/he is embedded. Personal backgrounds can be a strong component of the way people see the world and turn into actions. For example, a person who was born and raised in poverty and hunger tends to care about saving up resources for organization even when she/he works in a rich and developed country; or a well-educated person tends to care more about the impact of climate change and adapt it better (Deressa, Hassan, Ringler, Alemu, and Yesuf 2009). However, organizations do not seem to pay much attention to the role of personal background apart from in common mottoes, such as “respect diversity.” To sum up, eight antecedents of mental models are proposed. They are illustrated in Figure 3.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Senge’s Learning Organization   41

Personal Experience Org. Commitment

Leadership

Personal Values

Mental Models

Individual Cognition

Personal Backgrounds

Org. Culture Reflective Practice

Figure 3.2.  Antecedents of mental models.

Team Learning Team learning is a “process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results its members truly desire” (Senge 1990: 236). It is regarded as a fundamental unit of learning organizations (Hitt 1995). There is a large body of literature identifying the antecedents of team learning. For example, Bui and Baruch (2010a) in their conceptual paper proposed four antecedents of team learning, namely goal setting, team commitment, leadership, and development and training. In an empirical study, Bui and Baruch (2012) proposed and tested a list of antecedents, such as goal setting, team commitment, leadership, organizational culture, development and training, and individual learning. The empirical results show that development and training is not likely to be an antecedent of team learning. However, in an international comparative study in the higher education sector, Bui, Baruch, Chau, and He (2016) showed pretty poor results related to team learning antecedents. In the case of a Vietnamese higher education institution, only development and training appears to be an important factor contributing to team learning; while team commitment and motivation are only two possible ante­cedents of team learning in the case of a UK institution. Bui et al. (2016) came to the conclusion that team learning is a missing construct in the higher education sector. Akgün, Lynn, Keskin, and Dogan (2014) empirically showed that team communication, interpersonal trust between team members, team commitment, and senior manager support are possible antecedents. They tested their hypotheses amongst 129 IT implementation project teams.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

42   Hong T. M. Bui

Individual Learning

Motivation

Goal Setting

Team Commitment

Team Learning

Team Communication

Interpersonal Trust

Supportive Leadership Team Development & Training

Org. Culture

Figure 3.3.  Antecedents of team learning.

Based on the extant literature, it can be seen that there are some consistencies among the list of antecedents of team learning. The most inconsistent antecedent seems to be development and training (Bui and Baruch 2012; Bui et al. 2016). This can be explained by the fact that employees might have interpreted development and training in different ways, some of which might not be relevant to team learning. Therefore, it is suggested to change the factor to team development and training to specifically aim to improve team learning. Figure 3.3 illustrates the antecedents of team learning.

Shared Vision Shared vision is a vision to which people throughout an organization are truly committed (Senge 1990). Shared vision is important for bringing people together and fostering a commitment to a shared future (Griego, Geroy, and Wright 2000), improving en­vir­on­ mental performance (Alt, Díez-de-Castro, and Lloréns-Montes 2015), and promoting innovation (Pearce and Ensley 2004). It is “vital for learning organizations because it provides the focus and energy for learning” (Senge 2006: 192). However, there is a misunderstanding in the literature on a leader’s visioning ability, in which influencing strategies come from the top down (Farmer, Slater, and Wright 1998). Bui and Baruch (2013) argue that shared vision must be approached from top-down, bottom-up, and horizontally across the organization. Farmer et al. (1998) proposed that leadership and communication are two important factors contributing to organizational shared vision. Senge (2006) confirmed the role of leadership, emphasizing the role of personal vision, and adds intrinsic motivation, commitment, and enrollment as key antecedents of shared vision. Bui and Baruch (2010a, 2012)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Senge’s Learning Organization   43

Personal Vision Intrinsic Motivation

Leadership

Personal Values

Shared Vision

Communication

Org. Culture

Enrollment Org. Commitment

Figure 3.4.  Antecedents of shared vision.

suggest personal vision, personal values, motivation, and organizational culture as four antecedents of shared vision. Interestingly, in an empirical study, Bui and Baruch (2012) showed that leadership is not likely to positively impact on shared vision. This is a pretty controversial finding as without leaders, who would be in charge of shared vision? Figure 3.4 illustrates all possible antecedents of shared vision.

Systems Thinking Any attempt at creating a learning organization must start from systems thinking (Appelbaum and Goransson 1997). This is the capacity to see deeper patterns lying beneath events and detail, in the full setting of interconnecting elements (Senge 2006). Jackson (2006: 649) stated: “If the reason for the failure of management fads, in the face of complexity, change and diversity, is that they are not holistic or creative enough, then managers need to look elsewhere for help—to systems thinking.” Systems thinking is seen as the heart and soul of learning organizations and to open an important avenue for management. Theories related to systems thinking are huge in number, with three main types of systems thinking, namely hard systems thinking originated from engineering, soft systems thinking developed by Checkland (1981), and critical systems thinking (Flood and Jackson 1991). However, this chapter makes no attempt to explore those directions, but focuses on Senge’s idea of systems thinking as a key part of learning organizations and integrates relevant components to it.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

44   Hong T. M. Bui Senge (1990, 2006) argued that all personal mastery, mental models, team learning, and shared vision are components of systems thinking. These factors have all been discussed above. Gharajedaghi (2011) developed the idea of applying systems thinking in designing business architecture. In his book Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity, Gharajedaghi (2011) explained that the foundation of systems thinking includes holistic thinking (i.e., structure, function, process, and context), operational thinking (i.e., chaos, complexity, and the dynamics of multi-loop feedback systems), a socio-cultural model (i.e., self-organization), and design thinking (e.g., creating a feas­ible whole from infeasible parts). This provides a more comprehensive understanding of systems thinking for businesses to cope with chaos, uncertainty, and complexity. Bui and Baruch (2010a, 2012) also attempted to propose some antecedents for systems thinking. Those antecedents are competence, leadership, and organizational culture. However, looking at the bigger picture of systems thinking, the list proposed by Bui and Baruch seems to be diluted in the wider view proposed by both Senge (1990, 2006) and Gharajedaghi (2011). Figure 3.5 illustrates the list of components and foundation of systems thinking derived from Senge (1990, 2006) and Gharajedaghi (2011). Figure 3.5 presents four foundations of systems thinking by Gharajedaghi (2011), and four disciplines of learning organization that systems thinking integrates and fuses them into a coherent body. However, these four foundations and disciplines can be grouped in four pairs (depicted as opposite pairs in Figure 3.5) as they share something in common. For example, both design thinking and personal mastery are about developing human intelligence to be creative and innovative, though in different ways. Design thinking is human beings’ unique ability to integrate design, science, and art to form a relationship. This relationship creates “incredible human cognitive ability” (Gharajedaghi

Personal Mastery Sociocultural Model

Operational Thinking

Mental Models

Systems Thinking

Holistic Thinking

Team Learning

Shared Vision Design Thinking

Figure 3.5.  Foundation of systems thinking.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Senge’s Learning Organization   45 2011: 134). Holistic thinking and mental models are all about ways to see the world. However, holistic thinking involves seeing the world in a more systematic way while mental models can be any way of viewing the same thing. Both operational thinking and team learning are about working together to solve problems though feedback and learning. Socio-cultural model and shared vision overlap in an aspect of sharing image and culture. Socio-cultural systems, however, involve a broader sense of sharing, while shared vision tends to be tied to a specific organization.

Appreciation of External Environment Jackson (2000), through a fantasy theme analysis, pointed out the rhetorical strategies that Senge deployed to sustain widespread interest in his learning organization idea, including the notions of living in an unsustainable world, getting control but not controlling, the manager’s new work, and working it out within the micro world. They are valid. The world we are living in now is extremely uncertain, complex, and chaotic. For example, when US President Donald Trump tweeted on a trade war against China on his Twitter account, stock markets across the globe plunged instantly. Organizations, specifically learning organizations, need, more than ever, to appreciate external en­vir­on­ments as both threats and opportunities, and sometimes interchangeably. Seeing external uncertainty and chaos as either threats or opportunities mainly depends on organizational leaders’ mental models. Implementing tasks under uncertainty and chaos innovatively depends on employees’ personal mastery, their team learning, and their learning mindsets (see Bui, Chapter 9 in this volume). Leading a project, business, or an organization successfully through uncertainty and complexity requires a good shared vision and a good understanding of systems thinking. Instead of predicting and preparing for that future, systems thinkers should design and create their own future (Gharajedaghi 2011). Therefore, it should be emphasized that appreciation of the external environment is a must for a learning organization. Appreciation of the uncertain environment is sometimes ignored by both practitioners and scholars when they give all their attention to the five above-mentioned disciplines in the process of building learning organizations (e.g., Bui and Baruch 2012). In contrast, Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur, and Schley (2010) encourage individuals and organizations to see the larger systems such as the economy, ecology, and “spaceship earth” and to collaborate across boundaries to redesign and create learning organizations and a sustainable world beyond reactive problem solving.

Conclusion Standing on the shoulders of the giant practitioner and scholar, Peter Senge, and a number of other scholars, this chapter has revisited Senge’s learning organization by looking at how the idea has been conceptualized since its publication. Consequently, it has further developed a more holistic model of Senge’s learning organization philosophy that can

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

46   Hong T. M. Bui enable systematic evaluation of the process of creating learning organizations for innovation and sustainability. In detail, it has developed all the possible antecedents for the five disciplines of a learning organization, namely personal mastery, mental models, team learning, shared vision, and systems thinking mainly based on what has been developed in the literature by Bui and Baruch (2010a, 2010b, 2012), and Gharajedaghi (2011) as some examples. This conceptual framework will assist both practitioners and researchers in building learning organizations systematically when the external en­vir­ on­ment is also taken into consideration. This chapter contributes to making Senge’s learning organization model more ap­plic­ able by working on the sets of key components of the five disciplines above. It is ac­cess­ible for lower level managers, who do not need an MBA degree to understand Senge’s idea, but can follow the above proposed framework. In order to build a learning or­gan­iza­tion, practitioners need to look after two groups of factors related to the individual and the organization. The group of individual factors consists of personal values, personal vision, spiritual growth, competence, personal experience, individual background, intrinsic motivation, individual learning, team and organizational commitment, and enrollment. The group of organizational factors consists of leadership and leaders with profound understanding of systems thinking, organizational culture, communication, reflective practice, interpersonal trust, development, and training. The group of individual factors tends to outweigh the group of organizational factors because individuals make choices (Senge et al. 2010). If these groups of factors are explored wisely in organizations to develop a strong level of personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking, then innovation and success will follow.

References Akgün, A. E., G. S. Lynn, H. Keskin, and D. Dogan. 2014. “Team Learning in IT Implementation Projects: Antecedents and Consequences.” International Journal of Information Management 34 (1): pp. 37–47. Alt, E., E. P. Díez-de-Castro, and F. J. Lloréns-Montes. 2015. “Linking Employee Stakeholders to Environmental Performance: The Role of Proactive Environmental Strategies and Shared Vision.” Journal of Business Ethics 128 (1): pp. 167–81. Amidon, S. R. 2005. “Writing the Learning Organization.” Business Communication Quarterly 68 (4): pp. 406–28. An, Y.-Y., and C.  M.  Reigeluth. 2005. “A Study of Organizational Learning at Smalltown Hospital.” Performance Improvement 44 (10): pp. 34–9. Appelbaum, S. H., and L. Goransson. 1997. “Transformational and Adaptive Learning within the Learning Organization: A Framework for Research and Application.” The Learning Organization 4 (3): pp. 115–28. Ashmos, D. P., and D. Duchon. 2000. “Spirituality at Work: A Conceptualization and Measure.” Journal of Management Inquiry 9 (2): pp. 134–45. Bak, O. 2012. “Universities: Can They Be Considered as Learning Organizations? A Preliminary Micro-Level Perspective.” The Learning Organization 19 (2): pp. 163–72.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Senge’s Learning Organization   47 Boyle, E. 2002. “A Critical Appraisal of the Performance of Royal Dutch Shell as a Learning Organization in the 1990s.” The Learning Organization 9 (1): pp. 6–19. Bui, H., and Y. Baruch. 2010a. “Creating Learning Organizations in Higher Education: Applying a Systems Perspective.” The Learning Organization 17 (3): pp. 228–42. Bui, H., and Y. Baruch. 2010b. “Creating Learning Organizations: A Systems Perspective.” The Learning Organization 17 (3): pp. 208–27. Bui, H. T. M., and Y. Baruch. 2012. “Learning Organizations in Higher Education: An Empirical Evaluation within an International Context.” Management Learning 43 (5): pp. 515–44. Bui, H. T. M., and Y. Baruch. 2013. “Universities as Learning Organizations: Internationalization and Innovation.” In Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context, ed. A.  Örtenblad, pp. 227–44. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Bui, H. T. M., Y. Baruch, V. Chau, and H. He. 2016. “Team Learning: The Missing Construct from a Cross-Cultural Examination of Higher Education.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 33 (1): pp. 29–51. Bui, H. T. M., A. Ituma, and E. Antoconapoulou. 2013. “Antecedents and Outcomes of Personal Mastery: Cross Country Evidence.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 24 (1/2): pp. 167–94. Caldwell, R. 2012a. “Systems Thinking, Organizational Change and Agency: A Practice Theory Critique of Senge’s Learning Organization.” Journal of Change Management 12 (2): pp. 145–64. Caldwell, R. 2012b. “Leadership and Learning: A Critical Reexamination of Senge’s Learning Organization.” Systems Practice and Action Research 25 (1): pp. 39–55. Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley. Christensen, G. L., and J. C. Olson. 2002. “Mapping Consumers’ Metal Models with ZMET.” Psychology & Marketing 19 (6): pp. 477–502. Deressa, T.  T., R.  M.  Hassan, C.  Ringler, T.  Alemu, and M.  Yesuf. 2009. “Determinants of Farmers’ Choice of Adaptation Methods to Climate Change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia.” Global Environmental Change 19 (2): pp. 248–55. Edmondson, A., and B.  Moingeon. 1998. “From Organizational Learning to the Learning Organization.” Management Learning 29 (1): pp. 5–20. Elkin, G., H. Zhang, and M. Cone. 2011. “The Acceptance of Senge’s Learning Organisation Model Among Managers in China: An Interview Study.” International Journal of Manage­ ment 28 (4): pp. 354–64. England, W. G. 1967. “Personal Value Systems of American Managers.” Academy of Management Journal 10 (1): pp. 53–68. Farmer, B. A., J. W. Slater, and K. S. Wright. 1998. “The Role of Communication in Achieving Shared Vision under New Organizational Leadership.” Journal of Public Relations Research 10 (4): pp. 219–35. Fenwick, T. 1997. “Questioning the Learning Organization Concept.” In Learning for Life: Readings in Canadian Adult Education, ed. S. M. Scott, B. Spencer, and A. Thomas, pp. 140–52. Toronto: Thompson. Fillion, G., V. Koffi, and J. B. Ekionea. 2015. “Peter Senge’s Learning Organization: A Critical View and the Addition of Some New Concepts to Actualize Theory and Practice.” Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict 19 (3): pp. 73–102. Flood  R.  L., and M.  C.  Jackson (eds.). 1991. Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings. Chichester: John Wiley.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

48   Hong T. M. Bui Frankl, V. 1984. Man’s Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy, 3rd ed. New York: Touchstone. Gagnon, M.-P., J. Payne-Gagnon, J.-P. Fortin, G. Paré, J. Côté, and F. Courcy. 2015. “A Learning Organization in the Service of Knowledge Management Among Nurses: A Case Study.” International Journal of Information Management 35 (5): pp. 636–42. Garcia-Morales, V.  J., F.  J.  Llorens-Montes, and A.  J.  Verdu-Jover. 2006. “Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Innovation and Organizational Learning in Entrepre­ neurship.” Industrial Management and Data Systems 106 (1): pp. 21–42. Gharajedaghi, J. 2011. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity. A Platform for Designing Business Architecture, 3rd ed. London: Elsevier. Griego, O. V., G. D. Geroy, and P. C. Wright. 2000. “Predictors of Learning Organizations: A  Human Resource Development Practitioner’s Perspective.” The Learning Organization 7 (1): pp. 5–12. Hitt, W. D. 1995. “The Learning Organization: Some Reflections on Organizational Renewal.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 16 (8): pp. 17–25. Jackson, B.  G. 2000. “A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Peter Senge’s Learning Organization.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36 (2): pp. 193–209. Jackson, M. 2006. “Creative Holism: A Critical Systems Approach to Complex Problem Situations.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 23 (5): pp. 647–57. Jamali, D., G. Khoury, and H. Sahyoun. 2006. “From Bureaucratic Organizations to Learning Organizations: An Evolutionary Roadmap.” The Learning Organization 13 (4): pp. 337–52. Jones, N. A., H. Ross, T. Lynam, P. Perez, and A. Leitch. 2011. “Mental Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods.” Ecology and Society 16 (1): Article no. 46. Karakas, F. 2010. “Spirituality and Performance in Organizations: A Literature Review.” Journal of Business Ethics 94 (1): pp. 89–106. Kiedrowski, F. 2006. “Quantitative Assessment of a Senge Learning Organization Intervention.” The Learning Organization 13 (4): pp. 369–83. McChristy, N. 2005. “Creating a Learning Organization.” Office Solutions 19 (2): pp. 26–9. Marques, J., S. Dhiman, and R. King. 2007. Spirituality in the Workplace: What It Is, Why It Matters, How to Make It Work for You. Fawnskin, CA: Personhood Press. Örtenblad, A. 2007. “Senge’s Many Faces: Problem or Opportunity?” The Learning Organization 14 (2): pp. 108–22. Pearce, C.  L., and M.  D.  Ensley. 2004. “A Reciprocal and Longitudinal Investigation of the Innovation Process: The Central Role of Shared Vision in Product and Process Innovation Teams (PPITs).” Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 (2): pp. 259–78. Reed, H. A. 2001. “Ukrop’s as a Learning Organization: Senge’s Five Disciplines Realized in a Medium-Sized Company.” PhD thesis, Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. Rifkin, W., and L. Fulop. 1997. “A Review and Case Study on Learning Organizations.” The Learning Organization 4 (4): pp. 135–48. Roper, L., and J. Pettit. 2002. “Development and the Learning Organization: An Introduction.” Development in Practice 12 (3/4): pp. 258–71. Rupčić, N. 2017. “Spiritual Development: A Missing and Powerful Leverage When Building Learning Organizations.” The Learning Organization 24 (6): pp. 418–26. Scharmer, C. 2007. Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges. Cambridge, MA: Society for Organizational Learning. Schwarz, G. M., S. Kerr, R. T. Mowday, W. H. Starbuck, R. L. Tung, and M. A. von Glinow. 2006. “Astute Foresight or Wishful Thinking? Learning from Visions.” Journal of Management Inquiry 15 (4): pp. 347–61.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Senge’s Learning Organization   49 Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. M. 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, 2nd ed. London: Random House. Senge, P. M., B. Smith, N. Kruschwitz, J. Laur, and S. Schley. 2010. The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Smith, M. K. 2001. “Peter Senge and the Learning Organization.” The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved October 2, 2018, from http://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-thelearning-organization/. Van Maurik, J. 2001. Writers on Leadership. London: Penguin. Wen, H. 2014. “The Nature, Characteristics and Ten Strategies of Learning Organization.” International Journal of Educational Management 28 (3): pp. 289–98. Wheeler, L. L. 2002. “Building a Learning Organization: A Native American Experience.” PhD thesis, Fielding, CA: Fielding Graduate Institute.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

chapter 4

Conceptua lizi ng a n Orga n iz ation Th at L ea r ns Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick

This chapter explores Watkins and Marsick’s (1993, 1996) model of a learning or­gan­iza­tion, tracing its evolution and situating it among other conceptions of a learning or­gan­iza­tion. We initially defined a learning organization as continuous learning at four levels— individual, team, organization, and global. Organizations we studied over time intentionally sought capability, embedding learning in the culture and structure of the organization as well as in certain capacities. Learning climate and culture stand out in this framework as both conditions for system-level learning and indicators of change toward becoming more effective as a learning system. Our model is integrated in that it blends learning theory and organizational development. The chapter explores applications of the model in research and practice, focusing on its use to measure a learning culture. Finally, it offers critiques of the learning organization model.

Early Conceptions of the Learning Organization Prior to publishing our seminal work on the model, Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change (Watkins and Marsick 1993), we studied the literature on organizational learning and the learning organization. In Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace (Marsick and Watkins 2015 [1990]), we introduced organizational learning as a metaphor to operationalize lifelong learning in organizations. We wrote, “Organizational learning, then, might be defined as the or­gan­iza­tion’s capacity to create, diffuse, and use knowledge in response to non-routine events. It consists of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

52   Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick intentional and unintentional processes of the formal and informal learning systems of the organization, including the organization’s learned responses to environmentally induced change” (2015 [1990]: 229). This text encouraged informal and incidental learning activities in organizations as a way to embed continuous learning throughout the organization and across the work span. We signaled the emphasis on creating a culture with the capacity to learn and change: “It is clear that enhancing an organization’s resources is much more than merely training people to do specific tasks. Individuals and organizations must learn how to adapt to a changing environment” (2015 [1990]: 234). Our intent was to rethink learning in the workplace and the ensuing roles for human resource and organization developers required by that paradigm shift. Watkins (1989: 427) wrote that human resource development is “the field of study and practice responsible for the fostering of a long term, work-related learning capacity at the individual, group, and organizational levels.” In Watkins and Marsick (1992) we noted that this broad vision makes the notion of creating a learning organization a natural evolution of the field of human resource development. The focus on enhancing organizational learning capacity was consistent with our earlier effort to stretch beyond sole reliance on formal learning and training to include informal and incidental learning strategies that collectively contribute to an organizational learning culture. We were strongly influenced by Argyris and Schön (1978) who conceptualized individuals as agents of the organization who detect and correct errors in the organization’s theory-in-use which is embedded in organizational routines. To us, their model had the greatest potential to change the overall capacity of the organization to learn. “They alone among scholars of the learning organisation have a transformational learning theory which involves a systematic set of tools to change people’s embedded defensive routines which now prevent substantive change” (Watkins and Marsick 1992: 120).

Our Definition of the Learning Organization We wrote in our 1993 Sculpting book that: “Everyone is talking about the learning or­gan­ iza­tion, but few are living it. Cynics say, ‘this isn’t anything new,’ and devotees describe a utopian vision of an organization in which there will be no sadness or sorrow” (Watkins and Marsick 1993: 3). We gave workshops and studied what people did who said they were creating a learning organization. We found promising experiments (many of which are described in the book) but only three organizations that truly fit our understanding of a learning organization. From these we identified common features and dimensions captured as six action imperatives: • create continuous learning opportunities; • promote inquiry and dialogue;

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Conceptualizing an Organization That Learns   53 • encourage collaboration and team learning; • establish systems to capture and share learning; • empower people toward a collective vision; and • connect the organization to its environment. (Watkins and Marsick 1993: 11) Marsick and Watkins (1999a) later added a seventh imperative (provide strategic leadership for learning), foreshadowed in the first of several common features of learning organizations that we listed in this book: “Leaders who model calculated risk taking and experimentation” (Watkins and Marsick 1993: 8). Our definition of a learning organization signaled these capacities: The learning organization is one that learns continuously and transforms itself. Learning takes place in individuals, teams, the organization and even the communities with which the organization interacts. Learning is a continuous, strategically used process—integrated with, and running parallel to, work. Learning results in changes in knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors. Learning also enhances or­gan­iza­ tional capacity and growth. The learning organization has embedded systems to capture and share learning.  (Watkins and Marsick 1993: 8–9)

This definition grew out of a concept of continuous learning at four levels—individual, team, organization, and global. A fundamental construct of how organizations create an enhanced capacity to change undergirded our model that we grounded in Alan Meyer’s (1982) study of how organizations adapt to environmental jolts. From this study we drew a number of conclusions. First, learning at the organizational level was a changed organizational capacity that was embedded and shared. In addition the culture and structure of the organization shape what is learned, while the overall strategy and slack in the organization provide a cushion against sudden changes. In Watkins and Marsick (1996), we published a book of cases of learning organization experiments entitled Creating the Learning Organization to further expand our conception of a learning organization. Our model showed that learning starts with individuals and becomes increasingly complex as it is collectively shared across social units within which individuals interact. The unit of focus and analysis shifts. Further, the or­gan­iza­tion needs to create the facilitative structures, policy, and culture needed to support this learning. We defined learning at each resulting level as summarized from text in Table 4.1. Once again, while we did not specifically call out leadership in our model, we did note that “Leaders in these cases emerge as primary gatekeepers of the change and modelers of the learning process. They are often charismatic, risk-taking, visionary change agents . . . They have been willing to change themselves . . . ” (Watkins and Marsick 1996: 278). Indeed, we saw that often in these cases the first step was to change leaders’ roles and capacities. In addition, it was clear that “changes at the individual level alone have not led to long term organizational shifts” (Watkins and Marsick 1996: 279). We resisted identifying a formula for a learning organization, but concluded that such organizations

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

54   Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick

Table 4.1  Watkins and Marsick (1996) conceptions of learning by level and dimension Level

Conception of learning

Corresponding LO dimensions

Individual

Learning at the individual level is how people make meaning and the cultural infrastructure that supports this learning (5)

Create continuous learning opportunities; promote inquiry and dialogue

Team

“Team learning is the mutual construction of new knowledge and the capacity for concerted action” (6)

Encourage collaboration and team learning

Organizational

Learning at the organizational level is what is “captured in standard operating procedures, policies, culture, work processes, and the information systems that connect virtual teams and maintain the memory of the or­gan­iza­tion” (6)

Establish systems to capture and share learning; empower people toward a collective vision

Global

“Learning at the global level is thinking globally, crossing boundaries of environmental or societal impacts, including those that affect the quality of life afforded organizational members by the organization” (7)

Connect the organization to its environment

should do at least three things: embed a learning infrastructure; cultivate a learning habit in people and the culture so that “a spirit of inquiry, initiative, and experimental thinking predominates” (Watkins and Marsick  1996: 283); and regularly audit the knowledge capital in the organization and their progress eliminating barriers to learning by the organization. In 1999, we wrote a third book that examined Facilitating Learning Organizations: Making Learning Count (Marsick and Watkins 1999a) that drew on interviews with leaders and organization developers who had created the learning organizations we featured in our work. With this focus on leading the way, we developed a new model that included providing strategic leadership for learning (see Figure 4.1). In this book we ac­know­ledged an evolution in our definition of a learning organization: We originally defined the learning organization as one that is characterized by continuous learning for continuous improvement, and by the capacity to transform itself (Watkins and Marsick, 1993, 1996). This definition captures a principle, but in and of itself, is not operational. What does it look like when learning becomes an intentional part of the business strategy? People are aligned around a common vision. They sense and interpret their changing environment. They generate new knowledge which they use, in turn, to create innovative products and services to meet customer needs. We have identified seven action imperatives that characterize companies traveling toward this goal . . . The model emphasizes three key components: (1) systems-level, continuous learning (2) that is created in order to create and manage knowledge outcomes (3) which lead to improvement in the organization’s performance, and ultimately its value, as measured through assets and nonfinancial

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Conceptualizing an Organization That Learns   55 Provide strategic leadership for learning Connect the organization to its environment

GLOBAL

Empower people toward a collective vision Create systems to capture and share learning ORGANIZATION Encourage collaboration and team learning

TEAMS

Toward

Continuous Learning and Transformation

INDIVIDUALS Promote inquiry and dialogue Create continuous learning opportunities

Figure 4.1.  Learning organization action imperatives.

intellectual capital. Learning helps people to create and manage knowledge that builds a system’s intellectual capital.  (Marsick and Watkins 1999a: 10–11)

This description shows an increasing clarity about the role of learning in generating this culture capable of transforming. We elaborated this: Elsewhere (Watkins and Marsick, 1993), we have defined the learning organization as one that learns continuously and can transform itself. This means that it em­powers its people, encourages collaboration and team learning, promotes open dialogue, and acknowledges the interdependence of individuals, the organization, and the communities in which they reside. Learning is a continuous, strategically used process, integrated with and running parallel to work . . . Learning is built into work planning, career paths, and performance rewards. Employees at all levels develop a habit of learning, asking questions, and giving feedback. They share their learning with others through networked structures, teams, and electronic bulletin boards so that it becomes part of the organization’s memory. They are empowered to make decisions that affect their jobs. Learning is rewarded, planned for, and supported through a culture open to risk taking, experimentation, and collaboration. (Marsick and Watkins 1994: 354–5)

The emphasis on learning at different levels has continued to be a significant thrust in our work as seen in Watkins and Dirani (2013: 159): Creating a learning culture, then, is one means of situating learning into the very DNA of the organization. The focus on learning puts more responsibility on learners to seek continuous learning, and on leaders and organizations to create the infrastructure to support that learning. This support can include everything from access to databases, to desktop learning systems, to reading groups. It requires leaders to ensure that people are given time and resources to support their learning. Increasingly, it has also required line managers to take a more proactive role in facilitating learning.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

56   Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick

A Focus on a Learning Culture Our analysis suggested that—while organizational learning could be, as Dibella (1995) identified, either normative (learning happens under certain conditions) or developmental (a stage of evolution, evolving over time)—the organizations we studied intentionally sought capability (learning is embedded in the culture and structure of the organization as well as in certain capacities). Echoing the early influence of Alan Meyer’s (1982) environmental jolts study, we developed a “dynamic open-systems framework that keeps the entire system in touch with the changing environment” and that recognizes that facilitation is enacted through “multiple partners within and outside the organization” who work together to enact change (Marsick and Watkins  1999a: 19). We recognized organization development underpinnings in the cases we drew upon in 1999 of intentional change toward creating organizations that learn from and with individual members. The framework that grew out of our analysis began with organizational diagnosis, change guided by vision, ex­peri­men­ta­tion, and alignment over time negotiated at multiple levels and among many stakeholders. Experiments were introduced to learn how to build capacity for system-level learning: “Sometimes, old systems are replaced with new systems, or new systems are added. At times, existing systems are sharpened strategically to enhance their potential for learning and knowledge gains” (Marsick and Watkins  1999a: 22). Looking back, we wrote: A learning organization arises from the total change strategies that institutions of all types are using to help navigate these challenges. Learning organizations proactively use learning in an integrated way to support and catalyze growth for individuals, teams, and other groups, entire organizations, and (at times) the institutions and communities with which they are linked.  (Marsick and Watkins 2003: 142–3)

This acknowledgment that a culture of continuous learning is the shift that a learning organization requires changes everything about the way things are done. We noted that organizations that take on this work often do not call themselves a learning organization but rather are engaged in a process of reinventing themselves toward a vision worth promoting and striving for . . . We think that the learning or­gan­iza­tion should never be the real destination. In fact we think that the learning or­gan­iza­ tion as a term will fade. What we hope does not fade is the vision it has inspired of an organization using learning to build its long-term capacity to survive. We think that this is a vision for individuals as well. They too can use learning as a tool to enhance their capacity to survive as they have always used their wits to survive. So we think that a learning organization will never be a panacea. It is a vision that we think, as Lundberg (1989) has said, “upwings the distance vision” of all of us about what our organizations could be.  (Marsick and Watkins 1999b: 210)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Conceptualizing an Organization That Learns   57 The framework we introduced is multi-faceted, yet we could also see that a learning climate and culture often stand out as both conditions for system-level learning and a sensitive indicator of change toward becoming more effective as a learning system. Our model is thus especially sensitive to changing the culture. Schein (1996: 5) wrote that “Culture is both the consequence of the organization’s prior experience and learning, and the basis for its continuing capacity to learn.” Culture is inextricably tied to learning and a significant predictor and determinant of what is learned. Fiol and Lyles (1985: 804) put it this way: Four contextual factors affect the probability that learning will occur: corporate culture conducive to learning, strategy that allows flexibility, an organizational structure that allows both innovativeness and new insights, and the environment. These have a circular relationship with learning in that they create and reinforce learning and are created by learning.

This circular relationship between learning and culture as causing, reinforcing, and integrating learning is critical to understanding our seven dimensions of a learning organization. Each dimension represents part of what an organization must do to enable the kind of learning that transforms. Our work is distinct from other approaches to a learning organization in several ways as we next discuss.

Comparing Our Conception of the Learning Organization with that of Others Early writers on organizational learning varied from those with an information systems approach to those with a strategic focus (Watkins and Kim 2018). Several reviews of the organizational learning literature developed categories to classify how descriptions of organizational learning differ. Table 4.2 compares these typologies. Many have characterized our model as integrated—one that combines multiple perspectives. This may be so because our approach blends learning theory and or­gan­iza­ tional development. As does DiBella (1995), we agree that the perspective taken by the theorist matters significantly in depicting the learning organization. DiBella (Chapter 14 in this volume) further examines disciplinary and “cross-disciplinary variations” of such concepts. Perspectives are understandably shaped by disciplinary roots, as illustrated in Table 4.3, which shows relationships among different conceptions of the characteristics or dimensions of a learning organization. Despite different emphases and nuances, models also share similarities. Nonetheless, Easterby-Smith (1997) argues that there is little need to develop an integrative framework since these perspectives focus on different parts of the phenomenon. To him, the learning organization is an applied form of organizational

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

58   Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick

Table 4.2  Typologies of organizational learning Author

Typology

Crossan, Lane, and White (1999)

• Intuiting [images, metaphors] • Interpreting [language, dialogue] • Integrating [shared understandings] • Institutionalizing [routines, procedures]

Fiol and Lyles (1985)

• Behavioral vs. cognitive learning • Lower or higher order learning

Huber (1991)

• Knowledge acquisition • Information distribution • Information interpretation • Organizational memory

Dibella (1995)

• Normative • Developmental • Capability [culture]

Marsick and Watkins (1997)

• Learning as error correction and detection • Organizational learning as a change in organizational memory • Organizational learning as changing mental models • Organizational learning as cultures of inquiry and generativity • Organizational learning as extracting and building knowledge

Örtenblad (2002)

• “Old” organizational learning • Learning at work • Learning climate • Learning structure

Yang et al. (2004)

• Systems thinking • Learning perspective • Strategic perspective • Integrative perspective

learning that springs from management sciences and organization development and is focused on action. This fits our view as well. We found that learning organization interventions often draw on action technologies for their development (Marsick and Watkins 1999a) such as action learning, action science, and action research. We view action technologies as vehicles to transform both individual perspectives and organizational routines.

Measuring a Learning Organization Concurrent to the evolution of our thinking seen in the Facilitating book (Marsick and Watkins  1999a), we developed and validated an assessment, the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) (Watkins and Marsick 1997). As part of that work, we took our previous concepts of what would operationalize our dimensions

Table 4.3  Dimensions of a learning organization across key scholars Authors Dimensions

Marsick and Watkins (1999a); Pedler, Burgoyne, Senge (1990) Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1996) and Boydell (1991)

Garvin (1993)

Goh and Richards (1997)

Learning op­por­tun­ities

Personal mastery

Promote dialogue and inquiry

Promote dialogue and inquiry

 

Mental models Experimentation with new approaches

Experimentation  

Encourage collaboration and team learning

Encourage collaboration and team learning

 

Team learning

 

Teamwork and group problem solving

Create systems to capture and share learning

Create systems to capture and share learning

Looking in

 

Transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently

Transfer of knowledge  

Empower people toward a collective vision

Empower people toward a collective vision

Strategy

Shared vision

 

Clarity of purpose and mission

Connect the organization to its environment

Connect the organization to its environment

Looking out

Systems thinking

 

 

Provide strategic leadership for learning  

Provide strategic leadership for learning  

 

 

 

Structure

 

 

Leadership commitment and empowerment  

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

  Learning from their own experience and past history Learning from the experiences and best practices of others

Create continuous learning Create continuous learning opportunities opportunities

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

60   Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick and worked on survey items to capture them. Considerable testing of different versions of the questionnaire was done to evolve the final version (Watkins and O’Neil 2013). In each of our books, we emphasized the need to assess where the organization’s culture is now in order to develop interventions that could remove barriers and build systems to support and capture learning. Each time, we emphasized the need for an audit of the organization’s knowledge capital in order to determine whether or not the organization was currently performing well in this area. The questionnaire also included or­gan­iza­ tional performance measures of knowledge and financial performance, drawing heavily on the work of Nuala Beck (1992) who conceptualized indicators of performance in a knowledge economy. The development of the assessment proved auspicious since subsequent work to ­valid­ate the DLOQ led to a number of studies that verified its reliability and created a foundation for construct validation work (Yang, Watkins, and Marsick 2004). Using structural equation modeling, we verified that the model was valid, and surprisingly that individual and group level dimensions had only indirect effects on organizational performance, while organizational and global dimensions had differential impacts on financial and knowledge performance. Only leadership for learning had a significant impact on financial performance; and system connections had a significant impact on knowledge performance. Since this early work, over seventy articles have been published that used the DLOQ. The instrument has been validated across multiple languages, organizational contexts, and cultures. A number of reviews of studies across the body of our work have been done (Kim, Egan, and Tolson 2015; Song, Chermack, and Kim 2013; Watkins and Dirani 2013; Watkins and Kim 2018). Song et al. (2013) identified 120 articles and selected 66 for analysis. They noted that 80 percent of the studies they reviewed treated the learning organization as an input factor and examined a number of performance factors against it (e.g., commitment, job satisfaction, etc.). Only a few looked at conditions that might foster a learning organization, e.g., knowledge creation climate. They found also that many studies seemed to lack a strong theoretical or professional foundation and suggested that treating the learning organization as a mediating or outcome variable might advance theory development in organizational studies. Kim et al. (2015) looked at strengths and weaknesses in the use of the instrument, and argued for its use as a dependent variable. Their review was based on ninety articles, dissertations, and conference papers. Their study focused particularly on validation studies of the DLOQ and questioned the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results (primarily showing one factor as the best fit) vs. confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results which confirm that the seven-factor structure of the DLOQ has an acceptable fit. We would argue that this is reasonable since the seven dimensions collectively define a learning culture. Kim et al. (2015) found no evidence that EFA was used in the early stages of development of the DLOQ. Although this had been done in the initial development of the instrument, it was not in the published literature on the DLOQ. In Yang et al. (2004), we were no longer in an instrument development and validation phase, but rather in theory development, thus the analysis reported there was based on a cumulative database from

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Conceptualizing an Organization That Learns   61 multiple early studies and used structural equation modeling (SEM) to develop a theoretical model of a learning organization based on our data. In Watkins and Dirani (2013) we continued theory development by conducting a meta-analysis across 28 studies with 7,954 responses. We did both exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to confirm the hypothesized factor structure. We found that the factors extracted through EFA fit the original model with all factors having eigenvalues greater than one. CFA results confirmed the seven-dimension structure. We concluded that: • Across languages, cultures, types of organizations, these dimensions are durable and correlate with both perceptual and actual measures of perfor­mance (Davis and Daley 2008; Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, and Howton 2002). • Creating a learning culture correlates with knowledge performance which cor­re­lates with financial performance (see especially McHargue 1999; Yang et al. 2004). • Organizational level changes are more significant for changes in knowledge and financial performance than individual level changes, (see Yang et al. 2004). (Watkins and Dirani 2013: 157) The DLOQ has become an accepted measure for studies across disciplines and cultures with over fifteen language versions. It is in the APA PsychTest database. In short, the DLOQ has proven an effective tool for learning organization research and for diagnosing an organization’s current learning culture as a guide for intervention. Examples of its use to guide intervention can be found in Chapter 17 in this volume (Marsick and Watkins, with contributions from King Smith). Critics of the learning organization often focus on a larger critique of the role of training and development in for-profit organizations. The next section illustrates this.

Critiques of the Learning Organization In Marsick and Watkins (1999b) we explored critiques of the learning organization that see it as either a tool of management to oppress employees or a valueless or mindless push for learning without asking “learning for what?” We shared Korten’s (1995: 87) comment quoting Goldsmith “ ‘What an astounding thing it is to watch a civilization destroy itself because it is unable to examine the validity under totally new circumstances of an economic ideology.’ ” We noted that too often the learning organization was a statement in the corporate vision rather than something that the organization was actively working to implement. Other critiques focused on the potential of this initiative to be used as a way to oppress employees using ideology to shape behavior. For example, Garrick and Rhodes (1998)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

62   Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick see the learning organization as a kind of utopian vision that management uses to control through ideology and conformity. Writing in the tradition of Coopey (1998) who called the literature of the learning organization either “Utopian sunshine” or “Foucauldian gloom,” Valentin (2006) argues the learning organization literature ignores power differentials in organizations. She offers a critical theory perspective in which the focus of the critique is to examine whose interests are served—who benefits from the learning organization perspective. She writes: Vision statements, company images, active socialization programmes are control processes using “technologies of power” . . . “Empowered” workers engage in selfsurveillance and self-control and supervise themselves through internalizing the values of the organization. Training and development assist in this process. From this perspective, the learning organization is about socializing workers into new ways of working and regulating their behaviour for the benefit of the organization. (Valentin 2006: 22)

Garrick and Rhodes (1998), in particular, view learning in the learning organization as based on business success and thus people only learn what is marketable. These critiques have been more broadly aimed at all training and development ac­tiv­ities as tools of management and thus disempowering to individuals. We argue that in our model, a change of the culture to greater transparency, toward non-hierarchically bound dialogue, and a focus on learning at all levels—as well as leaders who are facilitators of learning—well fit Fenwick’s (2003) enhancements for HRD to be critical, namely greater focus on individuals, organizational practices that do not exclude groups, acknowledgment of the complexity of the workplace context, and facilitation focused on “power with” vs. “power over.” A more contemporary critique might revolve around the shift in how work is organized (flatter, decentralized), the rise in do-it-yourself (DIY) cultures, and the ubiquity of technology-driven learning—from information accessibility to big data and artificial intelligence that complement human learning. All of these conditions in today’s knowledge-rich era may obviate the need to create learning organization interventions. Learning is widespread. Organizations seldom hire and retain employees across their lifespans so there is less need to invest in people’s careers because people move in and out of jobs more frequently. They are motivated to independently seek information and develop capabilities because job retention and career success truly do depend on them. Entrepreneurship and innovation are in the air. Informal learning is increasingly recognized as a legitimate partner with redesigned, just-in-time, technology-supported “training and development.” Although perhaps counterintuitive, despite these shifts, individuals still need time, resources, recognition, and support or incentives to learn successfully at work. Few now have the time they need to learn, so learning support needs to be strategic and timely. Not everyone knows how to use resources well, even if available; and they may need help in learning how to learn. Even if individuals do learn, teams or groups may not be able to work well enough together to learn as well as meet performance

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Conceptualizing an Organization That Learns   63 targets. Transformational and transactional system dynamics, including culture, are likely to be functioning in ways that are not optimal or aligned with goals and rewards. So the idea of a learning organization is still relevant though the diagnostic tools and learning interventions offered might differ. When conceptualized as under­lying principles, processes, and dynamics—rather than a fixed set of practices—the learning organization concept is still relevant in today’s environment.

Conclusion Looking back from our work to date on the learning organization, we conclude that, as we assumed, there is a distinction between the concepts of organizational learning and the learning organization. The distinction rests in the holy grail of intentional efforts to design practices, systems, mechanisms, and policies that support learning that is shared and leveraged to build collective capacity to act in concert toward goal achievement. Organizational learning, by contrast, describes a naturally occurring phenomenon whether or not intentional efforts are undertaken to affect what it is or how it operates. Nonetheless, questions remain as to whether organically evolving phenomena necessarily equate to ideal conditions when it comes to leveraging learning of individuals or groups to the benefit of organizational learning and capacity building. For example, Swan, Scarbrough, and Newell (2010) conducted research examining “project-based learning across different organizational contexts” that suggests that “the link between project-based learning and organizational learning may be far from seamless, and may require the deployment of a range of learning mechanisms to be effective” (2010: 325). Theory and research are needed to guide efforts toward improved prediction of what makes a difference in creating a learning organization. Building this theory in HRD has been our journey, as noted by Turner, Baker, and Kellner (2018) in tracing life cycles of illustrative HRD theories. Turner et al. conclude that our theory of the learning or­gan­ iza­tion qualifies “as a formal theory” categorized in the phase of theory development they characterize as “Accepted Theory/Continuous Refinement Cycle Continues” (2018: 53, italics in original). The authors go on to note that, as do Watkins and Kim (2018) in their analysis of research, some structural and definitional issues remain (Turner et al. 2018). One question that emerged for us and others concerns the different organizational levels in the DLOQ. We initially designed the DLOQ to assess learning at individual, team, and organizational levels. We believed that “change must occur at every level of learning—from individual to group to organizational to environmental—and that these changes must become new practices and routines that enable and support the ability to use learning to improve performance” (Marsick and Watkins 2003: 135). Yet, based on validation studies previously cited (e.g., Yang et al. 2004), we learned that the DLOQ more accurately measures a learning culture which in turn links to knowledge creation

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

64   Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick outcomes that predict performance measures reported in the DLOQ. Turner et al. (2018: 54) conclude: “To further advance this theory as a formal theory, it should be determined within the field of HRD whether the learning organization dimensions are multidimensional, single-dimensional, or both.” We intend to continue pursuing the refinement and testing of our constructs, and hope others continue to join us in this quest.

References Argyris, C., and D.  Schön. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Beck, N. 1992. Shifting Gears: Thriving in the New Economy. New York: HarperCollins. Coopey, J. 1998. “Learning to Trust and Trusting to Learn: A Role for Radical Theatre.” Management Learning 29 (3): pp. 365–82. Crossan, M. M., H. W. Lane, and R. E. White. 1999. “An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution.” Applied Multivariate Research 24 (3): pp. 522–37. Davis, D., and B.  J.  Daley. 2008. “The Learning Organization and its Dimensions as Key Factors in Firms’ Performance.” Human Resource Development International 11 (1): pp. 51–66. Dibella, A. J. 1995. “Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of Perspective.” Academy of Management Journal 38 (1): pp. 287–90. Easterby-Smith, M. 1997. “Disciplines of Organizational Learning: Contributions and Critiques.” Human Relations 50 (9): pp. 1085–106. Ellinger, A. D., A. E. Ellinger, B. Yang, and S. W. Howton. 2002. “The Relationship between the Learning Organization Concept and Firms’ Financial Performance: An Empirical Assessment.” Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13 (1): pp. 5–22. Fenwick, T. J. 2003. “Emancipatory Potential of Action Learning: A Critical Analysis.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 16 (6): pp. 619–32. Fiol, C. M., and M. A. Lyles. 1985. “Organizational Learning.” Academy of Management Review 10 (4): pp. 803–13. Garrick, J., and C. Rhodes. 1998. “Deconstructing Organizational Learning: The Possibilities for a Postmodern Epistemology of Practice.” Studies in the Education of Adults 30 (2): pp. 172–84. Garvin, D. A. 1993. “Building a Learning Organization.” Harvard Business Review 71 (4): pp. 78–91. Goh, S., and G.  Richards. 1997. “Benchmarking the Learning Capability of Organizations.” European Management Journal 15 (5): pp. 575–83. Huber, G. P. 1991. “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures.” Organization Science 2 (1): pp. 88–115. Kim, J., T. Egan, and H. Tolson. 2015. “Examining the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire: A Review and Critique of Research Utilizing the DLOQ.” Human Resource Development Review 14 (1): pp. 91–112. Korten, D. 1995­. When Corporations Rule the World. London: Earthscan Publications. Lundberg, C.  C. 1989. “On Organizational Learning: Implications and Opportunities for Expanding Organizational Development.” Research in Organizational Change and Devel­ opment 3 (6), pp. 126–82.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Conceptualizing an Organization That Learns   65 McHargue, S.  K. 1999. “Dimensions of the Learning Organization as Determinants of Organizational Performance in Nonprofit Organizations.” PhD thesis. Retrieved from ProQuest (UMI: 9975108) Marsick, V., and K. E. Watkins. 1994. “The Learning Organization: An Integrative Vision for HRD.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 5 (4): pp. 353–60. Marsick, V., and K.  Watkins. 1997. “Organizational Learning.” In What Works: Assessment, Development, and Measurement, ed. L. J. Bassi and D. Russ-Eft, pp. 65–86. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. Marsick, V., and K.  Watkins. 1999a. Facilitating Learning Organizations: Making Learning Count. London: Gower Press. Marsick, V., and K. Watkins. 1999b. “Looking Again at Learning in the Learning Organization: A Tool That Can Turn into a Weapon!” The Learning Organization 6 (5): pp. 207–11. Marsick, V., and K. Watkins. 2003. “Demonstrating the Value of an Organization’s Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 5 (2): pp. 132–51. Marsick, V. J., and K. Watkins. 2015 [1990]. Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace (Routledge Revivals). New York: Routledge. Meyer, A. D. 1982. “Adapting to Environmental Jolts.” Administrative Science Quarterly 27 (4): pp. 515–37. Örtenblad, A. 2002. “A Typology of the Idea of Learning Organization.” Management Learning 33 (2): pp. 213–30. Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne, and T. Boydell. 1991. The Learning Company. London: McGraw-Hill. Schein, E. H. 1996. “On Organizational Learning: What is New?” Invited Address to The Third Biennial International Conference on Advances in Management, Framingham, MA, June 28. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/2628/ SWP-3912-35,650,568.pdf. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Science of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Song, J. H., T. J. Chermack, and W. Kim. 2013. “An Analysis and Synthesis of DLOQ-based Learning Organization Research.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 15 (2): pp. 222–39. Swan, J., H. Scarbrough, and S. Newell. 2010. “Why Don’t (or Do) Organizations Learn From Projects?” Management Learning 41 (3): pp. 325–44. Turner, J. R., R. Baker, and F. Kellner. 2018. “Theoretical Literature Review: Tracing the Life Cycle of a Theory and its Verified and Falsified Statements.” Human Resource Development Review 17 (1): pp. 34–61. Valentin, C. 2006. “Researching Human Resource Development: Emergence of a Critical Approach to HRD Enquiry.” International Journal of Training and Development 10 (1): pp. 17–29. Watkins, K. 1989. “Business and Industry.” In Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education, ed. S. B. Merriam and P. M. Cunningham, pp. 422–35. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Watkins, K. E., and K. M. Dirani. 2013. “A Meta-Analysis of the Dimensions of a Learning Organization Questionnaire: Looking Across Cultures, Ranks, and Industries.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 15 (2): pp. 148–62. Watkins, K., and K. Kim. 2018. “Current Status and Promising Directions for Research on the Learning Organization.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 29 (1): pp. 1–15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

66   Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick Watkins, K., and V.  Marsick. 1992. “Building the Learning Organization: A New Role for Human Resource Developers.” Studies in Continuing Education 14 (2): pp. 115–29. Watkins, K., and V. Marsick. 1993. Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Watkins, K., and V.  Marsick. 1996. In Action: Creating the Learning Organization. Vol. 1. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. Watkins, K., and V.  Marsick. 1997. Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Warwick, RI: Partners for the Learning Organization. Watkins, K.  E., and J.  O’Neil. 2013. “The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (the DLOQ): A Nontechnical Manual.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 15 (2): pp. 1–15. Yang, B., K. E. Watkins, and V. Marsick. 2004. “The Construct of the Learning Organization: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 15 (1): pp. 31–56.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 5

Ga rv i n ’ s L e a r n i ng Orga n iz ation: A Process Perspecti v e on Lea r n i ng for Impl em en tation, Im prov em en t, a n d I n novation Patrick J. Healy

At the heart of organizational learning lies a set of processes that can be designed, deployed, and led. (Garvin 2000: x)

Introduction The opening quote, from the late Harvard Business School (HBS) professor and ­management scholar David  A.  Garvin, aptly reflects Garvin’s view of the learning or­gan­iza­tion. A distinguished operations researcher, Garvin gained prominence in the 1980s through his exploration of why Japanese manufacturers had leapt ahead of their American competitors (Garvin 1984, 1987; Hayes and Garvin 1982). In Garvin’s estimation, the Japanese’s success lay in a superior set of management processes—ones that allowed them to produce higher quality products, more reliably, and at lower cost. While America’s concern with manufacturing would wane as its economy transitioned into services, Garvin’s high regard for process would carry over into his later

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

68   Patrick J. Healy research. Indeed, thereafter, Garvin viewed most, if not all, managerial and organizational behavior—decision making, communication, change management, and even advicegiving—through the lens of process (Garvin 1998; Garvin and Margolis 2015; Garvin and Roberto 2001, 2005). Organizational learning was no different. As the learning organization concept began to catch on in the early 1990s—largely due to the work of Peter Senge (1990)—Garvin recognized an opportunity to apply his tough-minded, process-centric approach to work to help organizations not just manage quality, but also learn and compete more effectively. The result was an operationally-focused take on the learning organization—one aimed at assisting managers in closing the gap between what Garvin deemed to be idyllic writings on the learning organization, and actual progress within organizations (Garvin 1993). In this chapter, I outline Garvin’s perspective on the learning or­gan­iza­tion as a system of learning processes through which organizations acquire, interpret, and apply information in order to get work done, improve operations, and innovate for the future. The rest of this chapter proceeds as follows. In the next section, I summarize Garvin’s take on the learning organization as first introduced in 1993. In the following section, I describe the evolution of Garvin’s thinking about the learning organization over time. Then, I compare and contrast Garvin’s perspective of the learning organization to those of other scholars, pointing out similarities as well as distinctive differences and contributions. Finally, I describe the impact that Garvin’s perspective has had on research and practice and assess the relevance of Garvin’s learning organization to modern businesses today.

Garvin’s Take on the Learning Organization (LO) Of Garvin’s many talents as a scholar and teacher, one of his most impressive was his ability to distill complex topics into short, memorable lists to guide the focus of re­searchers and practitioners. Three items per list seemed to be Garvin’s magic formula. Indeed, in his first writing on the topic of the learning organization in the Harvard Business Review in 1993, Garvin directed readers’ attention to three unresolved issues— three “M’s”—to help them better understand: (1) what a learning organization was, (2) what practices it excelled at, and (3) how one could measure learning and progress toward becoming a learning organization. These issues he called: (1) meaning, (2) management, and (3) measurement.

Meaning: What Is a Learning Organization? Formal definition. According to Garvin (1993: 72), a learning organization is “an or­gan­ iza­tion skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights.” In this definition, one is able to detect

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Garvin’s Learning Organization: A Process Perspective   69 the influence of Garvin’s operations background (Garvin 1987; Hayes and Garvin 1982) on how he conceptualized the learning organization. To Garvin, learning organizations did not just do a single thing well; instead, learning organizations were skilled at man­ aging several manifestations of the organizational learning process. Learning as a process. Garvin (1998: 33) defined processes as “collections of tasks and activities that together—and only together—transform inputs into outputs . . . inputs and outputs can be as varied as materials, information, and people.” The product development process, for example, consists of a sequence of tasks and activities that transforms ideas, money, and know-how into a valuable product or service. However, processes need not be operational in nature; they may also be used to describe sequences of managerial or organizational behavior, for example, how one makes decisions or communicates (Garvin 1998). In the same vein, processes can be used to describe too how organizations transform information and ideas into improved ways of behaving and working—in other words, how they learn. To Garvin (1993), the organizational learning process involved three distinct, yet overlapping, stages: (1) creating or acquiring information, (2) transferring information, and (3) modifying behavior in line with new information. See Figure 5.1 for a depiction of Garvin’s original formulation. In order for learning to occur, an organization must first produce new ideas internally (e.g., from employees, from reflecting on past experience, from producing new data from experiments, etc.) or obtain new information from its external environment (e.g., from competitors, customers, news media, etc.). Whether the source is internal of external, such knowledge serves as the crucial input for getting work done, making improvements, and innovating. However, new knowledge stored in the heads of a few employees or residing in a single department or division is of little use to the broader organization. For new know­ledge to have maximal impact, it must be transferred to others in the organization. As Garvin (2000: 11) put it, “New ideas must diffuse rapidly throughout the organization, extending from person to person, department to department, and division to division.” Still, pure knowledge—even transferred to all employees—is not enough for or­gan­ iza­tion­al learning to occur. According to Garvin, an organization should only be con­ sidered a learning organization if it is able apply new information and ideas to its operations and decision making, change the way people behave, and alter how work gets done. Learning organizations don’t just think about new ideas—they act on them. In short, Garvin (1993) defined the learning organization as an organization highly skilled at managing this three-stage organizational learning process in order to maintain or improve its performance.

Create or Acquire Information

Transfer Knowledge

Modify Behavior

Figure 5.1.  Garvin’s organizational learning process (1993).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

70   Patrick J. Healy

Management: The Key Practices of a Learning Organization Based on this definition of organizational learning, Garvin (1993) articulated five key practices or processes that learning organizations are particularly skilled at managing: (1) problem solving, (2) experimentation, (3) learning from past experience, (4) learning from others, and (5) quickly and efficiently transferring knowledge. While each of these activities differs in purpose and focus, all are learning processes consisting of the same acquire–transfer–change behavior stages of learning. See Table 5.1 for a description of each of these building blocks. “By creating systems and processes that support these activities and integrate them into the fabric of daily operations,” Garvin (2000: 73) wrote, “companies can manage their learning more effectively” and become learning organizations. Systematic problem solving. Given Garvin’s operations background and earlier research on quality management, it’s no surprise that the first building block of his learning organization is systematic problem solving. Whether it was total quality management (TQM), lean manufacturing, Six Sigma, or some other method, Garvin believed the systematic identification and analysis of problems, and the generation, selection, implementation, and evaluation of alternative solutions, to be crucial to the continued performance of organizations (Garvin  1993). Learning organizations not only train employees in the techniques necessary to solve problems well (e.g., data collection, ana­lysis, etc.), but also encourage them to think scientifically, use data, and test assumptions in all aspects of their work. Employees in learning organizations continually ask, “How do we know that’s true?” to get to the root cause of problems and challenge one another to back up intuitions with hard data. Experimenting. Learning organizations not only engage in systematic problem solving to address current difficulties, but also regularly run experiments to produce new knowledge and uncover opportunities for future improvement and innovation. Garvin (1993) identified two forms of experimentation: (1) ongoing programs, a series of small experiments designed to produce incremental gains in knowledge and improvements over time, and (2) demonstration projects, large, one-off experiments designed to test the viability of a new product, process, or technology. Garvin (2000) would later call these hypothesis-testing and exploratory experiments. According to Garvin (1993), organizations skilled in experimenting share a number of commonalities, including methods to elicit a continual flow of new ideas, an incentive system that rewards smart risk-taking, and programs that train employees in how to design, develop, run, and evalu­ate the effect of experiments. Learning from experience. The third building block of Garvin’s learning organization is the ability to learn from past experience. While many organizations often continue to repeat mistakes, learning organizations are skilled at reviewing their failures (and successes), systematically assessing them, and recording lessons learned in a form that is useful and accessible for other employees. Examples of methods of learning from ex­peri­ence include case studies, post-project reviews, and lessons learned repositories.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Garvin’s Learning Organization: A Process Perspective   71

Table 5.1  The five practices of a learning organization Practices of a learning organization

Description

Forms

Purpose

Problem solving

The identification and diagnosis of a problem, and the generation, selection, implementation, and evaluation of alternative solutions

• Scientific method • TQM • Lean manufacturing • Six Sigma

To close the gap between desired and actual performance

Experimenting

The systematic search for, generation, and testing of new knowledge

• Exploration • Confirmation/ hypothesistesting

To determine underlying cause and effect relationships

Learning from others

Speaking with or studying other companies or customers

• Benchmarking competitors • Customer surveys and focus groups • Direct observation of customers and competitors

To uncover new ways of doing things or ideas for new products or processes

Learning from experience

Reviewing past successes and failures, assessing them sys­tem­at­ic­al­ly, and recording the lessons in a usable form for others in the organization to easily use

• Case studies • Post-project reviews • “Lessons learned” repositories • Peer assist programs

To better understand why poor performance occurred in order to prevent or correct from it in the future To determine the key factors behind good performance and how to maintain them in the future

Transferring knowledge

The sharing of new knowledge and insights broadly throughout the organization

• Reports and memos • Site visits and tours • Personnel rotation programs • Education and training programs • Standardization programs

To ensure that knowledge has maximal or­gan­iza­ tion­al impact

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

72   Patrick J. Healy Of all the organizations he studied, Garvin particularly admired the US Army’s approach to learning from experience: the “After-Action Review” (AAR) (Garvin 2000). An AAR is a post-mission audit designed to assess performance and draw lessons learned. An AAR is organized around four questions: (1) “What did we set out to do?”; (2) “What actually happened?”; (3) “Why was there a difference between (1) and (2)?”; and (4) “What will we do differently next time (i.e., maintain, change)?” The Army stores the takeaways from these exercises in a centralized repository for others to access and refer to for future missions. In this way, the Army prevents (potentially life-threatening) mistakes from occurring more than once. Learning from others. Organizations not only learn from their own past experiences, but also from the experience and knowledge of relevant others. According to Garvin (1993), learning organizations are good at acquiring and incorporating insights from two groups in particular: (1) other companies, and (2) customers. First, learning or­gan­ iza­tions are skilled at benchmarking the practices of other companies. Like other forms of organizational learning, benchmarking is not a one-time field trip, but a multi-stage process involving systematic acquisition of knowledge from site visits of best practice companies and interviews with their managers and employees, careful analysis of the data obtained and how one’s own practices compare, transfer of key insights and recommendations for adoption throughout the organizations, and implementation of similar practices within one’s own organization tailored to one’s unique context. The most advanced organizations study not only the practices of companies within their industry, but actively search for practices outside of their industry that they can creatively adapt in their business. Second, learning organizations are skilled at acquiring information from current and future customers. Rather than adopt a philosophy of “build-it-and-they-will-come,” such organizations continuously gather information on customer needs and preferences, feedback on products and services, knowledge about competing offerings, and other customer insights. They may extract such data in multiple forms, including surveys, focus groups, or conjoint analysis. In the case that customers cannot articulate their needs or feelings, learning organizations may study customers in action—at home, while shopping, or browsing the Web. Whatever the means, learning organizations are eager to hear what customers have to say, and do not shy away from bad customer reviews. On the contrary, they are highly receptive to criticism, viewing it as crucial input to their process of learning and improvement. Transferring knowledge. The fifth and final task of a learning organization, according to Garvin (1993), is the fast and efficient transfer of knowledge throughout the or­gan­iza­tion. Knowledge transfer may take many forms, including written, oral, and visual reports, site visits and tours, personnel rotations, education and training programs, knowledge management databases, real-time communication and collaboration platforms, and many others. The most advanced organizations not only have the tools and technologies to exchange information, but also the incentives in place to get people to actually use them, such as rewards for division adoption or cross-departmental col­­labor­ation bonuses.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Garvin’s Learning Organization: A Process Perspective   73 In sum, Garvin’s learning organization excels at translating new information into changes in behavior that impact its bottom line, namely via the five learning practices outlined above.

Measurement: Assessing Learning For Garvin, it was not enough for companies to merely engage in the five tasks of a learning organization; if companies hoped to manage such activities effectively, they had to be able to measure whether learning was, in fact, happening. For him, that included assessing: (1) changes in performance, and (2) changes in employee thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors. Measuring learning from changes in results. To measure whether learning has occurred, Garvin (1993) recommended organizations utilize a measure called the “halflife curve.” Similar to the learning and experience curves of earlier decades (Arrow 1962; “Perspectives on Experience” 1972; Wright  1936), the half-life curve, pioneered by Analog Devices in the 1980s, measures the time it takes to achieve a 50 percent improvement in some metric of interest, such as cost, time-to-market, customer satisfaction, and others (Stata 1989). The steeper the curve, the more rapid the learning. By using half-life curves and similar tools to track changes in relevant performance metrics over time, organizations could infer that learning was or was not, in fact, occurring. Measuring learning from changes in employee behaviors. While measuring changes in performance over time provides some evidence of learning, measuring learning based on results fails to account for shorter term learning that may not result in changes in performance for some time. As such, Garvin (1993) recommended organizations assess not only changes in performance, but also changes in thinking and behaving that may produce future organizational improvements. For example, he recommended that organizations utilize employee surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and other information gathering tools to look for changes in content knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and patterns of thinking. Similarly, managers may observe employee behavior over time to detect whether learning initiatives are, in fact, having an impact. With data on employees in hand, managers could then determine whether changes in thinking and behaving were correlated with later results. In this way, an organization could conduct a “learning audit” to see if it was progressing.

Evolution of Garvin’s Thinking Subsequent to his initial writing on the learning organization, David Garvin worked with a number of organizations across a wide range of industries to improve their or­gan­ iza­tion­al learning processes and help them move closer to the learning organization

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

74   Patrick J. Healy ideal. Based on his experience working with these companies, Garvin would revise each of his “three M’s” over time to make his learning organization prescription even more useful for managers and organizations.

Measurement: A Revised LO Definition At the turn of the century, Garvin published his first and only book on the learning organization, Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work, in which he offered a more comprehensive definition of the concept. According to Garvin (2000: 11), “A learning organization is an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, interpreting, transferring, and retaining knowledge, and at purposefully modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights.” The inclusion of “interpreting” and “retaining” knowledge as additional stages of learning in this revised definition reflected a number of key insights Garvin had gleaned since his original writing seven years earlier. First, influenced by Karl Weick’s theory of organizations as interpretation systems (Daft and Weick 1984), Garvin recognized that the mere acquisition of data did or­gan­ iza­tions little good if they could not effectively process and analyze the information. As he put it, “Even if organizations were able to acquire all essential information, they would still need to interpret it . . . Unadorned facts and opinions are . . . only useful after they have been classified, grouped, or placed within a larger context” (2000: 24). Garvin’s decision to include interpretation as its own stage of learning in his model was also influenced by a number of high-profile decision making failures he studied and taught in his courses, including John  F.  Kennedy’s decision making in the Bay of Pigs (Schlesinger 1965) and the Mount Everest tragedy of 1996 (Roberto 2002). Second, in working more closely with organizations, Garvin recognized a common problem: despite increased efforts to share information more broadly, companies still tended to lose crucial knowledge and skills when people left. In other words, while insights were being transferred between individuals, they were not being retained in any systematic way at an organizational level. Seeing this shortcoming, Garvin added a new retention stage to his organizational learning model. As Garvin (2000: 11) put it, “New ideas . . . must become embedded in organizational ‘memory,’ appearing as policies procedures, and norms to ensure that they are retained over time.” This new stage aligned with earlier research on organizational learning and memory (Levitt and March 1988; Stata 1989). So that managers would remember what it meant for their organization to learn, he also simplified his (now) six stages of learning to three: (1) acquiring knowledge (through creating it internally or obtaining it from the external environment), (2) interpreting knowledge, and (3) applying knowledge (through transferring it broadly, retaining it, and using it as a basis for changing organizational behavior). See Figure 5.2 for a revised learning organization model.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Garvin’s Learning Organization: A Process Perspective   75

Acquire

• Creating knowledge internally • Obtaining knowledge from the external environment

Interpret

Apply

• Transferring knowledge • Retaining learnings • Acting on insights (behavior change)

Figure 5.2.  Garvin’s revised organizational learning process (2000).

Management: Intelligence Gathering—the Sixth Building Block In addition to revising his definition of the learning organization, Garvin also added another practice to his learning organization’s toolbox: intelligence gathering. According to Garvin (2000: 48), intelligence gathering is the “collection and in­ter­pret­ation of information that exists outside the organization,” usually for use in strategy formulation and organizational decision making. Like the other practices of his learning organization, intelligence gathering is a learning process in which managers “decide what information to look for, figure out where to look, assemble the raw material, determine it meaning and implications, and then disseminate their findings to relevant parties” (Garvin 2000: 49). The practice takes three main forms: (1) the search for existing data (e.g., monitoring industry news, examining publicly available information, etc.), (2) inquiry to generate new data (e.g., conducting customer surveys, performing market research, etc.), or (3) observation of external actors to uncover new insights (e.g., customer studies, etc.) (Garvin 2000).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

76   Patrick J. Healy Garvin’s decision to add this sixth building block was influenced by his work with a number of organizations, including British Petroleum, Xerox, L.L. Bean, the US Forest Service, and the US Army. He was particularly impressed by the Army’s well-crafted processes for gathering data during missions and analyzing them after to produce insights for others to utilize via its Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL).

Management: Environment/Climate and Leadership The biggest evolution in Garvin’s thinking on learning organizations was an increased emphasis on not only formal learning processes like problem solving and benchmarking, but also more informal organizational mechanisms to support such processes and make them run smoothly. Two enablers were particularly fundamental: (1) a supportive environment/climate for learning, and (2) leadership that supports learning. A supportive learning environment. First, as he studied organizations and assisted ­others in improving their organizational learning processes, Garvin recognized that the learning processes he advocated did not come naturally to many organizations. On the contrary, most organizations faced what Garvin termed a number of common “learning disabilities” that impeded their efforts to manage learning effectively. Organizations fell victim to these problems at each stage of the learning process. See Table 5.2 for a list of disabilities and some of their common manifestations. To combat these disabilities, Garvin argued that organizations had to be proactive about creating a climate conducive to learning. Such an environment is characterized by four conditions: “the recognition and acceptance of differences; the provision of timely, unvarnished feedback; the pursuit of new ways of thinking and untapped sources of information; and the acceptance of errors, mistakes, and occasional failures as the price

Table 5.2  Common organizational learning “disabilities” Stage of learning

Disability

Common manifestations

Acquisition of knowledge

Oversights or errors in the way the organization collects information, resulting in incomplete or biased data

• Organizational blind spots • Information filtering • Lack of information sharing

Interpretation of knowledge

Distortions in the way that information is processed and analyzed, resulting in flawed decisions

• Over-confidence bias • Confirmation bias • Hindsight bias

Application of knowledge

Unwillingness to act on new knowledge or inability to act on it effectively

• Organizational inertia • Risk-aversion • Lack of self-awareness • Lack of time to change behaviors

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Garvin’s Learning Organization: A Process Perspective   77

Table 5.3  Enabling supportive learning environments Enabling condition

Function(s)

Recognition and acceptance of differences

• Allows diverging viewpoints to be shared, tensions resolved, and new insights to be produced • Provides energy and motivation for organizational learning and change

Provision of timely, accurate feedback

• Allows for fast and efficient problem solving and experimentation • Provides objective data to be used in decision making

Openness to new ideas

• Provides the basis for improving organizational practices • Ensures a steady flow of innovative ideas for new offerings

Tolerance for errors, mistakes, and failure

• Facilitates risk-taking and experimentation • Encourages speaking up about problems and opportunities

of improvement” (Garvin 2000: 34). See Table 5.3 for a description of these conditions and their function in promoting learning. In his later work with Amy C. Edmondson and Francesca Gino, Garvin would revise these conditions to be: valuing differences, time for reflection, openness to new ideas, and psychological safety (Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino 2008). See Edmondson, Gino, and Healy (Chapter  20 in this volume) for definitions of these four conditions and Garvin et al. (2008) for a longer description of each. By creating a culture in which differences were respected and valued, information flowed freely, new ideas were offered often, and employees were not afraid to speak up about errors or mistakes, Garvin believed that organizations could grease the gears of his six learning practices and build a learning organization more quickly. Leadership that supports learning. While learning processes and a supportive learning environment were crucial to building a learning organization, Garvin recognized that these factors would not materialize on their own. Instead, organizations needed leaders to design and manage learning processes and create a supportive climate for them to operate. In other words, learning organizations require managers to lead the learning process. For Garvin (2000), “leading learning” involved four actions: creating op­por­ tun­ities for learning, setting the right tone, leading effective discussions, and engaging in individual learning. See Table 5.4 for a summary of these leadership requirements, their function in promoting learning, and some examples. See Garvin et al. (2008) for a longer discussion on how managers can lead learning. By creating opportunities for people to learn, challenging employees while at the same time supporting them, learning to lead effective, inquiry-based discussions, and engaging in lifelong learning themselves, Garvin believed leaders could operate the practices of the learning organization and build a learning culture.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

78   Patrick J. Healy

Table 5.4  Leading learning Requirement

Function(s)

Actions

Creating opportunities for learning

• Establishes learning as an or­gan­iza­tion­al priority • Provides a time and place for learning to occur

• Create learning forums • Assign people exploratory projects • Design shared experiences

Setting the right tone

• Creates the desired climate for learning • Encourages open-ended inquiry

• Engage in challenge and dissent • Provide security and support • Ensure a free flow of information • Practice open communication

Leading effective discussions

• Guides discussions towards new learnings and insights • Models desired behaviors for others to practice

• Ask the right questions • Attentively listen • Respond appreciatively

Remaining open to learning oneself

• Promotes personal learning and development • Models desired behaviors for others to practice

• Remain open to new perspectives • Identify and account for personal biases and shortcomings • Ask for raw data • Cultivate a sense of humility

Measurement: Informal and Formal Measuring Sticks One final evolution in Garvin’s thinking on the learning organization was an increased focus on new ways for managers to assess progress towards becoming a learning or­gan­iza­tion. In addition to the suggestions provided in his original 1993 article, Garvin developed two more ways for managers to measure the extent of learning in their organizations: (1) quick and dirty litmus tests, and (2) a formal learning organization survey. Litmus tests. In his 2000 book, Garvin provided managers with a list of simple ­questions—what he dubbed “litmus tests”—to assess whether they worked in a learning organization. Questions included: • Does the organization have a defined learning agenda? • Is the organization open to new, sometimes discordant, information? • Does the organization avoid repeated mistakes? • Does the organization retain critical knowledge when people leave? • Does the organization act on what it knows? If the answer to any of these questions was “no,” the managers’ company did not qualify as a learning organization. Garvin intended these tests to be quick and easy prompts for managers to determine which areas to focus. The Learning Organization Survey (LOS). In later work with Amy C. Edmondson and Francesca Gino, Garvin would develop a more formal tool for both researchers and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Garvin’s Learning Organization: A Process Perspective   79 practitioners to measure organizational learning: the Learning Organization Survey (LOS) (Garvin et al. 2008). Building on Garvin’s earlier work (1993, 2000), as well as Edmondson’s work on learning in teams (1999, 2002, 2003), the LOS consists of a set of  questions to measure ten organizational learning constructs across three clusters: (1) learning climate, (2) learning processes, and (3) leadership that supports learning. Studies have shown the LOS to be a valid, reliable way to measure differences in learning across organizations, or work units within the same organization (Edmondson, Gino, and Healy, Chapter  20 in this volume). For an in-depth description of the LOS, see Garvin et al. (2008). For more on how the tool was developed and its psychometric properties, see Edmondson, Gino, and Healy (Chapter 20 in this volume).

Garvin’s Perspective in Perspective Considering Garvin’s perspective against the backdrop of the broader learning or­gan­ iza­tion literature, one may detect commonalities and overlaps, as well as a few crucial differences that make for distinctive contributions.

Similarities with Other Conceptions One useful way to organize the literature on learning organizations comes from Örtenblad (2002, 2004, 2013, 2018). Conducting a comprehensive review of works that used the term “learning organization,” Örtenblad (2002) classified learning or­gan­iza­tion perspectives into four main categories: (1) organizational learning, (2) climate for learning, (3) learning at work, and (4) learning structure. These categories are not mutually exclusive, with many conceptions of the learning organization consisting of elem­ents from each (Örtenblad 2004). Indeed, based on this categorization, Garvin’s perspective on the learning organization possesses elements from several groups. Organizational learning. Works in Örtenblad’s (2002) first bucket, organizational learning, build on a long line of research on organizational learning (Argyris and Schön 1978; Huber 1991; Kim 1993; Levitt and March 1988; Miner and Mezias 1996; Shrivastava 1983). According to this research, learning occurs at both the individual and organizational levels, with individuals acting as organizational agents of learning (Argyris and Schön 1978) and knowledge stored as organizational memory in the form of routines, processes, procedures, and shared mental models (Hedberg 1981). Organizational learning occurs when an organization updates its memory in such a way to guide future organizational behavior (Huber 1991). In line with this research, several scholars of the learning organization argue that a learning organization is skilled at translating new information into new ways of behaving that enhance its capacity to compete (Garvin 1993, 2000; Marquardt, Chapter 7 in this volume; Marquardt and Reynolds 1994; Watkins and Marsick  1993; Watkins and Marsick, Chapter  4 in this volume). For instance,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

80   Patrick J. Healy Watkins and Marsick (1993: 8–9) write that, “The learning or­gan­iza­tion is one that learns continuously and transforms itself. Learning takes place in individuals, teams, the organization, and even the communities with which the or­gan­iza­tion interacts . . . Learning results in changes in knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors [and] enhances organizational capacity for innovation and growth.” Garvin’s original conception of the learning organization, which emphasized the processing of information and changes in organizational behavior and framed learning as the source of or­gan­iza­tion­al improvement and competitive advantage, is most similar to research in this category. Climate for learning. Works in Örtenblad’s (2002) second category, climate for learning, conceptualize the learning organization as one that facilitates the learning of its individual employees (Beck 1989; Garratt 1987; Garvin 2000; Garvin et al. 2008; Marquardt and Reynolds 1994; Pedler and Aspinwall 1998; Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne, Chapter 6 in this volume; Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell 1991; Watkins and Marsick 1993; Watkins and Marsick, Chapter 4 in this volume). For instance, Pedler and Aspinwall (1998: 43) write that, “Some organizations create better conditions for . . . learning than others. They make learning a value at the heart of the enterprise, they encourage people to talk to each other, they simply have a better ‘learning climate.’ ” Similarly, Garratt (1987: 24) writes that the key role of directors in a learning or­gan­iza­tion is to “create the climate by which learning is encouraged, rewarded, and allows to flow freely around the organization.” Garvin’s later work, which emphasized the im­port­ance of having an organizational climate that appreciates differences, tolerates errors and failures, and is open to hearing new ideas, echoes the prescriptions of other scholars in this category (Garvin 2000; Garvin et al. 2008). Learning at work. Authors in Örtenblad’s (2002) third category, learning at work, define the learning organization as a place in which learning occurs not just in formal training courses, but through engaging in the work itself (Garvin 1993, 2000; Watkins and Marsick, Chapter 4 in this volume; Marquardt and Reynolds 1994; Watkins and Marsick 1993; Watkins and Marsick, Chapter 4 in this volume). For example, Watkins and Marsick (1993: 7–8) argue that “Training plays an important role in the learning organization, but training is not its sole distinguishing feature. [Instead], [l]earning is closely intertwined with daily work activities, and as a result, it may not stand out as separate from effective individual and organizational practices . . . Learning is a continuous, strategically used process, integrated with, and running parallel to, work.” Garvin’s perspective too embodies a learning-in-action approach. Garvin (1998: 37), for instance, classifies organizational learning as a behavioral process that has “no independent existence apart from the work processes in which [it] appear[s]” but one that “profoundly affect[s] the form, substance, and character of work processes, by shaping how they are carried out.” Just as organizations have particular ways of making decisions and communicating as it pertains to work, they too have dominant modes of learning on-the-job (Garvin 1998). Indeed, many of Garvin’s (1993) building blocks, such as problem solving, learning from experience, and experimentation, relate ­directly to work itself. Learning structures. Örtenblad’s (2002) fourth and final category, learning structure, consists of definitions of the learning organization that center around organizational

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Garvin’s Learning Organization: A Process Perspective   81 structure. In particular, these conceptions tend to describe flat, decentralized or­gan­iza­tions that are able to process information fast in order to sense and respond quickly to changes in their environment. For instance, Watkins and Marsick write that, “Information flows freely in a learning organization—among people, across bound­ar­ies, and through information and data processing systems” (1993: 258). In the same vein, Senge (1990: 287) described how, in the future, more and more organizations would become decentralized: “learning organizations will, increasingly, be ‘localized’ or­gan­iza­tions, extending the maximum degree of authority and power as far from the ‘top’ or corporate center as possible.” While Garvin was largely agnostic about the form or structure of his learning organization, he hinted that, to be successful at acquiring, interpreting, and applying information learning, organizations would need to de-emphasize hierarchy, with managers not being teachers of others, but instead “shepherds” of others’ learning (2000: 190). Still, Garvin was less concerned about the structure of the learning organization itself than that it had world-class learning processes, a climate conducive to learning, and leadership that reinforced it (Garvin et al. 2008).

Distinctive Contributions of Garvin’s Perspective While Garvin’s version of the learning organization possesses many similarities with those of other distinguished scholars, his conception is also distinct in ways that contribute to the broader literature. Of Garvin’s many contributions, three stand out as particularly unique and impactful: (1) an emphasis on organizational learning processes, (2) concrete and accessible prescriptions for managers, and (3) a focus on local leaders and on ways for them to gauge the progress of their units. A process perspective. While most other conceptions of the learning organization center on individual mindsets and disciplines (Senge 1990) or organizational cap­abil­ities (Marquardt and Reynolds  1994), Garvin’s learning organization is unique in that it instead focuses on learning processes, which serve to unite multiple levels of analysis. As Garvin (1998: 34) put it, “past studies [of organizations and organizational learning] have tended to focus on either the trees (individual tasks or activities) or the forest (the organization as a whole), they have not combined the two. A process perspective provides the needed integration, ensuring that the realities of work practice are linked explicitly to the firm’s overall functioning.” Processes are the glue that connects individual and organizational learning and provide managers with a medium level of analysis to focus their efforts. In addition, processes provide the means to describe how work actually gets done in organizations. As Garvin put it, “if organizations are ‘systems for getting work done,’ processes provide a fine-grained description of the means” (1998: 42). Instead of focusing on abstract concepts like “systems thinking,” “personal mastery,” or “team learning” (Senge 1990), Garvin believed managers’ time would be better spent improving processes with which they were already familiar, such as problem solving or intelligence gathering. For Garvin, organizations became learning organizations through engaging in, and reflecting on, the work itself.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

82   Patrick J. Healy In short, taking a process perspective to organizational behavior and learning “provides an integrated, dynamic picture of organizations and managerial behavior” (Garvin 1998: 33) that exclusively individual and organizational perspectives tend to miss. Concrete and accessible prescriptions for action. Another strength of Garvin’s learning organization is its accessibility. From his very first writings about the learning or­gan­iza­ tion, Garvin sought to make the concept as concrete and digestible for managers as possible. In Garvin’s view, prior discussions of the learning organization were far too abstract and idealistic to be useful to managers. As he put it, “the topic in large part remains murky, confused, and difficult to penetrate . . . discussions of learning or­gan­iza­ tions have often been reverential and utopian, filled with near mystical terminology” (Garvin 1993: 71). In contrast, Garvin (1993: 79) believed that “learning organizations are built upon the gritty details of practice.” By providing managers with a clear definition of the learning organization, five or six concrete learning processes on which to focus, and both formal and informal ways to measure progress, Garvin helps companies get started. Focus on local leaders. Finally, while other conceptions of the learning organization target mainly high-level executives, Garvin’s instead was aimed at local leaders—any and all managers who led projects, departments, divisions, or business units in which the real work of the organization got done. By providing managers a few key learning processes to focus on, recommendations on creating a culture conducive to learning, concrete suggestions for how to create learning opportunities, set the tone, and lead discussions, and a measurement tool to assess progress, Garvin hoped that organizations could increase learning at their greatest points of leverage—within work teams, where most organizational work occurred (Edmondson 2002, 2003). Garvin and colleagues designed the LOS with such a focus in mind to allow local leaders the ability to assess relative progress and build learning organizations (Garvin et al. 2008).

The Impact and Future of Garvin’s Learning Organization Garvin’s conception of the learning organization has significantly impacted past research and, in all likelihood, will continue to influence future research and practice.

Impact of Garvin’s Definition One, albeit imperfect, way to measure the impact of a scholar’s work is by the number of citations it has received. According to Google Scholar, Garvin’s 1993 Harvard Business Review article “Building a Learning Organization” had been cited almost 8,000 times as of January 2019. While this figure is still well below that of Senge (1990) (whose Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization has been cited a whopping

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Garvin’s Learning Organization: A Process Perspective   83 57,000 times), it still ranks second ahead of the works of other distinguished learning organization researchers, such as Pedler et al. (1991), Watkins and Marsick (1993), and Marquardt and Reynolds (1994), indicating the influence of Garvin’s perspective. Moreover, Garvin’s  2000 book Learning in Action and 2008 follow-up article with Amy  C.  Edmondson and Francesca Gino “Is Yours a Learning Organization?” in Harvard Business Review have each been cited over 1,000 times, indicating that Garvin’s ideas continue to significantly impact discussions of the learning organization. The greater impact of Garvin’s learning organization, however, has undoubtedly been on managers and organizations. Subsequent to the publication of his 1993 article, Garvin spoke with, consulted, and worked closely with a number of organizations, including General Electric, Warner Lambert, L.L.  Bean, Mitsubishi, Mahindra and Mahindra, Harvard Business School Publishing, and many others to help them put his learning organization principles into practice. Garvin was particularly proud of his work with the US Forest Service. Based in large part on Garvin’s work, the Forest Service established the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center in 2002, a body devoted to gathering information from past wildfires, analyzing the data, and applying it to fight fires more effectively—and safely—in the future. The Center’s tagline “A lesson is learned when we change our behavior” clearly demonstrates Garvin’s lasting impact.

The Future of Garvin’s Learning Organization Twenty-five years after Garvin’s initial writings on the topic, the principles and practices of his learning organization still remain highly relevant. Organizations must still be able to spot errors and solve problems quickly to ensure smooth and effective implementation. They still need to be able to gather market intelligence, process and transfer information, and adopt the latest practices and technologies in order to avoid falling behind. And managers in today’s organizations still need to be able to learn from past ex­peri­ences and experiment in order to improve and innovate. In fact, a number of trends suggest that the processes of Garvin’s learning or­gan­iza­ tion are even more important today than they were in 1993. For one, several studies have found that the intensity of competition and pace of technological change are both increasing, resulting in increased firm turnover. A 2016 study by Scott Anthony and colleagues at the consulting firm Innosight, for instance, found that corporations in the S&P 500 Index in 1965 stayed in the index for an average of 33 years (Anthony, Viguerie, and Waldeck 2016). By 1990, around the time that the learning organization was gaining popularity, average tenure in the S&P 500 had fallen to 20 years. In 2012, the figure had fallen to 18 years, and Innosight forecasts that it will shrink to 14 years by 2026. At the current rate of corporate churn, about half of the S&P 500 firms will be replaced over the next ten years. Other studies have found similar results (Govindarajan and Srivastava 2016; Reeves, Levin, and Ueda 2016). These studies, as well as countless case studies of fallen stars like Blockbuster, Kodak, and Sears, suggest that the ability to learn and adapt will be increasingly important in the future. Garvin’s learning organization prescription

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

84   Patrick J. Healy can help firms to do so. As Garvin said in a 2008 interview with HBR, “products can be copied. Services can be copied. Even strategies can be copied . . . but if you’re learning more rapidly than the competition, you can get ahead and stay ahead” (Garvin and Edmondson 2008). In addition, as the amount of information grows exponentially every year, the ability to acquire, interpret, and apply information effectively becomes an even greater challenge— and source of competitive advantage for organizations that can do it well. According to one source, 90 percent of the data in the world was created in the past two years (Marr 2018). Given this fact, companies need not only the latest knowledge management tools, but a strategy and process for managing information and acting on it. Garvin’s learning organization provides one possible way forward.

Conclusion Learning organizations cannot plan for all learning to occur. There will, of course, always be some element of serendipity to finding the correct solution to a problem, making improvements, or finding the next big innovative idea. Managers in Garvin’s learning organization recognize, however, that they can increase the amount, depth, and pace of learning by crafting and optimizing the organization’s learning processes. As Garvin (2000: xi) put it, “Learning will always remain something of an art, but even the best artists can improve their technique.” Learning organizations constantly work to craft their next masterpiece.

Acknowledgments I thank Lynn Garvin for her insights into her late husband’s thinking on the learning organization.

References Anthony, S. D., P. Viguerie, and A. Waldeck. 2016. “Corporate Longevity: Turbulence Ahead for Large Organizations.” Innosight Executive Briefing (Spring). Retrieved January 30, 2019, from https://www.innosight.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Corporate-Longevity2016-Final.pdf. Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Arrow, K. 1962. “The Economics Implications of Learning by Doing.” Review of Economic Studies 29 (3): pp. 155–73. Beck, M. 1989. “Learning Organisations: How to Create Them.” Industrial and Commercial Training 21 (3): pp. 21–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Garvin’s Learning Organization: A Process Perspective   85 Daft, R.  L., and K.  E.  Weick. 1984. “Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems.” Academy of Management Review 9 (2): pp. 284–95. Edmondson, A.  C. 1999. “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (2): pp. 350–83. Edmondson, A.  C. 2002. “The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Perspective.” Organization Science 13 (2): pp. 128–46. Edmondson, A. C. 2003. “Speaking Up in the Operating Room: How Team Leaders Promote Learning in Interdisciplinary Action Teams.” Journal of Management Studies 40 (6): pp. 1419–52. Garratt, B. 1987. The Learning Organization: And the Need for Directors Who Think. Aldershot: Gower. Garvin, D. A. 1984. “What Does ‘Product Quality’ Really Mean?” Sloan Management Review 26 (1): pp. 25–43. Garvin, D. A. 1987. “Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality.” Harvard Business Review 65 (6): pp. 101–9. Garvin, D.  A. 1993. “Building a Learning Organization.” Harvard Business Review 71 (4): pp. 78–91. Garvin, D.  A. 1998. “The Processes of Organization and Management.” Sloan Management Review 39 (4): pp. 33–50. Garvin, D. A. 2000. Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Garvin, D. A., and A. C. Edmondson. 2008. “The Importance of Learning in Organizations.” HBR Video. Retrieved January 24, 2019, from https://hbr.org/video/2226587714001/ the-importance-of-learning-in-organizations. Garvin, D.  A., A.  C.  Edmondson, and F.  Gino. 2008. “Is Yours a Learning Organization?” Harvard Business Review 86 (3): pp. 109–16. Garvin, D. A., and J. D. Margolis. 2015. “The Art of Giving and Receiving Advice.” Harvard Business Review 93 (1): pp. 60–71. Garvin, D.  A., and M.  Roberto. 2001. “What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions.” Harvard Business Review 79 (8): pp. 108–16. Garvin, D. A., and M. Roberto. 2005. “Change Through Persuasion.” Harvard Business Review 83 (2): pp. 104–12. Govindarajan, V., and A.  Srivastava. 2016. “The Scary Truth About Corporate Survival.” Harvard Business Review 94 (12): pp. 24–5. Hayes, R. H., and D. A. Garvin. 1982. “Managing as if Tomorrow Mattered.” Harvard Business Review 60 (3): pp. 70–9. Hedberg, B. 1981. “How Organizations Learn and Unlearn.” In Handbook of Organizational Design, ed. P. C. Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck, pp. 3–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huber, G. P. 1991. “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures.” Organization Science 2 (1): pp. 88–115. Kim, D. 1993. “The Link Between Individual and Organizational Learning.” Sloan Management Review 35 (1): pp. 37–50. Levitt, B., and J. G. March. 1988. “Organizational Learning.” Annual Review of Sociology 14: pp. 319–40. Marquardt, M. J., and A. Reynolds. 1994. The Global Learning Organization. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

86   Patrick J. Healy Marr, B. 2018. “How Much Data Do We Create Every Day? The Mind-Blowing Stats Everyone Should Read.” Retrieved January 24, 2019, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/ 2018/05/21/how-much-data-do-we-create-every-day-the-mind-blowing-stats-everyoneshould-read/#696dc32d60ba. Miner, A.  S., and S.  J.  Mezias. 1996. “Ugly Duckling No More: Pasts and Futures of Organizational Learning Research.” Organization Science 7 (1): pp. 88–99. Örtenblad, A. 2002. “A Typology of the Idea of Learning Organization.” Management Learning 33 (2): pp. 213–30. Örtenblad, A. 2004. “The Learning Organization: Towards an Integrated Model.” The Learning Organization 11 (2): pp. 129–44. Örtenblad, A. (ed.). 2013. Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Örtenblad, A. 2018. “What Does ‘Learning Organization’ Mean?” The Learning Organization 25 (3): pp. 150–8. Pedler, M., and K. Aspinwall. 1998. A Concise Guide to the Learning Organization. London: Lemos & Crane. Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne, and T. Boydell. 1991. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development. New York: McGraw-Hill. “Perspectives on Experience.” 1972. Boston: Boston Consulting Group. Reeves, M., S. Levin, and D. Ueda. 2016. “The Biology of Corporate Survival.” Harvard Business Review 94 (1): pp. 46–55. Roberto, M. A. 2002. “Lessons from Everest: The Interaction of Cognitive Bias, Psychological Safety, and System Complexity.” California Management Review 45 (1): pp. 136–58. Schlesinger, A. M. 1965. A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Shrivastava, P. 1983. “A Typology of Organizational Learning Systems.” Journal of Management Studies 20 (1): pp. 7–28. Stata, R. 1989. “Organizational Learning: The Key to Management Innovation.” Sloan Management Review 30 (3): pp. 63–74. Watkins, K. E., and V. J. Marsick. 1993. Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wright, T.  P. 1936. “Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes.” Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences 3 (4): pp. 122–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 6

Lea r n i ng Compa n y: The Lea r n i ng Orga n iz ation Accor di ng to Pedl er, Bu rg oy n e , a n d Boy del l Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne

Introduction We began our partnership in the mid-1970s, brought together by a common interest in learning and, at that time, in the idea of self-development. We all worked in management schools and shared the conviction that the experienced people we met there were less in need of instruction and wanted more for opportunities to learn, especially with regard to their pressing tasks and challenges. By the mid-1980s we had developed our approach to management self-development and seen it begin to catch on amongst professional trainers and developers. Yet we also got reports back from participants that whilst they liked the ideas and methods, their organizations were less welcoming and even hostile. Something more than individual development was needed, but what did it look like? In early 1986, came these words in a speech by Geoffrey Holland, then Director of the UK’s Manpower Services Commission (MSC): If we are to survive, individually, or as companies, or as a country, we must create a tradition of “learning companies.” Every company must become a “learning company.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

88   Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne Though he cited examples of companies that did a lot of training, this suggested to us something more ambitious. With the aid of a grant from the MSC, we researched the Learning Company idea via the literature (mainly early stuff on organizational learning), by visiting businesses, interviewing people we met, and by the setting up of a study group. The outcomes included a Research Report (Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne 1988) and a book (Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell 1991).

The “Learning Company” We charted the evolution of the Learning Company idea, seeing it in a historical progression of problems and solutions to training and development (Figure 6.1). Shortages of skilled people after the Second World War created a demand for systematic industrial training, but this training philosophy proved less successful when applied to the high discretion work of managers and professionals. Work-based learning approaches such as coaching, self-development, and action learning emerged in response to this challenge. And whilst these new learner-centered designs worked well for individuals, they uncovered in turn another challenge: that of the poor welcome and integration of independent learners within their host organizations; a situation known at the time as the “transfer of training” problem.

The Evolution of the Learning Company The means to overcome this transfer challenge could be the Learning Company (S3): an organisation that facilitates the learning of all its members and consciously transforms itself and its context.  (Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell 1996: 3)

P1

Lack of skilled workers

S1

P2

Systematic training

Poor transfer of training

S2

P3

Rigidity: No integration of individual & organizational learning

Self-development; Action Learning– Work-based learning

Figure 6.1.  The evolution of the learning company.

S3

P4

Learning Company

?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning Company: The Learning Organization   89 We chose the warm word “company”1 over the more mechanical sounding ­“organization” to denote any group of people working together and acting in concert. It implies relationships, individual and collective, and the learning applies to all those engaged in any joint enterprise—public, private, or voluntary. Individuals could learn, but so could teams, groups, and other collectivities, including, as in the above quotation, the wider and external context of partnerships within which any enterprise operates.2

What Does It Look Like? How does a Learning Company work and what does it look like? Our research turned up many examples of what we saw as good practice, which we composited into an ideal type with eleven dimensions or characteristics of the Learning Company (11Cs):

1. A learning approach to strategy; 2. Participative policy making; 3. Informating; 4. Formative accounting and control; 5. Internal exchange; 6. Reward flexibility; 7. Enabling structures; 8. Boundary workers as environmental scanners; 9. Inter-company learning; 10. A learning climate; 11. Self-development opportunities for all.

Working in conferences, consortia, and consultancy projects we developed instruments to enable organizational assessments via this 11Cs mode, including a 110 item questionnaire (Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell  2000), covering each characteristic in some detail. Table 6.1 shows a summary of the 11Cs.

The E-Flow of the Learning Company Alongside the 11Cs we created other models and tools to bring about the vision. The Energy Flow or E-Flow model (Pedler et al. 1991: 29–33) attempts a living representation of how energy flows—or not—around a given community. Whilst the 11Cs provides a useful way of profiling corporate learning performance, the E-Flow offers an analysis of 1  From the Latin “com pane”—to break bread together. 2  The quoted definition is from the second 1996 edition, which adds “and its context” to the original and more inward-looking definition of the first edition (Pedler et al. 1991: 1).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

90   Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne

Table 6.1  Short descriptions of the 11Cs of the learning company Learning company characteristic

Brief description

1.  A learning approach to strategy

The development of policy and strategy is treated as an ongoing learning process, implying that strategy is not seen as the end of a development process.

2.  Participative policy making

As many people as possible are involved in the policy or strategy-making process. Employees are seen as members and encouraged to participate and debate major policy decisions. Other stakeholders such as suppliers, customers. and business partners have opportunities to contribute.

3. Informating

Information technology is used for sharing knowledge and mutual awareness rather than leaving the computers to the IT experts.

4.  Formative accounting and control

Accounting and control processes providing feedback for understanding the effects of action, learning, and decision making. These processes are open and transparent.

5.  Internal exchange

Departments and functions see each other as customers and suppliers which helps them build collaborative relationships and test the extent to which they receive and provide good service.

6.  Reward flexibility

The assumptions and values underlying reward systems are made explicit and discussed. As well as remuneration, rewards include incentives for learning and non-financial benefits such as free time.

7.  Enabling structures

Organizational structures and processes both enable learning and are flexible enough to shift, adapt, and accommodate to changes resulting from learning.

8.  Boundary workers as environmental scanners

Everyone with outside connections, especially front line people in touch with suppliers, customers, and other stakeholders, is expected to help with scanning the environment and collecting information and ideas to improve organizational processes.

9. Inter-company learning

A willingness and ability to learn with and from other organizations through benchmarking, joint projects, partnering, etc. This implies overcoming the fear that competitors will exploit learning partnerships.

10.  Learning climate

A culture and climate that fosters learning. Unlike in a “blame culture,” members look for feedback from responsible experimentation and learning from any success or failure.

11. Self-development opportunities for all

Resources and facilities for learning are made available to everyone. Self-management and self-development are expected, encouraged, and supported.

the vital flows of energy (information, power, creativity, etc.) that make any enterprise go. The four flows of Policy, Operations, Ideas, and Actions (see Figure 6.2), may operate freely and productively or may be blocked or partially obstructed. Energy blockages occur for example where there is no link between the Ideas of individual members and the collective Policies enacted by the directors, or where people have plenty of Ideas, but are not encouraged or allowed to put them into Actions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning Company: The Learning Organization   91 Directing Collective

POLICY

OPERATIONS

Participating

Individual

Managing

IDEAS

ACTION Learning

Inner

Outer

Figure 6.2.  The E-Flow model. Source: Pedler et al. (2000).

Working with the E-Flow offers an action and learning process to help free up the flows of energy within a company, and between it and its customers and stakeholders. In contrast to the diagnostic blueprint of 11Cs, the E-Flow is more mandala than model giving a more dynamic reading of the organizational state of affairs. Whilst the value of a blueprint is in showing an ideal type, active reading of the E-Flow by organizational members can detect vital signs of life and also those more morbid areas requiring attention (Pedler et al. 2000). When we were developing these ideas we faced several challenges. The first was to develop the “applications technology” to enable the ideas to be enacted. We developed and tested these tools to help people to try out the ideas through consultancy projects, working with Learning Company consortia and writing up papers and reports. They appeared in various forms and including The 11 Characteristics of the Learning Company: Diagnostic Instruments (Learning Company Project 1996), a self, career, and organization development guide for managers (Burgoyne 1999), and the The Learning Company Toolkit (Pedler et al. 2000). A second challenge was to integrate Learning Company ideas with other con­tem­por­ ary developments. These included the “Excellence” and quality management movements and the emerging field of Knowledge Management (KM) (Blackler 1995). KM recognizes the key role of learning in producing valuable organizational knowledge, and seeks to codify the relationships between data, information, knowledge, and action in a learning cycle so as to continue producing new data. This approach to the learning organization has been popular as a means of grounding abstract notions in more concrete and measurable terms, and has been taken up by practitioners in functions such as Human Resources, Information Technology, and Systems, which often operate as sep­ar­ ate communities of practice. A third challenge is posed by the criticisms of the Learning Company and learning organization ideas. These began shortly after the ideas emerged and continue to the ­present day. Taken together they form the strands of a critique which have become

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

92   Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne clearer over time, drawing attention to aspects which demand responses if the ideas are to continue to be useful.

What’s Wrong with the Learning Company? Learning Company and organization ideas have attracted criticisms from both practitioners and researchers almost from their inception. This critique is important as a means of finding new insights into an idea that still compels attention as a vision for organizing. Five strands are considered below; being the arguments that:

1. organizations cannot learn; 2. Learning Company ideas are naive about power and politics; 3. and are also naive about the nature and dynamics of tacit knowledge; 4. the ideas are easily “captured” and used to obscure non-developmental regimes; 5. in any case, not all learning is good.

1. Organizations cannot learn. This is the “commonsense” argument that it is people who learn and that this attribute cannot be applied to the abstract notion of or­gan­iza­tions (Belasco 1998). Response: First, and empirically, organizations do sometimes appear to learn in that they change how they behave as collections of people. A second argument, implied in the Learning Company ideas, is that much investment in individual learning is wasted without some larger commitment to support, harvest, and generalize this learning for organizational benefit. Watkins and Marsick (1993), for example, discuss learning at different levels—individual, team, organizational, and societal. A learning organization aims to build learning into members’ everyday work experiences and nurtures team learning to contribute to the wider capacity for change and collaboration. Finally, as Örtenblad (2005) notes, the learning organization as metaphor invites an act of imagining: what would an organization look like if it could learn? 1a. Organizations have become too fragmented to be able to learn. In this variation it is argued that the new forms of highly networked, devolved, autonomized organizations are not connected enough to learn (Abzug and Mezias 1993). Response: Where this is true it poses a serious problem for any organization or society, as numerous case studies of disasters consequent upon breakdowns in communication and intelligence demonstrate (Turner 1976). On the other hand, loosely coupled networks can have great advantages when it comes to learning and knowledge exchange (Goold and Campbell  2002: 337). Autonomy in dispersed units and freedom from central control can encourage experiment and organizational adaptability. 2. The Learning Company is naive about power and politics. A frequent criticism is that these ideas assume a naive willingness to share organizational power, information, and rewards. In practice, most organizations distribute these assets very unequally, creating

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning Company: The Learning Organization   93 a democratic deficit which any would-be learning organization needs to confront (Coopey 1995). Variations on this critique include: 2a. There is inalienable conflict between the stakeholders in any organization. The Learning Company assumes that it can get better at pleasing all the people all the time, but the interests of stakeholders, as for example between those with stakes in capital and  those whose only stake is in their labor, are in fundamental conflict (Adams, Brockington, Dyson, and Vira 2003). 2b. Too much recycled 1970s “soft OD” (Organization Development). It is alleged that much of what is practiced under the Learning Company banner is a re-badged ­version of the optimistic “openness-love-trust soft OD” movement of the 1970s (Burgoyne 2012). Response: This critique is difficult to dismiss and often rings true. On the specific point of “inalienable conflict”: to the extent that this is true, there can still be better and worse ways of living with it. Collective bargaining is one way. Other approaches for resolving differences, such as dialogue based on “ideal speech” notions (Fryer 2011) or on “agonistic liberalism” (Mouffe 2000) which maintain a commitment to living with conflict rather than pretending to resolve it, may be examined with caution. What seems clear is that any adequate prescription for the Learning Company needs to address this challenge, allowing for it in any theory and recognizing it in practice. We need better arrangements for dealing with issues of power and politics that protect differences and the spaces for learning from them. 3. The Learning Company is naive about the nature and dynamics of tacit knowledge. This specific charge of naivety concerns the claim that the “knowledge-creating company” (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) can convert “tacit” knowledge into an explicit recipe. Whilst tacit knowledge is understood to make up a significant proportion of the knowhow on which organizational performance depends, it cannot easily, or not at all, be made explicit. This problem applies to many approaches to organizational learning and knowledge management (Blackler 1995). Response: This is an unresolved point. The sharing of knowledge is an important aspect of Learning Company aspirations, but the nature and shareability of tacit know­ledge remains in dispute. Whatever solutions can be found here are likely to be complex as they involve questions of power and equality, of learning design as well as of the technical issues of translation. 4. The Learning Company is easily “captured” and used to obscure non-developmental regimes. Associated with charges of naivety and too much “soft OD” this strand of the critique argues that Learning Company initiatives often turn out to be cover-ups for more manipulative change strategies, intended to keep people happy whilst their le­git­im­ate rights and interests are being undermined. 4a. The ideas are exploited to appropriate individuals’ intellectual property. In the era of “knowledge work” and the “knowledge intensive” firm, learning organization strategies can be used in the illegitimate appropriation of personal intellectual property. This is a form of institutional theft (Cornish and Llewelyn 2007).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

94   Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne Response: This remains a crucial issue. Some of the overblown complexity of current HRM practice can be understood as clumsy attempts to deal with this. The discussion of transactional versus transformational leadership often favors the former, but the latter may help here (van Knippenberg and Sitkin 2013). The comments above about collective bargaining and dialogue also apply here, along with “clean” psychological contracts and organizational arrangements to promote collaborative working. The charge of institutional theft requires the appropriate safeguarding of intellectual property rights. However, such solutions are unlikely to work in situations of asymmetric power or where the determination to exploit is unfettered by regulation and legislation. 5. Not all learning is a good thing. This fundamental criticism applies both at individual and corporate levels. Learning is a more problematic notion than is often assumed. Because it tends always to be seen in a positive light, the discourse of learning has become dominant and “seems to have become constituted as truth” (Contu, Grey, and Örtenblad 2003: 933). Hsu (2013) specifically criticizes the learning organization on the grounds that by helping some businesses to become better at what they do, this idea may have helped exacerbate social problems such as inequality and climate change. 5a. A critical need for unlearning. This significant extension of the theme proposes that bad learning should be unlearned. Many examples show that knowledge and learning can be put to work in ways that constitute threats to health and ways of life. Organizations learn to do bad things, and to do bad things better, for example by encouraging smoking, gambling, and unhealthy eating, and by more efficiently pro­du­ cing products that damage the planet. The protection afforded by limited liability encourages and even obliges companies to behave in ways that, if done by individuals, would be designated “pathological” (Bakan 2005: 17). If learning organization ideas have contributed to this worsening of wicked problems, then there is a need for the “unlearning organization” (Hsu 2013). Response: Agreed. A moment’s reflection reveals that quite a lot of individual learning can be harmful to oneself and/or to others. Any therapeutic strategy is as much to do with unlearning the old and harmful ways of thinking, learning, and doing as it is to do with acquiring new insights (Brook, Pedler, Abbott, and Burgoyne  2016; Pedler and Hsu 2014). In summary, to the extent that this multi-stranded critique holds, it has obvious implications for any new proposals for the Learning Company. Alongside the critique there is also the question of how the world has changed since the ideas were first developed. The next section briefly reviews the wider context then and now.

What Has Changed since the 1990s? On first appearance in the late 1980s, the learning organization seemed to spring up independently in several different places (Garratt 1987; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Pedler et al. 1991; Senge 1990; Watkins and Marsick 1993). In fact, there were many important antecedents to this emergence and as Figure 6.1 shows, the Learning Company was born

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning Company: The Learning Organization   95 into an era shaped by notions of “Excellence” (Peters and Waterman 1982) and “Total Quality Management” (Deming 1982). Many work or­gan­iza­tions, having taken up the management systems pioneered by Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford, were at this time experiencing crises of bureaucracy, as their “scientific” and “Fordist” routines acted as barriers to change and impediments to innovation (De Grazia 2005). The ability to learn from customers, suppliers, partners, and especially the people who make up an organization is a desirable capability in any enterprise at any time, but the late 1980s and early 1990s put a particular spotlight on learning as a recipe for cor­por­ate survival and renewal. This stemmed partly from doubts that were undermining earlier prescriptions for corporate success. For example, just a few years after their book appeared, some of Peters and Waterman’s “Excellent” companies, as measured primarily by financial performance, were no longer excellent. The new idea was corporate learning, and it was promoted not only as a means of survival (De Geus 1988) but as the source of true competitive advantage (Senge 1990). In the coming era of global hyper-competition, the ability to learn was critical, and any inability to learn likely to put an organization at severe disadvantage. Companies as well as individuals could suffer from “learning disabilities,” which were likely to be serious, and even fatal, in the battle to stay ahead of the competition (Senge 1990: 17–26). In the last thirty years there have been significant changes in the ways organizations work. Globalization, automation, information technology, and virtualization have transformed systems and processes, whilst socially and politically, the times are also much different. The 1989 wave of revolutions which swept through Eastern Europe and climaxed in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union marked a turning point in political history. As the long Cold War period came to an end, the neoliberal economic systems and representative democracies of Western nations were pronounced triumphant. In the West at least the world felt more stable, people were becoming better off, and the ascent, from prison to president, of Nelson Mandela promised a more hopeful epoch. Since then some of the shine has come off. Globalization, which has helped bring about improvements in countless lives, especially in China, India, and other Asian countries, has not delivered either just and equitable societies or a stable world order. If there is now more awareness of a common planetary humanity, it brings with it an awareness of intractable and “wicked” problems, so far immune to known solutions. The challenges of creating political stability, relieving enduring poverty, dealing with widening inequalities, and responding to environmental crises look more difficult than ever. The ecological health of the planet has emerged as the biggest problem of all. Visible well before 1990, it was not, and is still not, in full public consciousness. Balancing the needs of growing numbers of humans with those of the Earth’s ecosystems is the “super wicked problem” of our times (Levin, Cashore, Bernstein, and Auld 2012): a situation in which we urgently want positive change whilst at the same time making it worse by the ways in which we continue to live. This is not a problem just for individual action, however heroic, nor even for single nations, however powerful, yet prospects for the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

96   Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne necessary global governance seem remote with nationalism and protectionism once more on the rise. Despite the remarkable technological and scientific advances there are reasons to doubt our collective will and abilities to survive and flourish.

Is the Learning Company Still Alive? Has the learning organization had its day? Or is it still a valid and powerful formula for collective survival and renewal? The accumulated weight of the critique and the changes of the last thirty years suggest that 1990s conceptions are no longer fit for purpose; can they be revisioned and reformulated to be relevant and useful today? In 2013 we surveyed some change management practitioners and asked them if they thought that the Learning Company and learning organization ideas were still alive (Pedler and Burgoyne 2017). Respondents were split on the question: some remained enthusiastic about the ideas and were using the models and materials in their work; ­others thought that it had been superseded by newer ideas. Different people said that: • the workplace of today is much changed, with more contractual relationships, less predictable careers and people have less expectations of, and attachment to, organizations; • the rise of metrics-based performance management pushes out learning orientations: one person said: The emphasis on high performance in organizations has tended to diminish the learning aspects; • the learning organization is alive but it lives on under different names including leadership, innovation, knowledge networking, workplace learning, network organizing, mobilizing collective intelligence, etc. Stronger evidence of continuing life comes from both academic and practitioner literatures and from cases in consultancy practice. A continuing flow of articles and books suggests that learning organization and organizational learning are living topics of interest. Organizational learning, as distinguished from the learning organization (Easterby-Smith, Araujo, and Burgoyne 1999), has been more the preserve of academics, yet in practice these ideas coincide and overlap to such a degree that there is an argument for considering them to be part of one field (Pedler and Hsu 2019). Tsang, for example, proposes that “a learning organization is one which is good at organizational learning” (1997: 50), also noting in a more recent review that a learning organization is “good at both learning and unlearning” (2017: 46). There is also support in the literature for those practitioners who argue that these ideas have had continued lives under other guises. These include knowledge management (Blackler 1995), which can be seen to have reinvented learning as the process for generating new knowledge; absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 2000; Laaksonen and Peltoniemi 2018), or an organization’s ability to value, assimilate, and use new outside

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning Company: The Learning Organization   97 knowledge; and dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997), or processes that organizations can develop in order to change and rejuvenate themselves. Others listed by our respondents included work-based learning (Raelin 2008), seen as being potentially both individual and collective, and the innovating organization (Pettigrew and Fenton 2000). These ideas can also be seen to link organizational learning with the learning organization, as for example, when applied to organizational strategy. Learning organization ideas have also attracted attention from other disciplines, including for example development economists seeking to understand the causes of low productivity and to establish the conditions for innovation in knowledge-based economies (Stiglitz and Greenwald 2014). Where cases of practice are concerned, one of the authors recently conducted ­con­sult­ancy projects with two charitable bodies. The two organizations were reviewed against the 11Cs and E-flow models (Pedler et al. 1991) and the resulting profiles revealed them to be similar in several respects, as for example, in being strong on culture but weak on systems and procedures. Both subsequently implemented changes based on the analyses. Canadian and US colleagues also report current examples of usage in demonstrating a continuing validity where the perspective is new and appropriate. Case ex­peri­ence also provides more indirect evidence of continuing influence, albeit in a somewhat backhanded way: the HR director of a large pharmaceutical firm told us that whilst they had used learning organization ideas to shape their thinking and practice, he and the CEO agreed that they would never publicly label themselves in this way because “the stock market might think they had gone soft.” We might point out that, for example, the 11Cs includes several “harder” aspects of organizing, such as strategy, IT, accounting systems, and so on, but we can’t argue with the perceptions and the possible significances of the words. The language of learning does not always play well and is consequently variously translated in organizational settings.

Where next? In the second edition of our book (Pedler et al.  1996: 4), we propose a stage model describing three purposes or motivating forces that might underlie the drive to the Learning Company: A Stage Model of the Learning Company Stage 1:  SURVIVING—Companies that develop basic habits and processes and deal with problems as they arise on a “fire-fighting” basis. Stage 2:  ADAPTING—Companies that continuously adapt their habits in the light of accurate readings and forecasts of environmental changes. Stage 3:  SUSTAINING—Companies that create their contexts as much as they are created by them, who achieve a sustainable, though adaptive, position in a symbiotic relationship with their environments.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

98   Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne The visions of the 1990s were preoccupied with notions of competitive advantage (Porter 1985) and focused on survival and adaptability to environmental change. Some businesses who adopted learning organization ideas prospered and grew in reach and power, but as noted earlier, this may not have contributed to any overall capacity to deal with wicked problems (Hsu 2013). As often more powerful than governments, successful and global organizations are not easily held accountable for their actions, which can include using up the non-renewable resources of land, water and minerals, whilst creating waste and toxicities. Nor can they be relied on to share their gains equitably or pay local taxes on their surpluses, which are often repatriated or held invisibly offshore. The Stage 3 vision for the Learning Company suggests something very different from these survivalist and competitive struggles: . . . learning companies not only adapt to their environments and learn from their people, they also contribute to the learning of the wider community or context of which they are a part. Stage 3 organisational learning is not just individual or organisational or contextual—but sim­ul­tan­eous­ly all three. This is the dream—that we can create organisations which are capable of changing, developing and transforming themselves in response to the needs and aspirations of people inside and outside the company and which enrich and sustain the wider world of which they are a part.  (Pedler et al. 1996: 4, italics in original)

This remains the dream—yet to materialize on any significant scale—but not only still valid, but as standing in even more urgent need of realization. We end this chapter with a developed version of these three stages now interpreted as four “Stances” of the Learning Company.

Four Stances of the Learning Company To explain the shift that we see as necessary to make the Learning Company fit for ­purpose in the present era, the idea of “Stances” is useful. The Four Stances of the Learning Company originate in work by Boydell and colleagues describing seven stages or “modes” of being and learning (Leary, Boydell, van Boeschoten, and Carlisle 1986). In the second edition of our book, we collapsed these modes into three types of learning (Pedler et al.  1996: 202–8), and these were subsequently elaborated and renamed as Stances to denote ways of standing in the world (Boydell 2000; Blantern, Boydell, and Burgoyne 2013). The Four Stances are ways of looking at the world, as an individual, as a group, or as an organization. Rather than as a hierarchy, the Stances are better seen as nested within each other, like a Russian matryoshka doll, as in Figure 6.3. STANCE 1:  DOING THINGS WELL. Getting things right, according to established practice. Learning to follow rules, procedures, and accepted ways of doing things. What is to be done (strategy/policy) is decided by leaders whilst managers determine the how (methods) and pass this on to staff.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning Company: The Learning Organization   99 STANCE 4 Doing things that matter in the world STANCE 3 Doing better thingstogether

STANCE 2 Doing things better

STANCE 1 Doing things well

Figure 6.3.  Four stances of the learning company.

STANCE 2:  DOING THINGS BETTER. Improving how we do things. Leaders determine the vision and mission and motivate managers and staff to “buy in.” There is a commitment to learning and training and a striving for continuous improvement. STANCE 3:  DOING BETTER THINGS—TOGETHER with multiple and diverse partners including external stakeholders, customers, suppliers, clients, users, and neighbors. Collective leadership is facilitated by “leader midwives” who bring together multi-stakeholder groups and create conditions conducive to learning to work together on the wicked problems that concern them all through shared visioning, decision making, reflection, and mutual accountability. This can include moves towards Stance 4 through bringing in natural or social ecological “stakeholders” such as climate, atmosphere, water, soil, equality, ethics. STANCE 4:  DOING THINGS THAT REALLY MATTER TO THE WORLD in a fuller “ECO awareness” (Scharmer and Kaufer 2013) with commitment to both the social and natural ecologies. In all sectors, people take leadership to ask: “How does our organisation impact society? How should it impact society? Is our growth as a business, nonprofit organisation, or government agency healthy and sustainable in a changing world? What is our strategy for creating positive societal impact?” (Asif and Palus 2014: 2).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

100   Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne

Table 6.2  Matrix of the 11Cs and the four stances of the learning company The 4 Stances The 11 Cs

STANCE 1 Doing things well

STANCE 2 Doing things better

STANCE 3 Doing better things—together

From EGO—

STANCE 4 Doing things that matter in the world —to ECO

1. STRATEGY

Habitual— Corporate business survival & strategy process maintenance

Learning approach to strategy

Service & learning on behalf of the whole (world)

2. POLICY MAKING

Top-down direction

Planning process—directors & consultants

Participative policy making

Social/ecological responsibility

3. INFORMATION Announcement & PROCESS instruction

Briefing + Q&A + feedback

Informating

Global awareness for local action

4. ACCOUNTING Single bottom & CONTROL line

For profit & customer satisfaction

Formative accounting & control

Investing in learning on behalf of the whole

5. INTERNAL FLOWS

Mainly top-down

Two-way via mgt & Internal exchange— dept. meetings all units as customers & clients

Networking inside and outside with like-minded collaborators

6. REWARDS

Financial hierarchy of pay

Performancerelated pay

Reward flexibility + alternatives to £

Making wider contributions for well-being of all

7. STRUCTURES

Designed for hierarchical control

Central direction + local mgt. of operations

Enabling structures— Multiple—includallow flexibility for ing local networks learning & global alliances

8. SCANNING

Relies on director awareness

Systematic scanning by senior people

Boundary workers as environmental scanners

Dialogue within & without with many partners & collaborators

9. CORPORATE LEARNING

Single loop

Industry benchmarking

Inter-company learning via exchanges, joint projects etc.

Collective learning to support re-purposing toward strategic goals

10. LEARNING CLIMATE

Needs permission

Support for approved learning

General support for Learning from the continuous improve- tackling of wicked ment for everyone problems

11. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

Training as and when needed

Systematic training Self-development at all levels opportunities for all

Corporate mindfulness, presencing, & eco-awareness

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning Company: The Learning Organization   101 Each of the Four Stances is governed by different principles with implications for policy and practice. As applied to the Learning Company, and therefore to matters of organizing, managing, and leading, the Stance taken will affect the formation of strategy and the enactment of operations and procedures. Whilst each Stance represents a self-sufficient and viable worldview, taken together they can also be seen as implying movement through a series of stages. In this sense of progression, they move from being more “Ego-centered” in Stance 1 to being more “Eco-centered” in Stance 4 (Scharmer and Kaufer 2013). In Table 6.2, we combine the Four Stances with the 11Cs of the Learning Company to illustrate how they might be translated within and across these four perspectives and worldviews.

In Conclusion We began with a reprise of Learning Company models developed thirty years ago and considered the critique which has developed together with a brief review of changes in the historical context since then. We conclude that the old models do not stand up to these tests and that new concepts are needed to replace those which were based on individual and organizational comparative and competitive advantage. To meet the needs of the present, a new vision has to go beyond the sustainable development added in our second edition (Pedler et al. 1996: 4) to embrace a regenerative purpose with an ambition to benefit the widest range of social and ecological “stakeholders.” These ideas are taken up in a later chapter in this book: “The Future of the Learning Organization” (Chapter 31).

References Abzug, R., and S.  J.  Mezias. 1993. “The Fragmented State and Due Process Protection in Organizations: The Case of Comparable Worth.” Organization Science 4 (3): pp. 433–53. Adams, W.  M., D.  Brockington, J.  Dyson, and B.  Vira. 2003. “Managing Tragedies: Understanding Conflict over Common Resource Pools.” Science 302 (5652): pp. 1915–16. Asif, V., and C. J. Palus. 2014. Leadership Strategies for Societal Impact. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Bakan, J. 2005. The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. London: Constable. Belasco, J. A. 1998. “Learning Organization.” Executive Excellence 15 (7): p. 17. Blackler, F. 1995. “Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation.” Organization Studies 16 (6): pp. 1021–46. Blantern, C. J., T. H. Boydell, and J. G. Burgoyne. 2013. “‘The Learning Organization’—Drop the Dead Metaphor! Performing Organizing and Learning Networks (So to Speak).” In Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context, ed. A. Örtenblad, pp. 306–57. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

102   Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell, and John Burgoyne Boydell, T. H. 2000. Doing Things Well, Doing Things Better, Doing Better Things: A Guide to Effective Learning. Sheffield: Inter-Logics. Brook, C., M. Pedler, C. Abbott, and J. Burgoyne. 2016. “On Stopping Doing Those Things That are Not Getting Us to Where We Want to Be: Unlearning, Wicked Problems and Critical Action Learning.” Human Relations 69 (2): pp. 369–89. Burgoyne, J. G. 1999. Develop Yourself, Your Career and Your Organization. London: Lemos & Crane. Burgoyne, J. G. 2012. “Beyond Leadership? Is it Approaching Its Sell-By Date?” The Grove: An International Journal of Experience and Reflection 1 (1): p. 10. Cohen, W., and D. Levinthal. 2000. “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” In Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy, ed. R.  Cross and S.  Israelit, pp. 39–67. New York: Elsevier. Contu, A., C.  Grey, and A.  Örtenblad. 2003. “Against Learning.” Human Relations 56 (8): pp. 931–52. Coopey, J. 1995. “The Learning Organization, Power, Politics and Ideology.” Management Learning 26 (2): pp. 193–213. Cornish, W., and D. Llewelyn. 2007. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 6th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell. De Geus, A. 1988. “Planning as Learning.” Harvard Business Review 66 (2): pp. 70–4. De Grazia, V. 2005. Irresistible Empire: America’s Advance Through 20th-Century Europe. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Deming, W. E. 1982. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Easterby-Smith, M., L.  Araujo, and J.  Burgoyne. 1999. Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice. London: Sage. Fryer, M. 2011. “Facilitative Leadership: Drawing on Jürgen Habermas’ Model of Ideal Speech to Propose a Less Impositional Way to Lead.” Organization 19 (1): pp. 25–43. Garratt, R. 1987. The Learning Organization. London: Fontana. Goold, M., and A. Campbell. 2002. Designing Effective Organizations: How to Create Structured Networks. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Holland, G. 1986. “Excellence in Industry: Developing Managers—A New Approach.” Manpower Service Commission Speech given at the Dorchester Hotel, London 11 February. Hsu, S.-W. 2013. “Alternative Learning Organization.” In Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context, ed. A.  Örtenblad, pp. 298–308. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Laaksonen, O., and M.  Peltoniemi. 2018. “The Essence of Dynamic Capabilities and Their Measurement.” International Journal of Management Reviews 20 (2): pp. 184–205. Learning Company Project. 1996. The 11 Characteristics of the Learning Company: Diagnostic Instruments. Sheffield: Learning Company Project. Leary, M., T. H. Boydell, M. van Boeschoten, and J. Carlisle. 1986. The Qualities of Managing. Sheffield: Manpower Services Commission. Levin, K., B.  Cashore, S.  Bernstein, and G.  Auld. 2012. “Overcoming the Tragedy of Super Wicked Problems: Constraining Our Future Selves to Ameliorate Global Climate Change.” Policy Sciences 45 (2): pp. 123–52. Mouffe, C. 2000. “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?” Reihe Politikwissenschaft/ Institut für Höhere Studien, Abt. Politikwissenschaft, 72. Wien: Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), Wien. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/24654/ssoar-2000-mouffe-deliberative_democracy_or_agonistic_pluralism.pdf?sequence=1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning Company: The Learning Organization   103 Nonaka, I., and H.  Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Örtenblad, A. 2005. “Of Course Organizations Can Learn!” The Learning Organization 12 (2): pp. 213–18. Pedler, M., T.  Boydell, and J.  Burgoyne. 1988. Learning Company Project Report. Sheffield: Manpower Service Commission. Pedler, M., and J.  Burgoyne. 2017. “Is the Learning Organization Still Alive?” The Learning Organization 24 (2): pp. 119–26. Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne, and T. Boydell. 1991. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne, and T. Boydell. 1996. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, 2nd ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne, and T. Boydell. 2000. The Learning Company Toolkit. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Learning. Pedler, M., and S.-W. Hsu. 2014. “Unlearning, Critical Action Learning and Wicked Problems.” Action Learning: Research and Practice 11 (3): pp. 296–310. Pedler, M., and S.-W.  Hsu. 2019. “Regenerating the Learning Organization: Towards an Alternative Paradigm.” The Learning Organization 26 (1): pp. 97–112. Peters, T., and B. Waterman. 1982. In Search of Excellence New York: Harper & Row. Pettigrew, A., and E. Fenton. 2000. The Innovating Organization. London: Sage. Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press. Raelin, J. 2008. Work-Based Learning: Bridging Knowledge and Action in the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Scharmer, O., and K.  Kaufer. 2013. Leading from the Emerging Future. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Stiglitz, J., and B. Greenwald. 2014. Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development, and Social Progress. New York: Columbia University Press. Teece, D., G. Pisano, and A. Shuen. 1997. “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.” Strategic Management Journal 18 (7): pp. 509–33. Tsang, E. W. K. 1997. “Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy Between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research.” Human Relations 50 (1): pp. 73–89. Tsang, E. W. K. 2017. “How the Concept of Organizational Unlearning Contributes to Studies of Learning Organizations.” The Learning Organization 24 (1): pp. 39–48. Turner, B. 1976. “The Organizational and Interorganizational Development of Disasters.” Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (3): pp. 378–97. van Knippenberg, D., and S.  B.  Sitkin. 2013. “A Critical Assessment of CharismaticTransformational Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board?” The Academy of Management Annals 7 (1): pp. 1–60. Watkins, K., and V. Marsick. 1993. Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

chapter 7

Bu ildi ng L e a r n i ng Orga n iz ations W ith Action L e a r n i ng Michael J. Marquardt

Ever since Peter Senge popularized the idea of a learning organization with his 1990 book, The Fifth Discipline, organizations worldwide have sought to attain this ideal as leaders recognized the multiple financial and social benefits accrued by capturing the power of learning and action at a collective level. For many reasons, however, very few organizations have ever become learning organizations. Why not? First, becoming a learning organization is very complex and requires sig­ nificant skills and commitment to make necessary paradigmatic changes in the or­gan­ iza­tion. Second, the time between the learning acquired and the actual benefits was too long, not linear, and not easily measurable. Third, the various models of a learning organization proffered did not provide a clear, comprehensive, or successful path to the goal of becoming a learning organization. Fourth, it became much easier and meas­ur­ able to focus on knowledge management, which has too often become the alternative to organizational learning. In 1996, I introduced the Systems Model for Learning Organizations (SMLO), which included five subsystems with sixteen steps and strategies for building a learning or­gan­iza­tion (Marquardt 1996). Over the years, as I continued to refine the SMLO (Marquardt 2002, 2011), I discovered that even the SMLO, although much more detailed and comprehensive than other learning organization models (e.g., Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell 1998; Senge 1990; Watkins and Marsick 1993), was insufficient in transform­ ing organizations into true learning organizations; i.e., organizations which in­corp­­ orated learning into the planning and achievement of all goals, where the culture was focused on learning, and where organizational structure supported the free flow of knowledge both inside and outside the organization. However, over the past twenty-five years, what I have also discovered is that action learning is the best, easiest, most effective, and perhaps is the key as well as the corner­ stone of becoming a true, fully functioning learning organization.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

106   Michael J. Marquardt

The Action Learning Group—A Mini Learning Organization Action learning groups are actually mini learning organizations. Everything that occurs within an action learning session perfectly models and demonstrates how a larger learn­ ing entity can and should function. In action learning, every action can lead to learning, and every learning can be applied to action. The more action learning programs and projects there are within an organization, the more that organization will be transform­ ing into and succeeding as a true learning organization. Senge (1990) indicated that, in order for a company to become a learning or­gan­iza­ tion, it needed to be able to integrate work with learning on a daily basis, to have a cul­ ture of continuously learning from action, which action learning does quickly and consistently. Action learning groups do this because they have two equally important purposes—learning and action. Organizations that use action learning realize that solv­ ing an urgent organizational problem may be worth $10 million, but if that organization can simultaneously build six great leaders, one great team, and multiple applications and adaptations of the strategy, that learning will be worth $100 million to the or­gan­iza­ tion over the next five to ten years. Dilworth (1998) called action learning “the DNA of a learning organization” since action learning enables organizations to continuously learn on an organization-wide basis, thereby being better able to adapt to the continuously changing environment. Reg Revans (1983), a pioneer in the development of action learning, noted that action learn­ ing created constant learning opportunities for people, as it inherently creates a culture and morale for learning. So how does action learning build a learning organization? In order to describe this transformation, it will be first necessary to describe what a learning organization is as well as the components of action learning. Then I will be able to present the numerous ways in which action learning both models a true learning organization as well as dem­ onstrate how the work and learning done with an action learning group can be trans­ ferred to the entire organization.

What is a Learning Organization? A learning organization is an organization that continuously learns, adapts, and improves; and is able to systematically connect the improved learning to the planning and achieving of organizational goals. The learning organization is built on five subsys­ tems: learning, organization, people, knowledge, and technology (see Figure 7.1). These five subsystems are closely interrelated and interface and support one another. The core

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Building Learning Organizations with Action Learning   107

Organization

People

Learning

Knowledge

Technology

Figure 7.1.  Five subsystems of a learning organization. Source: After Marquardt et al. (2018).

subsystem of the learning organization is learning and this dimension permeates the other four subsystems. Each of the other subsystems—organization, people, knowledge, and technology—is necessary to enhance and augment the quality and impact of the learning. They are the indispensable partners essential for building, maintaining, and sustaining learning and productivity in the learning organization. Let us now briefly examine each of the five dimensions of a fully-functioning learning organization. Learning subsystem. This subsystem refers to (a) levels of learning, (b) types of learn­ ing crucial for organizational learning, and (c) critical organizational learning skills. Learning occurs at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Types of learning include anticipatory and adaptive. The key learning skills are systems thinking, mental models, personal mastery, self-directed learning, and dialogue. Organization subsystem. The second subsystem of a learning organization is the organization itself, the setting and body in which the learning itself occurs. The four key dimensions or components of this subsystem are vision, culture, strategy, and structure. Vision encompasses a company’s hopes, goals, and direction for the future. It is the image of the organization that is cultivated within the company itself and then transmit­ ted to those outside the organization. Culture refers to an organization’s values, beliefs, practices, rituals, and customs. It helps shape behavior and fashion perceptions. In a learning organization, the corporate culture is one in which learning is recognized as absolutely critical for business success; in such an organization, learning has become a habitual and integrated part of all organizational functions. Strategy relates to the action plans, methodologies, tactics, and steps employed to achieve a company’s vision and goals. In a learning organization, strategies optimize the learning acquired, transferred, and utilized in all company actions and operations. Structure includes the company’s departments, levels, and configurations. A learning organization is a streamlined,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

108   Michael J. Marquardt unbounded, flat structure that maximizes contact, information flow, local responsibility, and collaboration within and outside the organization People subsystem. This subsystem involves learning and reflective actions by a whole array of people both inside and outside the organization, including managers/leaders, employees, customers, and business partners (suppliers, vendors, and subcontractors) as well as by the communities in which the organization operates. Each of these groups is a part of the learning chain, and all need to be both empowered and enabled to learn. Managers and leaders carry out coaching, mentoring, and modeling roles with the pri­ mary responsibility of generating and enhancing learning opportunities for the people around them. Employees are empowered and expected to learn, plan for their future competencies, take action and risks, and solve problems. Customers participate by identifying needs, receiving training, and establishing a connection to the learning of the organization. Business partners and alliances benefit by sharing competencies and knowledge. Suppliers and vendors receive and contribute to instructional programs. Community groups such as social, educational, and economic agencies share in provid­ ing and receiving learning. Knowledge subsystem. The knowledge subsystem refers to the management of acquired and generated knowledge. It includes the (1) acquisition, (2) creation, (3) storage, (4) analysis and data mining, (5) transfer and dissemination, and (6) application and validation of knowledge. Knowledge is gained both internally and externally and is available to everyone inside and outside the organization as needed and as appropriate. Technology subsystem. The technology subsystem is composed of supporting, inte­ grated technological networks and information tools that allow access to and exchange of information and learning. It includes technical processes, systems, and structures for collaboration, coaching, coordination, and other knowledge skills. It encompasses elec­ tronic tools and advanced methods for learning, such as simulation, computer confer­ encing, and collaboration. All these tools work to create knowledge freeways. The two major components of the technology subsystem apply to managing knowledge and enhancing learning. Technology for managing knowledge refers to the computer-based technology that gathers, codes, stores, and transfers information across organizations and worldwide. Technology for enhancing learning involves the utilization of video, audio, and computer-based multimedia training for the purpose of delivering and developing knowledge and skills.

What is Action Learning? Action learning is a dynamic process that involves a small group of people solving real and complex problems, while at the same time learning and identifying how their learn­ ing can benefit each group member, the entire group, and the organization as a whole. This model contains six interactive and interdependent components (as shown in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Building Learning Organizations with Action Learning   109 PROBLEM GROUP

COACH

LEARNING

QUESTIONS ACTION

Figure 7.2.  Six components of action learning. Source: After Marquardt et al. (2018).

Figure 7.2), which build upon and reinforce one another. The results are smarter and more skilled individuals and teams that can more quickly and creatively solve problems and develop breakthrough strategies (Marquardt, Banks, Cauwelier, and Ng  2018; Marquardt and Yeo 2012).

1.  A Problem (Project, Challenge, Opportunity, Issue, or Task) Action learning centers around a problem, project, challenge, issue, or task, the reso­ lution of which is of high importance to an individual, team, and/or organization. The problem should be significant, urgent, and be the responsibility of the team to solve. It should also provide an opportunity for the group to generate learning opportunities, to build knowledge, and to develop individual, team, and organizational skills. Groups may focus on a single problem of the organization or multiple problems introduced by individual group members.

2.  An Action Learning Group or Team The action learning group is ideally composed of four to eight individuals who examine an organizational problem that has no easily identifiable solution. The group should have diversity of background and experience so as to acquire various perspectives and to encourage fresh viewpoints. Depending upon the action learning problem, groups may be volunteers or be appointed, may be from various functions or departments, may include individuals from other organizations or professions, and may involve suppliers as well as customers.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

110   Michael J. Marquardt

3.  A Process That Emphasizes Insightful Questioning and Reflective Listening Action learning emphasizes questions and reflection above statements and opinions. By focusing on the right questions rather than the right answers, action learning focuses on what one does not know as well as on what one does know. It recognizes that a group must first clarify and agree as to the exact nature of the problem, and then identify pos­ sible solutions before taking action. Questions build group dialogue and cohesiveness, generate innovative and systems thinking, enhance learning results, and develop leader­ ship and team skills.

4.  Taking Action on the Problem Members of the action learning group must have the power to take action themselves or be assured that their recommendations will be implemented (barring any significant change in the environment or the organization’s lack of essential information). If the group only makes recommendations, it loses its energy, creativity, and commitment. There is no real meaningful or practical learning until action is taken and reflected upon, for one is never sure an idea or plan will be effective until it has been implemented. During every action learning session, decisions are made; and after every action learn­ ing session, actions are taken.

5.  A Commitment to Learning Solving an organizational problem provides immediate, short-term benefits to the com­ pany. The greater, longer-term, multiplier benefit, however, is the learning gained by each group member as well as the group as a whole, and how those learnings are applied on a systems-wide basis throughout the organization. Thus, the learning that occurs in action learning has greater value strategically for the organization than the immediate tactical advantage of early problem correction. Accordingly, action learning places equal emphasis on the learning and development of individuals and the team as it does on the solving of problems—for the smarter the group becomes, the quicker and better will be the quality of its decision making and action-taking.

6.  An Action Learning Coach Coaching is necessary for the group to focus on the important (i.e., the learnings) as well as the urgent (resolving the problem). The action learning coach helps the team mem­ bers reflect both on what they are learning and how they are solving problems. Through a series of questions, the coach enables group members to reflect on how they listen,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Building Learning Organizations with Action Learning   111 how they may have reframed the problem, how they give each other feedback, how they are planning and working, and what assumptions may be shaping their beliefs and actions. The learning coach also helps the team focus on what they are achieving, what they are finding difficult, what processes they are employing, and the implications of these processes. The coaching role may be rotated among members of the group or may be a person assigned to that role throughout the duration of the group’s existence.

How Action Learning Works Action learning groups may meet for one time or several times, depending on the com­ plexity of the problem and the time available for its resolution. The action learning ses­ sion may take place for one entire day, for a few hours over a few days, or over several months. A group may handle one or many problems. Whatever the time frame, action learning generally operates along these stages and procedures: Formation of group. The group can be volunteers or appointed, and can work on a single organizational problem or each other’s department’s problems. The group will have a predetermined amount of time and sessions, or it may determine the time parameters at the first meeting. Presentation of problem or task to group. The problem is briefly presented to the group by the problem presenter, who can remain as a member of the group or withdraw and await the group’s recommendations. Reframing the problem. After a series of questions, the group, often with the guidance of the action learning coach, will reach a consensus on the most critical and important problem the group should work on, and the group should establish the crux of the prob­ lem, which might differ from the original presenting problem. Determining goals. Once the key problem or issue has been identified, the group seeks consensus for the goal, the achievement of which would solve the reframed problem for the long-term with positive rather than negative consequences on the individual, team, or organization. Developing action strategies. Much of the time and energy of the group will be spent identifying and pilot-testing possible action strategies. Like the preceding stages of action learning, strategies are developed via reflective inquiry and dialogue. Taking action. Between action learning sessions, the group as a whole, as well as individ­ ual members, collect information, identify status of support, and implement the strategies developed and agreed to by the group. Capturing learning. Throughout and at any point during the sessions, the action learning coach may intervene to ask the group members questions that will enable them to clarify the problem, develop breakthrough strategies, find ways to improve their performance as a group, and identify how their learning can be applied to develop themselves, the team, and the organization.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

112   Michael J. Marquardt

How Action Learning Contributes to Building a Learning Organization Now that the basic systems of a learning organization as well as the key components of action learning have been described, let’s explore how action learning can build each of the five learning subsystems of a learning organization.

How Action Learning Builds the Learning Subsystem The learning subsystem includes learning at the individual, group, and organizational level as well as the types and skills of learning. When individuals become members of an action learning group, they are immediately informed that the group has two ­purposes—to solve the problem and to learn. The action learning coach regularly asks questions that enable members to become ever more aware of their learnings and how these learnings can be applied in their organization and in their lives. Levels of learning. In action learning, individuals develop learning how to learn skills, improve their questioning which is the essence of learning, and learn while doing which is the most powerful way to learn. Throughout the action learning process, there is an emphasis on how the group can continue to expand upon and speed up their knowledge and learning capacities. Members are encouraged and expected to take risks and be innovative. The culture in an action learning group is one in which learning is expected, rewarded, encouraged, and continuous, and one in which the learning is valued as much as action. Perhaps there may be no greater demonstration of true team learning than an action learning session during which the team develops common basic assumptions, a common understanding of the problem, and common growth in creating new know­ ledge (Marquardt, 1999). Types of learning. Action learning programs strive for and develop the other two types of learning, adaptive and anticipatory. Adaptive learning occurs when, in reflecting on past actions, the group attempts to develop a new action that represents a better response to the environment. Through its analysis of a variety of possible future scenarios or probable effects of different actions, the group acquires anticipatory learning skills. Action learning sets generate innovative, creative knowledge, and the time allowed for deep and frequent reflection provides the avenue for single-loop, double-loop, and even deutero learning. Action learning gives people in the organization the opportunity to build each of these learning disciplines. Organizational learning skills. Action learning also encourages and develops dialogue, ­systems thinking, creativity, team learning, and questioning. Dilworth (1998) notes that action learning promotes a depth and intensity of dialogue that is uncommon in the normal life experience. Inherent in this approach is the ability to acknowledge that we

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Building Learning Organizations with Action Learning   113 frequently act in ways that may be incongruent with the values and opinions we espouse. Revans (1983) observed that it is the social dimension of action learning that provides the challenge to misconceptions and ingrained mental schemata which predispose a person to overlook the ways in which he/she needs to change. In action learning, real problems are explored in a non-defensive ways with colleagues who support, question, and advise.

How Action Learning Builds the Organization Subsystem The organization subsystem includes culture, vision, strategy, and structure. The culture created in action learning programs is one where learning is the most important and valuable objective. Action learning shows members how to move from a culture of training (in which someone else determines and provides your development) to a cul­ ture of learning (in which everyone is responsible for their own continuous learning). The emphasis on questions in the action learning process as well as the role of the coach in increasing learning provides the foundation and norms for a culture of learning. Schein (1993), a pioneer in understanding organizational culture and organizational change, notes that for learning to occur, the organization must unlearn previous beliefs, be open to new inputs, and relearn new assumptions and behaviors. Action learning is a powerful tool in helping to change these values and create these new visions. Garratt (1997) remarks how action learning is particularly valuable in helping organizations develop a vision committed to continuous learning. It is the expressed strategy of an action learning program to build in time, space, and opportunities for learning. And no strategy is more powerful for producing or­gan­iza­ tion-wide learning than getting large numbers of employees involved in action learning programs. Action learning groups have a natural and powerful bias for reflection-inaction. The capacity to quickly take action and to generate information is critical to organizations. Learning is immediately rewarded in action learning as smarter indi­ viduals and smarter teams attain measurable results much more quickly and more cre­ative­ly. The strategy inherent in action learning is to (a) systematically transfer knowledge throughout the organization, (b) provide networks for sharing, support­ ing, giving feedback, and challenging assumptions, (c) allow for mistakes and experi­ mentation, and serve as a mechanism for developing learning skills and behavior. An action learning program might begin in one area or department and later filter throughout the company, thus serving as a catalyst for change and learning across the entire organization. The structure of an action learning set is very fluid and flexible. Hierarchy and proto­ col are minimized. Allowing the flow of questions and interactions to be concise and clear is critical in processes such as reframing the problem, identifying possible actions, and providing frank feedback to one another. With the focus on questions with the expectation that anyone may be the person who asked the “breakthrough question,” needless protocol and bureaucracy and administrative trivia are discouraged and leadership

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

114   Michael J. Marquardt is distributed throughout the group. Action learning groups are composed of people from throughout the organization as well as outside the organization itself so as to maxi­ mize diversity and to break down silos and other hierarchical barriers.

How Action Learning Builds the People Subsystem The people subsystem of the learning organization includes both internal managers and staff as well as external people such as vendors, suppliers, consultants, customers, and even the general public and community. The entire business chain needs to become con­ tinuous and effective learners for the enterprise to succeed. The action learning coach serves as the ideal model for twenty-first century managers by focusing on creating learning opportunities for his or her staff by asking questions, and continuously encouraging them to apply the learnings. During the problem-solving periods of staff meetings, for example, the manager can serve as an action learning coach, or ask another staff member to do so. At the beginning of each action learning session, group members identify the leader­ ship skill that they would like to practice and improve during that session. (It should be noted that every leadership skill can be practiced when you are working with a group of people on a problem and everyone is involved in understanding and solving that prob­ lem.) At the end of the session, the coach asks the group members how they did with his or her leadership skills, and then asks other group members to provide examples of how each person demonstrated his or her leadership skill. Group members are asked to prac­ tice their chosen leadership skill, and report back at the beginning of the next action learning session. Since individuals are able to identify their skill, get an opportunity to practice it, and then are asked to self-reflect before receiving feedback from other group members, lead­ ership skills are immensely improved for application within the action learning group as well as for multiple applications back in the organization. In addition, their enhanced ability to ask great questions serves an important role in building the learning or­gan­iza­ tion (Marquardt, Leonard, Freedman, and Hill 2009). In learning organizations, a primary task of managers is to facilitate the staff ’s learn­ ing from experience. As a result of their experiences in action learning programs, they will also perceive the value in questioning their own ideas, basic assumptions, attitudes, and actions. Limerick, Passfield, and Cunningham (1994) point out that there is within action learning programs the explicit recognition that the organization’s role is to pro­ vide continuous opportunities for employees’ self-development. Action learning recognizes the importance of involving people from other parts of the organization as well as considering people from throughout the business chain as potential members. Action learning groups are more effective if they are diverse, and incorporate both different hierarchical levels of the organization as well as customers, suppliers, and interested community members to ask fresh questions and share fresh perspectives. Learning from fresh faces is critical for success in action learning as the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Building Learning Organizations with Action Learning   115 organization’s new perspectives can enlarge the range of continuous environmental scanning ability, bring a wider range of assumptions to the learning process, and make possible completely new organizational forms, constantly open to importing chaos and evolving new forms of order.

How Action Learning Builds the Knowledge Subsystem There are six components to the knowledge subsystem: (1) acquiring, (2) creating, (3) storing, (4) data analysis and mining, (5) transferring and dissemination, (6) application and validation. Within action learning projects, all of these components are enacted. Acquiring knowledge. In action learning programs, group members are advised of the importance of acquiring knowledge not only from external resources but also by tap­ ping the tacit, internal wisdom and experience of each other within the group as well as other parts of the organization. The internal networks developed in action learning groups heighten the awareness of organizational resources, facilitate exchanging and sharing of ideas, and generate significant amounts of valuable knowledge. Creating knowledge. Nonaka (2008) suggests that information creation is a fundamental requirement for the self-renewing learning organization. Participants in action learning programs realize the importance of constantly creating new knowledge, of being innovative so that they can discover new and breakthrough ways of solving the prob­ lems of the organization. Current or existing knowledge is rarely sufficient to solve com­ plex challenges. Thus, through greater and greater questions, members are constantly creating new knowledge and encouraging innovation within the group. Creativity and innovation is natural in problem-solving groups that are diverse and continuously questioning each other for new knowledge and ideas. Storing knowledge. Knowing what knowledge to store and how to store it is based upon the organization’s ability to make sense of the data encompassing and surrounding it. The company must then develop sense-making categories for coding and retaining value-added knowledge. Through its ongoing reflection on learning and the knowledge acquired, action learning programs lends themselves well to the Kantian school of thinking which positions sense-making above mere sensing (Botham and Vick 1998). By reflecting on action, the action learning group identifies the important knowledge and wisdom that will create strategies and intelligence critical for the success of the organization. Analysis and data mining. During the action learning sessions, group members regularly analyze the knowledge that has been acquired and created, synthesize it, and determine if it can be utilized in solving the problem given to them. Between sessions, the informa­ tion that has been stored may be examined to seek ways it can be of benefit to the action learning project as well as to the organization. Transferring and dissemination. At the conclusion of each action learning session, group members are asked to identify what knowledge has been gained during that session that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

116   Michael J. Marquardt would be of value to the organization. Members determine who should receive this  information and/or what knowledge management system should receive this knowledge. Group members capture and store for themselves the knowledge and wisdom that will help them become better in both their professional and personal lives. Application and validation. Between action learning sessions, action learning members are testing out the strategies that they have developed to determine whether their ideas are valid and applicable. Action learning, as noted earlier, is built on the belief that only learning which is applicable is truly learning, and that all true learning can and should lead to powerful actions. At the final session of the action learning program, a number of strategies and actions are proposed to the organization, and are applied by the group members and/or other members of the organization. During and following the imple­ mentation of the strategies, the action learning group reflects on what has worked and what has not, and why.

How Action Learning Builds the Technology Subsystem Action learning has the power to energize and augment both components of the technol­ ogy subsystem: enhancing the speed and quality of learning and managing the knowledge. Action learning groups, when appropriate, examine the possible tech­nolo­gies that might be used in the project and how technology can manage the knowledge and learning of the group and of the organization. If the solution involves learning and/or knowledge man­ agement, the group examines how learning or management tech­nolo­gies might increase the power and speed of the strategy implementation. Technology and action learning also interact in other ways. Action learning teams can examine how and why knowledge is or is not flowing throughout the organiza­ tion. They can also identify how what has been learned in this group can be applied throughout the organization, and how technology can be used for web-based learn­ ing. Technology plays an important role when action learning groups must meet ­virtually, a situation that is occurring with increasing frequency and proving to be very successful.

Powerful Action Learning Groups Build Powerful Learning Organizations Since action learning is both action-oriented and learning-focused, it serves as a perfect model and practice arena for organizational learning. More and more organizations around the world are appreciating the importance of establishing action learning groups if they are going to create the structure, culture, people, and systems necessary to become a learning organization. Organizations such as Microsoft, Wells Fargo, Boeing,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

Building Learning Organizations with Action Learning   117 Humana, Goodrich, and Samsung as well as government agencies in the United States, Canada, Singapore, China, Malaysia, and South Africa, have built their organizational growth and success by using action learning to solve their urgent and complex prob­ lems, to develop their leaders, and to build more effective teams. Action learning provides precisely the experience and creates the culture that can be implemented throughout the organization in the same manner as practiced within the action learning group. Two significant events occur within action learning groups that help to create learning organizations. First, team members resolve problems, transfer the ideas and strategies throughout the organization, and constantly acquire relevant information and knowledge that will be valuable for future problem-solving episodes. Second, the body of institutional knowledge increases and the pace of institutional learning accelerates as more and more action learning groups proliferate in the organization. By its very nature, action learning enables people to learn by doing, mostly on the job, thereby modeling simultaneous working and learning. It promotes a culture of contin­ ual learning that encourages experimentation and allows for mistakes within networks where people feel free to share knowledge, offer support and feedback, and challenge assumptions. Action learning programs are effective in building learning organizations because they begin and end where innovative strategies are needed and significant learning is required. To increase the number of learning organizations worldwide, it is important to gain further evidence on how learning affects the bottom line. To date, much of the research on action learning and learning organizations have been qualitative and anecdotal. Quantitative research which more clearly tests and measures how all and each of the six components of action learning impact the five subsystems of a learning organization is needed. Although there will always be confounding and modifying variables, such research is needed to demonstrate how increased organizational learning truly leads to improved services, higher profits, greater market share, higher employee morale, and brand enhancement as well as sustainability and societal benefits.

References Botham, D., and B.  Vick. 1998. “Action Learning and the Program at Revans Center.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 11 (2): pp. 5–16. Dilworth, R. 1998. “Action Learning in a Nutshell.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 11 (1): pp. 28–43. Garratt, R. 1997. “The Power of Action Learning.” In Action Learning in Practice, 3rd ed., ed. M. Pedler, pp. 15–29. Aldershot: Gower. Limerick, D., R.  Passfield, and B.  Cunningham. 1994. “Transforming Change: Toward an Action Learning Organization.” The Learning Organization 1 (2): pp. 45–56. Marquardt, M. 1996. Building the Learning Organization. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Press. Marquardt, M. 1999. Action Learning in Action. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Press. Marquardt, M. 2002. Building the Learning Organization, 2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: DaviesBlack Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/23/2019, SPi

118   Michael J. Marquardt Marquardt, M. 2011. Building the Learning Organization, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Press. Marquardt, M., S.  Banks, P.  Cauwelier, and C.  Ng. 2018. Optimizing the Power of Action Learning, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Press. Marquardt, M., S. Leonard, A. Freedman, and C. Hill. 2009. Action Learning for Developing Leaders and Organizations. Washington, DC: APA Press. Marquardt, M., and R. Yeo. 2012. Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Nonaka, I. 2008. The Knowledge-Creating Company. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne, and T. Boydell. 1998. The Learning Company. New York: McGraw-Hill. Revans, R. W. 1983. ABC of Action Learning. Bromley: Chartwell-Bratt. Schein, E. 1993. “On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning.” Organization Dynamics 22 (2): pp. 40–51. Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Watkins, K., and V. Marsick. 1993. Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 8

Persona l Pa r a dox e s i n Lea r n i ng to De sign “the Lea r n i ng Orga n iz ation ” Bob Garratt

This is a personal story and not directly academically focused, although it bumps into academia many times along the way.1 It is about the influences on me that led to the publication of the first book on The Learning Organization (Garratt 1987) and my later work on “the Learning Board” (Garratt  1996: ch. 5, “The Learning Board in a Learning Organization”) and the integration of the two.

How does the Idea of the Learning Organization Appear? The year 1968 was in the early days of the founding of the original two UK business schools—London and Manchester. I bumped into a strange, mildly obsessed, and iras­cible, older man called Professor Reg Revans at one of the MTDP (Management Teacher Development Programme of The Central London Polytechnic) teacher development sessions. He was publicly disputing the intellectual basis of the foundation of these two schools, especially London. He attacked memorably their new Principal, previously a Hoover executive, as “not just encouraging the sale of vacuum cleaners but offering his students the very vacuum itself.” I was intrigued, and attended his talks on

1  This chapter is an edited version of an extract of a longer, yet unpublished piece by Bob Garratt.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

120   Bob Garratt action learning, then seen as a radical notion in management, whenever he came over from his Belgian chair. But although dominated by finance, macroeconomics, finance, and marketing, London Business School (LBS) was not quite as staid as he described it. I was approached by two new professors about my live-project based education work with young professionals at the Architectural Association School, London (AA). The London one was Charles Handy and the Manchester one John Morris, the world’s first Professor of Management Development. I gave some talks on new approaches in professional education for both. Charles had a tougher time at LBS with their fixation on Harvard case-study learning methods and the “hard” side of management. But I found him supported by Derek Pugh (doing great comparative and development work on organizational behavior and development) and Denis Pym. John Morris was supported more strongly in actionorientated learning at Manchester Business School (MBS) by Grigor McClelland, Tom Lupton, and a younger generation of Jean Lawrence, John Burgoyne, Tony Eccles, Alistair Mant, and Tony Berry amongst others. Manchester was determined to develop a tougher, grittier, more pragmatic action-based approach to business education than London. And Reg Revans was lurking in the background there convinced that he should have been made the first Director. Despite this, action learning was a strong flavor at MBS.

Reg-Centricity and the Learning Organization I found that I had inadvertently left the world of architectural education and entered the world of organizational learning, behavior, and dynamics. This was a very active community, building on the US work during and after the Second World War including Gregory Bateson (see e.g., Charlton 2000), Kurt Lewin (1948), and Norbert Weiner’s systems thinking and his influential book The Human Use of Human Beings (1950); plus the UK gurus of Elliott Jacques (see e.g., Jacques 1997), Stafford Beer (see e.g., Beer 1981), Tom Lupton (1972), and Reg Revans (2011). Much of this was around the notion of the human use of human beings in organizations and the integrated development of staff, managers, and customers to create more effective organizations, especially through more effective systems of organizational learning. I also became active in the development of the Association of Teachers of Management (ATM) and began to meet people such as Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell (who with John Burgoyne I characterized as the “Trans Pennine Group” as they spanned the hills between Sheffield and Lancaster) with their strong focus on linking individual and organizational learning and development, and Ian Cunningham with his growing interest in self-managed learning (Cunningham 1999). They had some heavy questioning of my non-Revans background. They were puzzled by, and mildly critical of, my unusual educational background as an obvious outsider, especially as there was growing a cult-like following of Reg Revans in the UK, which they characterized wittily as “Reg-centricity.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning to Design “the Learning Organization”   121 It was John Burgoyne who suggested that I should read St. Cuthbert2 because he was a very early English internationalist who differentiated the Anglo-Saxon term “leornung” as something only an individual can develop as distinct from the Latinate notions of “teaching” that is done to a person. I cannot “learn” you anything, only the individual can learn. This concept reinforced the AA approach and became a cornerstone for my individual and organizational learning ideas. I was not part of Reg’s inner circle being influenced more by Donald Schön’s Beyond the Stable State (1973) with its notions of real organizational change always beginning at the periphery and working inwards, Fritz Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful (1973) which fitted very neatly with John Lloyd’s “developing world” approach, Marshall McLuhan’s The Media Is the Message (2008), Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion World (1969) with its notions of natural geometry, and the Whole Earth Catalogue (see “Whole Earth Catalogue” 2018) with its vision of global interconnectedness. All of this was seen as the development of key aspects of James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis (Lovelock 1975) linked to advanced architecture and engineering—not just political rhetoric but the hard graft of making things happen. These folks talked frequently at the AA but not at the management schools. Their broad, divergent, and ultimately integrative thinking contrasted with the increasingly convergent thinking being taught at the business schools. Most of these were beginning to equate “business” with a purely financial core. I debated frequently the dangers of not prioritizing ideas of the purpose and dynamics of human organizations, and the intellectual and practical leadership issues of holistic, “environmental” futures above mere finance. This did not go down well especially when I linked it to Revans’ definitions of the differences between “puzzles” (in which, however complex, the answer is contained within the question); and “problems” where there is no defined answer and the personal values of the question setter take priority. I argued that management schools were becoming puzzle-fixated and would lose credibility if they did not broaden their scope to learn to become true organizational and community problem-solvers. I also had a natural aversion to being dragged into a full-time management academic career. I saw this as a seductively easy option but one where you did not have to face real issues in real-time. I did not want to get into a convergent thinking lifestyle where I would be rewarded for knowing more and more about less and less. I was much more consultancy orientated.

Can organizations and Communities Learn? I left the AA in 1972 to set up my own organizational consultancy for small architectural and planning practices. Out of the blue in late 1973 I was offered a research fellow post at the 2  The closest I can get to a direct quote is “St. Cuthbert” (2018).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

122   Bob Garratt new Ulster College/Northern Ireland Polytechnic to pursue my research on project-based learning in organizations and communities. The job offer was because a good friend, David Casey, had taken the post but finally had to turn it down because of threats made by terrorists against him and his family as a Catholic. This was towards the height of Ulster’s “troubles.” Being young, adventurous, and vaguely Protestant I said “yes,” with David’s full agreement, despite being in a bomb incident at Aldergrove airport on the day of my interview. I married Sally in 1973. Luckily she read Malay and Anthropology at SOAS, the latter having proved useful throughout our working lives. We agreed that she would work for her employer Roche across the water in Ayrshire yet keep the Irish Sea between us during the working week. She joined me at weekends. My boss was the fearless Bruce Cooper, Dean of the new combined Faculty of Management and Community Education. The idea was to monitor the changing and polarizing communities and the live-learning that they would need to survive and develop in their very changed and divisive circumstances. Being Ireland things never quite worked out like that. I was told within days of arriving that they had sacked the Head of the Management School and that I was to be the Acting Director of Studies for six months. I pointed out that this was not in my contract, that I was the youngest member of faculty and that I had no academic qualifications only professional ones. This impressed no one including the faculty. I had acquired a reputation as an institution builder, especially through the AA and the ATM and, therefore, could handle the live-project demands even of a dividing community. Or it could be that no one else really wanted to take on such a challenging task. I had a stimulating time, and learned a lot about creating new learning institutions in troubled times. The unexpected personal bonus was that one of the regular visitors to the college was Reg Revans. He realized quickly that I rented part of a Regency house on the shores of Belfast Lough by the Jordanstown campus. He informed me that he would stay there when he visited. As I was on my own during the week I was pleased. And so began some fierce debates on organizational learning. Where most people in Reg’s sphere were focused on the action learning niceties of the personal and group learning processes— project sets, set advisors, internal or external programs etc.—I was much more interested in the complex, higher level learning systems within and between organizations. I was particularly taken with his Systems Alpha, Beta, and Gamma work (Revans 1971a, 2011) and the way organizations coped with their internal tensions and the eternal uncertainties— his puzzles and problems issues writ large. Whilst he was very pleased I had studied these he was often displeased that I would compare this with the works of others most of which he claimed had been stolen from him. I had no way of testing this so we argued using live issues in the Belfast area as our testing ground. But we both agreed that his work with the NHS leading to the Hospitals Internal Communication (see Revans 1971b) project was a seminal and very rigorous piece of work, as George Wieland’s later long-term evaluation proved (see Revans 1971b). This was tested publicly and long-term when the proven project benefits of people actionlearning in real-time at all levels of an NHS organization, from consultants and executives

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning to Design “the Learning Organization”   123 to nurses and porters, were overturned by the incoming Conservative government labeling the action learning process as “disruptive and dangerous.” They appointed McKinsey to develop an alternative approach. They went “structural” and inserted a new level of national management into the NHS. Within a year the negative consequences of this “solution” were there for all to see, except the government and Department of Health who refused to acknowledge the data. Fortunately Wieland’s continuing research over many years showed just how negative this intervention was—and how organizations will continue to deny hard facts and avoid responsibility at the price of losing national learning. This was an eye-opener to me. It was to prove a recurring pattern in many organizations; that it was easier for the top team to bury and forget the natural learning than to accept its consequences. This energized me to investigate even more deeply the idea of organizational learning.

An “Evil Capitalist Businessman” Supports Action Learning Reg was still supportive yet uncomfortable with my differing perspective. Having been brought up in a design-based world I was looking for more graphic ways of explaining the pros and cons of organizational learning systems because I knew that my clients wanted simple concepts and one-page drawings to help them understand how or­gan­iza­tions worked and learned beyond traditional convergent thinking. They knew that organizations are dynamic, often illogical, and frequently saved by dedicated in­di­vid­uals or small groups. Many were practical engineers who would not tolerate psychobabble or complex yet reductionist academic arguments. Two events then occurred unexpectedly which developed further my non-career. First, and a major turning point in my life, I was invited to join the inner group of four (Jean Lawrence, David Casey, Tony Eccles, and David Sutton) designing with Reg Revans the initial Developing Senior Managers Programme (DSMP) for the UK General Electric Company (GEC). Paradoxically, Reg had managed to convince Sir Arnold Weinstock, a publicly recognized “difficult,” intellectually sharp and notoriously mean business leader that he, of all people, should invest time and money in launching the world’s first action learning-based top management development program. This was at a time of many strikes, demands for workers’ co-operatives and social revolution so for such an out-and-out capitalist to invest in such a seemingly radical venture was truly paradoxical. Why should such a person promote long-term learning and organizational change when his critics painted him as the ultimate short-termer? He proved that he was not. I shall not go into details of DSMP here as much has been written about this and the subsequent programs (Revans 1982: ch. 9, “Learning Systems in Organisations”). Suffice it to say that DSMP became a very successful program over six years and a hot inter­nation­al topic in management education.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

124   Bob Garratt What changed my thinking and motivation forever was an interim presentation that one of the set members made to the Head of the Telecoms Division. A set member’s live project was to review and propose a better way forward on the development of new telecommunication technology for their faltering Post Office client, who was struggling to design computer-based systems rather than rely on the old “copper wire” telephony. The young participant, already tipped for GEC top management within the decade, made a simple point to the Head. He argued that their approach was flawed because they were still assuming that the future would be copper wire-based with a small computer added on the end. Yet his international studies on the program showed that the future would be computer-based with, if necessary, a bit of copper wire to link to a building’s phone system. This seemed an entirely reasonable, fact-based argument to the other, diverse members of the action learning project set who had cross-questioned him heavily before he made his presentation. The Group MD was not amused and started shouting at the participant “this is not why I pay for you to be on this program, I do not pay you to think but to do. If you want to think, then you do it in your own time on a Sunday!” There was a stunned silence. The participant was wrong-footed and did not want to contradict his big boss openly. So, as Set Advisor, I intervened and said that if this was the GMD’s approach, then he misunderstood the essence of the DSMP and its action learning base. It is designed to open up ideas and debate and not to repeat existing solutions. I have to admit that I went further and suggested that if this was the GMD’s considered position then he might not be in the right job to ensure his organization’s future. This did not go down well. The session ended in confusion and I was asked not to attend the program whilst the whole issue was considered. To the eternal credit of Mike Bett, Group HR Director of GEC and David Pearce, Head of Management Development, they faced Sir Arnold with the issue of the often necessarily disruptive learning coming from such a program. He realized that this sort of thing must happen if learning is to be released. I was reinstated, and the project continued. Both the GMD and I had our wrists slapped firmly but behind the scenes.

Do Directors know their Roles? However, I was now determined to find out what happens at the very top of a business— beyond management—around the boardroom table. How did the directors learn their critical role and how did this affect the learning of the whole organization? I realized that up to now I, and the business schools, had concentrated on “Management” at the expense of the top and bottom of an organization. At that time in the mid-1970s lots of people were working on issues of “the bottom”—the workforce, worker participation, trades unions, co-operative ownership, and workplace democracy. Few academics seemed that interested in “the top,” boards of directors and owners, other than seeing them as “class enemies.” Indeed I was challenged publicly and privately at studying such

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning to Design “the Learning Organization”   125 folk. I was seen as selling out to the enemy. Yet to me they had to be an integral part of the design of any organizational learning system. Currently they were so invisible that any organization chart would start with the Chief Executive and work down. I was intrigued by what happened if you drew the board and ownership on an organizational chart above the CEO? But I did not have a robust enough framework with which to explore. Second, in 1975 I did some work with Jan Parsson at the Stockholm Institute of Economics on action-based organizational learning. He had been an observer of DSMP and was intrigued by my outburst at the GMD. He introduced me to Change: Principles of Problem Formulation and Problem Resolution by Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch (1974) which developed the concept of the necessity of “double loop learning” in any healthy organization—linking the internal learning of the employees and managers (first order change) with the changing external socio-political environments (second order change). I played around with this design with some clients and knew that there was something there that was important, particularly if you made the directors’ role para­mount in the second order change cycle. But I had no tool to develop it. I spoke with Reg who became quite irate and suggested that they had stolen his systems Alpha, Beta, and Gamma work. They had not although there were similarities. They had come at the issue from quite different disciplines. Sadly from then on my relationship with Reg cooled noticeably. However, I owed him much and always admired his rigorous way of starting projects searching for hard facts rather than opinions, using statistics and systems thinking as benchmarks, then differential measures to give dimensions to the messy human organizational issues which we faced continually before beginning to seek resolution. He refused to accept the words and phrases used originally to state an organizational issue until he had “dimensioned” it. This has proved invaluable in my approach to learning and consulting. I thank him for it.

Double Loop Learning and the Lemniscate Lead to The Learning Organization Design Back in London I was brooding continually about what happened at the cross-over point of a double loop of organizational learning—where the external and internal worlds of an organization cross and reframe the other. This redefinition of each by the other intrigued me. I kept asking clients and academics for their ideas but was usually told that no one really knew. In my naivety I suggested that surely a board of directors was meant to balance the internal and external learning of its organization? Most agreed that this is what it should do, but it did not. I kept asking “why?” I decided to label this intersection of learnings “the Business Brain.” This reflected the directors’ dilemma of “how do we balance seeing the way ahead whilst also keeping the organization under

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

126   Bob Garratt prudent control?” It assumed that the quality of board effectiveness must flow from its ability to balance rapidly and simultaneously those dynamic changes in their internal and external worlds. To me it seemed obvious that if one could open up the learning flows from the external world that form the ecosystems of future political, economic, and social contexts that allow the organization to survive effectively (the “disruptions from the external environment”), and then combine them with the more managerial world of the internal organizational systems and climate (“the deviations from plans”), then you must be able to create more nimble and democratic organizations? Figure 8.1 was my basic sketch for this. It was obvious to me that the board of directors was the hub through which the external and internal learning must flow if they were to be turned into useful information for the simultaneous development of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. But it was not obvious to many others. I wrote and talked about this internationally and the resulting criticisms ranged from me being called a “dangerous lefty” to a “friend of capitalism.” So I decided that I must have got things about right and should air the debate further. I started drafting my first book—The Learning Organization (Garratt 1987)—to open up the issues to a wider world. In 1985 the concept was not current but Lucinda McNeile and Helen Fraser, my publishers at HarperCollins, were enthusiastic and thought that it would be a unique contribution. I wanted the central graphic to be a figure-of-eight, a vertical lemniscate to symbolize both the infinite learning capacity and integrative learning processes in any or­gan­iza­tion— with the board at the center as the “Business Brain.” The book title as originally drafted was Developing Directors Who Think and Learn. But after Charles Handy had read the draft he insisted that I call it The Learning Organization: And the Need for Directors Who Think (Garratt  1987). The subtitle was changed to Developing Democracy at Work (Garratt 2001a). Its publication in 1987 opened up a new world to me far beyond jobbing consultancy with occasional doses of academia. A lot of practitioners and academics

Monitoring external environment

Giving direction

Policy

Disruptions from the environment

THE BUSINESS BRAIN

Strategy Performance

Operations

Control System Deviations from plans

Figure 8.1.  Basic model of the learning organization. Source: After Garratt (2000).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning to Design “the Learning Organization”   127 had been talking about organizational learning but few had labeled the concept as “the learning organization.” The book, and especially the drawings, crystallized the concept. The ideas were picked up quickly in the UK, Hong Kong, Ireland, and Australia and later in the USA where it was combined with systems thinking in Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990). A US editor of Harper’s said she found my book thrilling but that US business books were written mainly for intelligent 12-year-olds, with lots of white space and bullet points. My ones were written for intelligent 16-year-olds and would not sell well in the USA. This proved true.

Sir Adrian Cadbury and Corporate Governance Not being comfortable with the overbearing, self-centered, and simplistic US management culture I was happy to leave it at that because two other demands called. In 1981 I was asked by Jean Lawrence to work on a conference at Manchester Business School on the development of action learning in Business. It was called Managing Change in a Turbulent Environment—highly fashionable words at the time and in the right order. The chairman of the conference was Sir Adrian Cadbury, then Chairman of Cadbury plc, and an internationally respected ethical businessman. I pumped him privately about his notions of board effectiveness. He was very supportive of my evolving ideas. Few in business seemed interested in his ideas around the sovereignty of the board, the primacy of the board’s role in ensuring the future of the business, and the qualitatively different roles of the Chairman and the Managing Director. He introduced me to the then almost arcane term corporate governance, which was to have such a lasting effect on my life. I was already much influenced by Charles Handy’s seminal talk “What Is A Company For?” (1991) at the Royal Society of Arts. This took me into new areas of business study which I had consciously avoided—especially the key frameworks of company law and finance. These had appeared nasty, brutish, and populated by managers who hated humans. As I studied I realized just how important a basic understanding of both is for any business to learn and thrive. I became aware that the roles of directors are much more constrained by laws than managers. It was their lacunae in company law, especially on the seven duties of directors, which highlighted why so many directors fail in their roles, and how organizational learning can be blocked or negated by this. If directors do not learn to fulfill their basic roles, how can any business be effective? It was an exciting time in my consultancy work. I found many followers. But I became increasingly frustrated that many of my academic colleagues were bogged down in semantic issues of “learning organization” versus “organizational learning” and seemed happy to debate this for years. This sounded like medieval disputations along the lines of “how many angels can stand on the head of a pin?” This reinforced my concern about the sterility of the academic

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

128   Bob Garratt reward system. It had little resonance in the living international business world in which I was working increasingly.

Three Aids to Developing the Learning Organization Concept However, three pieces of research work helped me and my clients greatly as I tried to develop the learning organization concept and model. First, the work of Keith Grint which developed out of arguments around “learning” and “non-learning.” I had discussed with Keith in Oxford and London whether there could be such a concept as “nonlearning”? We agreed that all organizations were learning continually. The question was whether this was “good” or “bad” learning? Did it enhance the human condition or demean it? I assumed that both the immediate emotional climate and long-term culture of an organization determined whether it was “good” (the essence of action learning) or “bad” (shown in the helplessness of many psychic prison-style or­gan­iza­tions). Keith let me modify and use his two basic flow charts in The Fish Rots from the Head (Garratt 2010: 57). The “good learning” one is my aspiration for a learning or­gan­iza­tion. The “bad learning” one is too often a description of current organizational life internationally. It still draws agonized recognition by boards and top teams after all these years, usually followed by helpless laughter. The laughter tends to become more bitter the lower down the organization you go. I have just used them this year in the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iceland, and Barbados to such predictable responses. The second aid was a little publicized book by Arnold Kransdorff, previously a writer on the Financial Times, called Corporate Amnesia (Kransdorff 1998). He argued that it is not just the immediate learning we need to value in our organizations but also its careful storage and easy access to the history of what was learned before; especially what has and has not worked, and why. The current arrogant managerial tendency to treat history as bunk and to idolize only the current nano-second leads many organizations to the unquestioning fashionable mantra of “downsize and rightsize” leading inevitably to “dumbsize and capsize.” Paradoxically, what seems intensely practical to appease the god of short-term “efficiency” and “bottom line performance” is often an unwise and inefficient investment against the long-term. By having to reinvent, and pay for, learning again and again such an approach is organizationally unhealthy. Few businesses have any form of access to archives, or an archivist, as a learning resource, nor see any need for them. I see this lack of wisdom repeated internationally. The third influence was, and still is, Jerry Rhodes’ work on “Effective Intelligence” (Rhodes 1994). Starting from their study of the ineffective thinking processes of design engineers at Philips in Eindhoven they developed an instrument called the “thinking intentions profile” (Rhodes and Thame 1989), and this has developed into a sophisticated online tool for measuring and developing both personal and organizational thinking

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning to Design “the Learning Organization”   129 preferences through their development of “Effective Intelligence” (Rhodes  1994). Knowing how much you, your board, and your organization, invests and balances its thinking time budget in relation to the past, the present, and the future, and whether this combination is effective, is a key piece of board and executive performance information. Most organizations do not recognize this and so do not see its importance. Yet my own studies of over 800 directors show quite clearly that the vast majority of directors have little or no interest in making the future happen, despite it being their primary role! Most treat it as a nuisance they prefer to avoid. Their time-spans are usually still man­ager­ial—a month or one year maximum—so “the future” is rarely considered let alone developed well. They invest their time in the micro-politics of the immediate present and reminiscing on the past.

What are the Learning Organization’s Metrics? Twelve Organizational Capabilities Back in the UK I was becoming known as a “pracademic,” a hybrid practitioner and ­academic able to speak with both worlds. It was easy to espouse Reg’s basic concept that for any organism to survive its rate of learning has to be equal to, or greater than, the rate of environmental change: L > C. But the metrics were unclear. I decided not to follow the apostolic route. My major concern was to design a simple instrument for clients to assess their organizational learning performance. How could they measure the differences between the efficiency of their organizational structure and the effectiveness of their consequent learning? We always take copious notes when interviewing different levels of our client organizations. We use factor analysis of the words and concepts from each interview to derive blockages to their daily learning. We found that clients had particular problems in describing the positive and negative emotional/behavioral aspects of their organizational learning. They knew that these “soft” aspects were important but had no suitable vocabulary or model for describing them. So we designed a four-by-four matrix (the bedrock of so much management thinking and education). The vertical dimensions described both the “task focus” (the “hard edged” aspects of the work that the managers controlled directly) and the “emotional process aspects” (which the individuals and work groups controlled, usually despite their managers). The horizontal dimension covered both the “internal focus” (the dayto-day work) and the “external focus” (the changing dynamics of the socio-political ecosystems in which the organization existed). The total organizational learning was cemented by the interaction between the learning climate that the directors and man­agers created and their leadership orientation—their directoral sensitivity to the external world. Both build or destroy staff trust over time. In design terms we linked this into our learning organization’s double loop of learning (see Figure  8.2). This gave us twelve

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

130   Bob Garratt The Learning Board - Basic Framework EXTERNAL

ACCOUNTABILITY

BOARD CONFORMANCE

POLICY FORMULATION

BUSINESS BRAIN

INTERNAL SUPERVISING MANAGEMENT SHORT TERM

BOARD PERFORMANCE

STRATEGIC THINKING LONG TERM

Diagram One

Figure 8.2.  The twelve organizational capabilities and their relationships. Source: After Garratt (2010).

dimensions and differential measures to track. These gave us the basic metrics needed to follow change trends unique to that organization. We tested our client directors and top managers on this framework “map,” then on middle management and then on samples of the workforce. We ended up with a simple statistical quantitative framework able to show differential measures and to locate priorities to improve organizational competence. Most importantly, by also interviewing individuals and focus groups we created qualitative measures that showed each level the perceptions of the others and the language used. The results would then be discussed and displayed across all levels of the business. We were creating a visual learning map of the business showing where the different issues and priorities lay, where they coincided and the big differences. We were creating our language and structure of organizational capabilities which became the basis of our book (Garratt 2001b). When tracked over time the trends showed just how out of synch perceptions were between the top, middle, and workforce levels, and often between supposedly cooperating work groups. This gave folk a simple and practical twelve-aspect language for discussing with each other what could be done to improve matters immediately, together with the technical and emotional dimensions of the problem, and to which solutions they would commit, usually at no cost except time and humility. With one client we later put their continuous learning improvement map on their intranet so anyone could follow the progress of each work group in real-time and see what or­gan­iza­tion­al learning they were focused on currently and how others might help them. It worked well in relatively small organizations but the time came to test this framework fully when the redoubtable Chris Davies phoned to say that he was accepting a tricky job at Sun Life Assurance that involved a complete rescue and restructure of the IT side, and its future relationships with the Board and Operations. It was a crisis, so we

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning to Design “the Learning Organization”   131 started rapidly and used our organizational capability model to allow each level and department to show how they saw themselves and the other groups and levels, where their priorities were out of synch with each other, where the energy to change was, and how things could be handled better immediately. This was greeted with great skepticism by all employees initially but the fact that Chris and his team were talking openly about troubling issues that had been an open secret for too long, was an early sign of change and hope. The top team were determined to show commitment and promised that they would be held accountable openly to all staff for the results at monthly meetings. Within weeks there was some grudging energy to go forward. So we formed action learning groups around the five main issues that we had identified in our initial organizational capability survey to plot progress and blockages. The concept of the learning organization was explained and questioned with a mixture of enthusiasm and trepidation. Things started well but deeper organizational, IT, and financial issues were uncovered during this initial discovery process which increased the urgency for action but suggested potentially deeper blockages to organizational learning. Presenting symptoms are rarely the true issues.

Malicious Obedience and Dangerous Enthusiasts Block Learning Not everyone was happy with this learning organization approach. Most seemed to like the simple stats, trend-lines, and common language but that did not mean that they were committed. One of the action learning groups whose project was to try to restore the damaged morale across their division drew their own four-by-four matrix with “Understanding the process” on the vertical axis and “Energy to deliver” on the horizontal axis. They calculated that around 60 percent of the division were what they called “dinosaurs,” herbivorous monsters happily munching the flowers with their heads well down whilst chaos reigned around them. They reckoned that some 20 percent were “yes, buts,” intelligent enough to know what was demanded of them but skeptical, if not downright cynical, with little energy for change. If provoked, they would invoke “malicious obedience” seemingly agreeing to obey orders but knowing that they could block anything they did not like because they usually had more detailed knowledge of how things worked at their level than the managers seeking change. Given an instruction that they did not like they would carry it out to the letter, knowing that it would fail. These folks were very nasty when roused. Another 10 percent were wildly over-enthusiastic about the proposed changes but these were equally dangerous as they knew little about making effective change. They would rush about the organization disrupting its early learning by showing wild positive emotions without any follow-through. These they labeled “dangerous enthusiasts.” We quietly undertook to handle the learning flows across the division so that the “yes, buts” were shown respect and trust by being given projects where they contributed their

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

132   Bob Garratt intelligence and experience to resolving the many problems that remained; and the “dangerous enthusiasts” were given training on effective organizational change so that their raw energies were put to much better use as change agents working on the “dinosaurs.” We went on to develop these simple metrics of organizational learning over twenty years in many organizations, private, public, and not-for-profit. This led in 2000 to the publication of The Twelve Organizational Capabilities: Valuing People at Work (Garratt 2001b), my least selling book, yet one that is now being demanded again.

Directors’ Roles in a Learning Organization Yet my main concern was that to develop fully my concept of the learning organization I still needed to do more work on the idea of the board as the central processor of all organizational learning and the ways in which this can then be transformed into good learning at all levels of an organization. I wanted to complement the concept of the learning organization with the central concept of the “learning board” (Garratt 2010: ch. 2, “The Learning Board”).

Back to Hong Kong The outline of an answer came from Hong Kong. The first book published with the title of Corporate Governance was Bob Tricker’s in 1984 (Tricker 1984). It is seminal, and yet little acknowledged. It uses a four-by-four grid to describe what I would call the “in­tern­al world” of management supervision and accountability, and the “external world” of strategy and policy. We worked together in Hong Kong and had many debates on this issue. We disagreed only on the external world aspects of strategy and policy. This reflected a battle raging in the academic world where policy was seen as the delivery of the man­ager­ial aspects of business strategy—“we have a policy for that.” These are not policies but selfimposed rules. Strategy was seen often as the highest level of man­ager­ial thought. But the policy roles of directors and boards were rarely mentioned. I argued repeatedly that in classical Greek, policy formulation was the highest level of organizational thinking. The word dealt with the broad “political” dynamics (including changing economics, social, environmental, technological, and trade aspects) within which a political leader must set the external contexts before they could determine their strategy. So policy formulation must define the primary role of boards of directors? “Strategy” was then the world of the military general whose task was to deliver policy by “the broad deployment of our scarce resources to achieve our political purpose.” This took the agreed policy aspirations and delivered the strategic thinking from which

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning to Design “the Learning Organization”   133 GLS ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITY SURVEY Internal Focus

External Focus

- Clarity of Personal Responsibility Task Focus

- Work Quality

- Organizational Clarity

- Competitor Orientation

- Financial Rewards Leadership Learning Climate

Process Focus

- Personal Rewards - Personal Performance - Group Performance

- Organizational Adaptiveness - Customer Orientation

Figure 8.3.  The basic and complex models of the learning board. Source: After Garratt (2001b).

operational plans could then be made and delivered by the executives, with consequent feedback and learning both at the external and internal levels. I had Henry Mintzberg on my side and at one point he created a six-aspect drawing—“Strategic Thinking as Seeing” (Mintzberg 2000)—for my book of edited essays Developing Strategic Thought (Garratt 2000). Eventually Bob Tricker and I agreed to differ and with his agreement I published in 1996 my version of what I now called “the learning board” process in The Fish Rots from the Head: Developing Effective Directors (Garratt 2010: ch. 2, “The Learning Board”). This turned the four-by-four matrix into a flow diagram of the necessary annual rhythm of a board’s decision-making process (see Figure 8.3). The book and drawing proved very popular especially in businesses and with MBA students. It has sold more than 110,000 copies internationally (except in the USA). Happily Bob Tricker’s book is also still there.

The Paradoxes Turn into the Directors’ Dilemmas This struggle to design and test internationally my original version of the learning organization with the centrality of the learning board is now made manifest in three ways. First, it is used daily across five continents by boards and consultants. Second, the organizing model for the assessment of the final oral of the UK Chartered Director

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

134   Bob Garratt examination is based on the learning board process. It has influenced the personal development of thousands of directors internationally seeking a more professional approach to the role and duties of directing. Third, there have been some large-scale successes in using the learning board within the learning organization process. In Scotland it has influenced the development of more than twenty Scottish NHS or­gan­iza­tions. In banking it became the base of the ten-year-long Director Development Programme of Lloyds TSB Bank under the redoubtable Sir Brian Pitman. The vision and courage of those giving the tone at the top is crucial to the success of any learning organization. Organizational ideas seem to move in twenty-year cycles. In late 2018 I have been asked by Yorkshire Water plc to work with them on their “Fit For Purpose” program—a total organizational transformation project including the board. The learning or­gan­iza­tion concept continues. I reprise, there is continuous good and bad learning in all or­gan­iza­tions. The aspiration of a learning organization is to always keep the learning “good” within the organizational values of accountability, probity, and openness. Because of the perversity of human nature, that will always be the challenge for those developing any learning organization.

References Beer, S. 1981. The Brain of the Firm, 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley. Charlton, N. G. 2000. Gregory Bateson: Mind, Beauty and the Sacred Earth. New York: State University of New York Press. Cunningham, I. 1999. The Wisdom of Strategic Learning. Farnborough: Gower. Fuller, B. 1969. Dymaxion World. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Garratt, B. 1987. The Learning Organization: And the Need for Directors Who Think. London: HarperCollins. Garratt, B. 1996. The Fish Rots from the Head: Developing Effective Board Directors. London: HarperCollins. Garratt, B. (ed.). 2000. Developing Strategic Thought. London: HarperCollins. Garratt, B. 2001a. The Learning Organization: Developing Democracy at Work. London: Profile Business. Garratt, B. 2001b. The Twelve Organizational Capabilities: Valuing People at Work. London: HarperCollins. Garratt, B. 2010. The Fish Rots from the Head: Developing Effective Board Directors. London: Profile Books. Handy, C. 1991. “What Is a Company For?” Royal Society of Arts Journal 139 (5416): pp. 231–41. Jacques, E. 1997. Requisite Organizations: A Total System for Effective Managerial and Organizational Leadership. Abingdon: Routledge. Kransdorff, A. 1998. Corporate Amnesia. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Lewin, K. 1948. Resolving Social Conflict. New York: Harper & Row. Lovelock, J. 1975. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lupton, T. 1972. Management and the Social Sciences. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. McLuhan, M. 2008. The Media Is the Message. London: Penguin Classics.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning to Design “the Learning Organization”   135 Mintzberg, H. 2000. “Strategic Thinking as ‘Seeing.’ ” In Developing Strategic Thought, ed. B. Garratt, pp. 78–83. London: HarperCollins. Revans, R. W. 1971a. Developing Effective Managers. New York: Praeger. Revans, R. W. (ed.). 1971b. Hospitals, Communication, Choice and Change. London: Tavistock Publications. Revans, R. W. 1982. The Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Bromley: Chartwell-Bratt. Revans, R. W. 2011. The ABC of Action Learning. Farnborough: Gower. Rhodes, J. 1994. Conceptual Toolmaking: Expert Systems of the Mind. Oxford: Blackwell. Rhodes, J., and S. Thame. 1989. The Colours of Your Mind. London: Fontana. Schön, D. 1973. Beyond the Stable State: Public and Private Learning in a Changing Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Schumacher, F. 1973. Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Blond and Briggs. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. “St. Cuthbert.” 2018. Durham World Heritage Site. Retrieved November 25, 2018, from http:// www.durhamworldheritagesite.com/history/st-cuthbert. Tricker, R. I. 1984. Corporate Governance: Practice, Procedures and Powers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watzlawick, P., J. H. Weakland, and R. Fisch. 1974. Change: Principles of Problem Formulation and Problem Resolution. New York: W. W. Norton. Weiner, N. 1950. The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society. New York: Da Capo Press. “Whole Earth Catalogue.” 2018. Retrieved November 25, 2018, from http://www.wholeearth. com/history-whole-earth-catalog.php.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 9

On Defi n itions of the Lea r n i ng Orga n iz ation: Towa r d a N ew Defi n ition of Lea r n i ng Orga n iz ation Hong T. M. Bui

The idea of learning organization has been developed for several decades with colorful perspectives and fruitful outcomes. Practitioners have helped to turn the learning organization from an abstract concept to reality (Forman 2004: 17) despite the fact that there are a number of critics that argue otherwise. For example, some claim or­gan­iza­ tions cannot learn (e.g., Contu, Grey, and Örtenblad 2013; Coopey 1995). Others suggest that organizations can “unlearn”—organizations might give up certain old behaviors and actions (Hsu 2013). Others even believe that they become institutional thieves— exploiting individual intellectual property (Cornish and Llewelyn 2007). Becoming a learning organization is felt to be important for organizations, in most sectors (Birdthistle 2008; Boyle 2002; Kiedrowski 2006; Örtenblad 2018). However, it is still on a long and winding road. A simple search on Google Scholar shows millions of results related to “learning organization.” The concept of learning organization has attracted significant attention from both scholars and practitioners (see Örtenblad 2018). Hitt (1995: 17) states that there are at least two interrelated reasons why a learning organization is needed: “to sur­ vive, an organization must achieve excellence, and by achieving excellence, the or­gan­ iza­tion will enhance its chances of surviving.” Bui and Baruch (2013) add that a learning organization is a life-long learning journey for organizational transformation and in­nov­ation. The concept of learning organization has become a popular topic for

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

138   Hong T. M. Bui businesses to practice since the 1990s. Large corporations such as Motorola, Ford, Coca-Cola, Royal Dutch Shell, or GE have been pioneers of innovation and become learning or­gan­iza­tions. They have gained certain successes in their businesses that have led other businesses to reconsider the effect of organizational learning on business performance, particularly in a constantly changing world. Successful applications of the learning organization concept have also been recognized by scholars (e.g., Hussein, Omar, Noordin, and Ishak 2016; Jackson 2000; Ngah, Tai, and Bontis 2016; Reese and Sidani 2018). Despite a large body of literature on learning organization, “a clear definition of learn­ ing organization has proved to be elusive over the years” (Garvin 1993: 79). There remain questions such as “Are there any true learning organizations?” This has been partly answered by Örtenblad (2018) who says that there do not seem to be any because the demarcation of what is and what is not a learning organization is still under discussion. This question has encouraged me to examine a wide range of definitions of learning organization with the aim to develop a broader understanding and a comprehensive definition of learning organization and to indicate possible venues for research in the area in the future. This chapter starts with a critical review of the “mainstream” def­in­ itions of learning organization. Then it considers other definitions of learning or­gan­iza­ tion to compare and contrast with the mainstream ones. After that, a comprehensive definition of learning organization is proposed. The chapter closes with some sugges­ tions for future research.

“Mainstream” Definitions of the Learning Organization Garratt (1987), Senge (1990), Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell (1991), Garvin (1993), Watkins and Marsick (1993), and Marquardt (1996) have provided distinct contributions to the study of learning organization. In The Learning Organization, Garratt (1987: ix) defined a learning organization as one that “can only become simultaneously ef­fect­ive and effi­ cient if there is conscious and continuous learning between three distinct groups—the leaders who direct the enterprise, the staff who deliver the product or service, and the customers and consumers.” This definition seems to emphasize the con­tinu­ance and interactions of individual learning among three distinct groups, two inside and one outside the organization. The definition identifies effectiveness and efficiency as the outcome of a learning organization. In The Fifth Discipline, Senge (1990: 3) defined a learning organization as an or­gan­iza­ tion “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.” He visualized a learning organization as a place where people are free to learn, and are free to develop themselves to make a better contribution to the organization’s success.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

On Definitions of the Learning Organization   139 People in a learning organization not only learn to achieve their personal visions (create the results they truly desire), but they also learn to work in teams to achieve their shared vision (learn how to learn together). In this organization innovative ideas are appreci­ ated and nurtured to develop into mental models. Senge emphasized the freedom of individual and organizational learning to maximize the level of knowledge shared and created in an organization. According to Senge, the desire and aspiration for learning seem intrinsic and unlimited if the organization is set up properly for its members to work and learn at the same time. However, Senge’s definition of learning organization has been seen as both inspirational and impractical (Bui, Chapter 3 in this volume). This seems to have paved the way for other scholars to continue to develop and conceptualize learning organization. In their book The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, Pedler et al. (1991) developed the idea of learning company as arising from an urgent need of businesses at that point of time (see also Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne, Chapter 6 in this volume). They remind us that the word “company” comes from the Latin “com pane” meaning to break bread together. Pedler et al. (1991) use the term “learning company” rather than “learning organization” to denote any group of people working together. They define a learning company as “an organization that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself ” (Pedler et al. 1991: 1). Their definition of a learning organization focuses on learning and transforming. It also emphasizes the role of individuals’ learning in the organization. In the learning company there exists a posi­ tive attitude towards motivation and encouragement to learning. In their Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art of Systemic Change, Watkins and Marsick (1993: 8–9) define a learning organization as “one that learns con­ tinuously and can transform itself. Learning takes place in individuals, teams, the organization and even the communities with which the organization interact. Learning is a continuous, strategically used process-integrated with, and running parallel to, work. Learning results in changes in knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors. Learning also enhances organizational capacity and growth. The learning organization has embedded systems to capture and share learning.” Similar to Pedler et al. (1991), Watkins and Marsick associate learning organization with learning and transforming. They explain that learning should take place at all levels in the organization: individuals, groups and teams, larger business units and networks, the organization itself, its network of custom­ ers and suppliers, and other societal groups; and learning can be either incremental or transformational (Watkins and Marsick 1993). Watkins and Marsick’s definition partly explains the fundamental foundation of a learning organization. In “Building a Learning Organization”, Garvin (1993: 79) defined a learning or­gan­iza­ tion as “an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights.” Garvin’s definition focuses on skills, knowledge, and behavior that help create new knowledge and under­ standing, which is slightly different to the above definitions of a learning organization. It indicates a state of a skilled organization rather than a process of obtaining skills, know­ledge, and behaviors. This seems to differ from the usual perception of a learning or­gan­iza­tion as a process (Bui and Baruch 2012).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

140   Hong T. M. Bui In his Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum Improvement and Global Success, Marquardt (1996) views the learning organization more systemically. He defines a learning organization as “an organization which learns powerfully and collectively and is continually transforming itself to better collect, man­ age, and use knowledge for corporate success. It empowers people within and outside the company to learn as they work. Technology is utilized to optimize both learning and productivity” (Marquardt 1996: 19). In this definition, learning/knowledge is selected for the success of the company; and working is designed as a learning process. Marquardt (1996) stresses the importance of technology in the process of transforming an institu­ tion into a learning organization, which makes his definition slightly different from others. The focus of this definition is on all stakeholders who are empowered to learn from experience. Compared to the above definitions of learning organization, Marquardt (1996) has a broader view of its nature, going beyond the organization boundary to out­ side stakeholders, with technology as a crucial means for learning. Senge (1990), Pedler et al. (1991), and Garvin (1993) present learning organization through a reflection on the actual understanding and/or achievement by practitioners within organizations. In contrast, Garratt (1987), Watkins and Marsick (1993), and Marquardt (1996) are more concerned about the specifics of actions and behaviors than with concepts. All these authors perceive the learning organization from quite similar perspectives. However, they compare the learning organization with various things. Garratt (1987) called it a “business brain.” Senge (1990) used a metaphor to describe the system theory-based model. In his view, it is a “DNA” or a “hologram.” Each learning organization is a complex system, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The learning company/organization is metaphorically represented by Pedler et al. as “the fountain tree” (1991: 30). Watkins and Marsick’s (1993) metaphor for describing the learning organization is sculpting, with the idea that the knowledge and learning cap­acity lies within the organization and must be drawn from within. Marquardt (1996) described the transformation to the learning organization as being like a butterfly. Butterflies undergo radical transformation from caterpillars to butterflies. Learning organization is a metaphor, with its roots in the vision and search for a strategy to promote personal mastery within a constantly transforming organization. Regardless of the critique by Blantern, Boydell, and Burgoyne (2013) to drop “the dead metaphor” of learning organ­ ization, this concept still attracts attention and work from the research community.

Other Definitions of the Learning Organization Although the above definitions have set a firm foundation for the concept of learning organization, scholars and practitioners continue to develop and define the idea to meet the needs of particular circumstances. Below are a few more definitions to add further insights to the field.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

On Definitions of the Learning Organization   141 In an attempt to understand organizations as learning systems, Baker and Camarata (1998: 443) defined a learning organization as one that “provides a stimulating climate for members to continually strive for new approaches in acquiring knowledge that changes behavior to improve future performance.” Baker and Camarata (1998) ac­know­ ledge that they were influenced by Senge (1990). However, their definition of learning organization does not seem to be very clear because it seems to focus on individual members improving their performance rather than organizational performance. Teare and Dealtry (1998: 47) define a learning organization as “a social system whose members have learned conscious, communal processes for continually generating, retaining and leveraging individual and collective learning to improve the performance of the organizational system in ways important to all stakeholders, and monitoring and improving performance.” Unlike other definitions, Teare and Dealtry (1998) see a learn­ ing organization as a social system. This definition appreciates the interactions among different stakeholders and levels of an organization in its development to a learning organization. It goes beyond the boundary of an organization, which is similar to Marquardt’s (1996) view. In an attempt to propose a framework for understanding the concept of learning organizations from a normative perspective, Goh (2001) defines a learning organization as characterized by five managerial attributes: clarity of mission and purpose, shared leadership and involvement, experimentation, transfer of knowledge, and teamwork and cooperation. Unlike many other definitions, Goh’s one does not emphasize the role of learning in developing a learning organization. Örtenblad (2002, 2004, 2013) has defined a learning organization as one that has inte­ grated and implemented four perspectives of organizational learning, learning at work, learning climate, and learning structure. This typology focuses on learning as a core value of a learning organization. However, there seems to be a logical issue in these per­ spectives. In detail, learning at work, learning climate, and learning structure are viewed as essential components of organizational learning rather than merely independent aspects of it. While revisiting the roots of learning organization, Yeo (2005: 369) defines a learning organization as “a collective entity which focuses on the question of ‘what’; that is, what are the characteristics of an organization such that it (represented by all members) may learn?” Like Pedler et al. (1991) and Baker and Camarata (1998), Yeo’s (2005) definition emphasizes the role of members’ learning, but also highlights the characteristics of an organization. Unfortunately, it is not clear from Yeo’s work what those characteristics are. Voulalas and Sharpe (2005) in their study about creating public schools as learning communities in New South Wales developed a concept of the learning organization as a corporate entity that “constantly learns from its past and present experiences and its contemplation of the future, and consciously uses these learnings to continuously change and adapt in such a way as to maximize its outcomes in terms of its purpose in its constantly changing environment” (Voulalas and Sharpe 2005: 196). They emphasize the capacity of the whole organization to learn, adapt, and grow while interacting with its environment. This definition overlaps with Watkins and Marsick’s (1993) and Marquardt’s (1996) definitions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

142   Hong T. M. Bui These additional definitions seem to show that the more definitions of learning organization there are, the more interesting as well as vague this area appears to be. It stimulates scholars in the learning organization field to research more and have a better understanding of this concept. The following section presents my approach to creating a new definition of learning organization.

Towards a New Definition of Learning Organization With no ambition to review all the existing definitions of learning organization in this chapter because not every definition has the same value depending on the context, such as cultures, or sector, I have examined several typical ones to show that different people have special ways of defining the learning organization due to their different mental models. In general, scholars and practitioners seem to focus on the organizational capacity to learn, particularly learning from experience, and the capacity to transform and adapt to change. On the one hand, the concept of learning organization seems to lean heavily on a resource-based approach to indicate the organization’s ability to trans­ form available resources into competencies, which are unique (de Villiers 2008). On the other hand, in order to create and maintain a learning organization, the social exchange theory seems to support complex and changing relationships of learning organization (Baker and Camarata 1998). Definitions of learning organization by Senge (1990), Pedler et al. (1991), and Watkins and Marsick (1993) appear to be more generalized and empha­ size the prominent value of learning organization which is the human capacity, as­pir­ation and freedom to learn and to learn together. “People are born with intrinsic motivation, self-respect, dignity, curiosity to learn, joy in learning” (Dr. W. Edwards Deming quoted in Senge 2006: x). Table 9.1 summarizes the elements of a learning organization derived from the above definitions. I compare and contrast the mainstream definitions and other definitions in order to show whether there has been any progress in the area of learning organizations over the last three decades. It can be seen from the table that organizational learning and imperative behavior and/or action related to learning and knowledge management are essential to become a learning organization. Learning culture and the systems perspec­ tive appear to be critical means, while transformation sounds like an ultimate aim or goal in the definitions of learning organizations. Individual learning, teamwork, leader­ ship, and technology are components of learning organizations, and these factors appear here and there in a number of definitions. Such definitions, however, neither explicitly indicate the aim for innovation and sus­ tain­abil­ity of a learning organization, rather than the survival of the organization, nor appreciate the complexity and uncertainty of “the Industrial Age Bubble” in which we are living (Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur, and Schley 2010). These flaws may have made the journey of learning organization longer and more winding.

Table 9.1  Main characteristics in definitions of the learning organization Individual Teamwork Organizational Transformation Behaviors/ Learning Technology Leadership Systems learning learning actions culture

Garratt (1987) Senge (1990) Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell (1991) Watkins and Marsick (1993) Garvin (1993) Marquardt (1996) Baker and Camarata (1998) Teare and Dealtry (1998) Goh (2001) Örtenblad (2002, 2004, 2013) Voulalas and Sharpe (2005) Yeo (2005)

√ √ √ √ √ √

√ √

√ √

√

(Note: Gray shading indicates mainstream definitions)

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√ √ √

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Authors

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

144   Hong T. M. Bui Building from extant definitions and previous development of the idea of learning organization I propose the following definition: A learning organization is an organization in which a supportive learning culture and structure are strong enough to enable learning mindsets and systems learning across the organization to constantly transform and innovate itself for sustainable development in a complex and uncertain environment.

Borrowing the term “learning mindset” from Stiglitz and Greenwald (2014), I mean individuals with passion for learning. “Systems learning” refers to all levels of individual learning (i.e., single loop learning, double loop learning, and triple loop learning), all levels of organizational learning (including individual learning and team learning), and systems thinking. The concept of learning organization focuses on learning as a tool, a lever, and a philosophy for innovation and sustainability in organizations in an uncer­ tain and fast-changing world. As indicated in this newly developed definition, a learning organization is a process, not a state of suddenly announcing “hooray we are a learning organization,” because it constantly transforms and innovates itself for sustainable development. A search for solid evidence of being a learning organization is impossible because the world is complex and uncertain. Success today can be failure tomorrow. Best practices are not necessarily always going to work because solutions are not free of context (Gharajedaghi 2011).

Possible Future Venues for Learning Organization Research The newly developed definition of learning organization shows that a learning or­gan­iza­ tion appreciates individual and organizational values as well as the impacts of the exter­ nal environment in which the organization is embedded. It opens several future research venues for learning organization scholars and practitioners. First of all, as systems learn­ ing is an important part of learning organization, its methodologies will no longer be simple such as examining linear relationships. Methodologies in learning organization are very likely to evolve together with the development of systems thinking from hard systems thinking to soft systems thinking to critical systems thinking. Critical systems thinking embraces methodological pluralism, which refers to the usage of various methods that are aligned to both theory and context (Jackson 2010; Midgley, Munlo, and Brown 1998). Therefore, research methods will very likely adapt methodological pluralism to reflect the dynamism of learning organization for innovation and sus­tain­ abil­ity in a complex and uncertain environment. Second, the “learning mindsets” in my definition of learning organization can also open an under-researched area. Bui (Chapter 3 in this volume) and Bui, Ituma, and Antoconapoulou (2013) have discussed how to develop personal mastery as a part of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

On Definitions of the Learning Organization   145 building a learning organization. However, learning mindsets can be a motivator for personal mastery, but are different from personal mastery itself. Though learning mind­ sets refer to the passion for learning, malicious obedience and dangerous enthusiasm can block learning (see more in Garratt, Chapter  8 in this volume). Future research should look into what kind of learning mindsets can help in designing and implement­ ing the learning organization. Third, my definition of learning organization emphasizes the role of building a sup­ portive learning culture and structure, and action learning seems to be the best way to generate such results (Garratt, Chapter 8 in this volume; Marquardt, Chapter 7 in this volume). Watkins and Marsick (Chapter 4 in this volume) state that creating a learning culture means situating the learning DNA of the organization. Action learning is a dynamic process that involves people solving real problems, learning and identifying how their learning mindsets can benefit the organization. This process gradually formu­ lates a learning culture and structure that people collectively desire to create. This is more easily said than done. It requires the commitment of people from all levels in the organization. Last but not least, though business and management studies have explored and exploited the areas of innovation, transformation, and sustainable development, there is little scientific empirical evidence of the outcomes of learning organization that are associated with this. I hope that after this book is published, researchers and prac­ti­ tioners in the learning organization field can bring such evidence to the table.

References Baker, R.  T., and M.  R.  Camarata. 1998. “The Role of Communication in Creating and Maintaining a Learning Organization: Preconditions, Indicators, and Disciplines.” Journal of Business Communication 35 (4): pp. 443–76. Birdthistle, N. 2008. “Family SMEs in Ireland as Learning Organizations.” The Learning Organization 15 (5): pp. 421–36. Blantern, C. J., T. H. Boydell, and J. G. Burgoyne. 2013. “The Learning Organization: Drop the Dead Metaphor! Performing Organizing and Learning Networks (So To Speak).” In  Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context, ed. A. Örtenblad, pp. 306–57. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Boyle, E. 2002. “A Critical Appraisal of the Performance of Royal Dutch Shell as a Learning Organization in the 1990s.” The Learning Organization 9 (1): pp. 6–19. Bui, H. T. M., and Y. Baruch. 2012. “Learning Organizations in Higher Education: An Empirical Evaluation within an International Context.” Management Learning 43 (5): pp. 515–44. Bui, H. T. M., and Y. Baruch. 2013. “Universities as Learning Organizations: Internationalization and Innovation.” In Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context, ed. A.  Örtenblad, pp. 227–44. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Bui, H. T. M., A. Ituma, and E. Antoconapoulou. 2013. “Antecedents and Outcomes of Personal Mastery: Cross Country Evidence.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 24 (1/2): pp. 167–94.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

146   Hong T. M. Bui Contu, A., C. Grey, and A. Örtenblad. 2013. “Against Learning.” Human Relations 56 (8): pp. 931–52. Coopey, J. 1995. “The Learning Organization: Power, Politics and Ideology.” Management Learning 26 (2): pp. 193–213. Cornish, W., and D. Llewelyn. 2007. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 6th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell. de Villiers, W.  A. 2008. “The Learning Organization: Validating a Measuring Instrument.” Journal of Applied Business Research 24 (4): pp. 11–22. Forman, D.  C. 2004. “Changing Perspectives from Individual to Organizational Learning.” Performance Improvement 43 (7): pp. 16–21. Garratt, B. 1987. The Learning Organization: And the Need for Directors Who Think. London: HarperCollins. Garvin, D. A. 1993. “Building a Learning Organization.” Harvard Business Review 71 (4): pp. 78–91. Gharajedaghi, J. 2011. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity. A Platform for Designing Business Architecture, 3rd ed. London: Elsevier. Goh, S. C. 2001. “The Learning Organization: An Empirical Test of a Normative Perspective.” International Journal of Organizational Theory and Behavior 4 (3/4): pp. 329–55. Hitt, W. D. 1995. “The Learning Organization: Some Reflections on Organizational Renewal.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 16 (8): pp. 17–25. Hsu, S. 2013. “Alternative Learning Organization.” In Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context, ed. A. Örtenblad, pp. 298–308. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hussein, N., S.  Omar, F.  Noordin, and N.  A.  Ishak. 2016. “Learning Organization Culture, Organizational Performance and Organizational Innovativeness in a Public Institution of Higher Education in Malaysia: A Preliminary Study.” Procedia Economics and Finance 37: pp. 512–19. Jackson, B.  B. 2000. “A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Peter Senge’s Learning Organization.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36 (2): pp. 193–209. Jackson, M. C. 2010. “Reflections on the Development and Contribution of Critical Systems Thinking and Practice.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27 (2): pp. 133–9. Kiedrowski, F. 2006. “Quantitative Assessment of a Senge Learning Organization Intervention.” The Learning Organization 13 (4): pp. 369–83. Marquardt, M. J. 1996. Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum Improvement and Global Success. New York: McGraw-Hill. Midgley, G., I. Munlo, and M. Brown. 1998. “The Theory and Practice of Boundary Critique: Developing Housing Services for Older People.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 49 (5): pp. 467–78. Ngah, R., T. Tai, and N. Bontis. 2016. “Knowledge Management Capabilities and Organizational Performance in Roads and Transport Authority of Dubai: The Mediating Role of Learning Organization.” Knowledge and Process Management 23 (3): pp. 184–93. Örtenblad, A. 2002. “A Typology of the Idea of Learning Organization.” Management Learning 33 (2): pp. 213–30. Örtenblad, A. 2004. “The Learning Organization: Towards an Integrated Model.” The Learning Organization 11 (2): pp. 129–44. Örtenblad, A. 2013. “What Do We Mean by ‘Learning Organization’?” In Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context, ed. A.  Örtenblad, pp. 22–34. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

On Definitions of the Learning Organization   147 Örtenblad, A. 2018. “What Does ‘Learning Organization’ Mean?” The Learning Organization 25 (3): pp. 150–8. Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne, and T. Boydell. 1991. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, 2nd ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Reese, S., and Y.  Sidani. 2018. “A View of the Learning Organization from a Practical Perspective: Interview with Michael Marquardt.” The Learning Organization 25 (5): pp. 353–61. Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Random House. Senge, P. M. 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, 2nd ed. London: Random House. Senge, P., B. Smith, N. Kruschwitz, J. Laur, and S. Schley. 2010. The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. London: Nicholas Brealey. Stiglitz, J.  E., and B.  C.  Greenwald. 2014. Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development, and Social Progress. New York: Columbia University Press. Teare, R., and R.  Dealtry. 1998. “Building and Sustaining a Learning Organization.” The Learning Organization 5 (1): pp. 47–60. Voulalas, Z. D., and F. G. Sharpe. 2005. “Creating Schools as Learning Communities: Obstacles and Processes.” Journal of Educational Administration 43 (2): pp. 187–208. Watkins, K. E., and V. J. Marsick. 1993. Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Yeo, R. K. 2005. “Revisiting the Roots of Learning Organization.” The Learning Organization 12 (4): pp. 368–82.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

pa rt I I I

A SPE C T S OF T H E L E A R N I NG ORGA N I Z AT ION

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 10

Lea r n i ng i n the Le a r n i ng Orga n iz ation: COncepts a n d A n teceden ts Max Visser and Paul Tosey

Introduction Many authors put forward the view that organizations need to learn in order to sustain competitive advantage and leverage higher performance in their increasingly dynamic, complex, and changing social and economic environments. Put succinctly, “the ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage” (De Geus 1988: 71). In general, the more dynamic, complex, and changing the en­vir­on­ men­tal contingencies are considered to be, the more deeply probing and comprehensive learning processes also need to be. Given its importance for organizational performance, the scientific study of learning in and by organizations has burgeoned in recent decades, both in quantity of publications (counted in Bapuji and Crossan 2004) and in diversity of theoretical perspectives and conceptual distinctions (Easterby-Smith and Lyles 2011; Visser, Chiva, and Tosey 2018). Likewise, the concept of the learning organization is characterized by many different perspectives, as this handbook attests. While many of these perspectives outline in some detail the organizational conditions considered beneficial for learning, the specific nature of that learning is often less precisely defined. Furthermore, the close ties between learning organization and organizational learning may imply that the the­or­­etic­al diver­ sity of the latter is somehow imported in the former, further adding conceptual ambiguity and confusion to understanding the nature of learning in the learning or­gan­iza­tion.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

152   Max Visser and Paul Tosey Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to review three main perspectives on the learning organization and focus on their conceptualizations of learning. By tra­cing the genealogy of these conceptualizations in the broader learning literature, we aim to find common theoretical antecedents to the perspectives under consideration. Towards that purpose, we discuss the perspectives of Pedler et al., Senge and Marsick and Watkins. From previous reviews, these three appear as the most influential in terms of the empirical research they have instigated and the theoretical and practical contribu­ tions they have made to the field (e.g., Moilanen 2001; Örtenblad 2002, 2018; Pedler 1995; Pedler and Burgoyne 2017; Sun 2003; Watkins and Kim 2018). Since, however, these three perspectives are reviewed in other chapters (see, e.g., Bui, Chapter 3 in this v­ olume; Watkins and Marsick, Chapter  4 in this volume; Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne, Chapter 6 in this volume; Marsick and Watkins, with contributions from King Smith, Chapter 17 in this volume), we concentrate on their definitions and conceptualizations of learning and discuss the common theoretical antecedents thereof. Finally, this chapter ends with conclusions.

Pedler et al.: the learning company The ideas of Mike Pedler, John Burgoyne, and Tom Boydell about the learning company emerged from a six-month pilot project on “developing the learning company” they undertook among director-level personnel in eight large British public and private sector organizations between October 1987 and April 1988 (Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne 1989a, 1989b). This led to an initial definition of the learning company as “an organization which facilitates the learning of all of its members and continuously trans­ forms itself in order to meet its strategic goals” (Pedler et al. 1989b: 92). In their later work, they changed this definition into “an organization that facilitates the learning of all its members and consciously transforms itself and its context,” because they recog­ nized that the “continuously” transforming organization in the older definition “would hardly ever be able to function,” and also that “transformation being a more episodic process . . . [should be] a result of self-awareness and will” (Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell 1997: 3, italics in original). They also added “context,” because a learning com­ pany should evolve from surviving to adapting and then to sustaining its environment (Pedler et al. 1997: 4). In order to develop a learning company along these lines, Pedler et al. outline eleven beneficial organizational conditions, for the diagnosis of which they have compiled a Learning Company Questionnaire: (1) a learning approach to strategy; (2) participa­ tive policy-making; (3) informating; (4) formative accounting and control; (5) internal exchange; (6) reward flexibility; (7) enabling structures; (8) boundary workers as en­vir­on­ment scanners; (9) inter-company learning; (10) learning climate (i.e., of continuing reflection and improvement); (11) self-development opportunities for all (Pedler et al. 1997: 15).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning in the Learning Organization   153 Pedler et al. define learning in the context of this learning company: “learning is about how we change . . . In the learning company four kinds or types of learning are important. These are learning (1) about things, or knowledge; (2) to do things, or skills, abilities, competences; (3) to become ourselves, to achieve our full potential, or personal development; (4) to achieve things together, or collaborative inquiry” (Pedler 1995: 22, italics in ori­gin­al). A “company that does a lot of training” could accomplish the first two of these, but not the second two (Pedler et al. 1989a: 2). Regarding theoretical influences, they recognize the work of Chris Argyris and Donald Schön and of Reginald Revans as central to their concept of learning company. The “landmark book” by Argyris and Schön (1978) developed the notions of single-loop learning, double-loop learning, and deutero-learning and proposed interventions to help organizations to transit from a defensive Model I to a productive Model II learning system. Revans in an early paper provided a “very modern conception on the symbiosis of work and learning in the qualities of autonomous learning systems” (Pedler et al. 1989b: 95). More in general, the work of Revans revealed a “passionate concern to empower the individual, which complements the more macro perspective of Argyris and Schön” (Pedler 1995: 23; Pedler et al. 1989b: 96). Revans’ emphasis on “comrades in adversity” and peers learning through helping each other is reflected in Pedler et al.’s choice of the term “learning company” rather than “learning organization”: “we prefer ‘company’ because it means people working together in each other’s company, not because we have a primary concern for the private, ‘for profit’ sector” (Pedler et al. 1997: 139). Further, they consider Revans as a useful correction to Argyris and Schön: “the contrast between them is as much rational/cerebral versus emotional/cerebral as ‘bottom-up’ versus ‘top-down’ and if Argyris and Schön are the ‘brain surgeons’ then Revans is perhaps the ‘Doctor of the Soul’ of the organization” (Pedler et al. 1989b: 96). As further influences, Pedler et al. regard the organizational development literature of the 1960s, the socio-technical systems view of organizations of Jacques, Burns and Stalker, and others, Deming’s Total Quality Management, the “writings of Gregory Bateson . . . especially his theory of ‘deutero-learning,’ or learning to learn,” and the 1970 Reith lectures by Schön (1971), who brought the term “learning system” into good currency (Pedler 1995: 23; Pedler et al. 1997: 5, 14).

Senge: The Disciplines of the Learning Organization The ideas of Peter Senge about the disciplines of the learning organization emerged from his doctoral work, consulting and teaching activities at MIT during the 1970s and 1980s. Initially he felt that the solutions to complex and interdependent world problems could be found in the public sector, but as he started to work with business leaders he generally found them “deeply aware of the inadequacies of prevailing ways of man­aging”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

154   Max Visser and Paul Tosey and “shar[ing] a commitment and a capacity to innovate that was lacking in the public sector.” From the mid-1970s onwards Senge was involved in developing and conducting a “Leadership and Mastery” program, “weaving together the systems perspective and the personal development perspective in an organizational context.” The program was attended by over 4,000 managers, teachers, public administrators, elected officials, and students (Fulmer and Keys 1998b: 35; Senge 1990a: 14–16). All these experiences gave rise to a definition of learning organizations as “organizations 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” (Senge 1990a: 3). In order to develop a learning organization along these lines, Senge outlines five bene­fi­cial organizational conditions, or “disciplines”: (1) personal mastery; (2) mental models; (3) building shared vision; (4) team learning; and (5) systems thinking, “the fifth discipline . . . that integrated the disciplines, fusing them into a coherent body of theory and practice” (Senge 1990a: 12). Such a holistic approach is necessary to battle the three “basic dysfunctions of our larger culture,” to wit fragmentation, competition, and reac­ tiveness, which also constitute major organizational learning disabilities (Kofman and Senge 1993: 7). Senge defines learning in the context of these five disciplines: “for such a [learning] organization, it is not enough merely to survive. ‘Survival learning’ or what is more often termed ‘adaptive learning’ is important—indeed it is necessary. But for a learning or­gan­ iza­tion, ‘adaptive learning’ must be joined by ‘generative learning,’ learning that enhances our capacity to create” (Senge 1990a: 14; 1990b: 8). It is coupled to systemic thinking, to the extent that “generative learning cannot be sustained in an organization where event thinking predominates. It requires a conceptual framework of ‘structural’ or systemic thinking, the ability to discover structural causes of behavior” (Senge 1990a: 53). Regarding theoretical influences, Senge recognizes the work of Argyris and Schön as central to this concept of learning and to the disciplines of mental models and team learning (Calhoun, Starbuck, and Abrahamson 2011; Edmondson and Moingeon 1998). His distinction between adaptive and generative learning “has its roots in the distinc­ tion between what Argyris and Schön (1978) have called their ‘single-loop’ learning, in which individuals or groups adjust their behavior relative to fixed goals, norms, and assumptions, and ‘double-loop’ learning in which goals, norms, and assumptions, as well as behavior, are open to change” (Senge 1990b: 22). His emphasis on surfacing and testing mental models closely follows Argyris and Schön on the importance of recogniz­ ing “leaps of abstraction” (i.e., jumps from observation to generalization), of balancing inquiry and advocacy, of distinguishing espoused theory from theory in use, and of rec­ ognizing and defusing defensive routines (e.g., by using the “left-hand column” express­ ing in a conversation what we say and what we think) (Senge 1990a: 186, 191–202; 1990b: 14–15, 18–19). His emphasis on team learning closely follows Argyris and Schön on the importance of dealing with conflict and defensive routines, which arise from a perceived need to learn that at the same time creates a threat to existing understanding

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning in the Learning Organization   155 and behaviors, which in its turn decreases that need to learn, and of practicing team learning, e.g., through Schön’s “reflective practice” or by using “learning laboratories” or “micro-worlds” (Senge 1990a: 238–66; Kofman and Senge 1993: 16). As further influ­ ences Senge regards the field of system dynamics (Forrester, Meadows), the idea of strategic intent (Hamel, Prahalad), Maslow’s ideas of self-actualization, Bohm’s work on dialogue, De Geus’ experiences with planning as learning at Royal Dutch Shell, and Eastern and Western spiritual traditions more in general (Fulmer and Keys  1998b; Senge 1990a, 1990b).

Marsick and Watkins: Dimensions of a Learning Organization The ideas of Victoria Marsick and Karen Watkins about the dimensions of a learning organization emerged from their respective backgrounds in international and UNICEF health grassroots training programs (Marsick) and in higher education faculty or­gan­ iza­tion development (Watkins) (Sidani and Reese 2018: 203). These experiences gave rise to an initial definition of the learning organization as: one that learns continuously and transforms itself. Learning takes place in in­di­vid­ uals, teams, the organization, and even the communities with which the organiza­ tion interacts. Learning is a continuous, strategically used process—integrated with, and running parallel to, work. Learning results in changes in knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors. Learning also enhances organizational capacity for innovation and growth. The learning organization has embedded systems to capture and share learning.  (Watkins and Marsick 1993: 8–9)

While this initial definition was in some ways similar to that of Pedler et al. (1989a, 1989b), in their later work their thinking evolved to the extent that they “are much more clearly focused on creating a learning culture than [on] specific behaviors or ‘action imperatives’ ” and “more interested in what is embedded in the organization’s culture and enhancing its long-term capacity, rather than what goes on in regard to indi­ vidual managers’ learning and development” (Sidani and Reese 2018: 200, 202). In order to develop a learning organization along these lines, Marsick and Watkins outline seven beneficial organizational conditions, for the diagnosis of which they com­ piled a Dimensions of a Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ): (1) create con­ tinuous learning opportunities; (2) promote inquiry and dialogue; (3) encourage collaboration and team learning; (4) establish systems to capture and share learning; (5) empower people toward a collective vision; (6) connect the organization to its en­vir­on­ ment; (7) provide strategic leadership for learning (Marsick and Watkins  2003: 139; Watkins and Marsick 1993: 11).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

156   Max Visser and Paul Tosey Marsick and Watkins define learning in the context of this learning organization. At the individual level, learning occurs when: disjunctures, discrepancies, surprises, or challenges act as triggers that stimulate a response. Individuals select a strategy or action based on their cognitive and af­fect­ ive understanding of the meaning of the initial trigger. Once a strategy or plan of action is determined, the individual implements the strategy. The strategy then either works or does not work as expected. When it does not work, there is dis­son­ ance and the cycle is triggered again.  (Marsick and Watkins 2003: 134)

At the organizational level, however, learning “is not the sum of many people learning. Yet, individuals carry within them a microcosmic portrait of the or­gan­iza­tion . . . Through these portraits, we can detect changes in the organization’s mental models, shared values, and memory . . . In short, individual learning is related to or­gan­iza­tion­al learning though not equal to it and potentially (though not necessarily) interdependent with it” (Marsick and Watkins 2003: 135–6). Regarding theoretical influences, Marsick and Watkins recognize the work of Argyris and Schön as central to this concept of learning: we were both very strongly influenced by action science—Karen even more than I, although I was passionate about it—by Chris Argyris’ and Donald Schön’s work. Karen brought them to the University of Texas where she was at the time, and I met Karen and she invited me as well, and I loved Chris’s work and [we thought] this was an opportunity to pursue it.  (Sidani and Reese 2018: 202)

Marsick in particular was influenced by Revans’ work, while further influences include John Dewey, for whom social interaction was important for growth, and Kurt Lewin, who closely wedded action research to social and organizational practice (Marsick and Watkins 2003: 134; Sidani and Reese 2018: 203).

Common Antecedents While the three perspectives discussed so far present different definitions and concep­ tualizations of learning and different organizational conditions considered beneficial for that learning, they seem to share a main common antecedent in the work of Argyris and Schön. Pedler et al. and Marsick and Watkins also share a subsidiary com­ mon antecedent in the work of Revans. In this section, we further explore these common ante­cedents, finding that other antecedents in the work of Lewin, Dewey, and Bateson either have been applied in or are very compatible with the work of Argyris and Schön and Revans. Chris Argyris (1923–2013) was trained as a social and organizational psychologist. His scientific outlook was greatly influenced by Lewin, from whom he took over the notion

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning in the Learning Organization   157 that scientific knowledge must be practical in the first place. The scientist is first and foremost an action researcher, helping to bring about positive consequences for or­gan­ iza­tions and their inhabitants (Argyris 1997; Fulmer and Keys 1998a). Further, Argyris was an early exponent of the “human relations” school in management of Maslow, Bennis, McGregor, and others. Already in his first widely-read book (Argyris 1957), he argued that a gap exists between human needs of self-actualization and autonomy and existing practices in organizations that work against these needs, making employees dependent and submissive instead. This gap causes increasing levels of apathy, alien­ ation, and materialism among employees, which jeopardize the problem-solving cap­abil­ity of organizations and thus their existence in the long run. To counteract this negative chain of events, Argyris argued for the necessity of permanent organization development, directed at the continuing self-actualization of employees (Argyris 1992). Donald A. Schön (1930–97) was trained as a philosopher. His scientific outlook was greatly influenced by Dewey: he founded his dissertation on Dewey’s Logic (1938), and some three decades later the same book inspired Schön to transpose Dewey’s theory of inquiry into his concept of “reflective practice” (Schön 1983, 1992). Both Dewey and Schön emphasize the interplay between order (“habits”), interruption (“problematic situation” or “error”), and recovery (resolving the problematic situation through “inquiry”) as a fundamental feature of human life, inside and outside organizations. Further, in his 1970 Reith lectures Schön (1971) was among the first to point out that tur­ bulence and continuous change have become a permanent future of modern society. He showed how exponential technological change has become increasingly felt in all quar­ ters of society, leading to an acceleration of change. Organizations, however, are not well-prepared for this loss of the “stable state.” They display dynamic conservatism, a “tendency to fight to remain the same” (Schön 1971: 32). But to survive in turbulent times, organizations have to adapt: they should transform themselves into “learning sys­ tems,” while at the same time preserving their identity and cohesion. Argyris and Schön began joint work in 1971, combining Argyris’ plea for permanent organization development and Schön’s plea for continuous transformation in the con­ cept of organizational learning, and also undergoing the influence of the emerging cybernetics research of Bateson and W. Ross Ashby of those days. From Ashby (1960), Argyris and Schön took a basic cybernetic model of organizations as goal-adaptive, nega­tive feedback systems, exemplified in the oft-used thermostat analogy (which dis­ tinguishes between single- and double-loop learning) (Argyris and Schön 1974, 1978, 1996). From Bateson (1972), Argyris and Schön took the notion of ­levels of learning, exemplified in the concept of deutero-learning, or learning to learn (Argyris  2003; Argyris and Schön  1978,  1996; Schön  1975). Further, Dewey remained an important source of inspiration for their joint thinking about organizational inquiry (Argyris and Schön 1996). The cybernetic model returns in Argyris and Schön’s concept of “theory of action,” which has the general form: “in situation S, if you want to achieve consequence C, under assumptions a1…an, do A” (Argyris and Schön 1974: 6). The assumptions constitute a model of the world in which it is likely that action strategy A will lead to consequence C

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

158   Max Visser and Paul Tosey in situation S. Besides these elements, theories of action contain governing variables, i.e., underlying norms and values that make consequence C desirable or worthwhile to achieve. For persons these are the deeper-lying motives and drives residing in their personality. For organizations these are the deeper-lying characteristics of their struc­ ture and culture, which constitute their essence. There are two kinds of theory of action: (a) espoused, the theory persons and or­gan­ iza­tions say they will follow when queried about it, for example in verbal statements, policy documents, etc.; (b) in use, the theory persons and organization follow in fact, which can be reconstructed on the basis of observation of their daily behavior. These two kinds of theory of action do not need to coincide. Often persons and organizations are not aware of discrepancies between the two. Learning starts when actual consequences of an action strategy do not correspond to expected consequences. This discrepancy between expectation and result is considered an error or problematic situation, which calls for a period of reflection and inquiry by employees in order to “make that indeterminate, problematic situation determinate, thereby restoring the flow of activity” (Argyris and Schön 1996: 30–1, following Dewey 1938). Organizational learning then involves the “detection and correction of error on the basis of inquiry” (Argyris and Schön 1978: 2). This may be accomplished by: (a)  single-loop learning, in which organization members mitigate the discrepancy between expected and actual consequences by adjusting their action strategy A and assumptions a1 . . . an, but without changing their norms and values that make conse­ quence C desirable; or (b) double-loop learning, in which members mitigate the dis­ crepancy between expected and actual consequences by adjusting their action strategy A, assumptions a1 . . . an, and by changing their norms and values that make consequence C desirable. Double-loop learning thus constitutes a more profound and deeper mode of inquiry and of learning than single-loop learning. Importantly, Argyris and Schön (1974,  1978,  1996) have inquired into the ways in which the behavioral world of an organization inhibits or promotes reflection and inquiry into the causes of error. They assert that most organizations are driven by a Model O-I theory in use, characterized by a closed attitude among individuals and a defensive learning climate in the organization as a whole. This model is particularly prevalent when errors are perceived as status threatening and embarrassing, in which cases attempts are often made to bypass this threat and embarrassment by unilateral control of information, advocacy without inquiry (i.e., winning and not losing one’s point), diplomacy, and easing-in. All this serves to cover up errors and problems and thus makes collaborative reflection and inquiry into their causes hard to achieve. As an alternative to Model O-I, Argyris and Schön (1974, 1978, 1996) advocate a Model O-II theory in use, characterized by an open attitude among individuals and a pro­duct­ive learning climate in the organization as a whole. Decisions are made on the basis of valid information, advocacy is balanced by inquiry, and there is free and informed choice and personal commitment to decisions and their implementation. All this serves to surface errors and problems and thus enables collaborative reflection and inquiry into their causes. Argyris and Schön regard Model O-II as a crucial condition for double-loop

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning in the Learning Organization   159 learning, and double-loop learning in its turn as a crucial condition for or­gan­iza­tion­al survival in the long run. Model O-II organizations, however, are rarely found in practice, and often external interventions are necessary to create a productive learning climate. While addressing similar concerns, the work of Reginald W. Revans (1907–2003) has tended to exist alongside that of Argyris and Schön without much interconnection (see also Garratt, Chapter 8 in this volume). Trained as a physicist at Cambridge, UK, under the direction of two Nobel laureates, at an early age he became impressed with the humility, open-mindedness, and willingness to learn of these two men. Turning to educational matters first and later to organizational problems in hospitals, coal mines, and profit and not-for-profit organizations more generally, in the course of his long career Revans developed a distinct approach that placed action at the heart of learning: “there can be no learning without action, and no action without learning” (Revans 1983: 45). Fundamental to action is teamwork, hence Revans emphasized “learning from and with each other,” the importance of questioning insight and of personal change for any real learning to happen (Barker 2010: 43; Bourner, Brook, and Pedler 2018). Revans’ commitment to practice and profound skepticism of the programmed learn­ ing offered by business schools also meant that he seldom published in scholarly jour­ nals. Despite this, Revans’ focus on the social, interpersonal dimension of learning is important for Pedler et al. as a complement to the more cognitive emphasis found in Argyris and Schön’s work. His influence on Marsick and Watkins is also explicit; one of the seven conditions in their DLOQ is “collaboration and team learning.” While not influenced by Revans, Senge’s work (1990a) also shows an interest in the social dimen­ sion of learning through the notion of “team learning,” albeit with a more cerebral, results-oriented emphasis. It seems significant that all three conceptions of the learning organization rely on some notion of “team” or “collaborative learning” and emphasize that widespread individ­ ual learning (or training) does not necessarily result in a learning organization; and yet that all these conceptions remain rather vague about how collective learning should come about. While their common antecedents provide interesting clues towards this, we would argue that the lack of understanding about how collective learning happens is the most important gap in the theory and practice of the learning organization. If the ability “to learn faster than your competitors” in the end crucially depends on the ability to learn together, this surely provides an important focus for future research and scholarship.

Conclusions and Discussion In this chapter we have reviewed three main perspectives to the learning organization (by Pedler et al., Senge, and Marsick and Watkins) and focused on their conceptualiza­ tions of learning. By tracing theoretical antecedents of these conceptualizations in the broader learning literature, we have arrived at a genealogy and conclude that all three seem to share a common antecedent in the individual and joint work of Argyris and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

160   Max Visser and Paul Tosey Schön; Pedler et al., and Marsick and Watkins share a subsidiary common antecedent in the work of Revans. Other antecedents in the work of Lewin, Dewey, and Bateson either have been applied in or are very compatible with the work of Argyris and Schön, and Revans. All three formulations of the learning organization appear, in essence, to be advocating a Model O-II organization and a strong connection between working and collective learning. Theoretical implications of our review reside in further elaborations of these Model O-II and collective learning elements. Regarding Model O-II, fruitful connections could be made to existing work on psychological safety (e.g., Carmeli and Gittell 2009; Edmondson 1999) and errors in organizations (e.g., Goodman et al. 2011; Hofmann and Frese 2011) in order to develop a more fine-grained analysis of how social, cognitive, and emotional factors in learning organizations impact the detection and correction of errors. Regarding collective learning, fruitful connections could be made to existing work on social learning theory (e.g., Elkjaer 2004) and practice-based approaches (e.g., Gherardi 2011) in order to develop a more fine-grained analysis of how socialization, identity development, and socio-material relations interact in processes of collective learning within learning organizations. Practical implications of our review also point in the direction of these Model O-II and collective learning elements. However, while the perspectives of Pedler et al., Senge, and Marsick and Watkins and their antecedents in the work of in particular Argyris and Schön, Revans, and Lewin have clear roots in organizational practice, the guidance these perspectives offer inevitably is limited, as it has to be attuned to the particular eco­ nomic and socio-cultural context any learning organization finds itself in.

References Argyris, C. 1957. Personality and Organization: The Conflict between System and the Individual. New York: Harper. Argyris, C. 1992. On Organizational Learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Argyris, C. 1997. “Field Theory as a Basis for Scholarly Consulting.” Journal of Social Issues 53 (4): pp. 811–27. Argyris, C. 2003. “A Life Full of Learning.” Organization Studies 24 (7): pp. 1178–92. Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1974. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ashby, W. R. 1960. Design for a Brain: The Origin of Adaptive Behavior, 2nd rev. ed. London: Chapman & Hall. Bapuji, H., and M. M. Crossan. 2004. “From Questions to Answers: Reviewing Organizational Learning Research.” Management Learning 35 (4): pp. 397–417. Barker, A. E. 2010. “Remembering Reg Evans: Action Learning’s Principal Pioneer.” In Action Learning: History and Evolution, ed. Y.  Boshyk and R.  L.  Dilworth, pp. 29–47. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Learning in the Learning Organization   161 Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Bourner, T., C. Brook, and M. Pedler. 2018. “The Nurses Memorandum of 1938: A First Step in the Development of Action Learning?” Action Learning: Research and Practice 15 (1): pp. 28–37. Calhoun, M. A., W. H. Starbuck, and E. Abrahamson. 2011. “Fads, Fashions, and the Fluidity of Knowledge: Peter Senge’s ‘The Learning Organization.’ ” In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, 2nd ed., ed. M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles, pp. 225–28. New York: Wiley. Carmeli, A., and J.  H.  Gittel. 2009. “High Quality Relationships, Psychological Safety, and Learning from Failures in Work Organizations.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 30 (6): pp. 709–29. De Geus, A. P. 1988. “Planning as Learning.” Harvard Business Review 66 (2): pp. 70–4. Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Holt. Easterby-Smith, M., and M. A. Lyles. 2011. “The Evolving Field of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management.” In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, 2nd ed., ed. M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles, pp. 1–20. New York: Wiley. Edmondson, A.  C. 1999. “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (2): pp. 350–83. Edmondson, A. C., and B. Moingeon. 1998. “From Organizational Learning to the Learning Organization.” Management Learning 29 (1): pp. 5–20. Elkjaer, B. 2004. “Organizational Learning: The ‘Third Way’.” Management Learning 35 (4): pp. 419–34. Fulmer, R.  M., and J.  B.  Keys. 1998a. “A Conversation with Chris Argyris: The Father of Organizational Learning.” Organizational Dynamics 27 (1): pp. 21–32. Fulmer, R. M., and J. B. Keys. 1998b. “A Conversation with Peter Senge: New Developments in Organizational Learning.” Organizational Dynamics 27 (1): pp. 33–41. Gherardi, S. 2011. “Organizational Learning: The Sociology of Practice.” In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, 2nd ed., ed. M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles, pp. 43–65. New York: Wiley. Goodman, P.  S., R.  Ramanujam, J.  S.  Carroll, A.  C.  Edmondson, D.  A.  Hofmann, and K. M. Sutcliffe. 2011. “Organizational Errors: Directions for Future Research.” Research in Organizational Behavior 31: pp. 151–76. Hofmann, D. A. and M. Frese (eds.). 2011. Errors in Organizations. New York: Routledge. Kofman, F., and P.  M.  Senge. 1993. “Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations.” Organizational Dynamics 22 (2): pp. 5–23. Marsick, V.  J., and K.  E.  Watkins. 2003. “Demonstrating the Value of an Organization’s Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 5 (2): pp. 132–51. Moilanen, R. 2001. “Diagnostic Tools for Learning Organizations.” The Learning Organization 8 (1): pp. 6–20. Örtenblad, A. 2002. “A Typology of the Idea of Learning Organization.” Management Learning 33 (2): pp. 213–30. Örtenblad, A. 2018. “What Does ‘Learning Organization’ Mean?” The Learning Organization 25 (3): pp. 150–8. Pedler, M. 1995. “A Guide to the Learning Organization.” Industrial and Commercial Training 27 (4): pp. 21–5. Pedler, M., T.  Boydell, and J.  G.  Burgoyne. 1989a. “Towards the Learning Company.” Management Education and Development 20 (1): pp. 1–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

162   Max Visser and Paul Tosey Pedler, M., T.  Boydell, and J.  G.  Burgoyne. 1989b. “The Learning Company.” Studies in Continuing Education 11 (2): pp. 91–101. Pedler, M., and J. G. Burgoyne. 2017. “Is the Learning Organization Still Alive?” The Learning Organization 24 (2): pp. 119–26. Pedler, M., J.  G.  Burgoyne, and T.  Boydell. 1997. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, 2nd ed. London: McGraw-Hill. Revans, R. 1983. “Action Learning: The Forces of Achievement, or Getting It Done.” Management Decision 21 (3): pp. 44–54. Schön, D. A. 1971. Beyond the Stable State. New York: Random House. Schön, D. A. 1975. “Deutero-Learning in Organizations: Learning for Increased Effectiveness.” Organizational Dynamics 4 (1): pp. 2–16. Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. A. 1992. “The Theory of Inquiry: Dewey’s Legacy to Education.” Curriculum Inquiry 22 (2): pp. 119–39. Senge, P. M. 1990a. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P.  M. 1990b. “The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organizations.” Sloan Management Review 32 (1): pp. 7–23. Sidani, Y., and S. Reese. 2018. “A Journey of Collaborative Learning Organization Research: Interview with Victoria Marsick and Karen Watkins.” The Learning Organization 25 (3): pp. 199–209. Sun, H.-C. 2003. “Conceptual Clarifications for ‘Organizational Learning’, ‘Learning Organization’ and ‘a Learning Organization’.” Human Resource Development International 6 (2): pp. 153–66. Visser, M., R.  Chiva, and P.  Tosey. 2018. “Levels of Learning: Hither and Whither. Guest Editorial.” The Learning Organization 25 (4): pp. 218–23. Watkins, K. E., and K. Kim. 2018. “Current Status and Promising Directions for Research on the Learning Organization.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 29 (1): pp. 15–29. Watkins, K. E., and V. J. Marsick. 1993. Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 11

A m bidextrous Lea r n i ng Orga n iz ations Alice Lam

Introduction The dual search for stability and flexibility constitutes a central paradox in all forms of organizing (Farjoun 2010; Thompson 1967). For a long time, organizational theorists have maintained that the structures and processes that support stability and reliability were largely incompatible with those needed for flexibility, learning, and change. Much of the literature on the relationship between organizing and learning has remained grounded in a dualistic perspective based on over-simplified polarized concepts which obscure the complex dynamics of organizational life. Organizational design theories, for example, have long been dominated by the contingency framework which focuses on environmental conditions that drive the choice between two alternative models of organization: “mechanistic” vs. “organic” (Burns and Stalker 1961). Whereas the former is seen as suitable for stable task environments and good for efficiency, the latter is regarded as more suitable for complex tasks and dynamic environments in which flexibility, learning, and innovation are important (Burns and Stalker 1961; Mintzberg 1979). According to this lens, effective organizing requires managers to choose between alternative forms that best align with their strategic goals and the external environment. This “either/or” framework is also reflected in the literature on organizational learning which makes the parallel argument that there is a trade-off between “exploitation,” the refinement and implementation of existing knowledge, and “exploration,” the search for and development of new knowledge (March 1991). Exploitation is similar to “single-loop,” “adaptive” learning and exploration is consistent with “double-loop,” “generative” learning

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

164   Alice Lam (Argyris and Schön 1978; Senge 1990). A widely held view is that the structures, processes, and cognitive frameworks supporting the two types of learning are largely incompatible (Gupta, Smith, and Shalley 2006; Levinthal and March 1993). The idea that there is a “trade-off ” between “mechanistic” and “organic” forms of organizing, and between “exploitative” and “explorative” learning pervades our conceptualization of learning organizations. This arises in part from the bifurcation in theory between social constraint (structure) and social action (agency) (Dougherty  2008). While social constraint and social action are different properties of the social order, there is a recursive and mutually constitutive relationship between them (Giddens 1984). However, organizational scholars have tended to emphasize one side of the social phenomenon and the internal logic of the partial reality instead of revealing the connections between different aspects of the same social order. As a result, the simplified polarized concepts for distinguishing aspects of social reality come to be seen as distinct, immutable entities of the underlying empirical reality (Farjoun 2010). The “either/or” framework over-simplifies the complexity of organizational life, and is ill suited for understanding the nature of learning organizations operating in multiple and dynamic environments. Organizations are by nature ambivalent and oppositional tendencies are inherent in all forms of organizing. Paradox theory of organization recognizes the importance of a focus on contradictions and oppositional forces as dualities (Smith and Lewis 2011; Smith, Lewis, Jarzabkowski, and Langley 2017). It has been suggested that the dualistic facets of organizations may in fact be complementary rather than oppositional (Lewis 2000). Research suggests that many large innovative firms combine contrasting structures and processes to engage in both exploitative and ex­plora­tive learning in order to maintain current efficiency and sustain long-term adaptability (O’Reilly III and Tushman 2008). Against this backdrop, the concept of “organizational ambidexterity” has gained popularity as a central research paradigm in organizational theory, most notably, in relation to learning, innovation and adaptation (Andriopoulos and Lewis 2009; Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, and Tushman 2009; Raisch, Hargrave, and Van De Ven 2018). It has been widely used in the literature broadly to refer to “an organization’s ability to perform differing, and often competing, strategic acts at the same time” (Simsek, Heavey, Veiga, and Souder 2009: 693). These competing acts could cover a range of areas including achieving flexibility and efficiency (Eisenhardt, Furr, and Bingham 2010), alignment and adaptability (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004), and exploitative and explorative learning (Kang and Snell 2009). The ambidexterity concept is theoretically significant and practically important because it challenges the orthodox either/or thinking and highlights the learning challenges facing organizations in the contemporary environment characterized by growing pressures for meeting multiple and inconsistent demands. This chapter examines the structures and processes of learning organizations that are capable of engaging in both exploitative and explorative learning. Drawing on the insights of structuration theory (Giddens  1984) and paradox thinking (Smith and Lewis 2011; Smith et al. 2017), it argues that a focus on the dynamic interplay between

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Ambidextrous Learning Organizations   165 structure and agency, and the interdependence between opposite forces in or­gan­iza­tions are crucial for understanding the nature of ambidextrous learning organizations. The analysis distinguishes three types of ambidextrous learning organizations, labeled as “partitional,” “contextual,” and “alliance,” each with its distinct structural con­fig­ur­ations (“dual,” “semi,” and “overlapping”), learning spaces (“strategic apex,” “workplace,” and “hybrid space”), and learning agents (“top management teams,” “operating core,” and “boundary spanners”). While the existing literature emphasizes “balancing” exploitative and explorative learning, this chapter argues that “counter-balancing” the drift towards exploitative learning poses a major challenge. The three types share the common characteristic of allowing “free” spaces within the constraints of structures that enable the key learning agents to counter-balance this drift and sustain ambidextrous learning. The chapter is structured as follows. The next section provides a brief review of the literature on organizational ambidexterity. This is followed by a conceptual framework, explaining why creating free spaces for actor agency is the cornerstone for developing ambidextrous learning organizations. The chapter then examines three different types of ambidextrous learning organizations, and it concludes by discussing their significance.

Organizational Ambidexterity Balancing Exploitative and Explorative Learning Since the seminal work of March (1991), an enduring debate in the literature on or­gan­iza­tion­al learning has been whether organizations can pursue exploitative and ex­plora­tive learning simultaneously. While the former refers to activities that refine and deepen existing competencies and focuses on implementation of existing knowledge, the latter involves searching for new opportunities through recombination and experimentation to expand knowledge into novel areas (Jansen, George, Van den Bosch, and Volberda 2008; March 1991; Tempelaar and Rosenkranz 2019). Exploitative learning is associated with organizational consistency, stability, and control; and explorative learning is associated with experimentation, flexibility, and risk-taking. Early studies adopted a trade-off view and emphasized the insurmountable barriers to combining these two types of learning (Adler, Goldoftas, and Levine  1999; Levinthal and March  1993). According to March (1991), exploitation and exploration place inherently conflicting resource, cognitive, and managerial demands on organizations. However, he also suggested that maintaining balance between the two types of learning is critical for the long-term success of organizations. More specifically, he argued that organizations that place too much emphasis on exploitation to the exclusion of exploration risk falling into competency traps, inertia, and ultimately obsolescence. By contrast, those that focus too much on exploration to the exclusion of exploitation risk having too many underdeveloped

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

166   Alice Lam ideas, too little distinctive competence, and failing to gain returns from their knowledge (Levinthal and March 1993; March 1991). Building on this early insight, recent research on organizational ambidexterity has gradually shifted the debate from the trade-off view towards a paradox perspective that recognizes the coexistence and interdependence between exploitation and exploration (Andriopoulos and Lewis 2009; Papachroni, Heracleous, and Paroutis 2015; Raisch and Zimmermann 2017). It focuses on how organizations develop structures and processes for managing the simultaneous pursuit of both. Tushman and O’Reilly III (1996) were first to present a theory of organizational ambidexterity by examining the dual structures that enabled firms to exploit existing competencies while simultaneously exploring new possibilities to compete in both mature and emerging markets. They suggested that engaging in both types of learning was the key to superior performance and longterm success. Since then, the concept of ambidexterity has gained momentum as a new research paradigm in organizational theory. An emerging body of literature demonstrates the complementary effects of exploitation–exploration and suggests that it is possible for firms to develop dual capabilities by combining contrasting structures and processes to engage in both types of learning (Luger, Raisch, and Schimmer  2018; O’Reilly III and Tushman 2008; Tushman, Smith, Wood, Westerman, and O’Reilly 2010). Some authors highlight the “learning synergies” or a “virtuous circle of ambidexterity” enabled by exploitation and exploration efforts (Andriopoulos and Lewis 2009; Jansen, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda 2006). Others examine how human resource con­fig­ur­ations (Diaz-Fernandez, Pasamar-Reyes, and Valle-Cabrera 2017; Kang and Snell 2009), top management teams (Heavey and Simsek 2017; Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, and Veiga 2006; Mom, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda  2007; Oehmichen, Heyden, Georgakakis, and Volberda 2017; Smith and Tushman 2005), and organizational context/culture (Gibson and Birkinshaw  2004; Kauppila  2018; Kauppila and Tempelaar  2016; Zimmermann, Raisch, and Cardinal 2018) facilitate ambidextrous learning. Indeed, the idea that a learning organization, by nature, has to be ambidextrous was implicit in the early work of Argyris and Schön (1978) who argued that all organizations need to master single-loop learning for getting routine work done and also develop double-loop learning capacities in order to evaluate and question their current actions. The notion of a learning organization elaborated by Garvin (1993) and Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell (1991) reinforce this view. Garvin (1993: 3) defined a learning organization as “an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behaviour to reflect knowledge and insights.” This implies that in addition to acquiring and using knowledge (exploitation), the ability of an organization to adapt and transform itself in response to the knowledge and insights gained (exploration) is a critical defining feature. Similarly, Pedler et al.’s (1991) definition of a “learning company” also stresses the importance of organizational adaptability and transformation in addition to the continuous learning of all its members. In other words, a defining feature of a learning organization is the engagement in both types of learning for adaptability and an ability to transform itself.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Ambidextrous Learning Organizations   167

Combining Alternative Models of Learning Organizations: The “J-form” and “Adhocracy” The concept of organizational ambidexterity and emerging empirical evidence on its viability not only challenge the trade-off view in the exploitation–exploring learning debate, it also reveals the limitations of the “rational choice” organizational design ideas based on the contingency “fit” argument. The polar choice between mechanistic vs. organic forms (Burns and Stalker  1961) or between the ideal-type configurations of bureaucracies vs. adhocracies (Mintzberg 1979) fail to take into account the reality that organizations often do not fall unambiguously into one particular type or another. Ambidextrous or hybrid forms have always been around and are increasingly prom­in­ent in the contemporary environment. Adopting a paradox or dualistic lens for understanding these complex organizations calls for the need to drop the polarized concepts and decouple structural mechanisms from outcomes. The accepted understanding of certain structural forms does not fully capture their richness and variable effects on human behavior (Farjoun 2010). Several studies have shown that bureaucracies, despite commonly being regarded as constraining and coercive, can be flexible (Adler and Borys  1996; Adler et al.  1999) and instrumental for learning and innovation (Dougherty and Takacs 2004). High reliability organizations use extensive rules and careful enactment of current knowledge to ensure reliability but also allow for rule breaking, situated learning, and innovation when confronted with non-routine problems or crisis situ­ations (Levinthal and Rerup 2006; Milosevic, Bass, and Combs 2018). The accepted wisdom that a learning organization is a flexible organization with an organic structure obscures the fact that there are different types of learning or­gan­iza­tions characterized by variable learning structures, work contexts, and organizational climates (Örtenblad 2002). During the past two decades, a large literature has discussed various learning organizational models designed to enhance flexibility and innovation. These include “high performance work systems” (Womack, Jones, and Roos 1990), “hypertext organization” (Nonaka 1994), “modular forms” and “project-based or­gan­iza­tions” (Sydow, Lindkvist, and DeFillippi 2004). A closer examination of the various models suggests that they can be broadly classified into two polar ideal-types, namely, the “J-form” and “adhocracy” (Lam 2000, 2005). The former refers to an organization which is good at exploitative learning and derives its innovative capabilities from the development of organization-specific collective competencies and problem-solving routines. Its archetypal features are best illustrated by the “Japanese type” of or­gan­iza­tions (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Adhocracy (Mintzberg 1979), by contrast, tends to rely more upon individual specialist expertise organized in flexible market-based project teams capable of speedy responses to changes in knowledge and skills, and integrating new kinds of expertise to generate radical new products and processes. It is skilled at explorative learning. Both the “J-form” and “adhocracy” are learning organizations with strong innovative capabilities, but they differ markedly in their patterns of learning and the type of innovative competencies generated.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

168   Alice Lam The J-form relies on knowledge that is embedded in its operating routines, team r­elationships, and shared culture. Learning takes place within an “organizational ­community” characterized by intensive interaction and knowledge sharing across ­functional units. New knowledge is generated through the fusion, synthesis, and combination of the existing knowledge base. The J-form tends to develop a strong orientation towards pursuing an incremental innovation strategy and does well in relatively mature technological fields characterized by rich possibilities of combinations and incremental improvements. But its focus on nurturing organizationally embedded knowledge in­hibits explorative learning. In contrast, the adhocracy is a hyper flexible form of organization that fuses professional experts with varied skills and knowledge into temporary project teams for solving complex and often highly uncertain problems. Learning and knowledge creation occur within professional teams that often are composed of employees from different organizations. The adhocracy has a much more permeable or­gan­iza­tion­al boundary that allows the insertion of new ideas from outside. It is a very adaptive form of organization conducive to explorative learning and radical innovation. However, the fluid structure and speed of change inhibit knowledge accumulation and exploitation. Adhocracies are the most radically innovative and yet least stable form of learning organizations (Lam 2000; Mintzberg 1979). Until the late 1990s, the debate about developing learning organizations was pre­occu­pied with the choice between these two alternative models. In recent years, the emphasis has shifted towards combining these two structural configurations for achieving ambidexterity. The idea of an ambidextrous learning organization, combining the ex­ploit­ative learning of the J-form and the exploratory learning of the adhocracy, is an attractive one. However, our understanding of the structures, processes, and individuals’ learning behaviors in this type of organization remains limited. The next section seeks to shed light on these by explaining its theoretical rationale and the different ways in which organizations seek to achieve ambidextrous learning.

Ambidextrous Learning Organizations: Structures, Spaces, and Agents Managing Ambidextrous Learning: Balancing and Counter-Balancing In light of March’s (1991) insight that both exploitative and explorative activities are essential for organizational learning, the literature on managing ambidextrous learning has emphasized the importance of “balancing” the two types of activities so that neither is overly dominating (Lavie and Rosenkopf 2006; Luger et al. 2018; Raisch et al. 2009). The initial focus on structural design solutions has been extended to include the exam­in­ation of organizational contextual factors and leadership roles in maintaining

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Ambidextrous Learning Organizations   169 the balance between the two types of activities. However, what is missing in much of the discussion is the challenge of “counter-balancing” the drift towards exploitation at the expense of exploration (Eisenhardt et al. 2010). In an influential article on the “myopia of learning,” Levinthal and March (1993) warn that organizations have a tendency to overinvest in exploitative learning. This is, in part, because “exploitation generates clearer, earlier, and closer feedback. It corrects itself sooner and yields more positive returns in nearer term” (Levinthal and March 1993: 107). Moreover, a critical insight from theory of organizational evolution is that organizations are subject to strong inertial forces (Hannan and Freeman 1984). They have a tendency to favor structure and the certainty of exploitation as they grow and age (Sørensen and Stuart 2000). Structure increases over time as it becomes intertwined with valued performance outcomes and power relationships (Adler et al. 1999). A similar self-reinforcing bias toward ex­ploit­ation can also be observed at the level of individuals as their competencies and routines are adapted to exploitative activities (Kauppila  2018). Argyris (1999: 89) aptly describes individuals as “walking social structures who cannot undergo double-loop learning without reflecting on [and challenging] their own actions.” Research has shown that the bias towards exploitation follows from the development of core capabilities which often turn into core rigidities (Leonard-Barton 1992). For both organizations and individuals, exploitation is more reassuring and the returns from it are more certain and immediate than returns from exploration (Benner and Tushman 2003; Levinthal and March 1993). How can an organization “counter-balance” the drift towards exploitative learning? How is it possible for an organization to maintain its balanced positioning at the interface of two distinct learning organizations, the J-form and adhocracy, given the gravitational pull towards logical configurations and the exploitative certainty of the former? An important insight from Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory is that the purposive action of “knowledgeable actors” is needed to produce countervailing forces for bal­an­cing. According to Giddens, structure is both the medium and outcome of human action. Structures (social constraints) and agency (social actions) are mutually constitutive, and both are necessary for organizing and learning. Structures are necessary because they coordinate and guide actions—people cannot act and learn together without the support of structures. Agency is also necessary because without the imagination, interpretive freedom, and creativity of knowledgeable actors, organizations are unable to overcome the cognitive and social constraints of established structures in the way of improvisation and coping with unanticipated problems. In other words, for an or­gan­iza­tion to become ambidextrous, it needs to create “free spaces” within structures to allow the agency and discretion of individuals to alternate between exploitation and exploration, and more critically, to break the grip of organizational inertia in order to sustain explorative learning. The structural/organizational and behavioral/individual aspects of ambidexterity are closely linked. Where and at which levels of an organization can free spaces be found? Who are the knowledgeable agents? What are the individual actions and behaviors that make ambidextrous organizational learning possible? Answers to these questions will be sought by looking at three types of ambidextrous learning organizations.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

170   Alice Lam

Three Types of Ambidextrous Learning Organizations: “Partitional,” “Contextual,” and “Alliance” The literature on organizational ambidexterity has proposed three distinct solutions for overcoming the tension between exploitation and exploration. The first is a structural partitional solution based on mechanisms of differentiation and integration. Tushman and O’Reilly III (1996) first advocated the idea of “dual structures,” separating business units with exploitation and exploration, assuming integration by the top management team. Subsequent research that builds on this partitional ambidexterity perspective has tended to focus on the critical role of top management teams in fostering ambidexterity (Heavey and Simsek 2017; Lubatkin et al. 2006; O’Reilly III and Tushman 2008). The second solution is a behavioral one suggested by Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) based on the argument that a supporting organizational context can foster ambidextrous learning behaviors among individuals. Research on “contextual ambidexterity” emphasizes the importance of cross-functional teams and bilateral learning of individuals (Garaus et al. 2016; Kang and Snell 2009; Zimmermann et al. 2018). While both the structural and contextual solutions seek to balance exploitation and exploration within a single organization, more recently scholars adopting a social network perspective have proposed a third solution which suggests balancing the two types of activities across organizational boundaries by using alliances and organizational networks (Im and Rai 2008; Lavie and Rosenkopf 2006; Stettner and Lavie 2014). Prior research on organizational ambidexterity has focused on structural and or­gan­iza­tion­al mechanisms for overcoming the exploitation–exploration tensions. More recently, scholars have paid increased attention to micro-level process of team dynamics (Oehmichen et al. 2017), cognition (Heavey and Simsek 2017; Kauppila and Tempelaar  2016), and employee motivation (Kauppila  2018). Building on Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory, which postulates a recursive relationship between structure and action, one might argue that both the structural and individual cognitivemotivational factors are critical for ambidextrous organizational learning. Based on the evidence gleaned from the literature, the analysis presented below distinguishes three types of ambidextrous learning organizations: “partitional,” “contextual,” and “alliance.” It examines the different ways in which these organizations create “free spaces” within their “ambidextrous structural configurations” that enable key “learning agents” to reconcile the exploitation–exploration learning tension, and more critically, to overcome structural inertia and counter-balance the drift towards exploitation. “Partitional”: Dual structures, strategic apex, and senior leaders. The partitional ambidextrous learning organization originates from Tushman and O’Reilly III’s (1996) dual structure model. It involves compartmentalization and synchronization of exploitation and exploration activities undertaken in separate organizational units, allowing different structures, processes, and cultures to coexist. It is based on the assumption that most individuals focus on either exploitation or exploration, and thus rely on organizational integrative mechanisms to coordinate the two types of activities. This model places

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Ambidextrous Learning Organizations   171 heavy demands on tight managerial integration and strategic leadership for resolving conflicting demands and achieving learning synergies across units (Andriopoulos and Lewis  2009; Smith and Tushman  2005). O’Reilly III and Tushman (2008) describe ambidexterity in this context as a “dynamic capability” rooted in senior management cognition, competence, and action. It is characterized as high-level organizational routines or routines to learn new routines (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000), and is seen as critical for sustaining organizational ambidexterity (Luger et al. 2018). Within this partitional model, the free space for ambidextrous learning and integrative action can be found at the strategic apex of the organization where senior leaders are the key actors. Positioning at the interface of the exploitative and explorative units, these people are relatively free from the constraints of both and are able to mobilize the differentiated insights and knowledge of both for ambidextrous learning. Previous research on ambidextrous leaders has tended to focus on their shared vision and common incentive systems for strategic integration and balancing exploitation–exploration (Jansen et al. 2008; O’Reilly III and Tushman 2008). More recently, several studies highlight the socio-cognitive diversity of top management teams as a critical factor that facilitates ambidextrous orientations and dual learning capacities. For example, Heavey and Simsek (2017) argue that top managers with diverse backgrounds and who join an organization at different points in its history are likely to differ in their social networks, knowledge and capabilities, and their attachment to organizational norms and practices. Further, their study shows that the development of a transactive memory system (Argote and Ren 2012) within a diverse top management team facilitates greater recognition and use of the distinct knowledge of team members, and expands the knowledge horizons of the team in new directions. Similarly, the study by Oehmichen et al. (2017) finds that diverse characteristics and knowledge heterogeneity of board of directors bring new knowledge and broader perspectives to an organization and help to enhance its ambidextrous capacity. The ambidextrous learning capability of the “partitional” organization relies on the diverse knowledge and integrative actions of senior leaders and, more crucially, their abilities to overcome structural inertia and path dependency associated with a focus on exploitative learning. O’Reilly III and Tushman (2008) argue that senior leaders’ engagement in environmental scanning and their ability to sense and seize opportunities for organizational transformation are foundations of ambidexterity. Likewise, other authors highlight the critical role of transformational leadership in sustaining ex­plora­tive learning and counter-balancing the drift over time towards exploitation (Eisenhardt et al. 2010; Jansen et al. 2008). “Contextual”: Semi-structures, workplace, and operating core. In contrast to the partitional model, the contextual ambidextrous organization achieves learning synergies between exploitation and exploration within a single organizational unit without sep­ar­at­ing them. Ambidextrous learning is intertwined with the ongoing activities of the operating core and embedded in the work practices and culture of the organization (Simsek et al. 2009). This model builds on Gibson and Birkinshaw’s (2004) idea of contextual ambidexterity which maintains that every individual in an organization is cap­able of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

172   Alice Lam developing a behavioral orientation towards dual learning. Central to this is the creation of a supportive organizational context that “enables and encourages individuals to make their own judgements about how to divide their time between conflicting demands for exploitation and exploration” (Gibson and Birkinshaw  2004: 210). Such a context emphasizes the use of job enrichment and rotation, cross-functional teams, and human resource practices to provide organizational support and encourage individuals to pursue both types of learning (Adler et al.  1999; Kang and Snell  2009; Kauppila and Tempelaar 2016). Brown and Eisenhardt’s (1997: 28) concept of “semi-structures” is an appropriate description of this type of loosely coupled organization which lies between “the extremes of very rigid and highly chaotic organizations.” The free space for learning resides in the workplace where individuals and work teams are the key agents engaged in bilateral learning. Several studies have highlighted the role of flexible work design and employee autonomy in inducing ambidextrous learning behavior (Adler et al.  1999; Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, and Farr  2009; Miron-Spektor, Gino, and Argote 2011). The reasons for this are twofold. First, the switching of work roles or alternation between explorative and exploitative activities promotes cognitive flexibility and an ability to integrate different knowledge domains for ambidexterity (Tempelaar and Rosenkranz 2019). A typical example is the rotation of R&D engineers to work on the production floor as part of the product cycle, or the involvement of production workers in product design teams. It has long been shown that such cross-functional job rotation, referred to as the “ruby” style of working, facilitates knowledge integration between explorative and exploitative activities in product development (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Second, the process of switching from one work role to another generates a “free” cognitive and psychological space, even if momentarily, allowing creative thinking and “frame-breaking” behaviors (Tempelaar and Rosenkranz 2019). In other words, it enables individuals to break free from the constraints of the established domains to engage in more creative, explorative learning. The contextual model also highlights the importance of individual motivation in reconciling the tension between exploitation and exploration, and in ensuring that individuals are willing to devote time and energy to undertake explorative learning which typically offers less certain and proximate returns. Kang and Snell (2009) propose two configurations of human resource practices for supporting and incentivizing ambidextrous learning behaviors: (a) the combination of job- or function-based development, organization-based (J-form) employee relations, and error embracing performance systems to support refined interpolation; and (b) the combination of skill-based development, market-based (adhocracy model) employee relations, and error avoiding performance management to support disciplined extrapolation. Other studies emphasize work practices that promote intrinsic motivation (Kauppila 2018) and creativity (Miron-Spektor et al. 2011) in order to induce a stronger focus on explorative learning, and to counter the drift towards exploitative learning. Given that the balancing between exploitation and exploration in the contextual model relies heavily on the discretion and volition of front-line employees, the development of a supportive organizational context and work practices that motivate their ambidextrous learning in everyday work is critical.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Ambidextrous Learning Organizations   173 Despite the emphasis on the ambidextrous learning of the operating core, leadership also plays an important enabling role. Research suggests that it is often the middle-level managers, rather than senior leaders, who proactively create flexible and adaptive contexts to facilitate the ambidextrous learning of work groups and individuals (Taylor and Helfat 2009; Yukl 2009). This contrasts with the partitional learning organization where top management is the key actor in facilitating and sustaining ambidexterity. “Alliance”: Overlapping structure, hybrid space, and boundary spanners. Scholars adopting a social network perspective have paid increased attention to the interplay of  exploitative and explorative learning across organizational boundaries (Im and Rai  2008; Lavie and Rosenkopf  2006; Stettner and Lavie  2014). The alliance model builds on the literature on inter-organizational learning and strategic alliances which suggests that collaboration with partners facilitates learning by accessing new know­ledge originating outside a firm’s boundaries (Hess and Rothaermel 2011; Lane and Lubatkin 1998). Some authors point out that the efficient specialization of exploitative and explorative learning across inter-organizational networks enables firms to enjoy the benefit of ambidexterity without the cost of having to manage the conflicting demands internally (Lavie and Rosenkopf 2006; Stettner and Lavie 2014). For example, a firm may acquire new knowledge via R&D alliances (exploration) while leveraging its established knowledge to improve and refine its products and services (exploitation). An archetypal example is Cisco which relies heavily on alliances to search for new know­ledge and tap into emerging technologies while its internal organization focuses on exploiting its core competence in marketing established products (Stettner and Lavie 2014). By balancing the two types of activities across organizational boundaries, an organization can preserve the internal coherence of its learning environment while leveraging external knowledge that is distant from its own knowledge base in ex­plora­tive learning. In this way, it prevents internal inertia and reduces the risk of “learning myopia” (Levinthal and March 1993). This type of learning organization is characterized by ongoing knowledge exchange, collaborative problem solving, and reciprocal resource flows between two partner organizations. Simsek et al. (2009: 887) use the term “reciprocal ambidexterity” to describe the interdependent relationship and argue that it represents “a synergistic fusion of complementary streams of exploitation and exploration” that occur across organizational boundaries. Mom et al. (2007) stress the role of top managers in dis­sem­in­at­ing information across as well as within organizations, thereby facilitating inter­action between exploitative and explorative domains. Other authors highlight the importance of knowledge sharing and integration among alliance partners in leveraging learning synergies and facilitating the successful pursuit of this form of ambidexterity (Im and Rai 2008). However, the questions of how knowledge integration actually occurs and who are the key players in this have not been closely addressed. One might depict the alliance model as representing an “overlapping” structure where boundary spanning people situated at the interface play a vital role in facilitating ambidextrous learning. Research on collaborative partnerships between private firms and universities provides useful insights into the ambidextrous learning dynamics of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

174   Alice Lam this model. Oliver and Montgomery (2000) examine the emergence of new or­gan­iza­tion­al hybrids in biotechnology, known as “knowledge firms” which combines the explorative activities of an established knowledge creating organization (the research university) with the exploitative activities of an established production-oriented, market-driven private corporation. Lam (2007) highlights the development of “overlapping” human resources—the “linked scientists” i­n industry–university partnerships where private firms seek to overcome internal inertia by building long-term relationships with the entrepreneurial scientists of universities for explorative learning. These entrepreneurial scientists are boundary spanners who combine the knowledge logics of exploration and exploitation to engage in knowledge co-creation with their partners from the private firms. Similarly, the study by Hess and Rothaermel (2011) shows that in the pharmaceutical industry, star scientists are important boundary spanners who provide critical connectivity to the upstream knowledge generated from the explorative activities of their partner universities. In other words, they function as knowledge translators. What this last group of studies has shown is that ambidextrous learning does not automatically occur as a result of access to external knowledge or inter-organizational arrangements. Instead, it requires the active engagement and integrative effort of boundary-spanning people operating at the overlapping space of the alliance partners. These people are able to access the resources of both organizations while also distancing themselves from the established structures. In other words, they not only provide the needed connectivity for ambidextrous organizational learning but can also be a vital source of new knowledge that helps to prevent internal organizational inertia. The interorganizational network perspective of ambidexterity can be greatly enriched by paying more attention to micro-level learning dynamics at the overlapping (hybrid) space and the role of boundary-spanning individuals as agents of ambidexterity.

Conclusion The three types of ambidextrous learning organizations denote the different ways in which organizations create “free spaces” within the constraints of “structures” that en­able individuals/groups to manage the exploitation–exploration learning tension, and break the grip of organizational inertia and counter the drift towards exploitation. The extant literature on organizational ambidexterity has focused on the role of senior management teams in managing the exploitation–exploration tension through man­ ager­ial integration and provision of a supportive organizational context. However, it has devoted less attention to other organizational members who may also facilitate ambidextrous learning. The typology developed in this chapter provides a more balanced picture by looking also at the proactive role of the operating core and boundaryspanning people as agents of ambidexterity. The analysis of the three types shows that the space for ambidextrous learning can be found at different levels of an organization as well as in the hybrid space between organizations. It suggests that the key learning

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Ambidextrous Learning Organizations   175 agents, Giddens’ (1984) notion of “knowledgeable actors,” may vary according to the loci of free spaces which they recursively shape and construct through their respective actions. The variation in the structural configurations, the loci of free spaces, and agents of ambidextrous learning of the three types are shown graphically in Figure 11.1. Although the different modes of ambidextrous learning are not mutually exclusive, their relative prominence may vary according to the environmental context and or­gan­iza­tion­al culture. For example, the “partitional” model, with its strong emphasis on the proactive role of senior leaders in resource allocation and managerial integration, builds on a top-down organizational culture. Evidence from the literature suggests that it tends to be adopted by large innovative firms operating in an environment characterized by disruptive technological change and radical innovation (O’Reilly III and Tushman 2008; Tushman et al. 2010). The “contextual” model, by contrast, requires the support of a more participative organizational culture which empowers organizational members, allowing them ample flexibility to switch between exploitative and explorative activities, and to engage in bilateral learning (Gibson and Birkinshaw  2004; Kauppila and Tempelaar 2016). Ambidextrous learning is situated and rooted in the problem-solving skills of the operating core. The contextual model displays many features of the col­lect­ive learning culture of the “J-form” community model of learning (Lam 2000, 2005). The widely cited example of Toyota as an archetypal ambidextrous organization is a case in point (Adler et al. 1999; Osono, Shimizu, and Takeuchi 2008).

Strategic apex: Ambidextrous leaders Workplace: Operating core

“Partitional”: Dual structure

“Contextual”: Semi-structure

Hybrid space: Boundary spanners

“Alliance”: Overlapping structure

Figure 11.1.  Three types of ambidextrous learning organizations.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

176   Alice Lam The “alliance” model appears to be more widespread in complex knowledge fields (e.g., pharmaceutical and biotechnology) where the depth and variety of knowledge needed to both exploit and explore cannot be easily developed within the boundary of a single organization (Hess and Rothaermel 2011). Instead, the locus of learning and innovation resides in or­gan­iza­tion­al networks (Powell and Grodal 2005). Some authors regard the alliance mode as a substitute for the partitional or contextual modes (Lavie and Rosenkopf 2006). However, from the viewpoint of organizational learning, there is no reason why this external-oriented model cannot be effectively combined with an internally-oriented one in order to enhance an organization’s capacity to overcome internal inertia and sustain explorative learning. Ambidexterity is an increasingly important feature of organizing and learning in the contemporary environment. Conceptually, it highlights the limitations of the “tradeoff ” view and dualism of organization design theories. Since the seminal work of March (1991), there has been enduring debate about the tension between exploitation–ex­plor­ation learning, and the difficulties facing organizations in maintaining a balance and circumventing “the myopia of learning” (Levinthal and March 1993). Despite the inherent tensions and contradictions, both March (1991) and other organizational learning scholars (e.g., Argyris and Schön 1978; Senge 1990) have long maintained that or­gan­iza­ tions need to engage in both types of learning in order to obtain short-term efficiency and long-term sustainability. The concept of the ambidextrous learning organization elaborated in this chapter directs our attention to how organizations create ambidextrous structures and spaces that give agency to individuals and teams to manage the tensions and connect the two types of learning for achieving synergies. This analytical perspective is in line with recent moves among organizational scholars towards recognizing the importance of treating the tensions and contradictions within organizations as dualities (Farjoun 2010; Farjoun et al. 2018). As Raisch and Zimmermaan (2017) argue, managing learning tensions between exploitation and exploration is not to overcome them but to “work through” the learning paradox. The typology developed in this chapter shows how the interaction between structures and agency makes it possible for organizations to work through this learning paradox in different ways.

References Adler, P.  S., and B.  Borys. 1996. “Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive.” Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (1): pp. 61–89. Adler, P. S., B. Goldoftas, and D. I. Levine. 1999. “Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System.” Organization Science 10 (1): pp. 43–68. Andriopoulos, C., and M.  W.  Lewis. 2009. “Exploitation–Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation.” Organization Science 20 (4): pp. 696–717. Argote, L., and Y. Ren. 2012. “Transactive Memory Systems: A Microfoundation of Dynamic Capabilities.” Journal of Management Studies 49 (8): pp. 1375–82.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Ambidextrous Learning Organizations   177 Argyris, C. 1999. On Organizational Learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Argyris, C., and D.  Schön. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Benner, M. J., and M. L. Tushman. 2003. “Exploitation, Exploration and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited.” Academy of Management Review 28 (2): pp. 238–56. Bledow, R., M. Frese, N. Anderson, M. Erez, and J. Farr. 2009. “A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2 (3): pp. 305–37. Brown, S. L., and K. M. Eisenhardt. 1997. “The Art of Continuous Change: Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1): pp. 1–34. Burns, T., and G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. Diaz-Fernandez, M., S. Pasamar-Reyes, and R. Valle-Cabrera. 2017. “Human Capital and Human Resource Management to Achieve Ambidextrous Learning: A Structural Perspective.” BRQ Business Research Quarterly 20 (1): pp. 63–77. Dougherty, D. 2008. “Bridging Social Constraint and Social Action to Design Organizations for Innovation.” Organization Studies 29 (3): pp. 415–34. Dougherty, D., and C. H. Takacs. 2004. “Team Play: Heedful Interrelating as the Boundary for Innovation.” Long Range Planning 37 (6): pp. 569–90. Eisenhardt, K. M., N. R. Furr, and C. B. Bingham. 2010. “Crossroads—Microfoundations of Performance: Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility in Dynamic Environments.” Organization Science 21 (6): pp. 1263–73. Eisenhardt, K. M., and J. A. Martin. 2000. “Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They?” Strategic Management Journal 21 (10/11): pp. 1105–21. Farjoun, M. 2010. “Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change as a Duality.” Academy of Management Review 35 (2): pp. 202–25. Farjoun, M., W. Smith, A. Langley, and H. Tsoukas. 2018. Dualities, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizational Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garaus, C., W. H. Güttel, S. Konlechner, I. Koprax, H. Lackner, K. Link, and B. Müller. 2016. “Bridging Knowledge in Ambidextrous HRM Systems: Empirical Evidence from Hidden Champions.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27 (3): pp. 355–81. Garvin, D.  A. 1993. “Building a Learning Organization.” Harvard Business Review 71 (4): pp. 78–91. Gibson, C. B., and J. Birkinshaw. 2004. “The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity.” Academy of Management Journal 47 (2): pp. 209–26. Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Structuration Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gupta, A. K., K. G. Smith, and C. E. Shalley. 2006. “The Interplay between Exploration and Exploitation.” Academy of Management Journal 49 (4): pp. 693–706. Hannan, M.  T., and J.  Freeman. 1984. “Structural Inertia and Organizational Change.” American Sociological Review 49 (2): pp. 149–64. Heavey, C., and Z.  Simsek. 2017. “Distributed Cognition in Top Management Teams and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Influence of Transactive Memory Systems.” Journal of Management 43 (3): pp. 919–45. Hess, A. M., and F. T. Rothaermel. 2011. “When Are Assets Complementary? Star Scientists, Strategic Alliances, and Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry.” Strategic Management Journal 32 (8): pp. 895–909.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

178   Alice Lam Im, G., and A. Rai. 2008. “Knowledge Sharing Ambidexterity in Long-Term Interorganizational Relationships.” Management Science 54 (7): pp. 1281–96. Jansen, J. J. P., G. George, F. A. J. Van den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda. 2008. “Senior Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership.” Journal of Management Studies 45 (5): pp. 982–1007. Jansen, J. J. P., F. A. J. Van Den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda. 2006. “Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators.” Management Science 52 (11): pp. 1661–74. Kang, S.-C., and S.  A.  Snell. 2009. “Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A Framework for Human Resource Management.” Journal of Management Studies 46 (1): pp. 65–92. Kauppila, O.-P. 2018. “How Does It Feel and How Does It Look? The Role of Employee Motivation in Organizational Learning Type.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 39 (8): pp. 941–55. Kauppila, O.-P., and M.  P.  Tempelaar. 2016. “The Social-Cognitive Underpinnings of Employees’ Ambidextrous Behaviour and the Supportive Role of Group Managers’ Leadership.” Journal of Management Studies 53 (6): pp. 1019–44. Lam, A. 2000. “Tacit Knowledge, Organizational Learning and Societal Institutions: An Integrated Framework.” Organization Studies 21 (3): pp. 487–513. Lam, A. 2005. “Organizational Innovation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, ed. J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, and R. R. Nelson, pp. 115–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lam, A. 2007. “Knowledge Networks and Careers: Academic Scientists in Industry–University Links.” Journal of Management Studies 44 (6): pp. 993–1016. Lane, P.  J., and M.  Lubatkin. 1998. “Relative Absorptive Capacity and Interorganizational Learning.” Strategic Management Journal 19 (5): pp. 461–77. Lavie, D., and L.  Rosenkopf. 2006. “Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Alliance Formation.” Academy of Management Journal 49 (4): pp. 797–818. Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. “Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development.” Strategic Management Journal 13 (S1): pp. 111–25. Levinthal, D.  A., and J.  G.  March. 1993. “The Myopia of Learning.” Strategic Management Journal 14 (S2): pp. 95–112. Levinthal, D., and C. Rerup. 2006. “Crossing an Apparent Chasm: Bridging Mindful and LessMindful Perspectives on Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 17 (4): pp. 502–13. Lewis, M. W. 2000. “Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide.” Academy of Management Review 25 (4): pp. 760–76. Lubatkin, M. H., Z. Simsek, Y. Ling, and J. F. Veiga. 2006. “Ambidexterity and Performance in Small- to Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration.” Journal of Management 32 (5): pp. 646–72. Luger, J., S. Raisch, and M. Schimmer. 2018. “Dynamic Balancing of Exploration and Exploitation: The Contingent Benefits of Ambidexterity.” Organization Science 29 (3): pp. 449–70. March, J. G. 1991. “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2 (1): pp. 71–87. Milosevic, I., A. E. Bass, and G. M. Combs. 2018. “The Paradox of Knowledge Creation in a High-Reliability Organization: A Case Study.” Journal of Management 44 (3): pp. 1174–201. Mintzberg, H. 1979. The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Miron-Spektor, E., F.  Gino, and L.  Argote. 2011. “Paradoxical Frames and Creative Sparks: Enhancing Individual Creativity through Conflict and Integration.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2): pp. 229–40.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Ambidextrous Learning Organizations   179 Mom, T. J. M., F. A. J. Van Den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda. 2007. “Investigating Managers’ Exploration and Exploitation Activities: The Influence of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Horizontal Knowledge Inflows.” Journal of Management Studies 44 (6): pp. 910–31. Nonaka, I. 1994. “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.” Organization Science 5 (1): pp. 14–37. Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge Creation Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. O’Reilly III, C.  A., and M.  L.  Tushman. 2008. “Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator’s Dilemma.” Research in Organizational Behavior 28: pp. 185–206. Oehmichen, J., M.  L.  M.  Heyden, D.  Georgakakis, and H.  W.  Volberda. 2017. “Boards of Directors and Organizational Ambidexterity in Knowledge-Intensive Firms.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 28 (2): pp. 283–306. Oliver, A.  L., and K.  Montgomery. 2000. “Creating a Hybrid Organizational Form from Parental Blueprints: The Emergence and Evolution of Knowledge Firms.” Human Relations 53 (1): pp. 33–56. Örtenblad, A. 2002. “A Typology of the Idea of Learning Organization.” Management Learning 33 (2): pp. 213–30. Osono, E., N. Shimizu, and H. Takeuchi. 2008. Extreme Toyota: Radical Contradictions That Drive Success at the World’s Best Manufacturer. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Papachroni, A., L. Heracleous, and S. Paroutis. 2015. “Organizational Ambidexterity through the Lens of Paradox Theory: Building a Novel Research Agenda.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 51 (1): pp. 71–93. Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne, and T. Boydell. 1991. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Growth. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Powell, W.  W., and S.  Grodal. 2005. “Networks of Innovators.” In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, ed. J.  Fagerberg, D.  Mowery, and R.  R.  Nelson, pp. 56–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raisch, S., J. Birkinshaw, G. Probst, and M. L. Tushman. 2009. “Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance.” Organization Science 20 (4): pp. 685–95. Raisch, S., T.  J.  Hargrave, and A.  H.  Van De Ven. 2018. “The Learning Spiral: A Process Perspective on Paradox.” Journal of Management Studies 55 (8): pp. 1507–26. Raisch, S., and A. Zimmermann. 2017. “Pathways to Ambidexterity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox, ed. W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, and A. Langley, pp. 315–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Senge, P.  M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Simsek, Z., C. Heavey, J. F. Veiga, and D. Souder. 2009. “A Typology for Aligning Organizational Ambidexterity’s Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes.” Journal of Management Studies 46 (5): pp. 864–94. Smith, W. K., and M. W. Lewis. 2011. “Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing.” Academy of Management Review 36 (2): pp. 381–403. Smith, W. K., M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, and A. Langley (eds.). 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, W. K., and M. L. Tushman. 2005. “Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams.” Organization Science 16 (5): pp. 522–36. Sørensen, J. B., and T. E. Stuart. 2000. “Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 45 (1): pp. 81–112.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

180   Alice Lam Stettner, U., and D. Lavie. 2014. “Ambidexterity under Scrutiny: Exploration and Exploitation Via Internal Organization, Alliances, and Acquisitions.” Strategic Management Journal 35 (13): pp. 1903–29. Sydow, J., L. Lindkvist, and R. DeFillippi. 2004. “Project-Based Organizations, Embeddedness and Repositories of Knowledge.” Organization Studies 25 (9): pp. 1475–89. Taylor, A., and C.  E.  Helfat. 2009. “Organizational Linkages for Surviving Technological Change: Complementary Assets, Middle Management, and Ambidexterity.” Organization Science 20 (4): pp. 718–39. Tempelaar, M. P., and N. A. Rosenkranz. 2019. “Switching Hats: The Effect of Role Transition on Individual Ambidexterity.” Journal of Management 45 (4): pp. 1517–39. Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tushman, M.  L., and C.  A.  O’Reilly III. 1996. “Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change.” California Management Review 38 (4): pp. 8–29. Tushman, M., W. K. Smith, R. C. Wood, G. Westerman, and C. O’Reilly. 2010. “Organizational Designs and Innovation Streams.” Industrial and Corporate Change 19 (5): pp. 1331–66. Womack, J. P., D. T. Jones, and D. Roos. 1990. Machine That Changed the World. New York: Rawson Associates. Yukl, G. 2009. “Leading Organizational Learning: Reflections on Theory and Research.” The Leadership Quarterly 20 (1): pp. 49–53. Zimmermann, A., S. Raisch, and L. B. Cardinal. 2018. “Managing Persistent Tensions on the Frontline: A Configurational Perspective on Ambidexterity.” Journal of Management Studies 55 (5): pp. 739–69.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 12

How the L e a r n i ng Orga n iz ation L e a r ns a n d its Cu lt u r e Coevolv es Peter Hawkins

Introduction At the first United Nations Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro from in 1992, some of the developing nations said to the US President Bush that it was inappropriate to expect developing nations to make the same reductions in their carbon output as developed nations, as much of their carbon pollution was driven by America’s culture of consumerism. President Bush is reported to have responded: “The American way of life is not up for negotiation.” This can be seen as an example on the global stage of Peter Drucker’s often quoted phrase: “Culture will eat your strategy for breakfast.” Governments and organizational leadership teams can create new policies and strategies far easier than they can enable their organizational culture to evolve in a way that will deliver the hoped-for change. Organizational learning theory and practice has long been focused on exploring how organizations can learn faster than their environment is changing. Reg Revans put forward the simple but profound equation L ≥ E.C.—learning must be equal to or be greater than the rate of change in the environment of the organization, team, or individual. Since Revans first developed this concept and the practice of Action Learning, we have seen an exponential acceleration in the rate of change in the global environment, ­coupled with increasing interdependence and complexity. Organizations struggle to learn fast enough to survive and this can be seen in the increased rate of turnover of companies. The average lifespan of a company on Standard & Poor’s index of major listed companies has fallen from sixty-seven years a century ago to just fifteen years today. It is predicted that 40 percent of today’s largest companies (listed on the Fortune

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

182   Peter Hawkins 500 index) will not exist a decade from now (Ismail 2014: 203). At the same time, we are seeing a meteoric rise in successful start-ups. YouTube began as an angel-funded enterprise from a makeshift office in a garage in 2005 and was acquired by Google for $1.65 billion just eighteen months later. By 2009 it was receiving 129 million views a day. In March 2013 the number of unique users visiting YouTube every month reached one billion (Diamandis and Kotler 2014: 35, 84). Not only do the organizations need to learn faster and continuously, but so do their employees. Most of what today’s students learn in college is out of date within fewer years than it took them to learn it, and they no longer choose a career but recognize that in their working life they will undertake many different work roles and have to retrain many times. Some have predicted that over half of the jobs now being carried out in America and Europe will not exist within twenty years, due to digitalization, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Many approaches to the learning organization have usefully focused on how to increase the amount of individual learning within organizations. Some have had an implicit assumption that if the sum of individual learning within an organization increases then the organization will learn more. Some company leaders believe that if they bring in employees from different cultures and change their leadership, the culture will change. In my experience of working as a consultant to many organizations around the world for over forty years, both are false hopes and erroneous assumptions. In this chapter I will explore how the collective system learns and address several key questions at the heart of understanding the nature of the learning organization, both academic and practice based. These include:

1. What is the nature of learning? 2. How do teams learn? 3. How do organizations learn as a whole system? 4. How do organizational cultures evolve?

What is the Nature of Learning? Popular understanding of learning is that it is the acquisition of knowledge, an entity that can be acquired, something you are taught and can be measured through exams or competency assessments. The common belief is that learning is a thing that resides within the individual and in particular within the individual’s brain, which Descartes called “Res Cogitans”—the thinking thing! This thinking thing, Descartes saw as totally separate from matter, the extended thing—“Res Extensa.” In the twentieth century many of the approaches to “Knowledge Management” were based on the belief that the individual acquired data, which they turned into information and then into knowledge and then into wisdom. Many of the approaches to organizational learning have been similarly focused. They have been very helpful in moving management learning from being nearly entirely

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

How the Learning Organization Learns and Coevolves   183 classroom based, focused on the imparting of data from the past, to focusing more on challenge-based learning, tackling current and future issues, in ways that engage all four of the key stages of the Kolb learning cycle (Kolb 1984)—action, reflection, new thinking, and planning new approaches. Technology and the internet revolution have also e-enabled the amount, speed, and ease at which we can take in information. The internet age has brought many benefits to human beings, but with it has come information overload by the media and other information sources with such a large volume of information that it could overload even a  powerful computer, according to US scientific research. A study, conducted by re­searchers at the University of California–San Diego (Bohn and Short 2012) showed that people are inundated every day with the equivalent amount of 34 gigabytes (GB) of information, a sufficient quantity to overload the average laptop within a week. Through mobile phones, the internet, electronic mail, television, radio, newspapers, books, and social media, Western individuals receive every day about 105,000 words or 23 words per second in the hours when they are not sleeping or eating. There is no way we are able to process all the words that enter our eyes and ears every day as well as the videos, pictures, videos, and games that add images to these words to create the estimated 34 GB of information per day. Much of the data, images, and voices are disconnected, uncurated, and discordant; it is if we are eating constant fragments of contrasting raw food and wondering why we have indigestion.

Three Fundamental Changes in How We See Knowledge and Learning In the last fifty years we have seen a massive paradigm shift in how we understand knowledge and learning. The dominant paradigm before this period was that learning happened inside the brain of the individual and through this process knowledge was propositional and acquired and banked within each of us separately. Cybernetics, systems theories, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience, and many other disciplines have all contributed to challenge this paradigm and lay the foundations of a new understanding that sees learning as collective and embodied; that learning is a process, a verb, not a noun; and that there is a great variety of ways of knowing. I will now explore each of these significant changes.

The Extended Mind Sloman and Fernbach (2017: 5) wrote: “our intelligence resides not in individual brains but in the collective mind. To function, individuals rely not only on knowledge stored within our skulls but also on knowledge stored elsewhere: in our bodies, in the environment,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

184   Peter Hawkins and especially in other people . . . human thought is very impressive. But it is a product of a community, not of any individual alone.” They go on to show, citing a great deal of psychological research, that we all think we know much more than we do, because we believe that the knowledge we have access to is actually retrievable from inside our own brain. Siegel (2010, 2012), a neuroscientist and prolific writer, also shows how the brain is both embodied and embedded, it operates throughout our body and is embedded in our relationships to other humans and our wider context.

Learning and Knowing Is a Process Gregory Bateson (1904–80) drawing on his many years of experience in anthropology, cybernetics, general systems theories, communication, and mental health research, was one of the first to provide us with a new way of thinking about learning, knowledge, and the mind. His breakthrough understanding of human epistemology sadly has had limit­ed impact on organizational learning and where it has, it has often been misunderstood (Hawkins 1991, 2004). Bateson saw the mind not as an entity inside the brain, but as a mental process existing in organisms long before they developed brains or higher nervous systems. Bateson extended his understanding of mind, to seeing it as existing in circuits of connection between organisms and between organisms and their environment. As he said in an interview with Fritjof Capra: “mind is the essence of being alive.” The individual mind is immanent but not only in the body. It is immanent in pathways and messages outside the body; and there is a larger Mind of which the individual mind is only a sub-system. This larger Mind is comparable to God and is perhaps what people mean by “God,” but it is still immanent in the total interconnected social system and planetary ecology.  (Bateson 1972: 436)

In parallel to Bateson’s work, and later building on it, was the work of Humbert Maturana and Francisco Varela, who developed the field of cognitive science, integrating biology, psychology, and epistemology. Maturana in his paper “Biology of Cognition” wrote: “Living systems are cognitive systems and living is a process of cognition. This statement is valid for all organisms, with and without a nervous system” (1980: 13). And “Our cognitive processes differ from the cognitive processes of other organisms only in the kinds of interaction into which we can enter, such as linguistic interactions, and not in the nature of the cognitive process itself ” (1980: 49). Maturana, with his colleague Varela, went on to develop what has come to be known as the Santiago Theory or the theory of auto-poesis. Mind is not a thing but a process—the process of cognition, which is identified with the process of life. The brain is specific structure through which this process operates. The relationship between mind and brain, therefore, is one between process

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

How the Learning Organization Learns and Coevolves   185 and structure. Moreover, the brain is not the only structure through which the ­process of cognition operates. The entire structure of the organism participates in the process of cognition, whether or not the organism has a brain or a nervous system.  (Capra and Luisi 2014: 257)

If the mind is a process that is spread throughout the organism as well as between the organism and its environment, then knowledge is no longer just something inside our brains, and not something we possess, but something we access. This has profound implications for both organizational learning and culture change.

Different Forms of Knowing At the beginning of Charles Dickens’ novel Hard Times (Dickens 1854), the teacher, Mr Gradgrind, says: “Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else. You can only form the mind of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.” Michael Polanyi (1958) introduced the idea of “tacit knowing” as opposed to “explicit knowledge” and showed how we know much more than we can tell. Later the psychotherapist Christopher Bollas (1987) introduced the concept of the “unthought known,” that is, knowing that exists outside of language constructs. My colleague John Heron (Heron 1981) developed a taxonomy of four different forms of knowing. Experiential knowing is by being present with, by direct personal encounter with, person, place, or thing. It is knowing through the immediacy of perceiving, through empathy and resonance. Its product is the quality of the relationship in which it participates, including the quality of being of those in the relationship. Presentational knowing emerges from the encounters of experiential knowing, by intuiting significant form and process in that which is met. Its product reveals this significance through the expressive imagery of movement, dance, sound, music, drawing, painting, sculpture, poetry, story and drama. Propositional knowing “about” something is intellectual knowing of ideas and theories. Its product is the informative spoken or written statement. Practical knowing is knowing how to do something. Its product is a skill, knack or competence—interpersonal, manual, political, technical, transpersonal, and more— supported by a community of practice.  (Heron and Reason 2008: 183)

Kolb (1984) showed how these different ways of learning and knowing could be combined in his now famous action learning cycle that requires new thinking, planning, action, and reflection. More recently there has been a growing recognition that for individuals and organizations to evolve in later stages of development, “unlearning” is as, if not more, important as learning (Hawkins 1999).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

186   Peter Hawkins

Organizational Culture Culture is a concept that is widely used and most people think they understand what it means—and yet is subtle and elusive. This is because culture is not a thing that you can take out and measure but a connecting pattern that pervades all aspects of an organization. It does not reside in the people and their behaviors, as is commonly believed, for you can change all the people in the organization and as long as you do not change them all at the same time, and the old culture can still flourish unabated. For the culture resides in the pattern of connections, both within the organization and in how it connects to its external stakeholders; in its stories, rituals, and aural history; and in its unwritten rules that are passed on in the “unofficial induction program.” Also, it is very hard to recognize one’s own culture, for as an old Chinese proverb says: “The last one to know about the sea is the fish.” One’s own culture is the medium through which all of us as babies begin to know and make sense of the world. We do not see our own culture as it is lens through which we see and is ingrained in the language through which we shape our thoughts. When we join a new organization, at first the culture is something we can notice as an outsider, but it soon becomes taken for granted and part of our way of seeing the world. I  have previously defined “culture” as: “what you stop noticing and take for granted when you have worked somewhere for over three months” (Hawkins 1997: 110), and explored how “culture resides in the habituated ways of connecting that an organization repeats” (Hawkins 1997: 110). Yet culture is recognized by business leaders, organizational behavior academics, and organizational development practitioners as critical to both an organization’s development and its success. The purpose of any culture, whether it be at the family, team, organization, or national level, is to create a collective shared identity. This identity is critical for enabling the collective to collaborate in service of a joint purpose in ways that make it “more than the sum of its parts” (Hawkins 2017a). A number of writers have argued that what distinguishes human beings from other species is Homo sapiens’ ability to create col­lab­ora­ tion across a very large community. Humans nowadays completely dominate the planet, not because the individual human is far smarter and more nimble-fingered than the individual chimp or wolf, but because Homo Sapiens is the only species on earth capable of co-operating flexibly in large numbers.  (Harari 2016: 131)

Bees cooperate in large numbers but not flexibly. Wolves collaborate flexibly but not in large numbers. For humans to create large-scale flexible collaboration requires both a shared purpose and a shared identity. To have a coherent shared identity and collective purpose, over time and space, requires a shared culture that can be passed on and as­simi­lated by new generations and incoming arrivals. A shared culture also creates a boundary of a community and a shared enterprise— who is part of “us” and who is part of “them.” We distinguish our culture by how we are

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

How the Learning Organization Learns and Coevolves   187 Culture Artifacts Patterns of behavior

Mindset

Emotional Ground

Motivational Roots

Figure 12.1.  The Hawkins model of culture.

different from those in other cultures: they make sacrifices to multiple gods, we worship one transcendent God; they are black, we are white; we wear suits and blue shirts, they wear jeans and T-shirts. With colleagues I developed a model of organizational culture that builds on earlier work of Ed Schein (1992 [1985]) and others (see Hawkins 1997; Hawkins and Smith 2013), which illustrates the levels of culture within all organizations (see Figure 12.1).

Artifacts These are the day-to-day objects, environments, symbols, literature that are the ­manifestations of how the organization presents itself to the world, such as: • symbols of power and authority; • dress codes; • mission statements, values statements, strategy documents, etc.; • objects displayed—photographs, certificates, artworks, other tangible indicators; • layout of buildings and offices.

Behavior The common patterns of behavior in the organization that alert us to, and illustrate, the way in which things are done around here are: • how people engage; • how conflict is handled;

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

188   Peter Hawkins • how resources are allocated; • how mistakes are handled; • what is rewarded or given attention.

Mindset Behaviors are often driven by our assumptions about what is good or bad, correct or efficient, and the way we frame problems. These assumptions are not obvious and therefore need to be uncovered through a variety of techniques, such as asking the question: “What assumptions would I need to make to end up doing things this way?” These can be the commonly held organizational “worldview” which generates explicit ways of thinking and doing: • habitual ways of thinking—usually valid for much of the organization’s day-to-day business; • taken for granted assumptions and ways of perceiving; • organizational values-in-use, etc.

Emotional Ground The emotional ground of an organization is partly created by the significant events in the life of that organization that have registered an emotional impact on staff and stakeholders. They are mostly emotional reactions that are not open to day-to-day awareness, such as: • unprocessed reactions to major organizational changes; • emotions imported from the organization’s boundaries, e.g., from work with the client’s customers and other stakeholders. The emotional ground is also the emotional climate of the organization and the characteristic patterns of emotional expression that are used in its culture.

Motivational Roots At the most significant and deepest levels of influence on the organization and its ways of relating are the motivations, values, and purpose that were involved in both setting up and continuing the organization. These motivational roots reflect our deeper reasons for caring about the organization, beyond meeting some of our own individual needs through it. One can look to recognize these roots in:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

How the Learning Organization Learns and Coevolves   189 • the often-forgotten passions that inspired the birth and later development of the organization; • how people find meaning in their work; • what connects the purpose of the organization with the purpose and motivation of the individuals within it. This is a model of culture that acknowledges layers or levels of influence that exist, like a lasagne, with layer upon layer making up the one dish. In this model, culture becomes more functional for an organization as the layers align better with each other. As things happen in organizations, over time, these levels can easily be driven out of alignment.

How Organizations Learn “Collective meaning is created when a community of people co-create a common ­language, not only in words and phrases, but non-verbally in expressions, gestures and behaviors and weave together a shared network of stories. Yet over time this web of meaning unravels and a new web is spun in its place” (Harari 2016: 146). To understand how organizational cultures learn we need to study how these cultures form, but also how they unravel—how they change and learn. Gregory Bateson, whose ground-breaking work I quoted earlier, also provided us with a way of understanding levels of learning. He saw learning as necessarily involving change in action, not just acquisition of data, and used set theory as developed by Whitehead and Russell (1912), to make sense of different levels of learning (see Bateson 1972: 250–79): Learning 0 . . . zero learning is the acquisition of data or understanding that creates no change in what we do. Learning I . . . is change in specificity of response by correction of errors of choice within a set of alternatives. Learning II . . . is change in the process of Learning I, e.g., a corrective change in the set of alternatives from which choice is made, or it is a change in how the sequence of experience is punctuated. Learning III . . . is change in the process of Learning II, e.g., a corrective change in the system of sets of alternatives from which choice is made. Learning IV . . . would be change in Learning III, but probably does not occur in any adult living organism on this earth.

I would build on Bateson’s work to suggest that all learning is co-creative and part of wider evolution in the nested systemic levels in which the organism or organization resides. All evolution is coevolution, and any organism or organization evolves in dynamic co-creation with both the subsystems within it and the ecosystem it resides within.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

190   Peter Hawkins Many popular approaches to evolution portray species, or members of species, fighting for survival and resources within a fixed limited and limiting niche. Those who survive are those who can best adapt to their niche and command resources. However, from the very beginning of evolutionary thinking there has been a very different way of understanding evolution including in the writings of Darwin (1859), and Kropotkin (1902), and other evolutionary theorists. These approaches show how evolution is fundamentally collaborative and that it is a mistake to see evolution as adaptation to our ecological niche—when every species is not only formed by their niche but is also changing the niche that they are also adapting to—adaptation always flows both ways across any boundary between nested systemic levels. Every nested system is continually engaged in co-creation with the systems within it and the systems they are nested within. A human being is continually engaged in reciprocal co-creation with the organs, ner­vous system, brain neuronal networks within them, as well as engaging in continual co-creation with the groups, communities, and ecosystems they are part of. Each level is forming and being formed by the systemic levels above and below them. A clear example of how one species can have a major impact on its ecosystem can be seen by the story of wolves returning to Yellowstone National Park in the USA. In 1995 they reintroduced fourteen wolves to this National Park, many years after wolves had been killed off in the region by human hunting. No one anticipated how quickly this small pack would dramatically change the ecosystem, through initiated small changes, that had a viral ripple effect throughout a large expanse of the surrounding ecosystem. As the wolves hunted and ate the deer, this in turn allowed forests to regenerate better, which changed the flora and fauna and made the earth more stable, which changed the flow of the streams and river, which affected the fish life and the bird species, all within a very much short period than we normally think of when considering evolutionary change (“How Reintroducing Wolves Helped Save a Famous Park” 2014). The term “coevolution” was coined by Paul R. Ehrlich and Peter H. Raven in 1964, but as early as Charles Darwin (1859) there was the understanding of the reciprocal evolutionary interactions between species such as flowering plants and insects. Coevolution can play an important role in driving major evolutionary transitions such as the evolution of sexual reproduction or changes in the chromosome structures in the genome. More recently, it has also been demonstrated that coevolution influences the structure and function of ecological communities as well as the dynamics of infectious disease (Nuismer 2017: 395). Coevolution is primarily a biological concept, exploring the horizontal evolutionary connections and evolutionary interdependency between species. However, ­coevolution can also be thought about vertically. I would propose that vertical coevolution is how individuals, organizations, and species coevolve in dynamic coevolution with the ­subsystems within them, as well as with the systemic levels within which they are nested. Writers have applied the concept of coevolution to fields such as computer ­science, sociology, and astronomy (Nuismer  2017), but until now not to organizational learning.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

How the Learning Organization Learns and Coevolves   191 If we apply both Bateson’s levels of learning as well as the concept of horizontal and vertical coevolution to organizations, then we would arrive at new ways of describing the four levels of learning: Learning 0 . . . would be the organization collecting a great deal of data about what is happening in its environment (e.g., customer needs, competitor analysis, new political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental (PESTLE) trends) as well as what is happening in its own organization (e.g., staff pulse and engagement surveys, performance data, feedback, functional reports). I have worked with many organizations that devote large amounts of resources, time, and money to intense internal and external data collection, but then fail to join the dots between the many data points in order to understand what this information is telling them needs to change. I have also witnessed how many senior leadership teams develop defensive immune systems to hearing feedback that challenges their current collective “patterns of behavior” and “mindsets.” .  .  .  in organizations is the organization’s continuous improvement Learning I  through the many daily and weekly tactical adjustments the organization makes in how it operates, through seeing what is going wrong and what can be improved. Learning II . . . would be the organization’s ability to stand back and look at and change the mindsets, assumptions, and beliefs that provide the frame through which it is learning and adapting to changed circumstances, in level one learning. Level II learning also includes changing how we learn as a team or organization (termed deutero-learning by Argyris and Schön  1978,  1996). I have worked with many organizations not only on developing their strategy but also on how they can develop their whole strategizing process, to achieve greater engagement and cocreation in developing the strategy which leads to greater ownership of the strategy and buy-in to implementation. Learning III . . . This level of learning in organizations comes about when an organization realizes that what made it successful in the past will not work in the emerging future, and it needs to undertake a fundamental metanoia, an organizational transformation, that embraces fundamental change in its purpose in the world, and in its strategy, culture, and collective leadership and the connections between them. Learning IV . . . can be considered as the evolutionary learning of the wider ecosystemic levels, both at the level of the collective human species consciousness in coevolution with the wider ecology in which it resides.

So How do we Help Teams Learn Systemically? I have written extensively about how we can help leadership teams becoming better learning teams, where the team not only support the learning and development of every

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

192   Peter Hawkins team member, but also the team itself grows its collective capacity to “co-create added value with and for all its stakeholders” (Hawkins 2017a: 183; see also Hawkins 2018). A team’s capacity is not the sum of the individual capacities. Indeed, many teams function at less than the sum of their parts, and only a minority of teams develop their collective learning to become more than the sum of their parts. From this we can recognize that the collective capacity is reliant on the parts (in this case the team members) but is also a result of the relational connections and processes that wire the parts together. A good analogy for this is the human brain whose functioning is built, not just on the many synapses, but on the neural pathways that connect not only the various parts of the brain, but also the energy and information flows throughout the body and indeed through human interpersonal relationships (Siegel 2010, 2012). To help a team learn at Level II or Level III, requires helping the team attend to its internal and external relational connections and processes, to be able to stand back and reflect on the dances and webs that it is operating within. Both the research on teams (Wageman, Nunes, Burruss, and Hackman  2008; West  2012; West and Lyubovnikova  2012) and team coaching practice (Hawkins 2017a, 2018; Joyce and Lines 2018), have discovered that essential to being an effective team is having a clear collective purpose that everyone recognizes and can articulate in similar ways and which requires them to collaborate together, not just work in parallel. In addition, it is important that the team meets together to constantly review how they are collectively achieving this joint purpose and learn together how to col­ lect­ive­ly improve both their performance and the value they are creating for all their stakeholders.

So How do we Help Organizations Learn Systemically? For organizations to learn, learning needs to be happening in and between many levels. To help organizations develop such an integrated approach I have developed the following seven pillars of organizational learning. 1.  Future-back learning: The organization needs to be co-creating learning between itself and the emerging future in its wider context and ecosystem. All members of the organization need to be “leaning into the future” (Scharmer and Kaufer 2013), sensing what is emerging over the horizon, engaging in strategic future foresight and exploring potential future scenarios. Innovation needs to be driven not from incremental improvements on what the organization does today but from the third horizon of “future foresight” (Sharpe 2013) that will be needed to make the organization “future-fit.” 2.  Outside-in learning: All members of the organization need to be environmental scanners engaging with and seeking feedback from customers, potential customers,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

How the Learning Organization Learns and Coevolves   193 suppliers, investors, potential employees, competitors, industry forums, and wider communities on how the organization’s ecosystem is changing. 3.  “Team of teams” learning: the organization needs to orchestrate “learningful” engagement between all teams within the organization. Teams sharing their own learning, receiving feedback from all other teams. Teams co-exploring the synergies between them and how they can connect, partner together, and learn from each other better (Hawkins 2017a, 2018; McChrystal, Collins, Silverman, and Fussell 2015). 4.  Team learning: Every team having its own learning and development plan and process, on how it can continually learn to function at more than the sum of its parts. 5.  Individual learning: Every individual within the organization having a learning and development plan, which is developed in dialogue with the teams in which they are a member, and in dialogue with what is emerging in the first four levels of inquiry above. 6.  Inter-functional relationship learning: It is important not to just focus on the sep­ar­ate entities and subsystems conveying learning and feedback to each other, but also attending to developing the relational interfaces between levels. Not only do the relata learn and develop but so do relationships which can be seen as having a life of their own. Often, I have been invited in by the senior executive team of an organization to help them with their leadership development, but when I ask them what the future and their stakeholders need them to develop, they reply: “Oh it’s not us who need the development it is those who report to us.” When in the past I would subsequently set up a program of leadership development for the second and third tier, they would say to me: “Why are you starting with us? It is the executive team that needs this development.” Both levels of leadership were at least half wrong! For true leadership development to happen, first it needs to be helping the leadership culture to learn and evolve, and be more than collective leader development. Secondly, we need to not just focus on leadership development for different levels of the system but to develop the connectivity between the different levels within the organization, both vertically between the different levels of the organizational hierarchy, and horizontally across different functions and countries. 7.  Unlearning: Whereas learning happens through new perception, new understanding, and sense making leading to new action; unlearning is a confounding experience, when a current behavior, mindset, belief, or emotion is challenged by being confronted with a different reality. Organizations and individual human beings constantly look for confirming data, but to assist unlearning we need to provide and create disconfirming ex­peri­ences (see Hawkins 1999, 2017b). To create true organizational learning, it is essential to create learning processes both within every entity and between them, so that learning can flow both up and down the nested systemic levels and be co-created between them. To be a true learning organization, evolutionary learning needs to be co-created between: the organization and its ecosystem; the organization and its many different functions and location; between the many different teams and working groups; and for all the individuals to be learning in dynamic relation to all of the above.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

194   Peter Hawkins

Conclusion Human beings, throughout history, have been very successful in adapting to many ­different slow changing and local environmental niches, but now the learning and coevolution need is of a much greater level. We now live in challenging times where human beings are having to discover for the first time how to flourish in one complexly integrated and rapidly changing global niche. If we, as a human species, are going to rise to the challenge of Revans’ formula and discover how to collectively learn faster than our environment is changing, we can no longer afford to learn one person at a time. Yet the emphasis of most of the research and writing on this is focused on individual learning and development and how this can be enabled and arranged by organizations of every kind. In this chapter I have been calling for a much-needed additional focus, which looks at how learning happens both in and between the many nested systemic levels—individuals, teams, functions, organizations, their business ecosystem, and the wider ecological ecosystem—within which we are all just minor players.

References Argyris, C., and D.  Schön. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C., and D.  Schön. 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution and Epistemology. London: Paladin/Granada. Bohn, R., and J.  Short. 2012. “Measuring Consumer Information.” International Journal of Communication 6: pp. 980–1000. Bollas, C. 1987. The Shadow of the Object: Psychoanalysis of the Unthought Known. London: Free Association Books. Capra, F., and L.  P.  Luisi. 2014. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray. Diamandis, P., and S. Kotler. 2014. Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think. New York: Free Press Dickens, C. 1854. Hard Times. London: Wordsworth Printing Press. Harari, Y. N. 2016. Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. London: Harvill Secker, Penguin Random House. Hawkins, P. 1991. “The Spiritual Dimension of the Learning Organization.” Management Education and Development 22 (3): pp. 166–81. Hawkins, P. 1997. “Organizational Culture: Sailing Between Evangelism and Complexity.” Human Relations 50 (4): pp. 417–40. Hawkins, P. 1999. “Organisational Unlearning.” Key-note lecture at the 8th Learning Company Conference, University of Warwick, UK, March.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

How the Learning Organization Learns and Coevolves   195 Hawkins, P. 2004. “A Centennial Tribute to Gregory Bateson 1904–1980 and His Influence on the Fields of Organizational Development and Action Research.” Action Research 2 (4): pp. 409–23. Hawkins, P. 2017a. Leadership Team Coaching: Developing Collective Transformational Leadership, 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page. Hawkins, P. 2017b. Tomorrow’s Leadership and the Necessary Revolution in Today’s Leadership Development. Henley: Henley Business School. Hawkins, P. (ed.). 2018. Leadership Team Coaching in Practice, 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page. Hawkins, P., and N.  Smith. 2013. Coaching, Mentoring and Organizational Consultancy: Supervision and Development, 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill. Heron, J. 1981. “Philosophical Basis for a New Paradigm.” In Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research, ed. P. Reason and J. Rowan, pp. 19–35. Chichester: Wiley. Heron, J., and P. Reason. 2008. “Extended Epistemology within a Co-operative Inquiry.” In Handbook of Action Research, ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, pp. 179–88. London: Sage. “How Reintroducing Wolves Helped Save a Famous Park.” 2014. BBC, January 28. Retrieved August 30, 2018, from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140128-how-wolves-saved-afamous-park. Ismail, S. 2014. Exponential Organizations: Why New Organizations are Ten Times Better, Faster, and Cheaper than Yours (And What to Do About It). New York: Diversion Books. Joyce, J.  L., and H.  Lines. 2018. Systemic Team Coaching. London: Academy of Executive Coaching. Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kropotkin, P. 1902. Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341. McChrystal, S., T. Collins, D. Silverman, and C. Fussell. 2015. Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World. London: Portfolio Penguin. Maturana, H. 1980. “Biology of Cognition.” In Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, ed. H.  Maturana and F.  J.  Varela, pp. 1–58. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing. (Originally published in 1970 as “Biology of Cognition.” Biological Computer Laboratory Research Report BCL 9.0, University of Illinois, Urbana.) Nuismer, S. 2017. Introduction to Coevolutionary Theory. New York: W. F. Freeman. Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Scharmer, O., and K.  Kaufer. 2013. Leading from the Emerging Future: From Ego-System to ­Eco-System Economics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler. Schein, E. 1992 [1985]. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sharpe, B. 2013. Three Horizons: The Patterning of Hope. Axminster: Triarchy Press. Siegel, D. 2010. Mindsight: Transform Your Brain with the New Science of Kindness. New York: One World, Random House. Siegel, D. 2012. Pocket Guide to Interpersonal Neurobiology. New York: W. W. Norton. Sloman, S., and P. Fernbach. 2017. The Knowledge Illusion: The Myth of Individual Thought and the Power of Collective Wisdom. London: Pan Macmillan. Wageman, R., D. Nunes, J. Burruss, and R. Hackman. 2008. Senior Leadership Teams. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

196   Peter Hawkins West, M. 2012. Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research, 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. West, M., and J. Lyubovnikova. 2012. “Real Teams or Pseudo Teams? The Changing Landscape Needs a Better Map.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice 5 (1): pp. 25–8. Whitehead, A. N., and B. Russell. 1912. Principia Mathematica. Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 13

A M ight y Step: Cr itica l Systemic I n ter pr etation of the Le a r n i ng Orga n iz ation Robert L. Flood and Hanne Finnestrand

Introduction The Learning Organization (LO) was popularized in the 1990s by Peter Senge (1990). It was founded on the fifth discipline—the name that Senge gave to systems thinking. In this chapter, “systems thinking” refers to a distinct theory about the systems idea that we have labeled Real Systems Thinking. So, to avoid confusion, from here on “systems thinking” as a general term is replaced by “the systems idea.” The systems idea has spawned numerous divergent approaches including System Dynamics (SD) developed by Jay Forrester (1968, 1969, 1971) and adopted by Senge in his LO. SD is an approach that studies the behavior of “complex systems” by formulating dynamic diagrammatic and mathematical models of them in terms of stocks, flows, feedback loops, and time delays. Systems concepts found in SD such as interrelatedness, feedback, and complex whole systems are foundational concepts that underpin Senge’s four other disciplines: (1) mental models—a bounded view of a complex whole system, (2) shared vision—collaborative development of a shared mental model realizing a common sense of purpose, (3) team learning—systemic processes of learning including dialogue that aim to explore complex whole systems, and (4) personal mastery— development of personal vision emphasizing systemic mindfulness of the whole. The systems idea is considered pivotal to learning and developmental change in organizations.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

198   Robert L. Flood and Hanne Finnestrand Senge’s vision of a LO is an organization that continually expands its capacity to create its own future by embracing a holistic approach. There is no doubt that Senge’s LO has taken its place alongside other influential approaches in contemporary management practice. Senge’s systems narrative makes common sense and promises transformation to a better future. His LO has been widely actioned and researched leading to an extensive literature on the topic. Indeed, the LO per se has taken on a life of its own—the ultimate testament to Senge’s achievements. That said, there is serious concern that Senge’s systems narrative and the literature on LO do not adequately engage with the fundamentals of the systems idea, yet the systems idea is placed at the very heart of the LO (Bui and Baruch  2010; Caldwell  2012; Flood  1999a). This chapter aims to revisit Senge’s argument in the light of a revised understanding of the systems idea: (1) it introduces the basic premises of three fundamentally different theories about the systems idea; (2) it briefly reviews Senge’s work and the LO literature with these three theories in mind; (3) it interprets the LO in terms of the most defensible of the three theories Critical Systemic Thinking; and (4) it considers critical systemic practice as an alternative to Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, and Smith’s (1994) Fifth Discipline Fieldbook.

Three Interpretations of the Systems Idea The systems idea emerged in the twentieth century as a critique of reductionism. The systems idea as a discipline was formulated in the theory of open systems and General Systems Theory in the 1930s and 1940s (e.g., Bertalanffy 1950, 1956). Reductionism in traditional science seeks knowledge and understanding of phenomena by breaking things down into constituent parts and by studying properties of these parts, often in terms of simple cause and effect relationships. The defining argument of the systems idea is that the world is intrinsically systemic and thus better understood in holistic terms. To understand a phenomenon requires building up whole pictures of it. A whole is understood to be an emergent property emerging from interrelated parts and cannot be fully comprehended in terms of the properties of the interrelated parts. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Emergence, interrelatedness, and whole are core concepts of the systems idea. How to build up whole pictures of social phenomena, such as a LO, is a challenging question. There are three main lines of argument that we label Real Systems Thinking, Interpretive Systemic Thinking, and Critical Systemic Thinking. Real Systems Thinking likens “social systems” to natural systems that are taken to exist in a tangible real world. The social world accordingly comprises many interrelated real social systems. A systems approach, it follows, entails qualitative and/or quantitative modeling of these real social systems. Systems models are employed: (1) as research

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization   199 tools to describe or to explain real social systems; (2) as decision-making tools to predict future events of real social systems and suggest actions to take today to achieve improvement in the future. Interpretive Systemic Thinking instinctively recognizes a systemic social world characterized by interrelatedness and emergence, but stops short of assuming that the social world comprises wholes that are real social systems. After all, any understanding that we have of social phenomena is co-constructed interpretation generated through cognitive processes. A systems approach therefore employs concepts like emergence, interrelatedness, and wholes to construct understanding of social phenomena, but does not represent social phenomena as real social systems that exist in a real world independent of human thought. An interpretive-based systems approach would be particularly em­power­ing in this endeavor of meaning construction if the social world is indeed intrinsically systemic. That is, such a systems approach promises to construct understanding that resonates strongly with people’s experiences of everyday living within a systemic social world. Critical Systemic Thinking (CST) emerged in the 1970s–1990s (e.g., Churchman 1979; Flood and Jackson 1991a; Ulrich 1983) with subsequent developmental literature (e.g., Boyd, Brown, and Midgley 2004; Córdoba and Midgley 2006; Flood and Romm 1996a; Jackson 2001, 2003, 2010; Midgley 2000, 2006; Ulrich 2003; Ulrich and Reynolds 2010). CST agrees with Interpretive Systemic Thinking about the interpretive nature of human understanding, but adds the all-important caveat that a systems approach cannot be empowering in meaning construction for all people when processes of power shape or determine meaning. For example, constructions may be dominated by narrowly defined performance-oriented organizational and social objectives in neoliberal economic agendas instigated by powerful people/institutions. Such overriding objectives may not be particularly meaningful to the majority of employees in an organization, thereby overshadowing individual vision. In that case the dominant neoliberal mental model is not a shared vision and limits team learning and personal mastery. To be critically systemic and to gain a holistic appreciation of organizational dynamics entails among other things engaging with processes of power, challenging for example neoliberal mental models, thereby pursuing a genuinely transformative agenda (e.g. Romm 2015, 2018). CST argues from a holistic standpoint that Real Systems Thinking and Interpretive Systemic Thinking as explained above are epistemologically flawed. Real Systems Thinking constructs dynamic models of “social systems” that are mistakenly assumed to exist independent of human thought. Interpretive Systemic Thinking appreciates the interpretive nature of knowledge and meaning construction but is naïve in believing in the purity of dialogical processes through which knowledge and understanding are constructed. It is idealistic to believe that collaborative processes are free from con­tam­in­ ation by processes of power, or to have faith that dialogue somehow naturally and fairly sorts out such things. Meaning construction and understanding at best are only partially open to deeper investigation and challenge. To be critically systemic is to appreciate the interpretive nature of knowledge generation, to recognize that processes of power infiltrate collaborative processes, and to work toward more open and more

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

200   Robert L. Flood and Hanne Finnestrand meaningful participation for involved and affected stakeholders (from human society and indeed from the living planet). With these three theories in mind, the next section revisits the systems idea as employed in the many themes of the LO literature.

The Mis/Use of the Systems Idea in the Learning Organization The underpinning concept of the LO in the 1990s was traditional scientific management stressing the importance of the systems idea (Wang and Ahmed 2003, i.e., Real Systems Thinking). For example, the traditional SD approach separates “system of interest” from “environment” and constructs models of structure, function, and feedback processes. Systems models aim to predict results of tactics and strategies and locate points of high leverage for organizational improvement—an optimal action to meet a desired solution (e.g., Wolstenholme 1990). Means and ends are not problematized in terms of multiple perspectives or processes of power. By the 1990s various systems schools of thought challenged the validity of SD-type models of complex social entities such as LOs— not­ably organizational cybernetics (Beer 1972, 1975, 1979, 1985), soft systems thinking (Checkland 1981, 1985), and early CST (Churchman 1968, 1971, 1979, 1982). The SD community responded by developing Influence Diagrams (Coyle  1983; Wolstenholme 1982, 1983) and Collaborative Conceptual Modeling (Newell, Marsh, and Sharma  2011; Newell and Proust  2009; Newell, Proust, Wiltshire, and Newell  2008). These methods aim to embrace multiple perspectives. Featherstone and Doolan (2012) thus argue that the SD paradigm is steadily addressing multiple perspectives and pol­it­ ic­al­ly charged collaborative processes. However, the challenge is not to tweak methods from within the SD paradigm, but to challenge the paradigm itself and to employ SD models in a more critically reflexive manner. Senge’s systems narrative builds on traditional SD by introducing the twin concepts single-loop learning and double-loop learning (after Argyris and Schön 1996). The most parsimonious explanation is that single-loop learning asks “are we doing things right” and double-loop learning asks “are we doing the right things.” Double-loop learning searches out values underlying organizational activities and makes them explicit and open to reflection. This systems idea aims to expose assumptions in mental models and test if they are flawed. In this way, people participate in generating ideas for the future, such as shared vision. Senge recognizes that vision may be prescribed by senior managers, not shared, and is potentially exploitative, but gives no proper guidelines about how to recognize or to engage with such processes of power. For example, what guarantee is there that col­­labor­ ators may engage critically with mental models put in place wittingly or unwittingly through processes of power? Without such a guarantee the systems idea is not critically

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization   201 systemic, does not engage with the “totality of relevant conditions,” and cannot be truly reflexive. Senge’s systems narrative promises some sort of reflexive process, but begs the question, “What kind?” Tools and techniques in the Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (Senge et al. 1994) lack fundamental principles by which to operate them. This permits managers, consultants, and decision makers to speak Senge’s systems narrative blissfully free from tough questions such as: “Was open and free dialogue genuinely achieved?” and “Were decision takers’ mental models truly open to critique and challenge?” (e.g., Ulrich 1983). The systems idea in Senge’s (1990) LO underpins a commitment to see the larger system (Santa 2015). The systems idea helps people in organizations to identify the reciprocal flow of influence between the macro and micro systems (James 2003); and to see the structures that underlie complex situations and thereby create insights into what might be done (Senge 1990). However, Senge’s LO rests on a flawed concept of structure that cannot explain the organizing practices and learning processes by which systems as feedback structures come into being and change (Caldwell 2012). Organizational cybernetics partly rectifies this failing (e.g., Beer 1985). Senge’s vision of the LO is an organization that continually expands its capacity to create its own future. Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur, and Schley’s (2010) later work aims to create a sustainable world. However, “to create its own future” does not evince a sense of responsibility beyond the organization. A critically systemic view congruent with a sustainable worldview envisages an organization that continually expands its capacity to create its own future in a way that works toward a better future for all involved and affected stakeholders, from human society and the living planet, not just the LO. Senge is best thought of as a practitioner who translates basic theory into the language of practice, not as a theoretician. That said, more recent work involves partial engagement with Giddens’ (1984) agency-based structuration theory and Weick’s (1995) sensemaking concept of enactment (Caldwell 2012). Senge thereby develops his understanding of SD, but his explanation of “system change” in terms of a complementary relationship between SD and structuration/enactment lacks appreciation “of the processual and emergent nature of change intimately connected with counter-posing concepts of ‘knowledgeable human actors’ and ‘sensemaking’ action” (Caldwell 2012: 13). More extensive theoretical critiques of Senge’s LO include Örtenblad (2007) and Santa (2015). The ecosystem theme of micro–macro processes in society contextualizes LO in a national or regional system. For example, Lam and Lundvall (2007) argue that it is not possible to understand a firm as a LO without understanding the society within which it exists. However, this line of thought does not question the ontology of systems. Conceiving the LO as a network system requires managers to be “sensitive to the flow of information, power, and trust that shapes how trade-offs are made” (McGill, Slocum, and Lei 1992: 12). Power is recognized in the network, but as a given characteristic of interaction between individuals, not as a process of interpretive social construction. Some industries deeply embrace LO and the systems idea including project management (e.g., Duffield and Whitty 2015; Koskinen 2011), healthcare (e.g., Garside 1999; Koeck 1998; Rich and Piercy 2013), and education (e.g., Isaacson and Bamburg 1992; Örtenblad and Koris 2014; Senge et al. 2000).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

202   Robert L. Flood and Hanne Finnestrand For example, Koskinen (2011) argues that practitioners in project-based companies ought to conceptualize learning as a “systems problem” and seek systems-integrated solutions. Projects are temporary in nature and the boundaries are “inevitably artificial and somewhat arbitrary in their placement and are always ‘porous’ to some degree” (Koskinen 2011: 5). Recognition that projects are bounded is a step toward a critical systemic appreciation, but advice for operating this perspective is essentially built on Real Systems Thinking. In healthcare studies, Starfield (1998) and Davidoff and Batalden (2005) find management of illness increasingly complex and requiring improved coordination of care and organizational learning. Gask (2005) and Rich and Piercy (2013) recognize that or­gan­iza­tion­al learning requires a systemic perspective to develop efficient healthcare. Quam and Smith (2005) argue that country-wide national health systems find it difficult to learn from each other since they are bound to national politics and are dependent on requirements in the macro system. Once again the ideas reflect Real Systems Thinking. Studies of LOs tend to characterize schools as open systems where the external en­vir­ on­ment consists of known actors such as parents, other schools, the municipality, and national authorities. Schools are advised to have an open perspective to the system that it exists within. Argyris and Schön (1996) refer to this as a “strategic conversation” between an organization and its environment (Wai-Yin Lo 2004). The LO model can be applied at different levels (Senge et al. 2000). For example, at the school level important relationships are between school board members, principal, administrative and support staff. Alavi and McCormick (2004) argue that school staff are more likely to consider each other’s ideas when working in teams in cultures with low power distance and ingroup collectivism. Like McGill et al. (1992), these discussions largely focus on characteristics of interaction between individuals, not the processes of interpretive social construction. At the time, Örtenblad (2002) was one of few researchers to offer a critical perspective on LO. Örtenblad recognized two fundamental perspectives in LO and argued that the functionalist perspective (Real Systems Thinking) had lost favor to the interpretive perspective. That said, Örtenblad was concerned that neither perspective offered a radical program of change. A critical question remained unanswered, “Which group of actors holds power?” Örtenblad (2002) offered a new “more radical” framework that problematizes power in LO. Subsequent literature about issues of power in LOs scarcely engages directly with the systems idea, though has an inherent systemic modus operandi (e.g., Flood and Romm 1996a, 2018). For example, Coopey (1995) recognizes an ideological use of LO that serves to “fool” excluded people into believing that they have more rather than less power. Newman and Newman (2015) introduce an industrial relations perspective and among other issues problematize who the LO serves. Santa (2015) looks at LO from a “good theory” perspective and identifies “good” characteristics of LO such as participation, trust, dialogue and inquiry, and time for reflection. She argues that a vital “good

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization   203 characteristic” is sharing and distribution of power. Also, Örtenblad (2004) argues that employees should be empowered. Watkins and Marsick (1993) make empowerment the cornerstone of LO. Without decentralized power there is no LO (Clegg, Kornberger, and Rhodes 2005). Power and social media in the LO has been problematized from a systemic ­perspective. For example, Kaminska and Borzillo (2018) demonstrate how the younger generation’s familiarity with social media alters the power structures in the organization. This reflects Örtenblad’s (2002) “radical paradigm” of organizational learning where individuals learn as free actors and where power and control over knowledge is not automatically held by managers. However, Filstad, Simeonova, and Visser (2018) argue that the power switch in enterprise social media remains under the control of management since the support of management is crucial to smooth implementation. Gender and minority studies have an eye for power structures within organizational arrangements and demonstrate deep systemic awareness of “power over” such groups. For example, Johansson and Abrahamsson (2018) find that gendered structures tend to prevent development learning and restrict distribution of adoptive learning from existing privileged groups. Through a critical feminist lens, including both LO and systemic ideas, Gouthro, Taber, and Brazil (2018) take a hard look at neoliberalism and the academy in terms of market choices, competitive funding models, and commercial partnerships. They demonstrate how discourse about student employability drives decisions about courses and disciplines. This elevates acceptance of risk and work precarity in areas dominated by women and uses student evaluation as a disciplinary tool that disadvantages women and minorities. Cooper’s (2014) study of voluntary sector youth organization illustrates the relevance of transformative evaluation to LO. Youth workers expressed feelings of alienation from accountability-focused evaluation processes because the scientific approach was incompatible with the context of their work. However, a systemic transformational evaluation technique empowered youth workers because it acknowledged the perspectives, voices, and decisions of the least powerful and the most affected stakeholders (Jackson and Kassam 1998). A recent theme in LO is unlearning (e.g., Fiol and O’Connor 2017a, 2017b; Reese 2017; Rupčić 2017; Seddon and Caulkin 2007; Visser 2017). For example, Morais-Storz and Nguyen (2017) argue for an unlearning organization with a mechanism by which its members unlearn institutionalized knowledge. This apparently introduces a twist to LO. However, “unlearning” is subsumable under “learning” (Huber 1991) and building a LO from a CST perspective emphasizes unlearning. This section has shown, with few exceptions, that the LO lacks fundamental prin­ ciples by which to bring the systems narrative into the work environment while keeping true to the heart of the LO—a holistic transformative agenda. In the next section we set out the fundamental principles of CST, its interpretation of the LO, and its wellresourced holistic transformative agenda.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

204   Robert L. Flood and Hanne Finnestrand

Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization What would LO look like if Senge’s fifth discipline systems thinking was substituted by Critical Systemic Thinking?

The Fifth Discipline: Critical Systemic Thinking Paradoxes. CST advocates reflexive processes that inquire into purposeful human ­activity and quality of life. It encourages holistic thinking and improving relationality within human society and the living planet. However, such relationality is phenomenally complex. We cannot know it all. A critical systemic appreciation of things is realistic about this and pictures a world full of mystery beyond human mastery. It recognizes three paradoxes of everyday living (Flood 1999b): • We cannot know all things—we know of the unknowable. • We cannot manage over all things—we manage within the unmanageable. • We cannot organize the totality—we organize within the unorganizable. What do these paradoxes tell us about LOs? Boundary judgment. The LO as conceived by Senge proposes purposeful human activity that aims to create shared vision through team learning by challenging mental models of groups and individuals—individuals who are encouraged to grow personal vision. Senge recognized that every individual’s and team’s mental model is no more than a viewpoint and that people learn together when exchanging ideas and opinions from different viewpoints. A critical systemic understanding of a mental model is “a view of a phenomenally complex situation that is terribly restricted.” In terms of the three paradoxes, a mental model is a bounded appreciation that brings to light some issues for consideration and action while overshadowing other issues. When it comes to making decisions about the future, this begs the question, who is to judge that any one bounded appreciation is most relevant or most acceptable? In CST the question is addressed by a process termed “boundary judgment.” A boundary judgment is a choice made in various forms of problem solving—such as developing shared vision—about what should belong to the system of interest and to the environment. The quality of systemic thinking depends on how critically collaborators engage in making boundary judgments. The “best” “most systemic” practitioners are the ones that overtly surface and deal with issues inherent in bounding “a problem” such as who should be client and hence the beneficiary (Ulrich 1988). Critical employment of boundary judgment involves two things: sweeping-in and unfolding (Churchman 1979; Ulrich  1988). Any boundary judgment is a “whole system judgment” made in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization   205 c­ ontext of the “totality of relevant conditions.” Whole system and totality naturally invite a sweep-in process, sweeping-in ever more issues of an action context. Sweeping-in encourages collaborators to become increasingly aware of and better able to understand the proponents and the particulars of contrasting mental models. Sweeping-in enables collaborators to become as well informed as possible. However, unabated sweeping-in results in an ever-growing number of issues to take into account—an ever-expanding boundary—which is overwhelming if not unrealistic in practice. Thus, CST introduces unfolding, the critical counterpart to sweeping-in (Churchman 1979; Ulrich 1983). Unfolding is about engaging with the implications of “whole system judgments” within a framework of practical discourse aimed at getting something done. Sweeping-in and unfolding combine in a reflexive process that bounds an action area (e.g., bounds shared vision in a LO). For each choice of action area realized by unfolding there are inevitable further possible choices brought to light by sweeping-in. Thus, each action area can only be temporary and partial (Ulrich 1983). Boundary judgments define clients—the beneficiaries—and prioritize things to be achieved—the benefits to the clients. Choice of an action area is ideally reached through dialogue along the following lines: • Who/what is the beneficiary of the proposed action area (who in human society and what in the living planet)? • What are the possible consequences of this? • How might we feel about that? • Who/what ought to be the beneficiary? CST argues that due consideration be given to processes of power in choice of action area and action to be taken. Here are some examples (also see the typology of power in Flood and Romm 1996c): • Criteria for choice in expert knowledge—Is it hidden or made transparent? • Management/consultant vision—Is it open to critical feedback and revision? • Power in skilled articulation of ideas and strong personalities—Are dialogue and decision making moderated or left uncontrolled? • Organization design—Is power in decision making institutionalized in structure (e.g., fixed in hierarchy) or distributed for example through circular collaborative processes? • Are there equal opportunities in discourse in terms of gender, people of all ethnic backgrounds, disabled people, and so on? • Governing economic policy such as neoliberal imperatives—Are governing ­economic imperatives insidious in organizational policy, or made transparent and engaged with in “problem solving?” A holistic approach sweeps-in such issues by probing behind decisions that seem to have been consented to, and which purport to accommodate the needs of involved and affected stakeholders (Flood and Romm 2018).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

206   Robert L. Flood and Hanne Finnestrand CST thus reminds us that choice in purposeful human activity has ethical con­sid­er­ ations since it defines who/what benefits and who/what is disadvantaged. Each choice of client prioritizes issues of concern, purposes to pursue, and future actions to take. Boundary judgments facilitate a debate within which we are sensitized to ethical issues. Further insights into boundary judgment are found in Ulrich (1983) and Midgley (2000). How might CST translate into critical systemic practice?

An Alternative Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Triple-Loop Learning This section introduces our alternative fieldbook to Senge et al. (1994) in terms of ­proposed contents for critically systemic practice in LOs: 1. Stakeholder surveys; 2. Triple-loop learning; 3. Systemic methods. Stakeholder surveys. Critical systemic practice endorses stakeholder surveys from the start and throughout the process of change. Stakeholder surveys focus on the issue at hand, sweep-in involved and affected stakeholders, and unfold bounded action areas from the various stakeholders’ points of view. In stakeholder surveys, a bounded action area can be thought of in terms of a system. Nine questions give each system (e.g., shared vision in LOs) structure and meaning and reveal system purpose (Churchman 1971; Ulrich 1988). This is the elementary list of categories from Churchman’s (1971) anatomy of system teleology. The questions generate insights into bounded action areas and the insights initiate dialogue between proponents of the action areas: • What is the purpose of the system? • What measure of performance will show if the purpose is met? • Who/what is the client that benefits if the purpose is met? • Who are the decision makers that can change the measure of performance? • What are the features of the system in terms of interrelated teleological components and environment? • Who is the designer whose design of the system may influence the decision makers? • What plans for implementation maximize value to the client? • What is the built-in guarantee that the purpose of the system defined by the measure of performance can be achieved and secured? Dialogue between proponents of different “systems” may then focus on issues like: “Why choose one purpose/vision and not another?”; “What justifies choice of one client

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization   207 over another?”; “What systemic methods deepen understanding of interrelatedness in the system?”; “Will implementation of the system design detrimentally affect other stakeholders?”; “What ethical issues arise with this system and how can they be addressed in a fair way?”; “Who decides what is fair; and is that fair?” Triple-loop learning. The alternative fieldbook employs the mixed methods approach triple-loop learning (TLL). Mixed methods came to the fore in systems research in the 1990s (Flood and Jackson 1991b; Jackson and Keys 1984) and has been much debated (e.g., McIntyre and Romm 2019; Mingers and Gill 1997). TLL aims for deeper inquiry into the questions introduced earlier. As previously said, Senge introduced double-loop learning into LO. A third loop of learning has been proposed by various researchers with wide-ranging ideas about what it should be (Flood and Romm 2018). Learning to learn is a frequent theme. However, the third loop of learning in our alternative fieldbook focuses on processes of power, aspiring to a more holistic understanding by asking, “Is right defended by might or is might defended by right?” (Flood and Romm 1996b). TLL conjoins the three learning loops in a triple question that continuously probes, “Are we doing things right (loop 1), are we doing the right things (loop 2), and is right defended by might or is might defended by right (loop 3)?” (Flood and Romm 1996b). Loop 1 benefits from systemic tools that model organizational processes and design and explore efficiency and effectiveness. The loop addresses questions like, “What systemic methods deepen understanding of interrelatedness in the system?” The intent of this loop is cleverly captured in the title of Stafford Beer’s (1975) book about or­gan­iza­ tion­al cybernetics Designing Freedom. Loop 2 benefits from systemic guidelines for participative debate that seek accommodation and reconciliation between people. The loop addresses questions like, “Why choose one purpose/vision and not another?” Loop 3 benefits from systemic principles about fair/er practice in the context of power/know­ ledge dynamics. The loop addresses questions like, “What ethical issues arise with this system and how can they be addressed in a fair way?” It is essential that practitioners of TLL avoid an unbalanced focus on any one loop of learning. Obsession with structural solutions impedes or precludes intersubjective debate necessary to challenge mental models that underpin the structural solutions. Obsession with processes of debate becomes or is oblivious to or even dismissive of processes of power that influence or control debate. Obsession with resisting processes of power and achieving fairer practice lacks a wider focus on reconfiguring power relations to create more relationality within human society and with the living planet (Flood and Romm 2018). Systemic methods. In principle, any method that addresses the triple question is defensible in TLL for as long as the practitioners operate within the principles of CST. In practice, methods that are constitutionally systemic promise to generate the most insightful ideas for transformational change if we accept an intrinsically systemic world. Limited space prevents us from introducing the wide range of systemic methods that address the triple question, but there is ample literature that completes our task. TLL employs a balanced range of methods to support the three foci of the triple question. Flood and Jackson (1991b) is an early version of such a fieldbook. The TLL fieldbook benefits from

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

208   Robert L. Flood and Hanne Finnestrand fieldwork that has refined old methods and developed new ones (e.g., Chowdhury and  Jangle  2018; Jiuping, Dai, Rao, Xie, and Lu  2016; Jokonya  2016; Larsen  2011; Panagiotidis and Edwards  2001; Raymaker  2016; Reynolds  2014; Schwandt  2015; Smith 2011; Stephens 2013; Venter 2018). In addition, collaboration between systems researchers and action researchers has generated further ideas about engaging with the triple question (e.g., Burns 2007; Flood 2010; Greenwood and Levin 2007; Reason and Bradbury 2001; journal Systemic Practice and Action Research). Friedman, Lipshitz, and Popper (2005) criticize Senge’s LO for giving little practical advice on how learning organizations can be created. The literature that we cite gives extensive practical advice from cybernetic organizational design, to dialogical processes that explore multiple perspectives on organizational purpose, to critical thinking that brings to light processes of power in organizational activities and reflects on choice and ethical issues.

The Mighty Step Through this chapter, we introduce CST into the debate about the LO, raise issues in terms of a critical systemic understanding of the LO, and encourage the reader to engage with CST. We realize that the step from Real Systems Thinking or Interpretive Systemic Thinking to CST is a mighty step. At a theoretical level the step is a paradigm shift. At a practical level the step requires redefining relationships between employees and management, management and consultants; and organizations, the wider human society, and the living planet.

Acknowledgments We are deeply indebted to Morten Levin who first introduced Hanne to systemic practice at NTNU and facilitated Robert’s move to NTNU, thus creating our professional partnership. We acknowledge the benefit to this chapter of Robert’s collaborations with Michael C. Jackson and Norma R. A. Romm.

References Alavi, S. B., and J. McCormick. 2004. “A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Effectiveness of the Learning Organization Model in School Contexts.” International Journal of Educational Management 18 (7): pp. 408–16. Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Beer, S. 1972. Brain of the Firm. London: Allan Lane and Penguin Press. Beer, S. 1975. Designing Freedom. Chichester: John Wiley. Beer, S. 1979. The Heart of the Enterprise. Chichester: John Wiley.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization   209 Beer, S. 1985. Diagnosing the System for Organizations. Chichester: John Wiley. Bertalanffy, L. von. 1950. “The Theory of Open Systems in Physics and Biology.” Science 111 (2872): pp. 23–9. Bertalanffy, L. von. 1956. “General System Theory.” General Systems 1: pp. 1–10. Boyd, A., M. Brown, and G. Midgley. 2004. “Systemic Intervention for Community Operational Research: Developing Services with Young People (Under 16) Living on the Streets.” In Community Operational Research: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development, ed. G. Midgley and A. E. Ochoa-Arias, pp. 203–32. New York: Kluwer. Bui, K., and Y. Baruch. 2010. “Creating Learning Organizations: A Systems Perspective.” The Learning Organization 17 (3): pp. 208–27. Burns, D. 2007. Systemic Action Research: A Strategy for Whole System Change. Bristol: Policy Press. Caldwell, R. 2012. “Systems Thinking, Organizational Change and Agency: A Practice Theory Critique of Senge’s Learning Organization.” Journal of Change Management 12 (2): pp. 145–64. Checkland, P. B. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley. Checkland, P. B. 1985. “From Optimising to Learning: A Development of Systems Thinking for the 1990s.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 36 (9): pp. 757–67. Churchman, C. W. 1968. The Systems Approach. New York: Delta. Churchman, C. W. 1971. The Design of Inquiring Systems. New York: Basic Books. Churchman, C. W. 1979. The Systems Approach and its Enemies. New York: Basic Books. Churchman, C. W. 1982. Thought and Wisdom. Seaside, CA: Intersystems. Chowdhury, R., and N. Jangle. 2018. “Critical Systems Thinking: Towards Enhancing Community Engagement in Micro-Insurance.” Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 19 (3): pp. 209–24. Clegg, S.  R., M.  Kornberger, and C.  Rhodes. 2005. “Learning/Becoming/Organizing.” Organization 12 (2): pp. 147–67. Cooper, S. 2014. “Transformative Evaluation: Organisational Learning through Participative Practice.” The Learning Organization 21 (2): pp. 146–57. Coopey, J. 1995. “The Learning Organization: Power, Politics and Ideology Introduction.” Management Learning 26 (2): pp. 193–213. Córdoba, J., and G. Midgley. 2006. “Broadening the Boundaries: An Application of Critical Systems Thinking to IS Planning in Colombia.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 57 (9): pp. 1064–80. Coyle, R.  G. 1983. “The Technical Elements of the System Dynamics Approach.” European Journal of Operational Research 14 (4): pp. 359–70. Davidoff, F., and P.  Batalden. 2005. “Toward Stronger Evidence on Quality Improvement.” Quality Safety Health Care 14: pp. 319–25. Duffield, S., and S. J. Whitty. 2015. “Developing a Systemic Lessons Learned Knowledge Model for Organisational Learning through Projects.” International Journal of Project Management 33 (2): pp. 311–24. Featherstone, C.  R., and M.  Doolan. 2012. “A Critical Review of the Criticisms of System Dynamics.” Proceedings of the 30th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, St Gallen, Switzerland, July 22–26, ed. E. Husseman and D. Lane, pp. 1–13. Filstad, C., B. Simeonova, and M. Visser. 2018. “Crossing Power and Knowledge Boundaries in Learning and Knowledge Sharing: The Role of ESM.” The Learning Organization 25 (3): pp. 159–68.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

210   Robert L. Flood and Hanne Finnestrand Fiol, M., and E. J. O’Connor. 2017a. “Unlearning Established Organizational Routines: Part I.” The Learning Organization 24 (1): pp. 13–29. Fiol, M., and E. J. O’Connor. 2017b. “Unlearning Established Organizational Routines: Part II.” The Learning Organization 24 (2): pp. 82–92. Flood, R. L. 1999a. “Knowing of the Unknowable.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 12 (3): pp. 247–56. Flood, R. L. 1999b. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable. London: Routledge. Flood, R.  L. 2010. “The Relationship of ‘Systems Thinking’ to Action Research.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 23 (4): pp. 269–84. (First published in Handbook of Action Research, ed. P. Reason, and H. Bradbury, pp. 133–44. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.) Flood, R.  L., and M.  C.  Jackson (eds.). 1991a. Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings. Chichester: John Wiley. Flood, R. L., and M. C. Jackson. 1991b. Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Chichester: John Wiley. Flood, R. L., and N. R. A. Romm (eds.). 1996a. Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice. New York: Plenum. Flood, R.  L., and N.  R.  A.  Romm. 1996b. Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning. Chichester: John Wiley. Flood, R.  L., and N.  R.  A.  Romm. 1996c. “A Typology of Power Supporting Intervention.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 9 (4): pp. 339–54. Flood, R.  L., and N.  R.  A.  Romm. 2018. “A Systemic Approach to Processes of Power in Learning Organizations: Part I—Literature, Theory, and Methodology of Triple Loop Learning.” The Learning Organization 25 (4): pp. 260–72. Forrester, J. W. 1968. Principles of Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Forrester, J. W. 1969. Urban Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Forrester, J. W. 1971. World Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Friedman, V.  J., R.  Lipshitz, and M.  Popper. 2005. “The Mystification of Organizational Learning.” Journal of Management Inquiry 14 (1): pp. 1–9. Garside, P. 1999. “The Learning Organisation: A Necessary Setting for Improving Care?” Quality in Health Care 8 (4): p. 211. Gask, L. 2005. “Overt and Covert Barriers to the Integration of Primary and Specialist Mental Health Care.” Social Science & Medicine 61 (8): pp. 1785–94. Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Gouthro, P., N. Taber, and A. Brazil. 2018. “Universities as Inclusive Learning Organizations for Women? Considering the Role of Women in Faculty and Leadership Roles in Academe.” The Learning Organization 25 (1): pp. 29–39. Greenwood, D. J., and M. Levin. 2007. Introduction to Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Huber, G. 1991. “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literature.” Organization Science 2 (1): pp. 88–115. Isaacson, N., and J.  Bamburg. 1992. “Can Schools Become Learning Organizations?” Educational Leadership 50 (3): pp. 42–4. Jackson, E.  T., and Y.  Kassam (eds.). 1998. Knowledge Shared: Participatory Evaluation in Development Cooperation. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Jackson, M. C. 2001. “Critical Systems Thinking and Practice.” European Journal of Operational Research 128: pp. 233–44.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization   211 Jackson, M. C. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Chichester: John Wiley. Jackson, M. C. 2010. “Reflections on the Development and Contribution of Critical Systems Thinking and Practice.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27: pp. 133–9. Jackson, M. C., and P. Keys. 1984. “Towards a System of Systems Methodologies.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 35 (6): pp. 473–86. James, C.  R. 2003. “Designing Learning Organizations.” Organizational Dynamics 32 (1): pp. 46–61. Johansson, K., and L. Abrahamsson. 2018. “Gender-Equal Organizations as a Prerequisite for Workplace Learning.” The Learning Organization 25 (1): pp. 10–18. Jokonya, O. 2016. “Towards a Critical Systems Thinking Approach during IT Adoption in Organisations.” Procedia Computer Science 100: pp. 856–64. Jiuping, X., J. Dai, R. Rao, H. Xie, and Y. Lu. 2016. “Critical Systems Thinking on the Inefficiency in Post-Earthquake Relief: A Practice in Longmen Shan Fault Area.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 29 (5): pp. 425–48. Kaminska, R., and S. Borzillo. 2018. “Challenges to the Learning Organization in the Context of Generational Diversity and Social Networks.” The Learning Organization 25 (2): pp. 92–101. Koeck, C. 1998. “Time for Organisational Development in Healthcare Organisations: Improving Quality for Patients Means Changing the Organisation.” British Medical Journal (Clinical research edition) 317 (7168): pp. 1267–8. Koskinen, K.  U. 2011. “Project-Based Companies as Learning Organisations: Systems Theory Perspective.” International Journal of Project Organisation and Management 3 (1): pp. 91–106. Lam, A., and B.-A. Lundvall. 2007. “The Learning Organisation and National Systems of Competence Building and Innovation.” In How Europe’s Economies Learn: Coordinating Competing Models, ed. N.  Lorenz and B.-A Lundvall, pp. 110–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen, R. K. 2011. “Critical Systems Thinking for the Facilitation of Conservation Planning in Philippine Coastal Management.” Systems Research and Behavioural Science 28: pp. 63–76. McGill, M. E., J. Slocum, and D. Lei. 1992. “Management Practices in Learning Organizations.” Organizational Dynamics 21 (1): pp. 5–17. McIntyre, J.  J., and N.  R.  A.  Romm (eds.). 2019. Mixed-Methods and Cross Disciplinary Research: Towards Cultivating Eco-Systemic Living. New York: Springer. Midgley, G. 2000. Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. New York: Springer. Midgley, G. 2006. “Systemic Intervention for Public Health.” American Journal of Public Health 96 (3): pp. 466–72. Mingers, J., and A.  Gill. 1997. Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies. Chichester: John Wiley. Morais-Storz, M., and N.  Nguyen. 2017. “The Role of Unlearning in Metamorphosis and Strategic Resilience.” The Learning Organization 24 (2): pp. 93–106. Newell, B., D. M. Marsh, and D. Sharma. 2011. “Enhancing the Resilience of the Australian National Electricity Market: Taking a Systems Approach in Policy Development.” Ecology and Society 16 (2): Art. 15. Retrieved December 26, 2018, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art15/. Newell, B., and K. Proust. 2009. “I See How You Think: Using Influence Diagrams to Support Dialogue.” Working Paper, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, The Australian National University.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

212   Robert L. Flood and Hanne Finnestrand Newell, B.  K. Proust, G., Wiltshire, and D.  Newell. 2008. “Taking a Systems Approach to Estuary Management.” Paper presented at the 17th New South Wales Coastal Conference. Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Newman, N., and D. Newman. 2015. “Learning and Knowledge: A Dream or Nightmare for Employees.” The Learning Organization 22 (1): pp. 58–71. Örtenblad, A. 2002. “Organizational Learning: A Radical Perspective.” International Journal of Management Reviews 4 (1): pp. 71–85. Örtenblad, A. 2004. “The Learning Organization: Towards an Integrated Model.” The Learning Organization 11 (2): pp. 129–44. Örtenblad, A. 2007. “Senge’s Many Faces: Problem or Opportunity?” The Learning Organization 14 (2): pp. 108–22. Örtenblad, A., and R.  Koris. 2014. “Is the Learning Organization Idea Relevant to Higher Education? A Literature Review and a ‘Multi-Stakeholder Contingency Approach.’” International Journal of Education Management 28 (2): pp. 173–214. Panagiotidis, P., and J.  S.  Edwards. 2001. “Organisational Learning: A Critical Systems Thinking Discipline.” European Journal of Information Systems 10 (3): pp. 135–46. Quam, L., and R. Smith. 2005. “What Can the UK and US Health Systems Learn from Each Other?” British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition) 330: pp. 530–3. Raymaker, D. 2016. “Intersections of Critical Systems Thinking and Community Based Participatory Research: A Learning Organization Example with the Autistic Community.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 29 (5): pp. 405–23. Reason, P., and H. Bradbury. 2001. Handbook of Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reese, S. 2017. “Putting Organizational Unlearning Into Practice: A Few Steps for the Practitioner.” The Learning Organization 24 (1): pp. 67–9. Reynolds, M. 2014. “Equity-Focused Developmental Evaluation Using Critical Systems Thinking.” Evaluation 20 (1): pp. 75–95. Rich, N., and N. Piercy. 2013. “Losing Patients: A Systems View on Healthcare Improvement.” Production Planning and Control 24 (10): pp. 962–75. Romm, N.  R.  A. 2015. “Reviewing the Transformative Paradigm: A Critical Systemic and Relational (Indigenous) Lens.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 28 (5): pp. 411–27. Romm, N. R. A. 2018. Responsible Research Practice: Revisiting Transformative Paradigm in Social Research. New York: Springer. Rupčić, N. 2017. “Managing People and Learning: Major Challenge for Modern Managers.” The Learning Organization 24 (4): pp. 257–61. Santa, M. 2015. “Learning Organisation Review: A ‘Good’ Theory Perspective.” The Learning Organization 22 (5): pp. 242–70. Schwandt, T. A. 2015. “Reconstructing Professional Ethics and Responsibility: Implications of Critical Systems Thinking.” Evaluation 21 (4): pp. 462–6. Seddon, J., and S. Caulkin. 2007. “Systems Thinking, Lean Production and Action Learning.” Action Learning: Research and Practice 4 (1): pp. 9–24. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P., N. Cambron-McCabe, T. Lucas, B. Smith, J. Dutton, and A. Kleiner. 2000. Schools that Learn. London: Nicholas Brealey. Senge, P., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. Ross, and B. Smith. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. London: Nicholas Brealey.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization   213 Senge, P., B. Smith, N. Kruschwitz, J. Laur, and S. Schley. 2010. The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. New York: Broadway Books. Smith, T. 2011. “Using Critical Systems Thinking to Foster an Integrated Approach to Sustainability: A Proposal for Development Practitioners.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 13 (1): pp. 1–17. Starfield, B. 1998. Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs Services and Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stephens, A. 2013. Ecofeminism and Systems Thinking. London: Routledge. Ulrich, W. 1983. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Berne: Haupt. Ulrich, W. 1988. “Churchman’s ‘Process of Unfolding’: Its Significance for Policy Analysis and Evaluation.” Systems Practice 1 (4): pp. 415–28. Ulrich, W. 2003. “Beyond Methodology Choice: Critical Systems Thinking as Critically Systemic Discourse.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 54 (4): pp. 325–42. Ulrich, W., and M.  Reynolds. 2010. “Critical Systems Heuristics.” In Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide, ed. M. Reynolds and S. Holwell, pp. 243–92. London: Springer. Venter, C. 2018. “A Critical Systems Approach to Elicit User-Centric Business Intelligence Business Requirements.” Systemic Practice and Action Research. Published online September 22, 2018. doi: 10.1007/s11213-018-9468-5. Visser, M. 2017. “Learning and Unlearning: A Conceptual Note.” The Learning Organization 24 (1): pp. 49–57. Wai-Yin Lo, J. 2004. “Implementation of the Learning Organisation Concept in School Management: A Literature Review.” Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy 1 (26822). doi: 10.1080/16522729.2004.11803884. Wang, C.  L., and P.  K.  Ahmed. 2003. “Organisational Learning: A Critical Review.” The Learning Organization 10 (1): pp. 8–17. Watkins, K. E., and V. J. Marsick. 1993. Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wolstenholme, E.  F. 1982. “System Dynamics in Perspective.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 33 (6): pp. 547–56. Wolstenholme, E.  F. 1983. “Modelling National Development Programmes: An Exercise in System Description and Qualitative Analysis Using System Dynamics.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 34 (12): pp. 1133–48. Wolstenholme, E. F. 1990. System Enquiry: A System Dynamics Approach. Chichester: John Wiley.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

chapter 14

From Lea r n i ng Orga n iz ations to Lea r n i ng Cu lt u r e s a n d Mor e: Evolu tions i n Theory, Ch a nge s i n Pr actice , Con ti n u it y of Pu r pose Anthony D i b ella

The juxtaposition of the two words—learning and organization—has an intriguing ­history. If you position organization first, you need to refer to an essay by Cangelosi and Dill (1965) to hear about “organizational learning.” It then took over thirty years and the marketing success of Peter Senge’s book The Fifth Discipline (1990) for academicians and practitioners to reverse the order of the two words and start talking about the “learning organization.” The popularity of that concept has waned over time; but, perhaps better stated, has evolved where one is now more apt to speak about learning cultures (LC) than learning organizations (LO). This chapter will examine that evolution and consider its implications for both theory and practice.

Culture, Learning, Organization One of the challenges in considering concepts that rely on these three words is the ­varied ways in which they are perceived, described, and used. Complicating the process are the cross-disciplinary variations through which the words and concepts have evolved and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

216   Anthony DiBella been applied. Culture and learning originated as core concepts within the dis­cip­lines of anthropology and education and subsequently were imported into the field of organization studies. While a number of anthropologists working in the 1940s looked at life and behavior within administrative (Kluckholm  1943) and industrial organizations (Chappel  1941; Richardson and Walker 1948; White and Gardner 1945) neither their focus nor other applied or contemporary interests and issues have ever been a legitimate pursuit within that discipline or the profession of anthropology (DiBella 1994). It took another academic community, organization studies, seeking better explanations in its domain to take seriously how notions of culture might be used or adapted to understand organizational systems. Culture first appeared in the management literature many years ago, but its use was customarily limited to understanding differences in management style (Davis  1974; Peterson 1971). It wasn’t until the publication of books like In Search of Excellence (Peters and Waterman  1982), Theory Z (Ouchi  1981), and Corporate Culture (Deal and Kennedy 1982), and journal articles (Pettigrew 1979) that the culture concept became a fully accepted way to understand and discuss what takes place within organizations. Soon thereafter, culture became a macro level concept to consider how organizations functioned as systems (Ott 1989). Once culture was considered the root of all good and evil in organizations, the search was on to find the right or best culture. This spurred the identification of a host of organizational archetypes or cultures that could make organizations efficient or effective (Akin and Hopelain 1986; Dennison 1984; Safford 1988; Wilkins and Ouchi 1983). Since much of organizational research was supported by corporations seeking to boost profitability, it is no wonder that this normative approach took hold. However, advocacy for a singular paradigm (née formula) for effective organizations and organizational culture (Pfeffer  1993,  1995) was counter-balanced by an appreciative, pluralistic view (Van Maanen 1995a, 1995b). This evolution reinforced the separation between how management and organization theorists view and use culture compared to how organizational anthropologists do. A key principle in anthropology is cultural relativism—that while culture can be described, chiefly through ethnography, there is no one best or even better culture. All have worth; and although cultures can be examined and considered in measurable ways, that does not suggest that some cultures, e.g., societies or socio-cultural systems, are necessarily better than others. For example, early anthropologists were quite occupied with and focused on contrasting primitive societies (bands, clans, and tribes) and industrialized economies.1 However, they were leery of stating that more developed societies are necessarily improvements on earlier ones. Robert Redfield’s romanticized views (1930) on peasant 1  Economists operate under a different set of principles using measures such as gross national product and per capita income to place countries on a scale from more (e.g., better) to less. As a foil or contrast to using economic activity as a measure of the worth or appeal of a society, other measures such as PQLI—physical quality of life index—emerged. PQLI was a composite measure that accounted for noneconomic factors such as life expectancy, literacy, and infant mortality.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

From Learning Organizations to Learning Cultures   217 societies are typical of this sense of appreciation which contrasts with a more judgmental perspective (Lewis 1951). That still leaves undetermined how culture is or should be defined. The concept of culture, so often used these days, has become so mundane as to overlook the multiple meanings and ways of understanding what culture is and its implications are. Is culture what organizations are, some abstraction that can be inferred from observation, or what they have, in the way of concrete, tangible artifacts (Kaplan  1965; White  1954)? Furthermore, culture, as a singular concept, can be spun into a host of culture theories (Kaplan and Manners 1972; Ortner 1984). In the grand scheme of things, these may be small distinctions, but they have direct and critical implications when discussing learning organizations and learning cultures. And then, when it comes to organization theory, one is similarly met with a range of orientations (Morgan 1986; Perrow 1986). This chapter is not the place to argue for the validity of these contrasting perspectives or para­digms but to recognize the distinctions and accept how they offer different frames for comparing both LO and LC (see Hawkins, Chapter 12 in this volume). With regard to learning, the gerund form of the word learn can and has been used as an adjective, an imperative, and a noun or prescription. For example, it is common in contemporary English to use or regard two sequenced words as an oxymoron (“true story,” “jumbo shrimp”) or not depending on whether a word is used as a noun, a verb, or adjective. Consider the term “learning matters.” From one perspective, the words can be interpreted to mean that learning is something important and from another the content of what is learned. When considering the meaning and implications of the learning organization concept, or matters of learning, it is important to recognize the tacit use of the words themselves. Even research in this domain can be considered from different points of view as prescriptive versus descriptive (Tsang 1997).

Learning as Description As a descriptor, learning can refer to the different types of learning, both with regard to content (what is learned) and the process (how learning takes place). In this domain, learning can be examined in terms of its pluralistic or relativistic characteristics and their implications. That is, there is no one way to learn but many, both for individuals (Kolb 1974) and organizations (DiBella, Nevis, and Gould 1996; Shrivastava 1983); and it’s vital to recognize that diversity in light of existing capabilities, situational needs, and dictates. For example, can organizations best learn from their own experiences or from those of others?

Learning as Prescription As with any field of endeavor, organization studies and business management have their fair share of experts and pundits eager to sell their prescriptions about how things should be done. The focus here is not just on any way to learn but the best way to do so. The result is

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

218   Anthony DiBella often a single theory or set of distinctive ways to learn that offer prac­ti­tioners clear direction. Within this frame, learning is an imperative to be undertaken as a result of specific needs, causes, and circumstances. A common aphorism that speaks to the criticality of learning is: “if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.”

The Learning Organization When the concept of the learning organization was first introduced, it was regarded as the latest best guide to lasting organizational success (DeGeus 1988). Over time, several dominant orientations came to characterize how LOs were written about and understood (DiBella 1995). Those orientations reflected distinct paradigms in how LOs can be conceived based on varying assumptions about the nature of learning and organizations and the mix of the two. For example, is a “learning organization” a redundancy, an oxymoron, or a stage in organization development? Some LO characteristics pertain to individual level behavior, others to team phenomena, and others to system level attributes. From an LO perspective, an organization learns as a system and is a context wherein learning by individuals takes place. For organizations to be effective, the latter needs to be aligned with the former. In effect, the actions of individuals must coincide with the values of the organization’s culture. The search for the right characteristics of the LO parallels the search for the correct cultural characteristics of effective organizations. To use the term “learning organization” is to make a very specific, tacit declaration about the nature of organizations. A parallel example elucidates this point. When discussing human beings or mammals, we don’t refer to them as breathing since that is an endemic characteristic. A non-breathing mammal is a corpse or cadaver. When LO is referred to, an unstated assumption is that learning is not endemic to functioning organizations. If we accepted that there are such things as “learning organizations,” wouldn’t that imply the existence of “non-learning organizations;” and if one does not follow some prescription to become an LO, does that mean no learning is taking place? We know that all systems, including human and social ones, are cybernetic in their nature (Wiener 1948). All systems have a capacity to process information, whether from the internal or external environment, and to use such information to adapt, grow, and evolve. This characteristic is a fundamental, innate aspect of socio-cultural cultures. Even so-called traditional societies learn. In the 1800s, American Plains Indians learned to ride horses with saddles and shoot rifles to better hunt for buffalo; in the 1960s, Saudi Arabian society learned to accept television sets and the public display of images to better propagate Islam. Then there is the distinction between being a learning organization versus becoming one. What makes an organization into an LO? This question may seem simple, but it is surprisingly complex as it frames the challenge from an organizational development

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

From Learning Organizations to Learning Cultures   219 and change management perspective with links to the countless theories, methods, and case studies of why and how organizations do or do not change (DiBella 2014). It’s one thing to prescribe a vision for an organization or a goal like becoming an LO, it’s quite another to realize that intention. Despite the attraction and popular appeal of Peter Senge’s notion of the LO, efforts by a wide variety of organizations to become learning organizations met with minimal relative success. It’s no wonder that Senge’s next book was The Dance of Change (Senge et al. 1999). The realization of LOs and business transformation to achieve higher levels of performance was severely constrained by the traditional norms and values of organizations.

From Learning Organization(s) to Learning Culture and Cultures In parallel, time-wise, with academic interest in LO, corporate executives were ­searching for and implementing new business practices to make organizations more effective. In the 1990s, business process re-engineering was all the rage (Hammer and Champy 1993). A well-known case was the turnaround at IBM. Its resurrection from imminent demise in the early 1990s to its return to prominence by the end of that decade was led by its CEO Lou Gerstner. Shortly after IBM’s successful transformation, Gerstner retired, wrote a book (2002), and went on the speaking circuit. Quite possibly his most famous remark about his experience at IBM was: “culture eats strategy for breakfast.” By then, the popularity of LO had waned, and culture recognized as a key driver of organizational performance. Gerstner’s remark seems to have embodied that understanding, and it led to renewed interest in all aspects of culture and cultures. In time, culture and learning, while remaining distinct concepts or characteristics of organizations, came to be regarded as interdependent and the term “learning culture” part of the management lexicon. Also indicative of the trend in the 1990s to recognize the importance of both learning and culture and to bring these concepts together was the development of corporate universities. In many companies, learning evolved from training and became part of the corporate culture. What better way for a company to acknowledge that shift and recognize its importance than to establish its own university (Wiggenhorn 1990).

Learning Culture as Description Knowing oneself is among life’s biggest challenges, both for individuals and organizations. The notion of learning culture recognizes that organizational effectiveness derives from the capacity to understand, use, and/or change organizational culture. When changing organizational culture, should the focus be on culture as a superorganic, as conceived in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

220   Anthony DiBella the discipline of anthropology and its use in the development of anthropological theory, or as the bits and pieces of material culture that can be gleaned from walking around a factory or business office? If the nature of any organization is its culture, then the capacity of an organization to become an LO is a function of its culture. But if the culture of an organization is neither monolithic nor homogeneous, then the diversity of values and norms across structural or other boundaries needs to be considered in understanding how an LC functions. Accepting the many types and forms of LO suggests that culture is pluralistic, not mono­lith­ic, and that there are multiple ways in which culture can shape the learning that occurs in and of organizations. This shift parallels anthropological views on ­cultural rela­tiv­ism and the recognition of learning cultures (van Breda-Verduijn and Heijboer 2016).

Learning Culture as Prescription Being prescriptive is both powerful and dangerous. It is powerful by giving clear ­direction to what needs to be done. It is dangerous since prescriptions may be based on a faulty diagnosis or misunderstanding of the situation. They also depend or assume that whomever is enacting the prescription has the motivation and capacity to do so ef­fect­ive­ly. Otherwise, prescription can lead to action that is ultimately dysfunctional or counterproductive. The prescriptive search for the right LC parallels the popularity of searching for and implementing so-called “best practices.” Such a pursuit is a fool’s errand as changes in technology, levels of human development, consumer preferences, and industry and market demands, can quickly make a best practice an anachronism or a relic from the past. As the world and all that’s in it change, what’s prescribed as “best” one day becomes outdated the next. Given their power, it is best not to avoid prescriptions altogether but to make them more flexible and accommodative to organizational and environmental circumstances. It is more productive to think and act in terms of “best principles” than “best practices.” The former are more general and can be adapted to specific circumstances. Cultural differences exist both within and between organizational settings. Such variations are the basis for arguments that models pertaining to LC and LO need to be adapted to specific contexts (Örtenblad 2015). Duplicating a singular template to become someone’s prescriptive formula for LO or LC can evolve into the pursuit of a slogan. As Hofstede (1991) indicated many years ago, organizations don’t operate in a vacuum. Employees enter from a societal context with a culture and its own set of basic assumptions. Learning culture has to align with the cultural context of the organization. Organizations are better off if they design and embed their own distinctive learning practices and feedback loops. That process also generates a sense of ownership and empowerment among employees.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

From Learning Organizations to Learning Cultures   221

Learning Portfolios Sub-cultures reflecting structural, occupational, and other distinctions are bound to exist in most organizations (Van Maanen and Barley 1985). Such communities hold different assumptions and values about the legitimacy of data and knowledge leading to different learning cultures and styles. One can thus view any organization that spans sub-cultures as comprising a portfolio of learning styles (DiBella 2011). For example, what and how a set of industrial engineers learn in operating an assembly line will differ from what product design staff learn in experimental labs or from simulations. While the notion of an LC may conjure up the notion that learning is uniform throughout an organization, the notion of a learning portfolio suggests that organizations comprise a range of learning styles and modalities. First, these different styles and orientations need to be recognized. Second, the styles need to be considered from a holistic perspective in terms of how they interrelate, coordinate, and promote greater learning throughout the organization. For example, while we should not expect doubleloop learning to occur in the control room of a nuclear power plant, one might expect the parent organization for a nuclear facility to have an experimental lab where simulations can be conducted off-line in a safe and secure manner. Electricité de France, one of the world’s largest electricity-producers powered by nuclear plants has, in fact, these two styles in its learning portfolio.

Learning Cultures and Organizing Reliability The implications of LO theory have led to evolutions in management practice which contributed to more frequent usage of the term “learning cultures.” One development was the growing focus on reducing preventable error in industries where mishaps and accidents are likely to have calamitous effects. The linchpin in doing so derives from learning from error and building organizational reliability. Almost in parallel with the focus that emerged in the 1990s on the LO was the interest in the challenges faced by so-called high reliability organizations (HROs). These are organizations where mistakes or accidents may lead to multiple fatalities; and the greater the hazard, the greater the need for reliability. Echoing the dangers of Perrow’s discussion (1984) of normal accidents, Weick and Roberts (1993) recognized and explained the dangers that can occur when accidents happened in such circumstances. While discussed differently in the literature, work on LO, LC, and HROs mirrored each other since it all stems from an interest in learning to improve performance; and at its core was culture as a source of reliability (Weick 1987).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

222   Anthony DiBella

Learning Systems and Learning Industries: Organizational Networks and Mutual Reliability The notion of an individual LC is a limited one as the focus is on a single organization. As one progresses in complexity and the breadth of one’s aperture moves from a single organization to multiple organizations that rely on each other, one can extend the focus further to encompass an entire industry composed of manufacturers, government regulators, and associations of organizations. In effect, organizations operate within networks of organizations whose success depends on mutual reliability. Some years ago, a key marketing concept of the Ford Motor Corporation was: “Quality Is Job 1.” This slogan or tagline was Ford’s implicit connection to the total quality management thrust at the time—that companies through continuous improvement (aka organizational learning) can improve the quality of their products. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of components that go into the manufacturing and assembly of an automobile; and Ford designs and fabricates only a small percentage of them. Consider, as well, Apple’s most successful product, the iPhone, for which many of its components are manufactured in China or elsewhere in Asia. For Ford or Apple to prod­uce a quality product with zero defects requires all of its components, and the suppliers of those components, likewise to be of high quality and reliability. In effect, the culture of HROs exists within the context or culture of an entire nation or global industry (Roth and DiBella 2014). The quality and reliability of the products and services in the industry is dependent on the learning that takes place within and across the various organizations that comprise it. This interdependency is exemplified in a variety of industries. Nuclear power. When an accident occurs at a nuclear power plant, as it did in Chernobyl in 1986, its impact can be felt throughout the industry and the world at large. After the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the US nuclear power industry recognized the need for nuclear operators to share their experiences and to learn from each other in order to avoid future accidents. One consequence was the formation of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. The World Association of Nuclear Operators or WANO operates on a global level. The intent of these bodies is to spread learning across organizations operating in the same industry not only from operational accidents but from their precursors as well. Nuclear power operators rely on global suppliers such as ABB, Brookfield Nuclear, Framatome, and GE Hitachi, to name just a few. Communities of practice, such as INPO and WANO, promote learning among these suppliers in collaboration with plant op­er­ators and government agencies like the French Nuclear Safety Authority and the US Nuclear Power Regulatory Commission. By recognizing and acting upon their mutual dependence, these actors are able to build reliability across industry networks. Healthcare. In 2000, the Institute of Medicine in the United States issued a report on the thousands of people who die each year due to preventable medical error. That report led to a variety of initiatives both within and across healthcare providers and suppliers to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

From Learning Organizations to Learning Cultures   223 learn from errors and mistakes and increase the reliability of medical care. For ex­ample, industry-wide, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, much like INPO, focuses on sharing information on best practices and principles to prevent preventable ­medical error. On an institutional level, many healthcare facilities have established learning initiatives that masquerade under the guise of specific best practices or programs. For ex­ample, Kent County Hospital in the United States has an initiative entitled “Good Catch.” This program rewards employees for reporting precursors of medical or administrative accidents and events that could lead to injury and death. Transportation. Perhaps the oldest effort that recognizes mutual reliability and promotes organizational and industry-wide learning is the accident review program of the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Whenever there is a crash of some form of transportation, like an airplane, train, bus, or subway, NTSB assembles a study panel often composed not only of engineers and safety experts, but representatives from employee unions, parts manufacturers, and anyone who might be engaged or required to operate some mode of transportation. Over the years, results of such studies have led to changes in management practices, maintenance and operational procedures, parts design, training, and better communication among all those responsible for safe transport. Security. A growing area of concern, due at least in part to the perception that we live in an unsafe world, especially following the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, is security, whether on a personal (e.g., terrorist attacks), national (e.g., cyber security), or international (e.g., global warming) level. Since the advent of modern warfare, military organizations have engaged in learning exercises such as after-action reviews and war gaming. More recently, nation-states have learned to share information to track and control the movement of terrorists and ways to mitigate their impact.

The Ongoing Pursuit of Business Transformation Efforts to define and realize LOs and LCs are, in effect, guides to organizational success, however you wish to define it. Underlying the focus on LOs and LCs is the recognition that as the world changes, so too must organizations transform themselves. This theory was framed many years ago by the notion that internal changes to an organization must match the speed and nature of changes within an organization’s external environment (Thompson 1967). A major challenge in this pursuit can be exemplified by a quote attributed to Anthony DeMello—“When the guru points to the moon, the fool sees only a finger.” People mistake theories, such as LO and LC, as the phenomenon itself while the theory becomes merely a label or symbol and its name another piece of jargon.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

224   Anthony DiBella Much like there is a gap between written law and the rules by which any group of ­ eople live together, so too is there a gap between the true nature of effective organizations p and what is written about them. Unfortunately, the latter involves a competition among academics between disciplines, divergent theories, and their underlying paradigms. This competition drives a search for right versus wrong theories instead of acknowledging the diversity of organizations and organizational cultures. A situational mindset demands a tolerance of ambiguity and acceptance of uncertainty. Otherwise, theorists and practitioners get swallowed up in the tide or tendency to normalize and prescribe the right or best culture; and with that comes collateral damage to recognizing and tolerating multiple ways to learn. Where will the search for business transformation lead us? With the emergence of “big data,” “collective intelligence” may be the next wave/thing (Malone  2018). No one person is smarter or more learned than all of us put together. When we combine that capacity with the power of information technology and analytics, learning and trans­form­ation are expedited in perpetuity.

Directions for Future Research Given the growing recognition of the interdependency between all things and systems, there is clearly a need for further study on the interactions between organizations and clusters of organizations. The absence of clear boundaries between personal and private data due to the omnipresence of the internet raises concerns about the appropriateness of government intervention. Our use, nay dependence, on internet access requires individuals to establish clearer firewalls between themselves and what they share with others online. As organizations develop a greater capacity to harvest personal data and learn about consumer preferences, privacy of personal data gleaned from use of the internet has or should become a shared concern among organizations with a vested interest in public policies and outcomes. How can organizations, both public and private, learn from one another to develop policies without being categorized as colluding or acting in a noncompetitive fashion?

The Morality of Learning Organizations and Learning Cultures Most of the work done on LOs and LCs takes a descriptive perspective in explaining what they are or a prescriptive view in terms of how they can come into being. In effect, the emphasis has been on the what and the how. What’s missing is the so-what. Why promote the development of LOs or LCs; what is all this learning supposed to accomplish; what is the purpose, desired outcome, or impact of learning or is its value intrinsic?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

From Learning Organizations to Learning Cultures   225 Organized in the United States, in the middle of World War II, the Manhattan project was assembled to learn about nuclear power and its uses as a weapon of mass destruction. Its ultimate success was dependent on learning by and between individuals and organizations. One might easily question the morality of using the atom bomb to end World War II between the USA and Japan, an immediate outcome from the Manhattan project. Organizations concerned with developing their learning capability, via LOs or LCs, may do so for private gain and/or public good. When commercial airlines become more reliable by learning from NTSB investigations, they make flying safer for passengers while promoting their own profitability. When nuclear power plants learn to avoid error, their continued operations can reduce the production of greenhouse gases and address the problem of global warming. When medical facilities learn to eliminate preventable medical error, they improve patient outcomes and can reduce overall healthcare costs. Finally, when national security organizations are better able to share information and learn from one another about the dangers around the globe, they reduce terrorist attacks and instill public confidence and trust in government institutions. All of these outcomes and more are meaningful and morally valuable reasons to encourage learning in and between organizations. This chapter has examined the evolution of concepts pertaining to the criticality of learning toward the pursuit of organizational transformation and effectiveness. Over time, the popularity of such concepts as the learning organization, learning portfolios, learning cultures, and organizational reliability has waxed and waned. These concepts have developed within descriptive and prescriptive perspectives. While scholars and practitioners are all concerned with organizational effectiveness, they point towards it in unique ways, using conceptual labels that can be interpreted in diverse ways. That often contributes to intellectual churn and further evolutions in conceptual development and popularity. Whatever forms or labels business transformation takes on in the future, may they always lead learning in directions that benefit humankind and planet Earth.

References Akin, G., and D.  Hopelain. 1986. “Finding the Culture of Productivity.” Organizational Dynamics 14 (3): pp. 19–32. Cangelosi, V.  E., and W.  R.  Dill. 1965. “Organizational Learning: Observations toward a Theory.” Administrative Science Quarterly 10 (1): pp. 175–203. Chappel, E. D. 1941. “Organizational Problems in Industry.” Applied Anthropology 1 (1): pp. 2–9. Davis, S.  M. 1974. Comparative Management: Organizational and Cultural Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Deal, T. F., and A. A. Kennedy. 1982. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. DeGeus, A. 1988. “Planning as Learning.” Harvard Business Review 66 (2): pp. 70–4. Dennison, D.  R. 1984. “Bringing Corporate Culture to the Bottom Line.” Organizational Dynamics 13 (2): pp. 4–22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

226   Anthony DiBella DiBella, A.  J. 1994. “Applying Concepts of Corporate Culture to International Business Management.” In Anthropological Perspectives on Organizational Culture, ed. T.  Hamada and W. E. Sibley, pp. 311–26. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. DiBella, A. J. 1995. “Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of Perspective.” Paper presented at the Academy of Management meeting, Vancouver, Canada. DiBella, A.  J. 2011. “Learning Portfolios: An Alternative to Learning Organizations.” In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, 2nd ed., ed. M. EasterbySmith and M. A. Lyles, pp. 183–98. Chichester: John Wiley. DiBella, A.  J. 2014. “Learning Systems and Organizational Development.” In The NTL Handbook of Organization Development and Change, 2nd ed., ed. B. B. Jones and M. Brazzel, pp. 625–40. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley. DiBella, A. J., E. C. Nevis, and J. M. Gould. 1996. “Understanding Organizational Learning Capability.” Journal of Management Studies 33 (3): pp. 361–79. Gerstner, L. V. 2002. Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? New York: HarperBusiness. Hammer, H., and J. Champy. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation. New York: HarperCollins. Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Kaplan, D. 1965. “The Superorganic: Science or Metaphysics?” American Anthropologist 67 (4): pp. 958–76. Kaplan, D., and R. A. Manners. 1972. Culture Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kluckholm, C. 1943. “Covert Culture and Administrative Problems.” American Anthropologist 45 (2): pp. 213–27. Kolb, D. A. 1974. “On Management and the Learning Process.” In Organizational Psychology: A Book of Readings, 2nd ed., ed. D. Kolb, I. Rubin, and J. McIntyre, pp. 27–42. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lewis, O. 1951. Life in a Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Revisited. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Malone, T.  W. 2018. Superminds: The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Morgan, G. 1986. Images of Organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Örtenblad, A. 2015. “Towards Increased Relevance: Context Adapted Models of the Learning Organization.” The Learning Organization 22 (3): pp. 163–81. Ortner, S. B. 1984. “Theory in Anthropology since the 60s.” Society for Comparative Study of Society and History 10 (1): pp. 126–66. Ott, J. S. 1989. The Organizational Culture Perspective. Chicago: Dorsey Press. Ouchi, W. G. 1981. Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Perrow, C. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books. Perrow, C. 1986. Complex Organizations, 3rd ed. New York: Random House. Peters, T. J., and R. H. Waterman. 1982. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row. Peterson, R.  B. 1971. “Chief Executives’ Attitudes: A Cross-Cultural Analysis.” Industrial Relations 10 (2): pp. 194–209. Pettigrew, A. M. 1979. “On Studying Organizational Cultures.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (4): pp. 570–81. Pfeffer, J. 1993. “Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as Dependent Variable.” Academy of Management Review 18 (4): pp. 599–620. Pfeffer, J. 1995. “Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of Styles of Theory.” Organization Science 6 (6): pp. 680–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

From Learning Organizations to Learning Cultures   227 Redfield, R. E. 1930. Tepoztlan, a Mexican Village: A Study of Folk Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Richardson, F. L. W., and C. R. Walker. 1948. Human Relations in an Expanding Company. New Haven, CT: Yale University Labor and Management Center. Roth, G. L., and A. J. DiBella. 2014. Systemic Change Management: The Five Capabilities for Improving Enterprises. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Safford, G.  S. 1988. “Culture Traits, Strength, and Organizational Performance: Moving beyond ‘Strong’ Cultures.” Academy of Management Review 13 (4): pp. 546–58. Senge. P.  1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. Ross, G. Roth, and B. Smith. 1999. The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. New York: Crown. Shrivastava, P. 1983. “A Typology of Organizational Learning Systems.” Journal of Management Studies 20 (1): pp. 7–28. Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tsang, E. W. K. 1997. “Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research.” Human Relations 50 (1): pp. 73–89. Van Breda-Verduijn, H., and M.  Heijboer. 2016. “Learning Culture, Continuous Learning, Organizational Learning Anthropologist.” Industrial and Commercial Training 48 (3): pp. 123–8. Van Maanen, J. 1995a. “Style as Theory.” Organization Science 6 (1): pp. 133–43. Van Maanen, J. 1995b. “Fear and Loathing in Organization Studies.” Organization Science 6 (6): pp. 687–92. Van Maanen, J., and S.  Barley. 1985. “Culture Organization: Fragments of a Theory.” In Organizational Culture, ed. P.  J.  Frost, L.  F.  Moore, M.  R.  Louis, C.  C.  Lundberg, and J. Martin, pp. 31–53. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Weick, K.  E. 1987. “Organizational Culture as a Source of High Reliability.” California Management Review 29 (2): pp. 112–27. Weick, K. E., and K. H. Roberts. 1993. “Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks.” Administrative Science Quarterly 38 (3): pp. 357–81. White, L.  A. 1954. “Review of Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions by A. L. Kroeber and C. Kluckholn.” American Anthropologist 56 (3): pp. 461–8. White, W.  F., and B.  B.  Gardner. 1945. “Man in the Middle: Positions and Problems of the Foreman.” Applied Anthropology 4 (2): pp. 1–17. Wiener, N. 1948. Cybernetics, Or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. New York: Wiley & Sons. Wiggenhorn, W. 1990. “Motorola U: When Training Becomes an Education.” Harvard Business Review 68 (4): pp. 71–83. Wilkins, A.  L., and W.  G.  Ouchi. 1983. “Efficient Culture: Exploring the Relationship between Culture and Organizational Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3): pp. 468–81.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/21/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

chapter 15

Sta k eholders a n d the Le a r n i ng Orga n iz ation William D. Schneper, David Wernick, and Mary Ann von Glinow

Introduction Stakeholder theory (ST) continues to hold a privileged place amidst the ­organizational studies spotlight. The term stakeholder, meaning someone who safeguards or possesses a claim on something of value, dates at least as far back as 1708 when it first appeared as an entry in The Oxford English Dictionary (Clayton 2014). Parmar et al. (2010) chronicle how the contemporary conception of stakeholder evolved from an internal memorandum written in 1963 at the Stanford Research Institute. The memo used the term stakeholder as a play on words with the similarly sounding “stockholder” and offered a counterpoint to the popular view that publicly traded corporations were primarily obligated to their equity investors. Figure 15.1 illustrates how the number of scholarly articles in the ABI-Inform database containing the word stakeholder in the abstract, title, or as a keyword has grown exponentially from just a few in the 1980s to over 2,800 in 2017. This increasing attention to stakeholders and ST can be compared to the birth and growth of the literature on the learning organization (LO). While the notion of a ­so-called LO received occasional attention by researchers and consultants prior to the 1990s (e.g., Dery 1982), the concept was never fully developed until Peter Senge’s (1990) landmark book, The Fifth Discipline (Örtenblad 2013a). Senge (1990) proposed a complete set of characteristics (i.e., the five disciplines; personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking) necessary to be an LO, identified several key challenges confronting such entities, compared LOs to traditional or­gan­iza­ tions, and offered advice to managers on how to develop and support LOs. Perhaps the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

230   William D. Schneper, David Wernick, and Mary Ann Von Glinow 3000

2500

Articles

2000

1500

1000

500

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000 Year

2005

2010

2015

2020

Figure 15.1.  Number of articles containing stakeholder in the abstract, title or as a keyword, 1980–2017.

most critical message of The Fifth Discipline was that external environments are evolving so rapidly that organizations must institutionalize learning and change as central elem­ ents in their systems and strategies in order to achieve sustainable success. Senge’s ideas diffused rapidly across both management and organizational research communities. Figure 15.2 shows the number of works listed by Google Scholar that have cited the The Fifth Discipline from 1990 to 2017. The Learning Organization journal, first published in 1994, played a vital role in the emergence of the LO as its own distinctive literature. The publication of numerous books (including some co-authored by Senge) and edited volumes also helped solidify the LO as an important area of scholarly inquiry. Given their prominence to both management and organizational research and the time overlap in their respective literatures, some may find it surprising that the number of scholarly articles in ABI-Inform that include both “learning organization” and “stakeholder” in either the title, abstract or keyword list is just twenty-nine. This tally probably understates the degree of cross-fertilization across these two research traditions. Many LO principles, for instance, have spread well beyond their original confines and have been adopted by the broader organizational learning and organizational design literatures (see Calhoun, Starbuck, and Abrahamson  2011; Örtenblad  2001; Rebelo and Gomes 2008). Theoretical approaches that are consistent with the LO are sometimes applied by scholars without any direct, explicit reference to the LO (Li 2005; Salge, Vera,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Stakeholders and the Learning Organization   231 4000 3500 3000

Citations

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1990

2010

2000

2020

Year

Figure 15.2.  Number of works citing Senge’s (1990) The Fifth Discipline, 1990–2017.

and Ashelford 2012; see also Easterby-Smith and Lyles 2011). On the other hand, both “stakeholder” and the “learning organization” have often taken on the role of a buzz­ word in which the term has been used prominently in research even when there is no obvious contribution to underlying theory (Collins 2000). In this chapter, we examine the relationship between ST and LO research. In the next section, we describe some of the most important concepts and trends relating to ST. Next, we discuss some apparent similarities in the principles underlying ST and Senge’s (1990) original articulation of the LO. We also examine the types of stakeholders that received the greatest attention by Senge (1990). In the following section, we review the various ways that subsequent LO scholarship has approached stakeholders and ST. We do not limit our investigation to the journal articles tracked by ABI-Inform and other databases, but also include the various books that played an important role in the development of LO thinking. We also consider research published in The Learning Organization journal or other scholarly outlets, even when the LO is not mentioned in the article title, abstract, or keyword list. We find that Senge’s The Fifth Discipline had a strong “anchoring” effect on subsequent LO research that has tended to direct attention to just a few major ST topics and types of stakeholders. Our concluding section offers recommendations on how principles relating to ST and the LO can be further combined in the future.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

232   William D. Schneper, David Wernick, and Mary Ann Von Glinow

Stakeholder Theory: Key Concepts and Trends As with many terms frequently used by both managers and scholars working in such a diverse array of fields and disciplines (Von Glinow and Schneper 2013), considerable debate and uncertainty exists regarding just how the term stakeholder ought to be defined (Laplume, Sonpar, and, Litz  2008). In Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (a book whose impact on ST approximates that of The Fifth Discipline in the LO literature), Freeman (1984: 46) defines a stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives.” Despite its widespread use in scholarly circles, scholars began to challenge this definition almost immediately after it was introduced. Quantitative researchers often point out how the definition is too broad and unwieldy for operationalization purposes (Soleimani, Schneper, and Newburry 2014). Correspondingly, Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997: 857) characterize the definition as “bewilderingly complex for managers to apply.” In his critique of ST, Jensen (2002) pokes fun at this definition by pointing out how blackmailers and thieves fall within Freeman’s rubric. Indeed, Freeman (1984: 53) himself explains that even a terrorist should be categorized as a stakeholder, albeit an “unsavory” one. Subsequent scholarship has argued that the stakeholder concept should be extended to include various non-human entities, including the natural environment (Driscoll and Starik 2004) and God (Schwartz 2006). While we agree that managers must remain cognizant and that much can be learned by studying the methods, motivations, and organizational structures of terrorist groups (Wernick and Von Glinow 2010), for instance, we contend that stretching the notion of who constitutes a stakeholder too broadly raises the risk of reducing the term to meaninglessness. Such an inclusive approach to defining stakeholders suggests that the ST domain logically extends to include the study of (1) all the possible ways that any conceivable entity can affect any organization’s performance or behavior, and (2) all of the possible consequences of these organizational actions on all feasible parties. Similar to Palmer, Barber, and Zhou’s (1995: 506) description of the finance conception of control as the “theory that ate New York,” the ST moniker has been applied so often and, at times, in so undisciplined a manner that observers could begin dismissing it as the ­theory that incorporates nearly everything. Thus, ST must still address one of the most fundamental questions confronting any area of inquiry: How should the boundaries of the theory be demarcated? We suggest that one important factor that distinguishes “true” ST from other research dealing with various types of internal and external organizational factions is that the former generally involves the consideration of multiple stakeholder groups. While a study focusing on how employees affect the likelihood that firms will adopt some innovation should not ordinarily be considered an example of ST, for instance, a comparable study exploring

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Stakeholders and the Learning Organization   233 the relative impact of employees, shareholders, and perhaps other stakeholder groups is more likely to be accurately categorized as such (Schneper and Guillén 2004). Similarly, a corporate social responsibility (CSR) paper is more likely to make a meaningful ­contribution to stakeholder theory when it examines multiple stakeholder groups (e.g., the costs and benefits of a new social initiative on customers, employees, and in­vest­ors). Thus, a narrower and hopefully more useful approach to ST is treat it as the study of (1) the relationships that an organization has with other major groups operating both inside (e.g., managers and employees) and outside (e.g., investors, suppliers, customers) its formal boundaries; (2) the conflicts and also opportunities for value creation that exist amongst the firm and these groups; and (3) the costs, benefits, and trade-offs that organizational decision makers must consider when developing policies and strat­egies (Parmar et al. 2010). Some scholars have responded to ST’s conceptual ambiguity by narrowing their consideration of stakeholders to a more limited group of constituencies. Mitchell et al. (1997), for example, suggest that managers will tend to dedicate greater attention to constituencies who possess greater social legitimacy, power, and more urgent claims on the organization’s resources. Clarkson (1995: 107) stressed the usefulness of distinguishing between so-called “primary” versus “secondary” stakeholders. Primary stakeholders include the parties most salient and vital to the organization (e.g., investors, managers, employees, suppliers, creditors, and customers), whereas secondary stakeholders “influence or affect, or are influenced or affected by, the corporation, but . . . are not engaged in transactions with the corporation and are not essential for its survival.” While stakeholder theory has long focused its attention on primary stakeholders, a growing body of research has begun exploring the influence of secondary stakeholders, including activist groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other participants in social movements (Briscoe, King, and Leitzinger 2018; Wernick 2011). Another way that scholars have imposed greater order over stakeholder theory has been by parsing the extant research into various categories. Most prominently, Donaldson and Preston (1995) distinguished between three branches of stakeholder theory: the (1) descriptive, (2) normative, and (3) instrumental. Descriptive research seeks to reveal how an organization’s actions and strategies are influenced by its stakeholders. The normative branch deals with how organizations ought to behave vis-à-vis their stakeholders. In other words, normative stakeholder research seeks to provide “the moral or philosophical guidelines for the operation and management of the cor­ por­ation” (Donaldson and Preston 1995: 71). Instrumental research tries to uncover the relationship between stakeholders and the accomplishment of organizational objects. In a content analysis and review of 179 ST papers sampled from eight leading management journals, Laplume et al. (2008) found that all but thirty-six articles fit within Donaldson and Preston’s typology. We find that Donaldson and Preston’s framework is also helpful in characterizing the impact of the stakeholder concept on the LO literature.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

234   William D. Schneper, David Wernick, and Mary Ann Von Glinow

Stakeholder Theory and the Fifth Discipline The term stakeholder is used just four times in the most recent version of Senge’s The Fifth Discipline, and all of these were added as part of the revised edition (published in 2006) in reference to more contemporary examples of LOs. While the newly evolving stakeholder concept was apparently not front-and-center in Senge’s thinking when he started to formulate his approach, his early conceptualization of the LO bears some noteworthy similarities to the concepts underlying ST. Like Senge (1990), the normative and instrumental streams of ST underscore the ­significance of organizational goals (Schneper, Wernick, and Von Glinow 2013). Since organizations are composed of diverse sets of groups and individuals, both Senge (1990) and stakeholder theorists point out how examining the objectives of just one person or constituency provides an incomplete view. The type of organizational goal that Senge (1990) places emphasis upon is shared vision: “Shared vision is vital for learning or­gan­ iza­tions because it provides the focus and energy for learning” (Senge 1990: 192). Shared organizational goals are thus important since they serve to motivate groups and individuals and direct organizational efforts in a unified, cohesive, and coordinated manner. By offering various examples, Senge suggests that two internal constituencies, man­ agers and employees, play the dominant role in creating shared visions. Shared visions may grow out of the personal visions of top-level managers, but they do not become truly shared until they are widely embraced throughout the organization. Senge (1990: 201–2) adds that “when visions start in the middle of an organization the process of sharing and listening is essentially the same . . . [b]ut it may take longer, especially if the vision has implications for the entire organization.” Shared visions largely grow out of the cooperative efforts and interactions of these two groups. While the task of creating shared vision falls mainly upon internal constituents, the consequences are also often felt by external parties, such as customers and society. Perhaps due to his engineering background, the examples of shared visions offered by Senge (1990) tend to be closely related to the organization’s outputs, the products and services that a firm provides to its customers. One memorable example of a successful shared vision described in The Fifth Discipline is Henry Ford’s dream of making automobiles widely available to the general public and not just wealthy persons. Likewise, Senge (1990: 193) writes about Apple’s vision to transform the world through the widespread use of computers. By contrast, ST tends to approach organizational goals by exploring their contested nature. Instead of engineering, stakeholder theory owes it origins more to strategic management research and certain strands of economics, particularly agency theory (Freeman 1984; Freeman, Phillips, and Sisodia forthcoming). Instead of stressing the potential for cooperative interaction between managers and employees, ST underscores how managers often possess strong incentives to place the interests of shareholders over those of employees and various other stakeholders. Accordingly, one prominent stream

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Stakeholders and the Learning Organization   235 of ST seeks to describe and offer advice on how managers can respond to stakeholder demands and pressures (Perez-Batres, Doh, Miller, and Pisani 2012). Normative stakeholder theory often argues that organizations ought to adopt goals that promote the well-being of a broad set of stakeholders. Freeman et al. (forthcoming: 14), for instance, challenge popular financial economic theory (Jensen 2002) by proposing that the corporate objective function ought to be: Total Value Created (TVC)= f (Customer TVC, Employee TVC, Supplier TVC, Community TVC, Financier TVC), where the terms of “f ” refer to the total value created for those stakeholders

Senge (1990) and ST also emphasize the networked and interconnected nature of ­organizations. This characteristic is especially apparent in Senge (1990), since systems thinking serves as a fundamental, underlying concept for the entire LO literature. As with organizational goals, the interconnected groups that receive greatest emphasis in Senge’s (1990) approach to systems thinking are those operating along the production chain, especially those that convert inputs to outputs. Managers and various type of employees working throughout the organization are again regarded as paramount, but suppliers, distributors, retailers, and customers are also key to gaining a broader understanding about how organizations learn and improve performance. According to this approach to systems thinking, the organization can be compared to a mechanical clock: in order to fine-tune the overall system and optimize performance at any given time, the functioning of each individual mechanism must be fully understood along with the vari­ous interactions amongst these parts. ST, by contrast, tends to view organizations (especially business firms) as a nexus of contracts, or treaties (Aoki, Gustafsson, and Williamson 1990). Organizational action is possible due to a vast set of agreements (both formal and informal) that help foster cooperation amongst parties, but never fully eliminate the threat of inter-group conflict and tension due to opposing interests. As previously suggested, the types of parties, or constituencies, to which stakeholder theory tends to dedicate attention is quite extensive and goes well beyond the production chain. Other critical groups include (but are not limited to) shareholders, creditors, the government, and the general public. Drawing upon Perrow’s (1986: 142) celebrated treatment of organizations as unwieldy, “recalcitrant tools,” Senge (1990) and ST provide competing views for why this is all too often the case (see also Selznick 1949). Senge (1990) suggests organizations are difficult to control due to the challenges in understanding how various groups and individuals respond to stimuli, as well as the intricate, expansive, and often multidirectional nature of cause and effect. ST emphasizes how the various stakeholders that combine to shape organizational action possess differing priorities and may often act in ways that are at odds with each other. To the extent that assumptions underlying the LO treat or­gan­iza­ tions as being akin to precision timepieces, stakeholder theory argues that these “clocks” are more like contraptions where the constituent mechanisms sometimes choose to act in opposition of one another.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

236   William D. Schneper, David Wernick, and Mary Ann Von Glinow

The Subsequent use of the Stakeholder Concept in the LO Literature In order to evaluate the impact of stakeholders on subsequent LO research, we initially conducted a qualitative content analysis and critical evaluation of the twenty-nine journal articles that prominently mention both stakeholders and LO (i.e., in their titles, abstracts, or as keywords). While we consider this sample to contain the journal articles that most explicitly combined LO and stakeholder concepts, we also conducted a ­supplemental analysis including articles from The Learning Organization journal that include the term stakeholder but not LO in the article title, abstract, or keywords. In many instances, we found it difficult to determine whether some of these added papers should be considered part of LO literature, or were instead focused on other aspects of organizational learning. For this reason, we devote most of our discussion here to our original sample. The general findings of our content analysis, which are described below, remained similar when we included these additional papers. The Learning Organization journal still made up the largest part (20.6 percent) of our sample of journal articles. While not included in our content analysis, we also evaluated various books and book chapters published about the LO. We were unable to obtain published versions of five of the articles in our initial (main) sample of twenty-nine, so we relied upon extended abstracts for four of them and a prepublication version for one other. We also decided to remove two articles, since these papers were largely about the ranking of journals in the knowledge management area. When applying Donaldson and Preston’s typology, we found that the majority of the studies conformed to the instrumental category (48.1 percent), although many articles contained aspects of multiple categories. The high degree of instrumental papers may in part be due to Senge’s (1990) strong emphasis on prescriptive advice in The Fifth Discipline, which played such a key role in defining the subsequent literature. Unlike most instrumental stakeholder literature, which tends to concentrate on traditional business goals, such as growth and financial performance (Laplume et al. 2008), these LO papers focused unsurprisingly on learning-oriented objectives. Bibu and Saris (2017), for example, argued that schools which were able to foster more frequent inter­action amongst key stakeholders (including teachers, parents, students, governmental agencies, suppliers, foundations, the media, and the local community) are better equipped to achieve continual improvement of their educational and organizational processes. Overall, the research in our sample was dominated by qualitative, conceptual, and case-based research. Only 25.9 percent of our original sample use quantitative methods (mostly through the analysis of surveys). Articles on business organizations made up the largest portion of our original sample (55.6 percent), followed by educational institutions (18.5 percent) and government, military, and public service agencies (14.8 percent).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Stakeholders and the Learning Organization   237 Compared to the LO research on non-business entities, articles specifically dealing with business firms tended to examine a much more limited group of stakeholders. One early exception is Lundberg (1991), which describes how Jossey-Bass relied upon the input of wide range of stakeholders so that each could benefit from the organization’s rewards. While Lundberg’s article appears to be one of the first articles published combining stakeholder and LO ideas, this comprehensive approach to examining stakeholders was not widely imitated by the other articles we reviewed that focused on business or­gan­iza­ tions. Employees and managers were identified as prominent stakeholders in about 80 percent of the articles on business firms. The next highest categories were customers (30 percent), and suppliers and shareholders (20 percent each). Much of the firm-oriented LO literature we investigated used the term stakeholder rather vaguely. An article might refer to employees and other stakeholders, for instance, but only discuss managers and employees in any detail. The broader application of the stakeholder concept in the term in non-business ­art­icles may have to do with the longstanding consensus in the organizational literatures that many of these other types of organizations possess responsibilities to many different constituencies (Perrow 1986; Selznick 1949). In the case of higher education institutions (HEIs), for example, Örtenblad and Koris (2014: 203) recommend approaching the LO idea from three different stakeholder perspectives: (1) managerial, (2) employee, and (3) societal, with the final being the highest in priority since “the very purpose of HEIs is (or at least should be) to serve and develop society.” By contrast, research on business organizations has been the most active in trying to narrow the scope of relevant constituents, with at least one influential strand arguing that the groups to which firms have responsibilities ought to be narrowed to just one, its shareholders (Friedman 1970; Jensen 2002). In this light, the relatively infrequent consideration of shareholders as a key stakeholder in the LO articles dealing with firms is even more noteworthy. One of the most fully developed applications of ST ideas in the LO literature that we found was published as a chapter in the Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization. Specifically, Örtenblad (2013b) evaluates various key aspects of the LO framework (such as learning at work, organizational learning, and climate for learning) from various stakeholder perspectives, including employers, employees, and society. Örtenblad’s approach to how these and other stakeholder groups hold different pri­or­ ities is comparable to the area of ST that overlaps with corporate governance and cor­ por­ate social responsibility (see Allen 1992; Schneper et al. 2013). Field (2019) provides another intriguing integration of LO and ST principles that was also not included in our literature review, since it was accepted by The Learning Organization journal following the period covered in our primary literature search. Drawing upon Habermas and the “Frankfurt School” of critical sociological theory (Waters 1994), Field (2019) develops a conceptual model describing how conflicting interests between different types of stakeholders can help challenge old beliefs, generate new knowledge, and facilitate both individual as well as organizational learning. The case example that Field focuses upon to explain his theoretical arguments is taken from Fiol and O’Connor (2017), and focuses upon the conflicts between employees (specifically, doctors) and managers at a large

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

238   William D. Schneper, David Wernick, and Mary Ann Von Glinow healthcare organization. However, it appears that the overall framework could be applied to other types of stakeholders, as well.

Recommendations and Conclusion Complex organizations are both contested and interconnected entities (Schneper 2006). The LO literature has already made substantial contributions in proposing how or­gan­ iza­tions ought to respond to environmental change in order to achieve long-term success. LO scholars have primarily accomplished this task by exploring the interconnected, systemic nature of organizations. In the future, LO researchers may wish (like Field 2019, for example) to draw upon ST to consider the contested nature of organizations even more fully. We believe that the roles that shareholders play in LOs merit further research. To what extent, for instance, do the providers of financial capital facilitate or impede the creation of shared vision, and a mindset oriented towards change and learning? Variations in the reliance of stock market- versus commercial bank-oriented financing (i.e., the relative importance of shareholders and creditors) could also affect these processes. More generally, national differences in how the rights and privileges of various stakeholder groups are allocated (and thus which groups receive prominence) could affect the degree of difficulty in implementing LO-related initiatives (see Örtenblad 2013b; Schneper et al. 2013). While employees have received a relatively large amount of attention, future LO research should examine the impact that labor unions play more extensively. To what extent does organized labor help or hinder the creation of shared vision and a learning orientation, for instance? Secondary stakeholders and other constituents not closely linked to the production chain also deserve further consideration. Groups such as NGOs that possess only weak links with certain firms can still serve as an important source of novel information regarding environmental trends and how organizations ought to adapt (Granovetter 1973). Researchers interested in combining ST and LO insights should also pursue more quantitative empirical research. Like ST (see Freeman 1984; Parmar et al. 2010), the LO literature began largely as a conceptual research endeavor. By now, however, the assumptions underlying the LO model are well developed, well understood, and ought to face greater empirical scrutiny. ST research has developed a number of measures to evaluate stakeholder power, for instance (see Abdelzaher, Fernandez, and Schneper 2019; Guillén and Capron 2016; Schneper and Guillén 2004; Soleimani et al. 2014). These measures could be adapted to examine the likelihood of adoption of LO principles, as well as their effectiveness in terms of various performance measures, across countries. This does not mean that qualitative case studies should not continue to play an important role in future research in this area, To the extent that ST seeks to compare the impact and effect of various stakeholder groups, for instance, we suggest case work that examines the implementation of various LO initiatives from multiple stakeholder perspectives (see Allison 1969).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Stakeholders and the Learning Organization   239 ST could even play a role in how the notion of an LO is taught to students and ­ an­agers. Thousands of business students were first exposed to LO principles by playm ing The Beer Game, a role-playing simulation developed at MIT’s Sloan School of Management (see Senge 1990: 27–53). The simulation suggests that the various members in a supply chain (e.g., manufacturers, distributors, retailers) do not spend sufficient time communicating with one another and considering the various operational and decision-making challenges that each of their counterparts face. As a consequence, the simulation usually ends with chaos and disaster for all. It would be an interesting test to modify the original simulation so that participants were instructed at the start that their per­form­ance in the game would be based in part on the outcomes achieved by the various other stakeholders in the supply chain. Likewise, Örtenblad, Lamb, and Hsu (2015) suggest that so-called fashionable ­management ideas (FMIs), including those related to the LO, ought to be explored by students and instructors by considering various institutional (e.g., national culture, religion), business (industry, sector), and stakeholder (employee, employer, society) contexts. These scholars offer a ten-step model for how students can take FMIs, which are often presented as being universally applicable, and “translate” them so that they are applied to a very specific and highly contextualized real-life situation. In doing so, the students gain a better understanding of the value and relevance of these ideas in their everyday lives, as well as the lives and experiences of others. Stakeholder theorists should also look for insight from the large, extensive body of LO research. Future stakeholder research must continue to explore the various ways that stakeholder conflict can be diminished, including the development of positive organizational culture and truly shared objectives. Stakeholder theory ought to follow another cue from LO research by dedicating even greater attention to the role and impact of vari­ ous stakeholders in various non-business organizations, including education and public service. We look forward to the insights produced by the continued combination of these two important organizational research perspectives.

References Abdelzaher, D., W. D. Fernandez, and W. D. Schneper. 2019. “Legal Rights, National Culture, and Social Networks: Exploring the Uneven Adoption of United Nations Global Compact.” International Business Review 28 (1): pp. 12–24. Allen, W. T. 1992. “Our Schizophrenic Concept of the Business Corporation.” Cardozo Law Review 14: pp. 261–81. Allison, G. T. 1969. “Conceptual Models and ‘The Cuban Missile Crisis.’” American Political Science Review 63 (3): pp. 689–718. Aoki, M., B. Gustafsson, and O. E. Williamson (eds.). 1990. The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bibu, N., and H. Saris. 2017. “Managing the Process of Stakeholder Involvement in Junior High School in Arab Sector in Israel, and Its Effect on Pupils, Teachers and Parents.” Review of International Comparative Management 18 (2): pp. 200–16. Briscoe, F., B.  G.  King, and J.  Leitzinger (eds.). 2018. Social Movements, Stakeholders and ­Non-Market Strategy. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 56. Bingley: Emerald.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

240   William D. Schneper, David Wernick, and Mary Ann Von Glinow Calhoun, M. A., W. H. Starbuck, and E. Abrahamson. 2011. “Fads, Fashions and the Fluidity of Knowledge: Peter Senge’s ‘The Learning Organization.’” In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, ed. M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles, pp. 1–22. Chichester: John Wiley. Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995. “A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance.” Academy of Management Review 20 (1): pp. 92–117. Clayton, M. 2014. The Influence Agenda: A Systematic Approach to Aligning Stakeholders in Times of Change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Collins, D. 2000. Management Fads and Buzzwords: Critical-Practical Perspectives. London: Routledge. Dery, D. 1982. “Erring and Learning: An Organizational Analysis.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 7 (3): pp. 217–23. Donaldson, T., and L. E. Preston. 1995. “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concept, Evidence, and Implications.” Academy of Management Review 20 (1): pp. 65–91. Driscoll, K., and M. Starik. 2004. “The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment.” Journal of Business Ethics 49 (1): pp. 55–73. Easterby-Smith, M., and M. A. Lyles. 2011. “The Evolving Field of Organization Learning and Knowledge Management.” In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, ed. M. Easterby-Smith and M.A. Lyles, pp. 1–22. Chichester: John Wiley. Field, L. 2019. “Habermas, Interests and Organizational Learning: A Critical Review.” The Learning Organization 26 (3): pp. 252–63. Fiol, M., and E. O’Connor. 2017. “Unlearning Established Organizational Routines: Part I.” The Learning Organization 24 (1): pp. 13–29. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman. Freeman, R. E., R. Phillips, and R. Sisodia. Forthcoming. “Tensions in Stakeholder Theory.” Business & Society. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318773750. Friedman, M. 1970. “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” New York Times Magazine, September 13, pp. 32–3, 122–4. Granovetter, M. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): pp. 1360–80. Guillén, M. F., and L. Capron. 2016. “State Capacity, Minority Shareholder Protections, and Stock Market Development.” Administrative Science Quarterly 61 (1): pp. 125–60. Jensen, M. C. 2002. “Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Objective Function.” Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2): pp. 35–56. Laplume, A., K. Sonpar, and R. A. Litz. 2008. “Stakeholder Theory: Reviewing a Theory That Moves Us.” Journal of Management 34 (6): pp. 1152–89. Li, L. 2005. “The Effects of Trust and Shared Vision on Inward Knowledge Transfer in Subsidiaries’ Intra- and Interorganizational Relationships.” International Business Review 14 (1): pp. 77–95. Lundberg, C. C. 1991. “Creating and Managing a Vanguard Organization: Design and Human Resource Lessons from Jossey-Bass.” Human Resource Management 30 (1): pp. 89–112. Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who or What Really Counts.” Academy of Management Review 22 (4): pp. 853–86. Örtenblad, A. 2001. “On Differences Between Organizational Learning and Learning Organization.” The Learning Organization 8 (3): pp. 125–33.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Stakeholders and the Learning Organization   241 Örtenblad, A. 2013a. “What Do We Mean by the Learning Organization?” In Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context, ed. A. Örtenblad, pp. 3–21. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Örtenblad, A. 2013b. “Who is the Learning Organizations For? A Stakeholder Contingency Approach to Contextualizing Managerial Panaceas.” In Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context, ed. A. Örtenblad, pp. 289–305. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Örtenblad, A., and R.  Koris. 2014. “Is the Learning Organization Idea Relevant to Higher Education Institutions? A Literature Review and a ‘Multi-stakeholder Contingency Approach.’ ” International Journal of Educational Management 28 (2): pp. 173–214. Örtenblad, A., P.  Lamb, and S.-W.  Hsu. 2015. “A Stakeholder Approach to Advising on the Relevance of Fashionable Management Ideas.” In Handbook of Research on Management Ideas and Panaceas: Adaptation and Context, ed. A. Örtenblad, pp. 380–96. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Palmer, D., B. M. Barber, and Z. Zhou. 1995. “The Finance Conception of Control: ‘The Theory That Ate New York.’ ” American Sociological Review 60 (4): pp. 504–8. Parmar, B. L., R. E. Freeman, J. S. Harrison, A. C. Wicks, L. Purnell, and S. de Colle. 2010. “Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art.” Academy of Management Annals 4: pp. 403–45. Perez-Batres, L. A., J. P. Doh, V. V. Miller, and M. J. Pisani. 2012. “Stakeholder Pressures as Determinants of CSR Strategic Choice: Why Do Firms Choose Symbolic Versus Substantive Self-Regulatory Codes of Conduct?” Journal of Business Ethics 110 (2): pp. 157–72. Perrow, C. 1986. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rebelo, T. M., and A. D. Gomes. 2008. “Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: Reviewing Evolution for Prospecting the Future.” The Learning Organization 15 (4): pp. 294–308. Salge, T. O., A. Vera, and L. Ashelford. 2012. “Benefitting from Public Sector Innovation: The Moderating Role of Customer and Learning Orientation.” Public Administration Review 72 (4): pp. 550–61. Schneper, W. D. 2006. “When Goals Collide: Essays on Corporate Governance, Stakeholders, and the Concept of the Firm.” PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Schneper, W. D., and M. F. Guillén. 2004. “Stakeholder Rights and Corporate Governance: A  Cross-National Study of Hostile Takeovers.” Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (2): pp. 263–95. Schneper, W. D., D. A. Wernick, and M. A. Von Glinow. 2013. “Stakeholder Voice, Corporate Dysfunction and Change: An Organizational Learning Perspective.” In Voice and Whistleblowing in Organizations: Overcoming Fear, Fostering Courage and Unleashing Candor, ed. R. J. Burke, and C. L. Cooper, pp. 113–136. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Schwartz, M. S. 2006. “God as a Managerial Stakeholder?” Journal of Business Ethics 66 (2): pp. 291–306. Selznick, P. 1949. TVA and The Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Soleimani, A., W. D. Schneper, and W. Newburry. 2014. “The Impact of Stakeholder Power on Corporate Reputation: A Cross-Country Corporate Governance Perspective.” Organization Science 25 (4): pp. 991–1008.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

242   William D. Schneper, David Wernick, and Mary Ann Von Glinow Von Glinow, M. A., and W. D. Schneper. 2013. “Global Leadership.” In Oxford Bibliographies in Management, ed. R. Griffin. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199846740/obo9780199846740-0051.xml. Waters, M. 1994. Modern Sociological Theory. London: Sage. Wernick, D. A. 2011. “Secondary Stakeholders as Agents of Influence: Three Essays on Political Risk, Reputation, and Multinational Performance.” PhD thesis, Florida International University. Wernick, D. A., and M. A. Von Glinow. 2010. “Reflections of the Evolving Terrorist Threat to Luxury Hotels: A Case Study of Marriott International.” Thunderbird International Business Review 52 (6): pp. 553–69.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

chapter 16

W h at is N eeded to Cr eate Gen der I nclusi v e L ea r n i ng Orga n iz ations? Patricia A. Gouthro, Nancy Taber, and Amanda Brazil

Senge’s (2006) concept of the learning organization provides an interesting framework for considering how adult learning may be facilitated and supported within a variety of organizational contexts, yet a consistent critique by feminists is that gender has been overlooked or addressed inadequately within research that explores learning or­gan­iza­tions (Alexiou 2005; Mojab and Gorman 2003). In this chapter, we use a critical feminist lens to explore Senge’s model of the learning organization as an example of Weber’s (1958) ideal type theoretical framework, focusing on the five disciplines ­outlined by Senge (personal mastery, team learning, shared vision, mental models, and systems thinking). We explore the concept of learning organizations in a variety of gendered workplace contexts, including universities, fire services, and militaries to consider how Senge’s model could be used to illuminate the multiple barriers that women face in these contexts. Drawing upon critical feminist scholarship, we note that a patriarchal conception of rationality, which is often the bedrock of many organizational structures, needs to be challenged in order for gender equity to be realized. We conclude by using the example of a not-for-profit organization that supports women mystery writers, Sisters-in-Crime, to explore how an emphasis on addressing equity for women may create gender inclusive learning organizations. In order for the concept of the learning organization to be useful, we argue Senge’s five disciplines must be reconceptualized in a critical feminist way.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

244   Patricia A. Gouthro, Nancy Taber, and Amanda Brazil

Ideal Types We believe that Senge’s (1990) model of the learning organization, although he does not name it as such, works as an ideal-type construct. Max Weber was an early sociologist who developed a model of “ideal-type” constructs as a mid-range social theory. As Swedenberg (2018: 183) explains, Weber believed that concepts “are tools, and not the end point of analysis.” The ideal type is to be used as a heuristic device, to help one gain an initial understanding of empirical reality, which is an essential first step in the ana­lysis of a topic. Weber (1958: 98) states that there is “an artificial simplicity of ideal types.” The intent of an ideal type is not to capture an exact essence (so to mirror reality), but rather to create an abstract model. Weber used ideal types, for example, to illustrate the concept of a bureaucracy, which possess a number of specific characteristics. To create an ideal type is to develop a composite yet abstract model. An ideal type can help people to understand the overall concept of what is a bureaucracy. At the same time, it can also point out ways in which empirical examples may differ from the ideal-type models. So, one characteristic that is common within most bureaucracies is that employees are hired on merit rather than by nepotism. The characteristics of this ideal-type model can then be compared against real-life bureaucracies and may draw attention to particular problems within existing social structures (such as having a President who hires his son-in-law). Some people struggle with understanding that an ideal type is a conceptual tool—and that the purpose of using this representation is to help us understand reality. For those who do not grasp the purpose of theory as a way to use abstract models to foster insight into existing social structures, there is sometimes “a compression of reality with the ideal type” (Swedenberg 2018: 184). What needs to be made clear, as Swedenberg argues, is that the intent of using this approach is “to confront the ideal type with reality” (2018: 188). If it becomes apparent over time that the differences between the ideal type and empirical reality are too large, then the ideal-type construct should be modified.

The Five Disciplines As Dill (1999: 129) states, Senge’s work on the learning organization “attempts to define and create an ideal type of organization in which learning is maximized.” Senge outlines five “disciplines” that characterize key aspects that set learning organizations apart from other kinds of organizations. Senge (2006: 10) argues that disciplines can be understood as “a body of theory and technique that must be studied and material to be put into practice.” The five disciplines serve as guidelines to generate insights into how to create change-oriented learning organizations. Each of the five disciplines are interrelated and co-dependent upon one another.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Gender Inclusive Learning Organizations   245 Senge (2006: 6) claims that personal mastery is the “cornerstone of the learning organization” since the strength of the organization is based upon the willingness of its individual members to engage in ongoing learning. As Coldwell and Fried (2011: 103) describe it, personal mastery entails “the lifelong process of continually clarifying and deepening personal vision.” Systems thinking is required because all too often “we tend to focus on snapshots of isolated parts of the system, and wonder why our deepest problems never get solved” (Senge 2006: 7). Team learning necessitates members of the organization committing to learning from one another as well as independently. A more collaborative approach to learning should be guided by a shared vision, as “building a shared vision fosters a commitment to the long term” (Senge 2006: 12). An openness to learning within a learning organization means that members or employees of the or­gan­ iza­tion must be willing to accept challenges to established patterns of behavior and to consider alternative perspectives and viewpoints. As Senge (2006: 8) describes it, “the discipline of working with mental models starts with turning the mirror inwards; learning to unearth our internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and to hold them rigorously to scrutiny.” Senge’s framework for learning organizations, like many other theories that explore adult learning contexts, does not take up explicitly gender equity and/or inclusion issues. Using the focus of the five disciplines to frame our analysis, we assess how women in universities and the paid workforce, looking particularly at male-dominated professions such as the fire service and military, often sustain gender inequalities that hinder opportunities for learning within these organizations.

Women in the Workforce Gender inequality has been a longstanding issue for women in many sectors and impacts women’s participation in workplaces that may strive to be learning or­gan­iza­ tions. Swanberg (2004) notes that the policies and practices of many workplaces may seem gender neutral but in fact are not, as they were conceived in gendered logic and are subject to gendered interpretation. Opportunities for advancement for women are often not readily accessible or supported, and “divisions of labour, work assignments, allowed behaviours, power, and office space (among other organizational practices) are an institutionalized means of maintaining inequities between men and women” (Swanberg 2004: 7). Even with modernized policies and legislation around flagrant acts of discrimination and sexism, organizations are still fraught with problematic behaviors. As Cortina (2008: 55) describes, “one can mask discrimination (even without realizing it) behind everyday acts of incivility and still maintain an unbiased image.” These incivilities are often disrespectful, rude, and intentional subtleties made with dis­crim­in­ atory intent. In order for true gender equity to be achieved, Swanberg (2004) states that there must be an awareness and appreciation on an organizational level, of the fact that gender and sex roles are social constructs that can and must be changed.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

246   Patricia A. Gouthro, Nancy Taber, and Amanda Brazil Gender inequities are often amplified in male-dominated workplaces and the everyday interactions within these workplaces have the ability to impact women in positive or negative ways (Wright  2016). Women often experience greater incivilities in maledominated workplaces (Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, and Maglay 2013) and men “may consciously frustrate attempts at female solidarity by stoking hostility between women in order to maintain male dominance in the workplace” (Wright 2016: 358). This is detrimental to combating gender inequality as supportive networks and positive female role models are needed to build resilience for females in male-dominated workplaces such as academia (Smart Richman, vanDellen, and Wood 2011). Women also describe having to work harder and overcompensate for being female as hiring practices in male-dominated workplaces often reflect the old boy’s club that engages in homologous reproduction where men hire men who resemble themselves (Walker and Bopp 2010). Women often seek learning opportunities outside the workplace at educational institutions for “external validation of knowledge and skills, making them less reliant solely on workplace experience and training for employability” (Wright 2016: 358). This is not always an option for women in male-dominated professions like the trades where establishing solid relationships with their male peers goes beyond workplace well-being to essential skill-based mentorship and training (Wright 2016).

Women in Universities Although universities, as educational institutions, are focused on learning, these institutions do not necessarily embody a learning organization (Bui and Baruch 2010; Sternberg  2015; White and Weathersby  2005). Furthermore, university structures, pol­icies, and practices tend to be detrimental to women with respect to academic values, bureaucracy, mothering, promotion, and segregation (Gouthro, Taber, and Brazil 2018). Personal mastery in a university context is about developing expertise and advancing to higher organizational levels. However, women tend to be clustered in feminized professions (Winchester and Browning 2015) and are less likely to be promoted to full professor (Heijstra, Bjarnason, and Rafnsdóttir 2015). Mental models refer to the assumptions and values reflected in the organizational culture of universities. This culture has specific understandings of key academic concepts such as research excellence that typically privilege traditional scientific research and modes of publication in the fields of engineering and applied science, which marginalize women who are more likely to work in undervalued fields such as the hu­man­ities and social sciences and often have higher teaching loads (Side and Robbins 2007). Team learning in universities is often superseded by a competitive atmosphere in which faculty members vie for scarce resources in the form of research funding that may be tied to university priorities, with negative implications for intellectuality (Bird 2011),

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Gender Inclusive Learning Organizations   247 as well as a devaluing of teaching in the liberal arts (Hyslop-Margison and Leonard 2012). Departments that bring in more tuition and more funding may be rewarded at the expense of those that do not (Hyslop-Margison and Leonard 2012), inhibiting collegiality and a holistic view of education. The shared vision in universities is most likely to exclude that of women with a narrow focus on productivity, accountability, and organizational commitment (Gouthro 2002; Taber 2015). This vision does not take into account women’s childbearing and mothering roles, discounting the learning that arises from these experiences (Pillay 2009). It also penalizes women who take time away from the narrow goals of the workplace to perform caring work in the homeplace (Careless 2012; Gouthro 2002).1 Systems thinking in universities is inhibited by competition over students and increased pressure on corporate and industry partnerships. This marketplace and employability focus stifles creativity and innovation (Newson 2012). It can also prevent critical social justice teaching, particularly for precarious workers, who are overwhelmingly women in the university context. Part-time and untenured teachers may feel obliged to teach in ways that are more likely to result in positive student evaluations (which are used in decision making with respect to hiring and promotion) by avoiding feminist issues (Webber 2008).

Women in the Fire Service Consideration of gender inequities in relation to professional development and occupational learning is vital in male-dominated emergency services such as the fire service. Studies by Hulett, Bendick, Thomas, and Mocci (2008) and Khan, Davis, and Taylor (2017) found that despite dwindling numbers of fire calls, where prowess and strength are valued, and a marked increase in medical calls which require nurture and care, the heroic hyper-masculine culture of the fire service is still prevalent. Female firefighters reported issues where standard operating procedures designed for safety such as staging a fire attack from the exterior were disregarded by male firefighters. Instead they would enter the structure and attack the fire from within, providing them with a foolhardy sense of excitement. This masculine culture promotes the intentional exclusion of women in the fire service and is often based on resentment of the female presence. There are high rates of harassment of female firefighters and low rates of reporting due to possible further alienation (Khan et al. 2017). Sinden et al. (2013) found that female firefighters were excluded from training opportunities and social activities by their male counterparts. Shuster (2000: 78) noted that female firefighters “experienced additional pressure to perform perfectly, as their mistakes had the tendency to be magnified by others.” It is difficult to decipher if the sexism in the fire service is ­generated by hostility, where women are viewed as inferior to men and/or ostensibly 1  Men perform caring roles as well but this work is still disproportionately performed by women.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

248   Patricia A. Gouthro, Nancy Taber, and Amanda Brazil benevolent, where they are viewed as weak and in need of protection. Regardless, both forms lead to the underrepresentation of women in male-dominated occupations (Hideg and Ferris 2016). Senge (1990: 3) describes a learning organization as “organizations 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.” Male-dominated workplaces like the fire service are unable to actualize this model because their female members are alienated from the process. When looking at the five disciplines of a learning organization it becomes clear why this is so. The inequitable distribution of op­por­ tun­ities in male-dominated workplaces largely prevents women from attaining personal mastery and realizing their true potential as employees and team members. In a place like the fire service there is also little assessment of mental models, which may include taken for granted assumptions that as (Senge 1990) notes, can deter learning if they are never challenged. This is because the old boy’s club mentality is so embedded in the construct of the fire department that it requires a huge cultural shift to move beyond it and the resistance to change is formidable. Male-dominated workplaces may lack shared vision as not all members of the or­gan­ iza­tion feel a deep sense of involvement and the objectives and mission creation process are established by the male majority (Fillion, Koffi, and Ekionea 2015). Without specific strategies to involve women in attaining personal mastery, assessing mental models, and building a shared vision, a learning organization will also not be able to fulfill the ­dis­cip­line of team learning which, “is devoted to develop inside the organization a team intelligence which is greater than those of all its members and an extraordinary ability of concerted action” (Fillion et al. 2015: 82). In male-dominated workplaces, team learning often excludes women in imagining and creating the collective ideas from which the organization will grow and evolve, let alone allowing women to fully participate in that learning. Finally, the fifth discipline of systems thinking will never be achievable as long as the organization is viewed as its individual parts rather than a whole. “The essence of the systems thinking discipline is related to a shift of mind which consists to see inter­ rela­tions instead of linear cause/effect chains and processes of change instead of snapshots” (Fillion et al. 2015: 77). Systems thinking requires all members of the organization to be equal parties in planning for the future, but many women in male-dominated organizations spend a great deal of time and effort defending themselves against casual incidents of discrimination and sexism and are not considered in light of cultural traditions which historically exclude them.

Women in the Military There is a small body of research exploring the military as a learning organization. Visser (2016, 2017) discusses dimensions of learning organizations in his analysis of the battlefield performance of the British, German, and American armies in World War II,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Gender Inclusive Learning Organizations   249 while Dahanayake and Gamlath (2012) focus on the Sri Lanka army to examine ­officers’ perception of aspects of learning organizations such as “continuous learning,” “col­lab­ora­tion and team learning,” and “strategic leadership” (2012: 202). Di Schiena, Letens, Van Aken, and Farris (2013) apply Senge’s five disciplines to the leadership characteristics and styles of officers in the Belgian Armed Forces. However, this literature does not take a gendered perspective and does not advance a social justice argument (other than a brief statement by Visser (2017) about the ethical responsibilities of organizations). To explore a critical gendered analysis of militaries as learning organizations, we use Senge’s five disciplines to consider the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Here, we start with mental models, because it is this discipline that relates to the military culture as a whole. The CAF culture is sexualized, militarized, and hyper-masculinized, which leads to the gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault of women as a group (Taber, in press). Deschamps (2015: ii) defines this sexualized culture as “characterized by the frequent use of swear words and highly degrading expressions that reference women’s bodies, sexual jokes, innuendos, discriminatory comments with respect to the abilities of women, and unwelcome sexual touching.” The mental model of a successful military member is a male masculine soldier who is a heroic combat fighter, regardless of the realities of members’ lives and their performance of gender, making it difficult for women to fit into the organizational culture (Taber 2009) where men are perceived as men, and women as girls (Taber 2011). The mental model is related to team learning, shared vision, and systems thinking. In an organization where women are marginalized, it is difficult to participate in team learning. In fact, Kovitz (2000: 39) argues that the binary expectations of men as ­pro­tect­ors and women as the protected results in women being perceived as the “enemy within.” As women began to advance in the military, arguments arose as to their lack of capability and their detrimental potential to organizational cohesiveness, even though they proved themselves capable and there was no negative impact on cohesion (Winslow and Dunn 2002). Nonetheless, they were perceived as unable to contribute to the team. An example of the lack of shared vision occurred when, in 2016, the Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, General Vance, promulgated Operation HONOUR, an order aimed at eliminating sexual harassment and sexual assault in the CAF and changing the or­gan­ iza­tion’s sexualized culture. However, this order was laughed at by certain members of the military community, so much so that Google auto-fill would change the search term to Operation Hop on Her (Taber, in press). As the mental model of a soldier is typically that of an unencumbered male, women’s unique childbearing and mothering roles are often viewed as detrimental to organizational aims. For instance, one female military member was told “You better not get pregnant while you’re here” when she first reported to her operational unit (Taber 2011: 340) while another felt that she could only choose one “branch . . . : family or career” (2011: 341). These differing visions inhibit systems thinking in that, although there may be desire for change at the level of senior leadership, that desire may not exist at the level of the everyday lives of military members. There has been some development of training and modes of intervention to assist in changing these beliefs and behaviors, which has been, heretofore, relatively unsuccessful. What is required is significant policy and educational

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

250   Patricia A. Gouthro, Nancy Taber, and Amanda Brazil change to challenge the sexualized and hyper-masculinized culture of the CAF in ways that rethink what it is to be successful military member and a successful military (Taber, in press). Despite these challenges, many women in the CAF have experienced successful careers. They have developed personal mastery through experience and training op­por­tun­ities, performing optimally in non-traditional roles, and rising to senior ranks. However, they have done so in an environment which tends to treat them as exceptions to the rule, wherein they are often the “lone woman” under a “ubiquitous microscope” wondering if they were there to fill “some sort of nebulous quota” (Taber 2016: 52) in an “annoying spotlight” (2016: 53). They also often feel that, as women, “you had to stand out as stronger and better at your job in order to be the same” as men (Taber 2011: 339). Furthermore, despite equal opportunity policies, the majority of women in the CAF are clustered in traditional roles, less likely to advance to higher leadership positions, and tend to serve for fewer years than men (Taber, in press). They also experience sexual harassment and sexual assault at a rate higher than their civilian counterparts (Deschamps 2015; Taber, in press), making it difficult to learn and perform well.2

What Does It Take for a Learning Organization to be Gender Inclusive? While organizations characterized by a masculinized and patriarchal culture create significant gender barriers for women, the idea of a learning organization is feasible if the policies, structures, and practices of the organization acknowledge and support women’s learning experiences. To illustrate this, we consider an example of what a gender-inclusive learning organization might look like. Sisters-in-Crime (SinC) is a not-for-profit professional organization that was developed to support women ­mystery writers. Men are welcome to join, but the focus of the organization is to strive for gender equity. With regards to personal mastery, SinC members are provided with multiple op­por­ tun­ities to learn more about being a professional writer through courses, newsletters, and networking opportunities about marketing novels, using social media, negotiating contracts, and liaising with libraries. Team learning is seen through the collaborative nature of the organization. Numerous members noted the importance of “giving back” to the organization by taking turns in assuming leadership roles for a short period of time (the slate of officers changes annually) (Gouthro 2012). Shared vision is evident in 2  These facts are similar to those found in other Western militaries (i.e., see Basham 2009, in relation to the British military; Kronsell 2005, Swedish military; Lahelma 2005, British military; and, Sjoberg 2007, US military). Men who do not fit into the militarized hyper-masculinized ideal also experience sexual harassment and sexual assault (Basham 2009; Taber 2018).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Gender Inclusive Learning Organizations   251 SinC’s mandate to support women to have the same opportunities as men to work as professional mystery writers. In terms of mental models and systems thinking, members are encouraged to question taken-for-granted assumptions, such as the belief that gender equity has been attained. For example, the Book Monitoring project involves volunteers from SinC tracking major publications to determine whether men are given more book reviews. Novels that receive more reviews usually have better sales and the authors are given higher advances. The information gathered in this project is used to educate both members and the broader public about improvements as well as persistent inequalities in gender representation (Gouthro 2012). When other crime fiction organizations, such as Bouchercon (the world’s largest and most prestigious mystery conference), have presented a predominantly male slate of authors for potential awards, SinC will write a letter to inquire about the decision-making process. Sisters-in-Crime recognizes that one way gender discrimination persists is because of the unwillingness of many people to identify inequitable practices as indicators of systemic problems. While many authors speak about the supportiveness of professional organizations within the writing community (Gouthro 2014), SinC is a distinctive organization as it is characterized by cooperation rather than competition, and women fill most of the leadership roles. Men also benefit from the networking and educational opportunities offered by SinC, but this is an example of how a learning organization can be developed in a way that promotes gender equity.

A Critical Feminist Analysis Historically, the concept of an ideal type has not been used in social theory in a way that explores systemic social privilege. It is for this reason that Habermas’ (1981) use of an ideal-type model for speech as a part of his theory of communicative action was critiqued relentlessly because it did not take into account how structural aspects of power related to social positioning impact upon communication. Although Habermas argues for an expanded notion of rationality, in many ways, his theoretical framework echoes gender binaries and inequalities. Ross-Smith and Kornberger (2004: 282) argue that “rationality is not a gender-neutral concept” and that the discourse of Weberian rationality perpetuates an analysis of learning in organizations that excludes women, as a consideration of gender (or race, or other social cultural factors) would be disruptive, so it is often ignored, thus reinforcing male privilege. Similarly, Senge’s (2006) model of a learning organization presents a rational argument for how organizations can be structured by adhering to the five disciplines he outlines. As an ideal-type model, it presents an “artificial simplicity” in detailing what Mojab and Gorman (2003: 228) note would seem to be an “emancipatory process” that will benefit all members of the organization. However, as Alexiou (2005: 18) notes, “learning organization theory has adopted, through silence, an uncritical position on the nature

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

252   Patricia A. Gouthro, Nancy Taber, and Amanda Brazil of work, and of work organizations by assuming work organizations as gender neutral.” The dearth of empirical research on gender in learning organizations further perpetuates this inequity. This lack of attention to gender may be connected to the structure of the theory itself—one aspect of ideal-type models is that although they are abstract models, the concept is designed as a mid-range theory, and thus tends to focus on singular aspects of society, such as bureaucracies, organizations, or speech acts, rather examining broader social structures as grand theoretical models, like Marxism, do. Another reason is that the grounding of this perspective is rooted in Western notions of rationality, which are permeated with masculine hegemony that normalizes and rewards male experience and masculine values. A final reason is that when learning organizations are used an ideal type to be compared against reality, there has been very limited empirical research connected to assessing gender within organizational structures (as we have done in this chapter). A critical feminist lens reveals that power inequities persist unless there is a willingness at all levels of an organization to support learning and work opportunities that are gender inclusive. If the limitations outlined here were acknowledged and addressed by modifying the learning organization model to assess not only gender, but other social cultural factors, such as race, ability, age, and sexual orientation, then the value of the learning organization as a theoretical construct to illuminate how learning can be supported would be enhanced. To do so, we believe, would also take into account the complexities of women’s lives, and value and support the contributions that women and other marginalized groups make to the paid workforce and various professions.

References Alexiou, A. 2005. “A Tale of the Field: Reading Power and Gender in the Learning Organization.” Studies in Continuing Education 27 (1): pp. 17–31. Basham, V. 2009. “Effecting Discrimination: Operational Effectiveness and Harassment in the British Armed Forces.” Armed Forces & Society 35 (4): pp. 728–44. Bird, S.  R. 2011. “Unsettling Universities’ Incongruous, Gendered Bureaucratic Structures: A Case-Study Approach.” Gender, Work & Organization 18 (2): pp. 202–29. Bui, H., and Y. Baruch. 2010, “Creating Learning Organizations in Higher Education: Applying a Systems Perspective.” The Learning Organization 17 (3): pp. 228–42. Careless, E. J. 2012. “Dueling Clocks: Mothers on the Path to Tenure.” Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education 25 (1): pp. 31–45. Coldwell, D.  A., and A.  Fried. 2011. “Learning Organizations Without Borders? A CrossCultural Study of University HR Practitioners’ Perceptions of the Salience of Senge’s Five Disciplines in Effective Work Outcomes.” International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management 12 (1): pp. 101–14. Cortina, L. 2008. “Unseen Justice: Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 33 (1): pp. 55–75. Cortina, L., D. Kabat-Farr, E. Leskin, M. Huerta, and V. Magley. 2013. “Selective Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations: Evidence and Impact.” Journal of Management 39 (6): pp. 1579–605.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Gender Inclusive Learning Organizations   253 Dahanayake, N.  D., and S.  Gamlath. 2012. “Learning Organization Dimensions of the Sri Lanka Army.” The Learning Organization 20 (3): pp. 195–215. Deschamps, M. 2015. External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. External Review Authority. Di Schiena, R., G. Letens, E. Van Aken, and J. Farris. 2013. “Relationship Between Leadership and Characteristics of Learning Organizations in Deployed Military Units.” Administrative Sciences 3 (3): pp. 143–65. Dill, D. D. 1999. “Academic Accountability and University Adaptation: The Architecture of an Academic Learning Organization.” Higher Education 38 (2): pp. 127–54. Fillion, G., V. Koffi, and J. B. Ekionea. 2015. “Peter Senge’s Learning Organization: A Critical View and the Addition of Some New Concept to Actualize Theory and Practice.” Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict19 (3): pp. 73–102. Gouthro, P.  A. 2002. “What Counts? Examining Academic Values and Women’s Life Experiences from a Critical Feminist Perspective.” Canadian Journal for Studies in Adult Education 16 (1): pp. 1–19. Gouthro, P. A. 2012. “Learning Your Way into a Life of Crime (Fiction): Assessing Sisters in Crime as a Grassroots Learning Organization.” Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education 24 (2): pp. 34–50. Gouthro, P.  A. 2014. “Women of Mystery: Learning Pathways of Female Crime Fiction Writers.” Adult Education Quarterly 64 (4): pp. 356–73. Gouthro, P., N. Taber, and A. Brazil. 2018. “Universities as Inclusive Learning Organizations for Women? Considering the Role of Women in Faculty and Leadership Positions in Academe.” The Learning Organization 25 (1): pp. 29–39. Habermas, J. 1981. The Theory of Communicative Action—Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. Heijstra, T., T. Bjarnason, and G. Rafnsdóttir. 2015. “Predictors of Gender Inequalities in the Rank of Full Professor.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 59 (2): pp. 214–30. Hideg, I., and D.  L.  Ferris. 2016. “The Compassionate Sexist? How Benevolent Sexism Promotes and Undermines Gender Equality in the Workplace.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111 (5): pp. 706–27. Hulett, D.  M., M.  Bendick Jr., S.  Y.  Thomas, and F.  Moccio. 2008. “Enhancing Women’s Inclusion in Firefighting in the USA.” International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities, and Nations 8 (2): pp. 189–207. Hyslop-Margison, E., and H. Leonard. 2012. “Post Neo-Liberalism and the Humanities: What the Repressive State Apparatus Means for Universities.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 42 (2): pp. 1–12. Khan, Y., A. Davis, and J. Taylor. 2017. “Ladders and Lifting: How Gender Affects Safety Behaviours in the Fire Service.” Journal of Workplace Behavioural Health 32 (3): pp. 206–25. Kovitz, M. 2000. “The Enemy Within: Female Soldiers in the Canadian Forces.” Canadian Woman Studies 19 (4): pp. 36–41. Kronsell, A. 2005. “Gendered Practices in Institutions of Hegemonic Masculinity: Reflections from Feminist Standpoint Theory.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 7 (2): pp. 280–98. Lahelma, E. 2005. “Finding Communalities, Making Differences, Performing Masculinities: Reflections of Young Men on Military Service.” Gender and Education 17 (3): pp. 305–17. Mojab, S., and R. Gorman. 2003. “Women and Consciousness in the ‘Learning Organization’: Emancipation or Exploitation?” Adult Education Quarterly 53 (4): pp. 228–41.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

254   Patricia A. Gouthro, Nancy Taber, and Amanda Brazil Newson, J. 2012. “The University-on-the-Ground: Reflections on the Canadian Experience.” In Reconsidering Knowledge: Feminism and the Academy, ed. M. Luxton and M. J. Mossman, pp. 96–127. Halifax, Canada: Fernwood. Pillay, V. 2009. “Academic Mothers Finding Rhyme and Reason.” Gender & Education 21 (5): pp. 501–15. Ross-Smith, A., and M. Kornberger. 2004. “Gendered Rationality? A Genealogical Exploration of the Philosophical and Sociological Conceptions of Rationality, Masculinity and Organization.” Gender, Work & Organization 11 (3): pp. 280–305. Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. M. 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, 2nd ed. London: Random House. Shuster, M. 2000. “The Physical and Psychological Stresses of Women in Firefighting.” Work 15 (1): pp. 77–82. Side, K., and W. Robbins. 2007. “Institutionalizing Inequalities in Canadian Universities: The Canada Research Chairs Program.” NSWA Journal 19 (3): pp. 163–81. Sinden, K., J. MacDermid, S. Buckman, B. Davis, T. Matthew, and C. Viola. 2013. “A Qualitative Study on the Experiences of Female Firefighters.” Work 45 (1): pp. 97–105. Sjoberg, L. 2007. “Agency, Militarized Femininity and Enemy Others: Observations from the War in Iraq.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 9 (1): pp. 82–101. Smart Richman, L., M. vanDellen, and W. Wood. 2011. “How Women Cope: Being a Numerical Minority in a Male-Dominated Profession.” Journal of Social Issues 67 (3): pp. 492–509. Sternberg, R. J. 2015. “A Model of Institutional Creative Change for Assessing Universities as Learning Organizations.” Creativity Research Journal 27 (3): pp. 254–61. Swanberg, J. 2004. “Illuminating Gendered Organization Assumptions: An Important Step in Creating a Family-Friendly Organization: A Case Study.” Community, Work & Family 7 (1): pp. 3–28. Swedenberg, R. 2018. “How to Use Max Weber’s Ideal Type in Sociological Analyses.” Journal of Classical Sociology 18 (3): pp. 181–96. Taber, N. 2009. “The Profession of Arms: Ideological Codes and Dominant Narratives of Gender in the Canadian Military.” Atlantis: A Women’s Studies Journal 34 (1): pp. 27–36. Taber, N. 2011. “ ‘You Better Not Get Pregnant While You’re Here’: Tensions Between Masculinities and Femininities in Military Communities of Practice.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 30 (3): pp. 331–48. Taber, N. 2015. “Intersecting Discourses of Gender: Military and Academic Gendered Organizations.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 34 (2): pp. 230–46. Taber, N. 2016. “Women Military Leaders in the Canadian Forces: Learning to Negotiate Gender.” In Women, Adult Education, and Leadership in Canada, ed. D. Clover, S. Butterwick, D. Chovanec, and L. Collins, pp. 46–56. Toronto: Thompson Publishing. Taber, N. 2018. “After Deschamps: Men, Masculinities, and the Canadian Armed Forces.” Journal of Military and Veteran Health Research 4 (1): pp. 100–7. Taber, N. In press. “The Canadian Armed Forces: Battling between Operation Honour and Operation Hop on Her.” Critical Military Studies. Visser, M. 2016. “Organizational Learning Capability and Battlefield Performance: The British Army in World War II.” International Journal of Organizational Analysis 24 (4): pp. 573–90. Visser, M. 2017. “Teaching Giants to Learn: Lessons from Army Learning in World War II.” The Learning Organization 24 (3): pp. 159–68.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Gender Inclusive Learning Organizations   255 Walker, N., and T. Bopp. 2010. “The Underrepresentation of Women in the Male-Dominated Workplace: Perspectives of Female Coaches.” Journal of Workplace Rights 15 (1): pp. 47–64. Webber, M. 2008. “Miss Congeniality Meets the New Managerialism: Feminism, Contingent Labour, and the New University.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 38 (3): pp. 37–56. Weber, M. 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. T. Parsons. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. White, J., and R. Weathersby. 2005. “Can Universities Become True Learning Organizations?” The Learning Organization 12 (3): pp. 292–8. Winchester, P. M., and L. Browning. 2015. “Gender Equality in Academia: A Critical Reflection.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 37 (3): pp. 269–81. Winslow, D., and J. Dunn. 2002. “Women in the Canadian Forces: Between Legal and Social Integration.” Current Sociology 50 (5): pp. 641–67. Wright, T. 2016. “Women’s Experience of Workplace Interactions in Male-Dominated Work: The Intersections of Gender, Sexuality, and Occupational Group.” Gender, Work & Organization 23 (3): pp. 348–62.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Pa rt I V

PR AC T IC I NG T H E L E A R N I NG ORGA N I Z AT ION

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

chapter 17

I n terv en tions to Cr eate a L e a r n i ng Orga n iz ation Victoria J. Marsick and Karen E. Watkins, with contributions from

Angela King Smith

This chapter examines ways that Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1997), together or with other collaborators (including students), have engaged in, or supported, interventions to create a learning organization. The chapter starts by framing the intervention approach associated with our model. We then examine examples of research that illustrate how action science and action learning develop learning capacity toward a learning organization in ways consistent with our model. We turn to a comprehensive framework that Gephart and Marsick (2016) developed focused on system dynamics, and illustrate the way this framework has been used to foster organizational learning. Our final examples come from DLOQ-inspired research carried out by our students. We conclude with reflections that suggest a way of creating a learning organization that is less an idealized outcome and more a learning process for iterative—and adjustable— growth toward desired goals.

Framing the Intervention Approach Practitioners who consciously seek to nurture a learning organization often rely on frameworks that emanate from the reputation of other organizations successful in this goal. In our view, this seldom works. An organization is a living organism for which we find that, to successfully effect continuingly productive change, a learning organization framework must be strategically tuned to its constantly changing forms and functions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

260   Victoria J. Marsick, Karen E. Watkins, and Angela King Smith Our work on the learning organization originated in examining both theory and initiatives to build learning capacity in individuals and organizations. The seven action imperatives that resulted from our investigation over time (discussed by Watkins and Marsick, Chapter 4 in this volume) have guided further interventions—both our own and those of others. We do not believe in a one-size-fits-all solution to building learning organizations. In a book on how to facilitate learning organizations (Marsick and Watkins 1999: 17), we adopted the metaphor of sculpting “because we believe that there is no standard set of prescriptions that an organization can adopt to achieve its learning goals.” Thus, we adopted “an iterative process of diagnosis, change and learning from change” informed “by John Dewey (1938) on learning, and by Kurt Lewin (1946) on action research for change” (Marsick and Watkins 1999: 18). The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ), an instrument developed by Watkins and Marsick (1997) to assess learning culture in organizations, is based on seven dimensions—developed from the action imperatives discussed in Chapter 4 in this volume. Turner, Baker, and Kellner (2018) identify the seven dimensions as falling into those that: (1) build capacity in people (continuous learning, inquiry and dialogue, team learning, empowerment); and (2) build or modify structure (embedded systems, system connection with the environment, and strategic leadership). The examples we have written about using the DLOQ to guide change emphasize both people and structural changes. Particular interventions—whether people-oriented such as dialogue and inquiry or structural such as strategic leadership—may be im­port­ ant because they are a logical place to start to address a pressing challenge. Yet, it is the ability to be aware of, and draw upon, all dimensions as and when needed that taps into the value of any framework. Success is not automatically guaranteed by checking a box that shows each dimension is in place—nor by adopting Senge’s (1990) recommended five disciplines (with system thinking and leadership as keys) or Popper and Lipshitz’s (2000) Organization Learning Mechanisms and accompanying framework. Choices of how to proceed need to be coupled with sensitivity to unique features of the business situation and organizational context that call for adaptation or invention to suit the circumstances. Early in the use of the DLOQ, for example, Watkins worked with a hotel chain to interpret the DLOQ results and consider interventions to support and build upon identified strengths and address weaknesses (Marsick and Watkins 1999). Empowerment was scored low on the DLOQ because, when further analyzed, there was high turnover among less educated employees in hospitality industries. Hence, “management could not be sure that an empowered staff at all levels would understand the context or mandate for its decisions” (Marsick and Watkins 1999: 54). In another case study, organization developer Renee Rogers, who partnered with CEO Jerry Marlar at Sulzer Orthopedics, opined that no matter the intervention: “more will always be revealed” (Marsick and Watkins 1999: 27). She and Marlar were vigilant about collecting evidence of intended or unintended consequences in order to discern what contributed to results so they could adjust next steps as they moved toward goals. We find that learning organizations are best created using action-research-based interventions that involve multiple stakeholders in collecting and interpreting information

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Interventions to Create a Learning Organization   261 who use these data to generate and try out alternative solutions. Action-research based approaches—such as action learning (O’Neil and Marsick  2007) or action science (Argyris  1983,  1995)—build individual capacity while also building collective system capacity. These approaches involve group reflection on underlying frames of reference, assumptions, and gaps between intended outcomes and actions taken. They support participative engagement of multiple stakeholders, thereby increasing the likelihood that diverse perspectives will lead to new thinking. Motivation and commitment are enhanced by collaborative work on real problems that typically represent issues that are at once both personal and organizational. Peers in teams help individuals, in a context of free and informed choice and internal commitment, to transform dysfunctional patterns of thought that guide decision making and action. Examples follow using action science and action learning.

Action Science Example Action science calls for peer groups to collectively examine typical conversations that illustrate recurring situations that do not end as desired. Through analysis of personal cases, they identify assumptions and beliefs that lead to dysfunctional behavior and unintended outcomes. Case writers can see ways they seek to control the situation rather than open themselves to learning, and invent/role play alternative ways to explore their own and others’ views that reduce reliance on defensive routines (see Argyris 1995, and Figure 17.1 in this chapter for an example). Soon, the questioning, reflection, and role playing of alternatives reveal organizational and personal obstacles to change. The group then works to resolve these issues both in terms of internally imposed frameworks that limit choices and in terms of organizational resources. Argyris (1983: 119) contended that “The interpenetration of the individual and context makes it possible to predict that individuals programmed with Model one theoriesin-use will necessarily create model O-1 (O for organizational) learning systems.” Model I organizations necessarily limit learning because of invalid assumptions embedded in defensive routines. In contrast, he shows how to create what he calls Model II organizations that are open to dialogue and inquiry, and hence, that build authentic capacity to learn in individuals, groups, and organizations through his approach to changing the culture. An illustration of that approach can be seen in the following case that illustrates the movement from capturing individual reasoning, to problematizing that reasoning, and then to transforming it to change the organizational outcomes.

Action Science Case Example What makes this case interesting is that it is such an ordinary interaction—and yet it well captures the issues of hierarchy, evaluation, and interpersonal communication that so often go awry in organizations. A premise in action science is that skilled reasoning

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

262   Victoria J. Marsick, Karen E. Watkins, and Angela King Smith Making Mistakes: A Supervisor in a Case of the Wrong Form Employee was issued a notification of an abuse of personal privilege form for being late for lunch. This would normally have been counted as a time infraction with her pay being docked instead of an abuse of personal privilege. However, she denied being late at all and believed she did not deserve to be written up at all. Senior Supervisor’s Thoughts and Feelings

What Was Said

Why did we use the wrong form! This is going to be bad.

Senior Supervisor: I checked on the situation and we did use the incorrect form. You don’t get a documented warning for this because you were tardy from lunch, but it is an occurrence of a time infraction. Employee: Well, it’s not correct. I don’t cheat (the organization) and I have no intention of doing so. I can get you a witness to verify I wasn’t late.

Sure, who would admit they were late knowing she and her supervisor have to work in the same area?

Senior Supervisor: No, I don’t need a witness. I wouldn’t put you or any individual that works with you in that position. Are you saying that your supervisor is lying about the total time you were out of the area? Employee: I am not calling my supervisor a liar, but I wasn’t late and I can get you a witness.

Now she is going to think, “They always stick together.”

Senior Supervisor: Well, I can’t have a supervisor lie about something like this. There is no reason for this to be made up and … Employee: I understand you have to take his side, but I want you to know I’m taking this higher. I won’t stop here.

THREAT?

Senior Supervisor: That’s your prerogative and if you need any other information from me, let me know. Thank you for your time.

Figure 17.1.  Action science case example.

often involves making rapid inferences about the meaning of events, of what others say, and about problems. Yet, in order to reason more critically, we need to slow down and take a look at how we arrived at a given inference. One way to do this is to move down to the actual data on which inferences are based. Think of this as moving down a ladder from general idea to specific facts, what Argyris (1983) called a ladder of inference. One moves from directly observable data—i.e., what is said, what can be seen, facts which are observable; to the meaning given to selected data—i.e., “Either the operator is lying or management made a mistake”; to the privately-held theories guiding our behavior—i.e., “If I admit management made a mistake, we will lose face and lose control.” In this case, the underlying need for control is evident in both individuals; and the advocacy without inquiry and persistent attributions about the other person a clear example of what Argyris (1983) calls Model I behavior. Simultaneously, undercurrents for the organization are also significant. What are the consequences for trust in the organization if supervisors always side with one another? What does this imply for the culture when employees and managers do not learn how to work together to share

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Interventions to Create a Learning Organization   263 meaning on high consequence errors? Cases like these work at the micro-political level of organizations—seeking to transform individuals toward a learning and inquiryoriented stance.

Action Learning Example Action learning involves groups of peer learners who use real challenges to learn through deep questioning and reframing how the situation is understood. Action learning takes different forms (O’Neil and Marsick 2007), some of which stimulate learning and change simultaneously at individual, group, and organizational levels (Marsick and Watkins  1999). An example is a multi-year, action-learning leadership program in a large global healthcare corporation. It worked at two levels: (1) senior-level leaders, and (2) high potential managers who were coached by selected leaders from the senior leadership program. In both cases, the programs included “the use of global locations, case study and traditional pedagogies to teach content . . . action learning projects, leadership assessments, and individual coaching” (Watkins and Nicolaides 2012: 368). The senior leaders collaborated in teams on a single project important to the organization; high potentials each worked on his or her own challenge in peer learning teams. A subsequent evaluation study collected critical incidents about how both groups did or did not use what they learned to change their own mindsets and actions, and ways that the program influenced outcomes. A theory-of-change approach was used to examine the data and monitor results from new behaviors learned through the program. Changes were tracked in individuals (short-term and intermediate); the organization based on participant actions; and system-level policies, procedures, or other practices traced to participant actions. Watkins and deMarrais (2010) identified a theme of a “culture of talent development in the organization” using “the participants’ language of up and downstream product development to convey the top to bottom, bottom to top nature of this learning” (as  cited in Watkins and Nicolaides  2012: 369–70). Causal maps depicted ways that the initiative built a culture of talent development. Senior leadership tapped high potentials, mentored and coached them, and created the executive development program. In turn, program participants—who were themselves senior leaders—became more effective in developing their subordinates through self-analysis, reflection, and the cohort network. In turn, participants’ direct reports learned from the modeling and mentoring of their supervisors. Watkins and Nicolaides (2012) report the impact of individual actions on the organization and system through ­participant comments, for example: Over time a powerful system will be built . . . after three or four of them [cohorts] go through, I’m anticipating there’ll be a critical mass of people who think in similar ways and understand the cultural nuances, strategic direction and some tools of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

264   Victoria J. Marsick, Karen E. Watkins, and Angela King Smith trade better than they would have without the program. And they’ll have a common language to speak. Now, that’s important, because historically we haven’t had that. (Watkins and Nicolaides 2012: 371)

Highlights reported here illustrate the way in which action learning develops leaders’ capacity for learning and change that can, collectively, change group and organizational learning capacity. Leaders’ interactions with peers and subordinates create a ripple effect—especially in programs such as this one involving multiple cohorts who built a common language and network that supported system-level change.

A Comprehensive Framework for System Dynamics Gephart and Marsick (2016) refined and tested a model, approach, and instruments focusing on Strategic Leverage Through Learning© “to assess and build system-level capabilities needed for learning and performance in uncertain and rapidly changing environments” (Gephart and Marsick 2016: 7). This model “emphasizes the importance of internal and external alignment when leveraging learning as a resource for progress toward successful strategic goal achievement” (Gephart and Marsick 2016: 7). Gephart and Marsick based their model on redefined factors in the Burke–Litwin (Burke and Litwin 1992) model—transformational factors (external environment, leadership, mission and values, culture, strategy) aimed at fundamental change, and transactional factors (management practices, structure, systems, and climate). They redefined each construct to measure system-level learning as well as performance. They saw transformational and transactional factors as supports to leverage or barriers to overcome when seeking desired goals. They developed interim learning and per­ ­ form­ ance outcomes (external alignment, internal alignment, commitment, knowledge/experience creation and sharing, learning, innovation) that can predict longer-term gains. Assessments obtained by using Strategic Leverage Through Learning© (SLL©) are best used dynamically in partnership with key stakeholders using a variant of action research. The SLL© framework seeks a granular understanding of group and or­gan­iza­ tion­al learning outcomes, as well as analysis of how transformational and transactional system dynamics interact and can be managed effectively to reach goals. An example illustrates. Gephart helped a federal judicial agency that had experienced a drop in performance after electronic case filing was introduced that precipitated employee dissatisfaction and interdepartmental conflict (Gephart and Marsick  2016: 10–15). Use of a customized SLL© survey showed many challenges—chief among them poor alignment across groups and departments along with lack of collaboration, conflict, and suspicion. Little learning was taking place about how to use or improve

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Interventions to Create a Learning Organization   265 electronic case filing. Transformational factors identified by the SLL© survey showed employees were not motivated. Leaders did not model good performance or learning behaviors, and employees were not consulted in decision making. Cultural norms did not support risk-taking and learning from experience, nor did employees receive constructive feedback. While innovation was encouraged, it was difficult to change work routines. Transactional barriers included problematic systems and structures, communication and information systems. Managerial practices showed issues with hierarchy, lack of responsibility for problem solving, inability to work with one another, and inconsistency in rewards. The SLL diagnosis put these issues in the open and catalyzed discussion. Managers began to work collaboratively on a new strategic planning process. While they did that, staff met regularly with IT to analyze and solve problems. They clarified goals in con­sult­ ation with others. After Action Reviews helped people to learn from experiences. After eighteen months, the SLL© survey was re-administered and showed improvement. There was a rise in rate of movement of cases through the court. Work processes were redesigned and goal clarification supported collaboration and alignment. Employees were consulted and information increasingly shared across units. Cases in Gephart and Marsick (2016) include different types of interventions to help people learn. These interventions owe their success to effective management of trans­ form­ation­al and transactional system dynamics. The SLL© profile gives learning leaders an informed understanding of where to intervene, and why and how to shore up learning or to build on strengths to more easily reach desired goals, as measured in metrics sensitive to the particular business or organizational challenge addressed.

Data-Based Interventions to Create a Learning Organization A few experiments have attempted to use the DLOQ (Watkins and Marsick 1997) and our learning organization model to guide interventions. Two experiments of particular interest include those by Young-Saing Kim and Angela King Smith. Young-Saing Kim became interested in small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) when he worked for a Korean government research agency (KRIVET). SMEs accounted for over 99 percent of all businesses in South Korea and 87 percent of all jobs (Kim and Marsick 2013). An analysis by KRIVET showed that funds available to organizations to support training and learning were primarily used by large organizations. Only 6.7 percent of SMEs with less than fifty employees took advantage of this fund, in part because small organizations could not provide time off the job for learning, and in part because these small organizations often do not have learning and development specialists on their staff. Additionally, much workplace learning in SMEs was on-the-job and informal; as such, it was not recognized among the learning activities for which the funds paid.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

266   Victoria J. Marsick, Karen E. Watkins, and Angela King Smith Young-Saing Kim used the DLOQ in studies of learning in a variety of organizations. In these, the seven dimensions measured by the DLOQ contributed to improved outcomes. He thus decided to use these dimensions to design a learning program for SMEs and worked with the Ministry of Labor to create it. The Ministry introduced a learning organization program for SMEs in 2006 in order to encourage self-directed and informal, on-the-job learning. The program involved specialists, management and labor, HR and employees in a series of learning experiments coupled with monitoring, assessment, and adjustment to the interventions to suit each SME’s environment and needs. Required elements included CEO support, and identification of someone who added HR learning and development to their job description and spearheaded a learning team. The program created opportunities for HR learning staff to network, learn from one another, and share ideas. All SMEs created learning goals and mechanisms for recognition and rewards to incentivize learning. Each SME had flexibility to tailor learning interventions to their culture and environment based on decisions made jointly with participants with regard to: what to learn, how to learn, when to learn, where to learn, and how to transfer learning to their work. Interventions were guided by DLOQ action imperatives. These included creation of a learning space, access to professional consultants to develop an HRD system and development plan, mentoring and coaching practices, on-the-job and/or classroom training, and knowledge sharing activities such as knowledge festivals. Learning expenses— books, stationery, snacks, special assistance—were funded by the government based on a negotiated learning contract supported by both management and labor unions. The 112 firms selected from an applicant pool of 130 in 2006 continued beyond the first year, with additional firms joining in subsequent years. A survey conducted in 2009 of 131 SMEs participating in the first or second year and 57 SMEs participating in their third year demonstrated knowledge gains as measured by patents and utility models, lessons learned on-the-job, and trademark registration (Kim and Marsick 2013). This experiment demonstrates how a learning organization vision can guide intervention across a sector of organizations. Similarly, in the case example in Box 17.1, Angela King Smith describes her use of the DLOQ and our model of a learning organization to guide a major organization development initiative in a large public school district.

Conclusions As we reflect on the patterns across the examples discussed, what stands out is that interventions to create learning organizations are, indeed, striving toward an ideal. However, the ideal is more a process than a pre-set outcome because it is influenced so strongly by contextual factors. Moreover, adjustments are made along the way using readily avail­ able metrics or measures. While there are many routes to creating a learning organization, what successful initiatives have in common is that they are guided by shared data about the overall learning organization framework as well as results of particular

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Interventions to Create a Learning Organization   267

Box 17.1  Building a Learning Culture with School District Executive Leaders by angela king smith

Overview of the Case Established in the late 1800s, Southern Public Schools (SPS) is one of the largest and oldest school districts in the southeast United States. With over 50,000 students and 6,000 staff, this school system has experienced significant changes over time. In 2009, before the appointment of a new superintendent, SPS experienced a “perfect storm” that included staff transition, scandal, threatened loss of accreditation, and budget challenges. In the aftermath of this crisis, the school district faced the daunting task of rebuilding the integrity of the organization, but also developing plans to move the district forward. After several years of turmoil, the district was poised for transformational change. The 2015–2020 strategic plan was the first step to refocus the entire school system on student needs. Central to this plan was a move from traditional operations, in which the central office sets priorities and needs for the district, to a model driven by school needs. Individual schools were allowed to exercise more freedom and flexibility within district and state guidelines. Schools gained greater autonomy to make decisions for their respective local sites in areas of budget, curriculum, class size, hiring, and school design. Implementing this new operating model served as an important catalyst to transform the district culture and operations, making SPS a district that centers on empowerment, autonomy, innovation, and flexibility. The district recognized that new systems, structures, and skills were necessary for staff to successfully navigate these changes.

Problem Framing An action research project was established to identify ways to build the leadership capacity critical to realizing the strategic plan and new operating model, while also strengthening a culture of learning. From the beginning, the primary focus was building the capacity of leadership and staff for actualizing the new model. However, the shift toward school-based decision-making created tension between leaders within schools and the central office. While these changes required the central office to provide better support to schools, new tensions and difficulties emerged. Central office teams shifted to a consultative approach to assist schools, through which the central office would move from a regulatory, primarily compliance-driven organization to a dynamic, service-driven organization that supports differentiated school designs. These changes ultimately created tension and led to power struggles between central office teams and school leaders in the areas of role clarity, accountability, and authority.

Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted to better understand the capacity for learning among central office and school leaders using the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) (Watkins and Marsick 1997) short form. With over 100 survey responses, the action research team determined key priorities at individual, team, and organizational levels. The pilot study provided an initial benchmark before the implementation of any significant interventions intended to improve the learning culture across the expanded cabinet team. (continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

268   Victoria J. Marsick, Karen E. Watkins, and Angela King Smith

Box 17.1  Continued The results identified two DLOQ dimensions that required attention given the system’s focus on innovation, flexibility, and autonomy. Dimension two, related to “inquiry and dialogue” (3.98), and dimension four, connected with “creating systems to capture and share learning” (3.91), received the lowest scores from all major stakeholders including principals, senior leaders, teachers, and action research team members (Figure 17.2).

DLOQ Profiles of Responding Groups The action research team determined that the school system was open to using learning as a strategic tool for improvement; yet, building trust and creating the necessary systems to track and monitor learning received lower scores across the district teams surveyed. Qualitative data from focus groups suggested a failure of communication between central office and school leaders. Both groups operated in silos, which resulted in a lack of trust and the absence of shared culture. Furthermore, this lack of trust created power struggles and tension between central office and school leaders, impeding collaboration and coordination between staff members within the district. Lack of dialogue had a profound effect on relationships between the central office and schools.

The Intervention The action research team used data to plan an intervention that would address gaps identified by the DLOQ survey by developing a shared culture of collaboration between school and district central office leaders. The intervention was to redesign an existing quarterly meeting that principals and central office leaders attend. Previous feedback suggested that these meetings were perceived as “a waste of time” and held “little value.” To address concerns, a new meeting design was outlined aimed to create shared culture across levels. Unlike previous attempts, this intervention was intended as foundational for creating a learning organization. Principals and central office leaders would engage in interactive quarterly workshops called “Learning Labs,” designed to address the dimensions of a learning organization (Watkins and Marsick 1993, 1997) as well as issues identified by the action research team. Similar to a hackathon or community meetup, the Learning Lab design brought 200 leaders together to leverage their strengths, experiences, and skills in a hands-on, collaborative workshop setting. Using adult learning best practices and cross functional teaming, these workshops were designed to find solutions to real problems. Learning Labs tried to find creative solutions for organizational problems impeding the work of the strategic plan. Principals were invited to join a Learning Lab team to solve or address an organizational problem that they had identified in focus groups. After the principals selected one of the teams, central office staff were evenly divided across all of the Learning Lab teams. The intent was to give leaders from schools and the central office the tools and ability to work together to solve their own problems.

Lessons Learned The Learning Labs were an important mechanism for driving cultural change among school district leaders. The Learning Labs’ intentional design and pragmatic approach helped to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Interventions to Create a Learning Organization   269 DLOQ Dimensions by Group

5 4.8 4.6

4.86 4.75

4.68 4.6

4.53

4.4 4.2 4

4.33 4.16 4.11

4.13 4.04 3.89 3.86

4.6

4.57

4.63

4.59

4.45 4.3

4.11 4

4.27

4.22

4.06 3.94

3.94

3.78

3.8 3.6

3.45

3.4

3.28

3.2 3

CL

TL

EP

ES

Action Research Team

DI

Teachers

Principals

SC

PL

Senior Leadership

Dimensions Result by Group

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

CL

TL

EP

ES

Action Research Team

DI

Teachers

Principals

SC

PL

Senior Leadership

Figure 17.2.  DLOQ profiles of responding groups. (continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

270   Victoria J. Marsick, Karen E. Watkins, and Angela King Smith

Box 17.1  Continued improve teamwork and collaboration. Relationships were fostered not only among leaders, but also among the facilitators who led each Learning Lab team. While the results in the first and second administrations of the DLOQ were not dissimilar (Figure 17.2) over time, this may reduce ineffective work practices and bridge silos. Now, at the beginning of other major system projects, leaders are more intentional about working together in a cross-functional manner to ensure that all voices are heard regarding major system initiatives. Leaders not only build capacity for organizational strategies, but are also provided opportunities for leadership development, learning, and growth. Today, the district has a process for learning and building trust among its executive central office and school leaders. The Learning Labs continue to yield a new and vibrant or­gan­iza­tion­al culture that affects how leaders work together and support each other for the benefit of the students of the district.

interventions. This enables a collective group of leaders to adjust steps they are taking to build learning capacity through a more informed and focused intervention. Action technologies of the kind described draw on data—whether data about the or­gan­iza­ tion­al problem they will explore or the interpersonal and system dynamics that prevent organizational learning. Interventions help participants hold a mirror and reflect on what is learned to better allow stakeholders to build learning capacity. In both the system dynamics approach and the DLOQ instrumented learning approaches, it is the dissonance created by the gap between where the organization would like to be and where it is that heightens awareness about the need for learning and leads to capacity building at collective levels. Finally, any of these interventions by themselves would effect change—but may not create a learning organization. It is the vision of those leaders and organization developers guiding the intervention that allows the intervention to move the organization closer to one that learns continuously and that has the capacity to continuously transform itself (Watkins and Marsick 1993).

References Argyris, C. 1983. “Action Science and Intervention.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 19 (2): pp. 115–35. Argyris, C. 1995. “Action Science and Organizational Learning.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 10 (6): pp. 20–6. Burke, W. W., and G. H. Litwin. 1992. “A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change.” Journal of Management 18 (3): pp. 523–45. Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books. Gephart, M.  A., and V.  J.  Marsick. 2016. Strategic Organizational Learning: Using System Dynamics for Innovation and Sustained Performance. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Kim, Y. S., and V. J. Marsick. 2013. “Using the DLOQ to Support Learning in Republic of Korea SMEs.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 15 (2): pp. 207–21. Lewin, K. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues 2 (4): pp. 34–46.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Interventions to Create a Learning Organization   271 Marsick, V., and K.  Watkins. 1999. Facilitating Learning Organizations: Making Learning Count. London: Gower Press. O’Neil, J., and V.  J.  Marsick. 2007. Understanding Action Learning. New York: American Management Association. Popper, M., and R.  Lipshitz. 2000. “Organizational Learning: Mechanisms, Culture, and Feasibility.” Management Learning 31 (2): pp. 181–96. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Turner, J. R., R. Baker, and F. Kellner. 2018. “Theoretical Literature Review: Tracing the Life Cycle of a Theory and its Verified and Falsified Statements.” Human Resource Development Review 17 (1): pp. 34–61. Watkins, K., and K. deMarrais. 2010. Aspire Executive Development Pilot Program Evaluation Final Report. Technical Report. Warwick, RI: Partners for Learning & Leadership. Watkins, K., and V. Marsick. 1993. Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (Translated into Japanese, 1994; Chinese, 2001.) Watkins, K., and V.  Marsick. 1997. Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Warwick, RI: Partners for the Learning Organization. Watkins, K., and A. Nicolaides. 2012. “Testing a Theory of Change Model for Evaluating the Impact of Action Learning Programs.” Proceedings of the 10th International Transformative Learning Conference, San Francisco, CA.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

chapter 18

Glimpse s of Orga n iz ations i n th e Act of Le a r n i ng Nancy M. Dixon

In this chapter, I provide glimpses of what makes learning happen in two learning organizations. One of the organizations, Kessels & Smit, has been a learning or­gan­iza­tion for twenty years. The second, the city government of Stichtse Vecht is at the beginning of the process. This chapter provides glimpses of learning practices in an organization that has had time to perfect its practices and one that is still in the middle of figuring out what practices to put into place. The practices utilized in each or­gan­iza­tion are quite different, yet the underlying principles of what it takes to be a learning organization are similar.

Review of the Literature on Learning Organization Practices There are few examples in the learning organization literature that provide insight into the multiple and varied practices that learning organizations implement. In this chapter I illuminate learning organization practices in two organizations, as well as providing the principles behind their implementation as defined in the work of Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino, in their 2008 article, “Is Yours a Learning Organization?” The authors identify three factors that are essential for learning and adaptability, which they refer to as “ ‘building blocks’ for the learning organization” (Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino 2008: 3): (1) a supportive environment, (2) concrete learning processes and practices, and (3) leadership behavior that provides reinforcement. For each building block, the authors identify subcomponents. Building block one includes the subcomponents

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

274   Nancy M. Dixon of psychological safety, appreciation of difference, openness to new ideas, and time for reflection. Building block two includes the subcomponents of the generation, collection, interpretation, and dissemination of information, as well as experimentation, intelligence gathering, disciplined analysis to identify and solve problems, and education and training. Building block three subcomponents are leaders actively questioning and listening to employees, signaling the importance of spending time on problem identification, knowledge transfer and reflective post-audits, and demonstrating a willingness to entertain alternative points of view (see Edmondson, Gino, and Healy, Chapter 20 in this volume). This chapter provides glimpses of what subcomponents look like in practice in two case studies of learning organizations. Kessels and Keursten (2002) add three principles that support a learning organization: (1) members working hard to enhance their reciprocal appeal, which creates a favorable social context, (2) the organization supporting the passion of individual members, which stimulates exceptional achievements, and (3) members with the initiative to improve in both work and learning. They predict that, “When in the 21st-century knowledge productivity becomes the driving force, and as this knowledge production will be found at every level of economic activity, the know­ ledge workers will take charge” (Kessels and Keursten 2002: 111). Other researchers affirm and add to the three blocks identified by Garvin et al. (2008). Kessels (2001) amplifies that setting aside time for reflection on what is being learned is a central component of learning organization theory. Other theorists include con­sid­er­ation of who is invited into reflection meetings (Hackman 2011), how physical space is designed to facilitate both informal and formal exchanges (Block 2018), and the use of technology tools that facilitate both virtually (Dixon  2017,  2018). Reflection on learning is most potent when it is done with others who can offer different perspectives and knowledge on what has happened or needs to happen (Schein and Schein 2018). Learning in the presence of others requires a culture of psychological safety (Edmondson 1999, 2012; Schein  1985; Stasser  1999). Edmondson (2012: 119) defines psychological safety as a “sense of confidence that the group will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up.” She explains the relationship between psychological safety and learning by noting that many of the behaviors that produce learning are ex­peri­enced as risky by team members. These include: seeking feedback on one’s own performance; sharing information, in particular, the unique information each member holds; asking for help; testing assumptions; discussing differences of opinion openly rather than privately or outside the group; talking about errors, one’s own or other’s; experimenting; and reflecting together on results. The risk of enacting such behaviors is experienced as fear of loss of job or promotion, appearing ignorant to other team members, not being viewed as a team player, and losing others’ respect. However, Edmondson (1999: 2) explains that it is only through “such activities that teams can detect changes in the environment, learn about customers’ requirements, improve members’ collective understanding of a situation or discover unexpected consequences of their previous actions.” Thus, without psychological trust among team members, learning is greatly reduced. Similarly, Nilsson and Mattes (2015: 231) define trust as “the intention or willingness to accept

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Glimpses of Organizations in the Act of Learning   275 vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of others.” They describe two types of trust, initial and gradual. Initial trust is based on (a) belonging to a group, (b) information about team members from third parties, (c) trusting the system, and (d) perceived shared interest. Gradual trust results from repeated first-hand interaction over time. It is based on (a) experiencing another’s cap­abil­ity to perform a specific task, (b) that person’s reliability to perform the agreed-upon task, and (c) witnessing the integrity and kindness of another in the work situation. Nonaka (1994) explains that the key to building trust is the sharing of one’s original experience—the fundamental source of tacit knowledge. A learning organization also requires the freedom to act on what is being learned, and then to act again on the learning from that action (Edmondson 2012). Hackman (2011) explains that as team members try out alternative ways of proceeding they also gain new perspectives on what they are trying to achieve. Without the discretion to act on what has been learned and to experiment with new actions an organization cannot learn from the knowledge gained. Block (2018) reminds us that people will be accountable and committed to what they have a hand in creating. Kessels (2001: 500) notes that in a learning organization, “The surroundings of employees should encourage them to take ini­tia­tive and to develop an individual perspective within the opportunities of the organisation’s strategic policy.” The issue of autonomy then is central to a learning organization. Continual learning means there will be continual change at all levels of an or­gan­iza­ tion, based on what is learned. Without focused learning on the ways the parts of an organization are interacting, change would result in discontinuity within an or­gan­iza­tion. Thus, there is a need for learning practices that hold continuous change together. Ackoff (1994: 23) notes that “The performance of a system is not the sum of the per­form­ance of its parts taken separately, but the product of their interactions.” Thus, a learning organization cannot focus solely on the learning of its parts, e.g., individuals, teams, departments, but must also learn how to improve the interactions between parts (see Hawkins, Chapter 12 in this volume). Importantly, in any organization where individuals are given the freedom to act, whether as individuals or as a team, positive interdependence must be supported. Johnson and Johnson (1999) explain positive interdependence as the tension that or­gan­ iza­tion members experience between wanting to act in ways that address their own individual needs, versus acting in ways that address the needs of the whole. Sustaining this tension over time cannot be left to chance. They specify five elements that sustain positive interdependence in groups: 1. Perceived positive interdependence, that is, the recognition that individuals will not succeed unless their colleagues do. 2. Considerable promotive (face-to-face) interaction, defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating each other’s efforts to achieve, complete tasks, and produce in order to reach the group’s goals. 3. Perceived individual accountability and personal responsibility to achieve the group’s goals.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

276   Nancy M. Dixon 4. Frequent use of the relevant interpersonal and small-group skills. 5. Frequent and regular group processing of current functioning to improve the group’s future effectiveness. In this chapter I have used Garvin et al.’s (2008) definition of a learning organization as consisting of (1) a supportive environment, (2) concrete learning processes and practices, and (3) leadership behavior that provides reinforcement. Each of these building blocks has subcomponents of illustrative behaviors that I have enumerated and that are illustrated and supported by other researchers. In the following two cases, I have described behaviors in each organization that correspond to these building blocks.

Kessels & Smit (K&S) Kessels and Smit (K&S) is a consulting firm based in Utrecht, the Netherlands with sister organizations in three other countries, Belgium, South Africa, and Germany. Some sixty consultants work with client organizations on strategy, change, workplace learning, leadership, and development. K&S was founded in 1996 by two education scientists, Joseph Kessels and Cora Smit, who after earning their Masters, worked for several years for a small company that produced teaching materials for schools and businesses. They found they did not like working for an organization that directed how they should do their work, or even what they should be interested in working on. They founded K&S on the simple principle that a hierarchical environment is not challenging for knowledge workers and the related principle of self-responsibility. What they created was a learning organization that has now been functioning as such for nearly twenty years. K&S call themselves the “Learning Company” because it is learning that is at the center of all of their work. They say, “Without learning, there is no growth, no improvement, no innovation.” K&S has a reputation in the Netherlands and Belgium for excellence that they maintain by staying at the leading edge of research and practice about learning. To maintain that leading edge, they are deliberate about reflecting together to learn from innovations they create with client organizations and about setting aside time to learn with and from each other. Before formally studying K&S I had periodic interactions with the organization over a period of ten years. I traveled to the Netherlands for a couple of weeks, every few years to work with their clients and to offer the K&S consultants my own growing insights about the learning organization. I wanted to conduct a formal study of them, knowing, from my visits, that they were an example of a learning organization. For the study, in 2014, I conducted twelve, hour-long interviews with the consultants during a two-week visit to K&S headquarters. I also took the opportunity to interact informally with the consultants and to observe them in their interactions with each other. The objectives of the study were to learn, (1) how K&S addressed organizational issues from a learning

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Glimpses of Organizations in the Act of Learning   277 organization perspective, (2) what processes they had put into place to support the organization learning, (3) the culture that supports the learning organization, and (4) the extent to which the principles of the learning organization that I had gleaned from the literature were present in their interactions.

Glimpses of a Learning Organization K&S consultants work on client projects in small ad hoc groups formed around topics of joint interest, for example, knowledge productivity or sustainable business. Each group or individual builds a clientele. They set their own fee structure with their clients and pay a percentage of that fee into K&S for common needs such as joint office space, equipment, invoicing, and marketing. Consultants work across a variety of industries, government, corporations, healthcare, and non-profits. Some consultants work at the K&S office, some at client sites, some out of a home office, and most use a combination of all three. In this structure, consultants have a great deal of autonomy. The K&S office building is open space, with no assigned offices other than for the clerical staff in the reception area. The building is an older style four-story, narrow building, a converted home. There are small rooms for teams to meet and larger areas with long tables where individuals set up their computers and other large spaces for group meetings. The kitchen area has a long counter where there are always fruit, pastries, candy, and several sophisticated coffee and espresso machines. Lunch is provided at this counter for group meetings. The kitchen is open to a garden with tables and benches as well as a path to walk among the plants and flowers. The kitchen/garden is the gathering space in the building. The following are some of the practices that support the learning organization at K&S:

K&S Days Every six weeks the forty K&S consultants living in the Netherlands come together for a “K&S day.” K&S days are a day of conversation held in several configurations, as a whole, in small groups, and in one-to-one meetings. The day provides time for necessary co­ord­in­ation and joint decision making but also for sharing client work, exchanging professional development ideas, and working on projects. The teams in other countries hold similar K&S days. Interviewees described a typical K&S day as starting with everyone in a circle and doing a “go-around” where each person shares how they are doing at a personal level. Some interviewees referenced this time as “sharing and caring.” Examples of the topics are, celebrating a new book written by a member, the kids coming for a visit, an exciting new project, sadness over a death or illness, and upcoming marriages. After the opening circle, the group turns to topics related to how the company is doing as a whole. These topics range from financial issues to a new learning theory, to upcoming conferences. A day or two before each meeting an email goes out to everyone to ask what topics need to be discussed. At the meeting, there are usually three or four discussion topics. Each consultant chooses which small group topic to meet with. Each group

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

278   Nancy M. Dixon reports back to the full group about what they discussed, which sometimes then ­generates a more extensive group discussion. The day ends with a closing circle. I asked each interviewee what they saw as the purpose of the K&S days. Although several themes emerged, the most consistent response was that the purpose was to connect. Esther explains, “Most important is just to stay connected with each other, and know what the other is doing. We are an organization. We want to stay connected with each other, and to the whole.” Paul echoes that, “The purpose is to connect and learn from each other and develop a common purpose—to feel a part of something of value that is part of ourselves.” As the quotes illustrate, the consultants valued being connected to each other, and they recognized that relationships need attention if they are to stay healthy. The meetings provide time to rejuvenate and repair the relationships between members and between each member and the whole. K&S days serve to affirm for members that they are part of an organization whose principles they value—a part of something that is larger than self.

Working Days In addition to the K&S days, once a year the full international organization meets for “working days.” These are three days of conversation to explore how K&S is working as an organization, to have conversations about where each member is in relation to the whole, and to think through what role each might want to play in the future. It is an opportunity to build new relationships and to renew old ones. Out of this collective sensemaking, new projects and new insights into current work emerge. The consultants apply their collective thinking to the challenges that K&S, as an organization, is facing, for example, how to bring on new consultants who do not yet have clients or how to deal with times of financial downturn that impact all consulting firms.

Roundtables During the year, roundtables of four to five consultants meet to work on issues that impact the whole organization, for example, finance, “care for people,” and ad hoc issues. A consultant volunteers to be responsible for each roundtable, which meets on an as-needed basis. Anyone who has an interest in that issue can join a roundtable meeting. Roundtables are a way for consultants to help take care of the company. Any issues that require the full organization’s agreement are then brought up at a K&S day or a working day. Interviewees acknowledged a tension, inherent in the way they work. The tension is between the need to focus on their own clients and interests and feeling responsible for the whole—the tension of autonomy vs. responsibility (Johnson and Johnson 1999).

Apple Trees The term “apple tree” comes from the early history of K&S when meetings were held under an apple tree in the home garden of Joseph Kessels, one of the founders. Apple trees are formed with people who share a mutual interest, e.g., appreciative inquiry,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Glimpses of Organizations in the Act of Learning   279 coaching, innovation. Apple trees form and reform over time as consultants’ interests change and grow. Apple trees are one of the ways new members get connected. An invitation to join K&S comes from an existing member who sees something unique or valuable in someone they have met. The existing member invites several other consultants to have a conversation with the potential colleague, perhaps several conversations over time. When others are positive that this is a person they would enjoy working with, a contract is signed. The contract is made between a new person and two or three consultants from an “apple tree.” As one interviewee explained, “An apple tree is a way to express mutual commitment and to guarantee that adequate people within the network will give effort to and take care of a colleague. One is connected to ‘everyone’ through the people in one’s apple tree. This way, the care for colleagues has a face, and the ‘bystanders’ syndrome’ (which means: everyone sees that someone is about to get in trouble, but no one acts upon it) is prevented.”

A Changeable Structure K&S considers itself a laboratory for learning how people can work together in ways that support individual growth and development while producing productive outcomes for their clients. The K&S organizational structure is not viewed as fixed; instead, there is a recognition that it should and will continually change. Consultants hold the view that there is not one right structure, in part because they see themselves as an ongoing ex­peri­ment in organizing. Paul notes, “We oscillate between face-to-face and virtual work, but we keep experimenting with how to connect and how to meet.” He continues, “If you find a structure that has been working, then it is not owned by the people because new people have joined and they did not create it.” What seemed most important to the consultants I interviewed were the K&S prin­ ciples on which the organization was founded, which in their view, could support a number of different structures. Esther says, “Every 6–7 years we need a new structure or formation. The economy is changing, and we need to change as well.” Joeri echoes that: “We need to reinvent ourselves and we are going to do that together.”

Confidence and Trust in Each Other Members trust other members of K&S to do what is right for the whole. They recognize that not everyone can be involved in every discussion or plan. For example, a group of members who wanted to take on the task of designing the K&S days for the next year first talked with other members on a one-to-one basis about the ideas they had. The reaction of others was supportive of their taking this role on. Barbara notes, “You give your trust that they will organize it well. I have the confidence that they will work it out and design it together.” Marloes provides another example of that trust: “When I was

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

280   Nancy M. Dixon first here, and a new person joined K&S, whom I did not feel connected to, I struggled to understand if that was okay. But now, when a new person joins I know I can trust the competence of my colleagues—that they have chosen the person for good reasons. I can trust that decision.”

Personal Relationships Members of K&S talk about the principle of “mutual attractiveness,” meaning that they value working with people whom they want to work. Arne explains, “I only want to cooperate with people whom I find interesting and who like to work with me too. The starting point for healthy working relationships is ‘mutual attractiveness.’ We work together because we can add something to the job and to each other, not because hier­archy forces us to. However, this also means making a constant effort to be an attractive colleague. And I don’t believe any regulation or structure can incorporate or replace this effort.”

Summary of the Learning Organization Practices of K&S • K&S days and working days provide the opportunity to reflect on what the or­gan­ iza­tion is doing and to make changes based on what is learned (Garvin et al. 2008; Schein and Schein 2018). • Particularly at working days, members seek to understand how effectively the parts of the organization are interacting and to improve that interaction where needed (Ackoff 1994). • There is a recognition that the K&S structure should and will continually change (Ackoff 1994). • The space is designed for chance meetings with others and informal gatherings which serves to increase the sharing of knowledge and to build and renew relationships (Block 2018). • Members experience psychological trust, based on building gradual trust through face-to-face meetings, such as roundtables, apple trees, K&S days, and working days (Edmondson 2012; Garvin et al. 2008). • Such meetings also allow members to learn about others’ capability, reliability, and integrity which are necessary for gradual trust (Nilsson and Mattes 2015). • The trust is enhanced by the practice of selecting new members for the or­gan­iza­ tion on the basis of mutual attractiveness (Kessels and Keursten 2002). • Members work within positive interdependence, sustaining the tension between engaging in tasks that benefit the whole, as well as those that benefit themselves as individuals (Johnson and Johnson 1999). • Members take initiative in building their own clients and work practice (Kessels 2001). • Members trust other members of K&S to do what is right for the whole.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Glimpses of Organizations in the Act of Learning   281 As a mature learning organization, K&S reflects all three of Garvin et al.’s (2008) learning organization blocks. K&S is particularly strong in block one, focusing on psychological safety, openness to new ideas, and practices that ensure time for reflection. The several quotes from K&S consultants attest to the level of trust K&S has developed. Block two is satisfied by the roundtables which represent a disciplined analysis to identify and solve problems, as well as both K&S and working days where the full consulting group shares knowledge and addresses new learning as well as issues the firm is facing. Block three, which references leadership behaviors, is not manifested through appointed leaders at K&S as there are no managers. However, behaviors such as questioning and listening to each other, affirming the importance of spending time on problem identification, knowledge transfer and reflective audits, and demonstrating a willingness to entertain alternative points of view, are recognized and reinforced by the members and the practices they have put into place.

Stichtse Vecht Stichtse Vecht is a municipality in the Netherlands lying in the northwestern part of the province of Utrecht. In 2015 a new city manager, Annette van Hussel, was hired and she brought in Annemijn van Bokhoven, an organizational development specialist. Through conversations with citizens and companies, they saw the need for the city government to become a modern, innovative organization; to be front-runners in community service. They saw themselves as partners with citizens rather that decision makers, feeling that it was important for citizens to be in control of their own environment. That was an enormous shift for the organization as well as the citizens. Together, the two became the change agents, to help the city government become a learning organization. I studied the Stichtse Vecht city government as it was beginning the third year of its change effort. I conducted interviews with the Annette and Annemijn as well as hourlong interviews with six other employees. The objectives of the study were similar to those for K&S and in addition to understand how an organization begins to move toward being a learning organization. The following are glimpses into the practices that were put into place during that period, understanding that the Stichtse Vecht city government, like K&S, is continually evolving:

Change Initiated by Employees Annette and Annemijn held the view that change needed to originate with the employees, rather than with themselves. With this understanding, they began to talk with individual employees about what needed to change as well as holding luncheons with five to ten employees at a time asking, “If you were a member of the board, what would you change? And what would you not change?” Often in those meetings when employees addressed their comments to them as leaders, they would respond, “You can speak among yourselves,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

282   Nancy M. Dixon not to us. We are just convening; we aren’t the deciders.” And as employees raised issues, the leaders would counter, “It is your need and you are in charge of it. What are you going to do about it?” This was, of course, viewed as strange behavior for leaders, so they got pushback from employees such as, “Where the hell are we going?” and “You’re the leaders, you should know where we are going.” To which one of the leaders would reiterate, “I don’t know, I’m not the one to answer the question.” The question the leaders kept asking was, “What can we all do together?” It took a year or more for many employees to accept their responsibility to make the change.

Internal Development Program Annette explains, “We started with an internal development program. We wanted our own people to become trainers. We don’t accept that the people here are not good enough.” She explained to the employees, “We are all more than the job we do at work. You are also a mom, an organizer, musician, or sportsman. We want you to bring those other parts of you to work and conduct workshops to share what you know with others.” They created a large poster to emphasize that idea. It was printed with the pictures of six employees on it, introducing each employee. It said: • Meet Marie she works in communications and is a singer. • Meet Glen he works in facilities and is a photographer. • Meet Simone she is an HR advisor and a model. • Meet Tom he is a data analyst and a neuroscientist. • Meet Pepijn he is a landscape coordinator and has his own company. • Meet Barbara she is a climate trainee and a professional violinist. • And who are you? The named employees and others began offering workshops; for example, Glen ran workshops on photography, Barbara started an employee orchestra, another employee offered cooking classes on healthy food, another on yoga. The idea was for employees to bring their passion to work. No outside trainers were used, but employees who had learned about Agile, Design Thinking, and Lean started holding workshops on those topics as well. Over a period of a year, the workshops built stronger relationships between employees. Stronger relationships resulted in employees collaborating more with each other and finding ways to assist each other. The leaders also made money available for individual development—any development an employee chose, as long as it was work related in some way. Annette and Annemijn also encouraged employees to work outside their own job description and team. They instigated the 70–20–10 rule, encouraging employees to work 70 percent of their time in their set job, 20 percent for another team, project, or teaching colleagues, and 10 percent on innovation. Although not a strict rule, it helped people change workflows and put to use the ideas they had. Annette says, “Everyone, no matter age or position, has something they love to do and the organization has to find that. Sometimes we were told, ‘That person won’t change,’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Glimpses of Organizations in the Act of Learning   283 but we were able to find what they love to do and those have become our best examples.” She quotes a Dutch saying, “ ‘A happy cow produces more milk.’ All of our colleagues are happier now.”

Hoteling Style Office Space Initially city employees were housed in three buildings. By the time I interviewed them they were all in one redesigned building. The redesigned building had open seating, with no assigned offices even for those of higher rank, but with many different space configurations for small groups and individual work. There were several coffee areas with tables for people to sit together. This open space has furthered close relationships between employees because everyone is visible to everyone else. Daily employees run into each other on the broad staircase or find themselves sitting next to someone they had been with in a workshop. The fact of members being more deeply and personally connected has encouraged them to work together.

Hiring Younger People and Increasing Autonomy Before the change began, the average age of city employees was 47. Within the first two years many employees under 30 were hired with the assumption that they would be more flexible, collaborative, and open about what they do. Many of the new employees were not hired for a specific job; instead, they were told to find out what needs doing and to create their own job based on it. Over the two years more and more employees did not have preset jobs or they did things in addition to their set job. The new norm is, “If you have a good idea then go with it.” An excellent example of taking initiative is Lennart de Vries, the team leader for service projects. He invites citizens who have complained about city services to come to the office. He invites one person at a time and spends the day with him or her. “We walk around the office and I explain the various functions and we have a good lunch. We talk mostly about the areas that the visitor complained about, for example, the streets are bumpy, or the grass is not mowed in areas. The meetings are not to solve the problem, they are to create communication between the government and the people. It is enlightening for me to hold the meetings because the citizens always give me great ideas. And it is gratifying to the citizen to be taken seriously.”

Change in the Organization Structure During the second year, the number of management positions was reduced and greater self-direction was afforded the teams. There had been some twenty-five departments, with a manager heading each. The new organizational structure is partly self-directed teams, with most having a coaching team manager. The team managers work together as a group and are responsible for most of the internal policy decisions. There are five program managers. The program manager’s role is defined as that of coach to the teams and responsibility for actualizing the five programs (Community, Safety, Social, Construction, and Organizational Development) with from three to six teams reporting to a program manager. Former department heads left or took a different role as program

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

284   Nancy M. Dixon manager. Because the building is more open, teams have much more contact with each other and are better able to work together to address the more complex problems that are occurring in the city. The program managers, directors, and aldermen meet weekly, as a workgroup, where any employee can bring a problem that the workgroup tries to help solve. This meeting demonstrates that management’s role is to help the employees to do their best work, not the other way around.

Involving Citizens At the beginning of the third year, having addressed internal change, the city focused on building greater citizen involvement. As the leaders had done with employees, getting citizens more involved started with conversations with citizens while also working to shift greater responsibility for solutions to them. As one example, when an area was designated for a park by the city, the city employees brought together the citizens who lived in the surrounding area, to hold a conversation about what the park should be, e.g., dog walk, kids’ playground, walking trails. City employees facilitated the conversation but were clear with the citizens about the extent of their responsibility, saying, “This is how much money we have to spend on a park, you decide what is most important to your community.” As one interviewee remarked, “It takes a completely different way of speaking.” In another example, after a local man died it was six weeks before city employees found him. The citizens were angry about it. But when the Mayor talked to them, he said, “I don’t live on this block, you do. It is your responsibility to take care of each other.” Annemijn notes, “The relationship with citizens is changing completely, from us knowing best, to asking the questions in much the same way that we made the change internally. There is a growing consciousness that you have to approach citizens in different ways.” In the past, most community meetings were held in the evenings, from 7 to 9 p.m. and were primarily attended by influential, older white males. But that is a time when most younger citizens cannot be there because they are putting children to bed. The City is working on developing new ways to communicate, especially using social media. Scrum is used for smaller projects where data can be collected and analyzed. Annemijn explains, “What works well we repeat, and what doesn’t we throw away and then reflect and try it again.” Those projects include: • Holding sessions in which a citizen explains a problem they have and then together, both citizens and employees try to find out what went wrong and how to fix the problem. Often those meetings use a process called design thinking, that involves employees, citizens. and commercial organizations in the community working together intensely for several weeks, and frequently resulting in very innovative products. For example, using design thinking an app was created to connect the people in the community who are looking for work, and the companies that are searching for people. Before the app, the city was trying to make the connections, but now citizens find each other through the app. Disciplined analysis to identify and solve problems.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Glimpses of Organizations in the Act of Learning   285 • The city holds monthly inspirational sessions where an innovative public speaker is invited to speak to both citizens and employees. Discussing the topic together afterwards helps citizens and city employees get to know each other. Annemijn explains, “We want to change from being the town hall, to being the hall of the town.” • Local young people working in the employee restaurant two days a week, again creating contact between civil servants and citizens.

Summary of the Learning Organization Practices of Stichtse Vecht • Responsibility for defining what internal change is needed is placed on the employees (Kessels 2001). • A new organizational structure encourages greater self-direction and initiative (Kessels and Keursten 2002). • Training is conducted by employees rather than bringing in trainers from the outside. The training builds internal trust, by making known the capability, reliability, and integrity of employees (Nilsson and Mattes 2015). • The leaders work with employees individually to help them find their passion to bring to the organization (Kessels and Keursten 2002). • The building has been redesigned to encourage relationships among employees, knowledge exchange, and collaboration (Block 2018). • Younger employees are hired to bring new ideas and flexibility into the or­gan­iza­ tion (Yang, Watkins, and Marsick 2004). • Many jobs are not preset, but are developed by employees (Hackman 2011; Yang et al. 2004). • The 70–20–10 rule encourages collaboration and innovation through positive interdependence (Johnson and Johnson 1999; Schein and Schein 2018). • Citizens are involved in new ways and have greater responsibility for finding their own solutions (Schein and Schein 2018). • Many projects bring together citizens and city employees to learn with and from each other (Schein and Schein 2018). • The leaders encourage many changes to take place at the same time, rather than relying on change occurring from one or two things (Ackoff 1994). Although the city government does not label itself a “learning organization,” the changes and initiatives implemented accurately reflect the three building blocks identified by Garvin et al. (2008). All three building blocks are reflected in Stichtse Vecht practices, but block three is particularly in evidence, e.g., the two leaders actively question and listen to employees, they signal the importance of spending time on problem identification, and demonstrate a willingness to entertain alternative points of view. Block one is

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

286   Nancy M. Dixon in  evidence in the openness to new ideas, specifically by hiring employees with the instruction to find out what needs doing, and the many employees that spend 20 percent of their time on projects outside of their set job. I saw less focus on psychological safety, although no evidence to the contrary. Block two was in evidence in the city’s work to identify and problem solve with citizens, but also in practices such as employees conducting training for their colleagues and the weekly workgroup meeting made up of program managers and team leaders which is designed to jointly address team and individual problems.

Discussion It is well understood that it is more difficult to change an existing organization culture than it is for a new organization to define its culture from the beginning. In part the latter is easier because the members who join the new organization are already in agreement with the culture; indeed, they may join it because of its culture. K&S has had this advantage. The city government of Stichtse Vecht has been in the former position. The two leaders have had the more difficult task of changing an existing organization. In the city government of Stichtse Vecht, the practices that were already in place and the expectations of employees supported the existing culture. Thus, some of the new practices of the city government were intentionally disruptive, for example, the leaders refusing to define the new culture, insisting that the training is done by employees, and restructuring the organization. In K&S the practices in place support the existing culture. The practices focus on maintaining the strong relationships that permit continual learning and change within a culture of psychological safety. A large part of the reason the K&S culture has been vi­able for twenty years is that their reflective practices (K&S days, and working days) provide a source of continual change. Perhaps because of the difference in where each organization was in the implementation time line, or perhaps because of their difference in mission, there was no overlap in the specific practices that each organization implemented to function as a learning organization, for example, employees conducting training or holding a day-long reflection meeting. This variety has allowed the author to identify a wealth of unique practices, adding this level of specificity to the learning organization literature. The three blocks of the learning organization identified by Garvin et al. (2008) are present in both organizations as well as learning organization principles identified in the learning organization literature by other like-minded researchers reviewed here: • The expectation that, given the opportunity, employees will take the initiative (Kessels and Keursten 2002). • The importance of working in an open space designed for chance meetings with others, and informal gatherings (Block 2018).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Glimpses of Organizations in the Act of Learning   287 • The belief that employees are smart enough to solve the organization’s problems (Edmondson 2012). • The recognition that employees are more productive if they pursue work that is of interest to them (Kessels 2001). • The understanding that knowledge workers do not function well in hierarchical environments (Kessels 2001). • The move toward self-responsibility and the reduction of hierarchy (Kessels 2001). • The focus on setting aside time to think/reflect together (Edmondson 2012; Schein and Schein 2018). • The idea that change is continuous rather than a one-time event (Ackoff 1994). • Processes that encourage positive interdependence (Johnson and Johnson 1999). In both organizations there is evidence of a fundamental principle of the learning organization, that employees have both the intelligence and the will to act for the good of the whole, which gives them the capability and the responsibility to fully participate in addressing an organization’s problems and guiding its strategy. That principle supports the 2001 prediction of Kessels and Keursten that in the twenty-first century, knowledge workers will take charge.

References Ackoff, R. L. 1994. The Democratic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Block, P. 2018. Community: The Structure of Belonging. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Dixon, N. 2017. “Learning Together and Working Apart: Routines for Organizational Learning in Virtual Teams.” The Learning Organization 24 (3): pp. 138–49. Dixon, N. M. 2018. “The Three Eras of Knowledge Management.” In Knowledge Management Matters: Words of Wisdom from Leading Practitioners, ed. J.  P.  Girard and J.  L.  Girard, pp. 19–47. Macon, GA: Sagology. Edmondson, A.  C. 1999. “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (2): pp. 350–83. Edmondson, A. C. 2012. Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Garvin, D.  A., A.  C.  Edmondson, and F.  Gino. 2008. “Is Yours a Learning Organization?” Harvard Business Review 86 (3): pp. 109–16. Hackman, J. R. 2011. Collaborative Intelligence: Using Teams to Solve Hard Problems. Chicago: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. 1999. “Making Cooperative Learning Work.” Theory into Practice 38 (2): pp. 23–36. Kessels, J. W. 2001. “Learning in Organisations: A Corporate Curriculum for the Knowledge Economy.” Futures 33 (6): pp. 497–506. Kessels, J. W., and P. Keursten. 2002. “Creating a Knowledge Productive Work Environment.” Life, Lifelong Learning in Europe VII (2): pp. 104–12. Nilsson, M., and J.  Mattes. 2015. “The Spatiality of Trust: Factors Influencing the Creation of  Trust and the Role of Face-to-Face Contacts.” European Management Journal 33 (4): pp. 230–44.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

288   Nancy M. Dixon Nonaka, I. 1994. “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.” Organization Science 5 (1): pp. 14–37. Schein, E. 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E., and P. Schein. 2018. Humble Leadership: The Power of Relationships, Openness, and Trust. Chicago: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Stasser, G. 1999. “The Uncertain Role of Unshared Information in Collective Choice.” Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge 49 (9): pp. 49–69. Yang, B., K. E. Watkins, and V. J. Marsick. 2004. “The Construct of the Learning Organization: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 15 (1): pp. 31–55.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

chapter 19

Pegasus or Cl ev er W hite Horse? I n Pu rsu it of R ea l Lea r n i ng Orga n iz ations Laurie Field

Introduction Pegasus, divine winged stallion of the gods, has featured in many Greek myths as an ideal, and his wisdom and attractiveness have been admired widely. Many accounts of  learning organizations are like that—an attractive ideal that is easy to admire. Nevertheless, if an investigator claimed to have evidence of Pegasus alive and living in a forest, the critical scrutiny that followed would certainly include questions about the criteria used to differentiate between Pegasus, seen from a distance, and a mere mortal white horse, as well as about the trustworthiness of the evidence. The same considerations apply to evaluating claims that an organization lives up to the learning organization ideal described by authors like Argyris and Schön (1978), Senge (1990), Marsick and Watkins (1994), and Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008). Many investigators have written enthusiastically about organizations that function as learning organizations, but the perspective taken in this chapter is that, to be taken ser­ious­ly, such claims need to (a) be based on clearly stated criteria that accord with scholarship surrounding learning organizations and (b) involve a trustworthy investigative approach that suggests the findings and conclusions are congruent with organizational reality (Merriam 1998). The concept of “trustworthiness” has a long history in interpretive studies in the social sciences, much of it resting on the work of Lincoln and Guba (e.g., 1985). These

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

290   Laurie Field authors propose four criteria for judging the trustworthiness of a research study, namely “credibility,” “transferability,” “dependability,” and “confirmability.” Of these four, cred­ ibil­ity holds a special place and is emphasized here. One could debate the extent to which the other three (particularly “transferability”) apply to claims about real learning organizations, but credibility is crucial not only in its own right but because it supports the other three criteria (Shenton 2004). For example, a credible account is less likely to be subject to researcher bias and, therefore, more likely to be “confirmable” (Patton 1990). Guba (1981) proposes a number of methods for increasing the likelihood that a study of social phenomena is credible, most notably prolonged engagement at a site; persistent observation; peer debriefing; triangulation of data sources and methods; collection of materials and their use to check the adequacy of interpretations; member checks; and accounting for internal conflicts or contradictions in data sets. Credibility requirements like “prolonged engagement at a site” and “persistent observation” have important impli­ cations for those making claims. If, for example, an investigator claimed that Pegasus was living in a forest in Greece, it would be reasonable to expect the evidence to include accounts by observers who had been to the forest. For the same reasons, in preparing for this chapter, accounts were sought from inves­ tigators who had spent time in the organization being reported on and had used at least one of Guba’s methods for achieving credibility. Other sought-after attributes included familiarity with learning organization scholarship and independence from the or­gan­ iza­tion under study, with this last requirement excluding accounts by anyone paid by the organization (e.g., company consultants or senior managers).

Locating Articles That Refer to Learning Organizations As a first step to finding credible accounts of real learning organizations, a search was conducted using Business Source Premier to identify refereed journal articles that referred to “learning organization” in the title or abstract and were published during the decade September 2008 to September 2018. This was supplemented by a search of Emerald journals (which includes a number focused on organizational knowledge and learning) with the same requirements and over the same period. The two sets of articles were combined, and duplicates were removed, as were articles not in English. Other articles were also culled at this stage because, despite referring to learning organizations in their title or abstract, this was not their focus. The set of ninety articles that survived culling was subject to a preliminary review of the article’s title, abstract, and content and, based on this, each article was classified using the schema shown in Figure 19.1. The first consideration was whether potentially trustworthy (and, in particular, credible) evidence was presented to support claims of the existence of a learning organization. It needs to be emphasized that this was not a general assessment

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

In Pursuit of Real Learning Organizations   291 Are claims made that a particular organization is a LO, supported by potentially trustworthy evidence?

How are LOs treated? 1 Treats LOs as an abstract concept, goal or ideal. No trustworthy evidence of actual LOs is provided.

No

2 Treats LOs as real, but no trustworthy evidence of LOs is provided. 3 Treats LOs as real, but the focus is on LO characteristics, their prevalence & relationships. No trustworthy evidence of LOs is provided.

Yes

4 Provides potentially trustworthy evidence and claims this implies the organization is a LO.

Figure 19.1.  Schema used to classify approaches taken to justifying “learning organization” (LO) claims.

of each article’s trustworthiness, but only of evidence relating to the existence of learning organizations. The second consideration was to establish exactly what was claimed—for example, to determine whether “learning organization” was treated as an abstract concept, goal, or ideal, or whether the claim went beyond that and asserted (with evidence) that some organizations really are learning organizations. The schema shown in Figure 19.1 was partly decided at the beginning of the investigation to reflect the requirements for clear criteria and trustworthy data discussed in the last section, and further refined during the review period to ensure that all articles that survived initial culling could be accommodated. Based on this preliminary review, the proportion of papers that fell into each response category is shown in Figure 19.2. The next section discusses the approach taken in each case.

Approaches Taken in Articles That Refer to Learning Organizations Of the ninety articles that survived initial culling, by far the largest proportion (57 percent) do not claim that learning organizations are real but, instead, treat the learning organ­ ization as an abstract concept, goal, or ideal. The main focus of articles in this group is to gauge progress towards this endpoint. Typically, conclusions are based on surveys of the perceptions of managers and/or employees about factors claimed to be associated with learning organizations, often using the Dimensions of a Learning Organization

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

292   Laurie Field 1. Treats LOs as an abstract concept, goal or ideal. No trustworthy evidence of LOs is provided.

57%

2. Treats LOs as real, but no trustworthy evidence of LOs is provided.

26%

3. Treats LOs as real, but the focus is on LO characteristics, their prevalence & relationships. No trustworthy evidence of LOs is provided.

9%

4. Provides potentially trustworthy evidence and claims that this implies the organization is a LO.

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 19.2.  Distribution of 2008–18 articles referring to learning organizations (LOs).

Questionnaire (DLOQ) (Marsick and Watkins 2003). For example, Jamali and Sidani (2008) use the DLOQ to “track progress towards the learning organization” and Stothard, Talbot, Drobnjak, and Fischer (2013) use part of the DLOQ to report on perceptions of learning culture within the Australian Army. The next largest group (26 percent) treat learning organizations as real, but don’t provide any trustworthy evidence. Thus, Rana and Goel (2014) claim that the Indian company, Ethan, is a learning organization, without providing any evidence or revealing the criteria used to reach this conclusion; and Maden (2012) discuss a conceptual model for transforming public organizations into learning organizations without anything to suggest that their model has produced real learning organizations. The remaining articles that survived initial culling were categorized into two groups, each accounting for 9 percent of the total. The first group treats learning organizations as real (again, without citing any evidence), but the focus is not on learning or­gan­iza­ tions per se but rather on characteristics claimed to be associated with learning or­gan­ iza­tions. These are often quantified using part or all of the DLOQ, and the relationship with other quantified organizational characteristics is considered. For example, Joo (2012) uses multiple regression analysis to examine the moderating effect of learning organization culture (measured by a short version of the DLOQ) on the influence of leader–member exchange on job performance. The final group of articles, again representing 9 percent of the total, not only refers to actual learning organizations, but supports these claims with evidence that, the pre­lim­ in­ary review suggested, satisfies at least some of the requirements outlined earlier for trustworthy data—for example, articles that (a) involve investigators who appear to have spent time in the organization under consideration; (b) apply at least one of Guba’s methods for achieving credibility; and (c) appear to be independent of the organization under study. This group of eight articles—shown in Table 19.1—therefore represents our best prospect of finding credible evidence from the last decade of real learning or­gan­iza­ tions. The next section considers each of these eight articles.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

In Pursuit of Real Learning Organizations   293

Table 19.1  Organizations claimed to be learning organizations Organization

Country

What definition or criteria are used as the basis for claims made about learning organizations?

Ameli and Kayes (2011)

DC Central Kitchen Partnership

North America

The authors assert that in a learning organization, culture, culture, strategy, vision, and the approach taken to knowledge management should all focus on learning. However, there is no discussion of the extent of focus.

Anggraeni et al. (2017)

University department

Indonesia

A learning organization is an organization whose members rate “learning environment,” “learning process,” and “leadership” (as gauged by the Learning Organization Survey (Garvin et al. 2008)) higher, on average, than the median ratings of a sample of senior executives in North America.

Chang et al. (2017)

Huawei

China

A model developed by the authors that, they assert, encapsulates organizational learning in the Chinese context. The extent to which an organization needs to align with the model in order to be classified as a learning organization is not considered.

Piggot-Irvine (2010)

School

New Zealand

The article does not discuss the basis for the claim that the school is a learning organization. Despite the Abstract claiming that the article “locates the school as a learning organization,” the term “learning organization” is not used in the body of the article.

Vieta (2014)

Four worker cooperatives

Argentina

The article does not reveal what criteria are used to support claims that the cooperatives studied are learning organizations, but hints that they relate to an organization (a) where people work and learn cooperatively, (b) that is attuned to members’ needs and skills, and (c) that is sustainable.

Voolaid and Ehrlich (2017)

Three university departments

Estonia

In a learning organization, employees give DLOQ items an average rating of more than 3 out of 6.

Wall (2010)

A Chinese family China enterprise

The article does not provide any information about the basis for the claim that the enterprise is a learning organization.

Wilson and Beard (2014)

Marks & Spencer England

In a learning organization, the organization’s strategy should align with Pedler et al.’s (1991) learning company blueprint. The extent of alignment is not specified.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

294   Laurie Field

Eight Possible Learning Organizations This section looks at each paper in turn, in order to gauge the credibility of the claims made about the existence of real learning organizations. Ameli and Kayes (2011): The conclusion that “at the organizational level, DC Central Kitchen partnership is a learning organization” (Ameli and Kayes 2011: 184) is based on limited data, namely an interview with the CEO and a senior manager, coupled with one of the author’s informal observations during volunteer work with the organization and use of partnership records. As a result, the evidence that the investigators’ criteria are met is very weak. For example, in relation to the requirement that “shared vision should focus on learning,” the authors acknowledge that DC Central Kitchen does not have a vision statement. The only evidence that shared vision focuses on learning is a brief comment about what happens when new volunteers begin work, together with claimed resonance between the CEO’s goals and “news articles, awards, and pictures hanging on the wall” (Ameli and Kayes 2011: 181). Anggraeni, Machfud, Maarif, and Harjomidjojo (2017): The investigators’ conclu­ sions are based on the responses of fifteen academics (a 39 percent response rate) from their department within an Indonesian university to the Learning Organization Survey (Garvin et al. 2008), supplemented by several interviews and focus groups. However, there is nothing to suggest that the claims about “learning organization” are justified. Not only is this a very limited data set, but the investigators misrepresent the intention of the Learning Organization Survey, which is to gauge progress towards becoming a learning organization rather than to confirm that an organization is a learning or­gan­iza­ tion. For reasons that are not revealed, Anggraeni et al. treat the median survey result from a sample of senior executives in North America (who were not necessarily from organizations where learning is recognized or valued) as the benchmark for classification as a learning organization. Because the average results of Anggraeni et al.’s study slightly exceed this benchmark, they claim that the department under study “can be considered a learning organization” (Anggraeni et al. 2017: 110). Chang, Ho, Tsai, Chen, and Wu (2017): This article relies on very questionable data, most notably an extended interview with the wife of a Huawei engineer, supported by analysis of official communications, published accounts by ex-Huawei managers, and magazine articles. The authors repeatedly refer to “Huawei’s development as a learning organization” without citing any additional evidence. Indeed, the Data Analysis and Findings sections do not refer to “learning organizations” at all, and none of the data presented meets the trustworthiness requirements outlined earlier. Piggot-Irvine (2010): This study involved data collected from various on-site sources, including a focus group, a survey, and document analysis, but no link is made between this data and the claim that the school is a learning organization.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

In Pursuit of Real Learning Organizations   295 Vieta (2014): Of the eight articles considered here, this is the only one that involves collection and use of a substantial body of field data. It draws on multiple visits that involve interviews, informal conversations, and observations. However, despite a title that refers to “cooperatives as transformative learning organizations” and the claim that cooperatives are “learning organizations at their core” (Vieta 2014: 194), the focus is on individual learning rather than learning organizations. There is no discussion about how learning organizations are defined, nor any consideration of the relationship between individual workers’ learning and organizational learning. No evidence is pre­ sented that the cooperatives are learning organizations, and literature and concepts commonly associated with learning organizations are not considered. Voolaid and Ehrlich (2017): This article is based on face-to-face administration of the DLOQ to a sample of employees across three departments at the authors’ university. In all, eighty-four completed questionnaires were obtained from a total population of 245 employees (34 percent response rate). The investigators apply a very low standard— namely, that an organization is a learning organization if, on average, employees rate DLOQ items above “3.” On that basis, they conclude that the three departments con­ sidered are learning organizations. There are serious flaws in this approach. DLOQ items range from “1—Almost never” to “6—Almost always,” so the mid-point is “3.5.” If a sample of employees gave every DLOQ item a rating of “3”—that is, below the scale’s mid-point—Voolaid and Ehrlich would conclude that the organization was a learning organization, which is clearly an unreasonable outcome. Not only that, but applying an arbitrary standard like this is inconsistent with how the DLOQ is intended to be used, namely, to gauge progress toward becoming a learning organization, and its originators, Marsick and Watkins, do not attach any particular significance to average ratings of “3.” Wall and Preston (2010): This paper is based on information collected by the first author, who is not only referred to a “lead researcher,” but also as a “consultant,” an “entrepreneur,” and a customer of the company under study, so it fails to meet the requirements for investigator independence outlined earlier. No details are provided of the criteria used to determine that the Chinese family enterprise considered is a “learning organization,” and no systematically gathered data is presented to support this claim. Indeed, use of the term “learning organization” appears to be an afterthought, and learn­ ing organizations are not referred to in the body of the article. Despite the article’s initial claim that “the owners catalyzed their business into a growing, environmentally con­ scious, learning organization” (Wall and Preston 2010: 77), the body of the article limits itself to a much more modest claim: that the author-consultants hope the company might become a learning organization in future but that, at the time of writing, it is only “mak­ ing progress toward becoming a learning organization” (Wall and Preston 2010: 88). Wilson and Beard (2014): The authors’ claim that a large retail company, Marks & Spencer, is a learning organization is based on their assessment of alignment between the company’s strategy and Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell’s (1991) learning company blueprint. This assessment is supplemented by twelve interviews with managers and staff and a site tour. There are many weaknesses in the approach taken in this article.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

296   Laurie Field Partial alignment of company strategy with learning company requirements, such as “individuals are rewarded for learning” (Wilson and Beard 2014: 107) or “the structure is flexible and organic so that changes can be made” (Wilson and Beard 2014: 107), does not say anything about what happens in practice; and the evidence provided of alignment is weak. For example, there is no direct evidence to indicate that the two requirements just mentioned are met, and the voice of employees is not heard at all in the discussion, even when considering items that relate directly to them, such as “all employees are involved with strategy formation” (Wilson and Beard 2014: 106).

Discussion Despite the care taken to find supportable accounts of learning organizations, close scrutiny of the eight articles shown in Table 19.1 led this author to conclude that none of them contain trustworthy evidence that the organization described even comes close to the learning organization ideal enthusiastically described by commentators like Senge (1990). The fruitlessness of this search suggests that, until there is trustworthy evidence to the contrary, learning organizations should be treated as an ideal, like Pegasus, rather than as something that ever really exists. Nevertheless, despite this finding and the overall decline in interest in learning or­gan­ iza­tions in recent years reported by Hoe (Chapter  2 in this volume), claims that an organization is, or is fast becoming, a learning organization seem likely to keep appear­ ing, particularly from scholars in Second and Third World countries. In the remainder of the chapter, I would like to consider what investigators can do to increase the likeli­ hood that such claims are taken seriously. As a minimum, the following four issues need to be addressed. Differentiating criteria. Reports of real learning organizations need to be based on criteria that allow one to differentiate between well-managed organizations where learning is encouraged, and organizations that deserve the label “learning organization.” In relation to the parallel challenge of finding credible evidence that Pegasus exists, a reviewer would be concerned if one claim was based on seeing a white animal, another on seeing an animal running fast, and yet another on seeing an animal jumping. Similar considerations apply to learning organizations. It is concerning that each of the accounts shown in Table 19.1 applies quite different criteria, highlighting the lack of agreement about what it means to claim that an organization is a learning organization. Existing schema, such as Örtenblad’s (2002) typology, and scales, such as Marsick and Watkins’ (2003) DLOQ, are of little help here because they aim for comprehensiveness and, as a result, encompass many aspects that apply to most well-managed or­gan­iza­tions, not just learning organizations—for example, Örtenblad’s “learning at work” category, and DLOQ items such as “My organization uses two-way communication on a regular basis . . . (item 20)” (Marsick and Watkins 2003). In contrast, what is urgently needed is for learning organization scholars to agree on a shortlist of criteria that establishes the boundary between what is, and what is not, a “learning organization.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

In Pursuit of Real Learning Organizations   297 In my view, two criteria are necessary and perhaps sufficient. First, establishing that an organization is a “learning organization” requires substantial evidence that both double-loop learning and deutero-learning (Argyris and Schön 1978) occur regularly and impact organizationally in significant ways. Örtenblad’s (2002) “organizational learning” category, and some of the items that Marsick and Watkins (2003) identify as “team or group” or “organizational” (e.g., items 16, 17, and 42) touch on this area, but not comprehensively. Second, the subtext of all popular writing about learning organizations is that, in a learning organization, the interests of the organization and its members are aligned, a requirement that the author has addressed in detail elsewhere (see, e.g., Field 2017, 2019). Aligned interests give organizational members a common stake in outcomes (see Schneper, Wernick, and Von Glinow, Chapter 15 in this volume), which supports the trust and commitment necessary for learning to be shared organizationally. Örtenblad’s (2002) typology does not refer to common interest or common stake, but DLOQ items that refer to “mutual need,” “alignment of vision,” “sharing,” “working together,” and “empowering others” (Marsick and Watkins 2003) touch on this area, although once again, not comprehensively. Criterion standards. For each criterion used to identify learning organizations, standards are needed. The analogous situation of searching for Pegasus makes this clear—how much white coloring does an animal need to satisfy claims about it being Pegasus? How high does it need to jump, and for how long? In the papers shown in Table 19.1, there is no common approach to criterion standards. Indeed, only two of the eight papers nominate specific standards (namely, Anggraeni et al. 2017; Voolaid and Ehrlich 2017) and, as shown earlier, the standards in both cases are unsupportable. Standards are also necessary to curtail the extrapolation that is a feature of many claims about learning organizations—for example, Chang et al.’s (2017) use of superficial data from one site to claim that a vast multi-site organization, Huawei, the world’s lar­gest telecommunications equipment manufacturer, is a learning organization. Or consider a fictitious example: a month-long investigation shows that the branch office of a multi­ national resembles a learning organization as it adjusts to new competitors in a local market. Such a study might produce interesting findings about that part of the organ­ ization during that period, but attention to standards about “place” and “time” would curtail the use of these findings to claim that the whole parent organization is a learning organization in perpetuity. Learning organization as modus operandi, not process. Claims of finding real learn­ ing organizations would be improved if authors stopped confusing the term “learning organization,” which refers to an organization’s whole modus operandi, with specific organizational processes such as “organizational learning.” The problem is not that the conceptual groundwork is lacking—for example, the distinction between the learning organization and organizational learning has been examined in detail (e.g., Örtenblad, 2001)—but that those writing about learning organizations are sometimes unaware of these conceptual foundations. For example, Lertpachin, Wingwon, and Noithonglek (2013) refer to “learning organization” in the same way they refer to “competitive advan­ tage,” and Lee, Ooi, Sohal, and Chong (2012) look at the relationship between “learning

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

298   Laurie Field organization” (sic) and Total Quality Management, as if the former were an area of management practice. Trustworthiness. Investigators seeking to establish that organizations are learning organizations should aim to meet the same kinds of requirements that apply to any trustworthy field investigation in the social sciences, including having a well-planned methodology and paying attention to data quality. Credibility is particularly important and requires, among other things, that those claiming to have found a learning or­gan­ iza­tion display at least basic familiarity with foundation learning organization con­ cepts, are financially independent of the organization under study, and have first-hand experience of it.

Conclusion This chapter has described the results of an extensive search for real learning or­gan­ iza­tions. After reviewing ninety articles from the last decade that refer explicitly to learning organizations, it identified eight potentially credible accounts. However, after close scrutiny, all of these were rejected, leading to the conclusion that no real learning or­gan­iza­tions exist, and that learning organizations are best treated as an ideal, like Pegasus. Nevertheless, claims that particular organizations are learning organizations or are moving in that direction are likely to keep appearing, and the chapter has proposed a number of ways that investigators could improve the trustworthiness of such claims. First, criteria need to be established to support differentiation between organizations which are, or are not, learning organizations, and two were suggested, namely, (a) doubleloop learning and deutero-learning should occur regularly and have significant impacts organizationally and (b) the interests of organizational members and the whole organ­ ization (or a clearly indicated subset of it) should be aligned, thereby providing a com­ mon stake in organizational outcomes. Second, investigators need to be explicit about standards—for example, how much double-loop learning and deutero-learning needs to be evident? How significant does the impact need to be? What types of interests need to be aligned, and over what period of time? Third, when presenting findings, investiga­ tors need to be aware that the term “learning organization” refers to the or­gan­iza­tion’s whole modus operandi rather than to specific processes or management practices. Fourth, in planning fieldwork, investigators should aim to meet the same kinds of requirements for collecting and presenting trustworthy field data that apply to other social science investigations. While the implementation of these suggestions would not change the conclusion reached in this chapter about learning organizations being a Pegasus-like ideal rather than something real, it would at least go some way towards addressing the substantial, recurring weaknesses that currently characterize claims that learning organizations really exist.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

In Pursuit of Real Learning Organizations   299

References Ameli, P., and D. C. Kayes. 2011. “Triple-Loop Learning in a Cross-Sector Partnership: The DC Central Kitchen Partnership.” The Learning Organization 18 (3): pp. 175–88. Anggraeni, E., M.  Machfud, M.  S.  Maarif, and H.  Harjomidjojo. 2017. “Contextual-Based Knowledge Creation for Agro-Industrial Innovation.” Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business 19 (2): pp. 97–122. Argyris, C., and D.  Schön. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Chang, L.-C., W.-L. Ho, S.-B. Tsai, Q. Chen, and C.-C. Wu. 2017. “Dynamic Organizational Learning: A Narrative Inquiry into the Story of Huawei in China.” Asia Pacific Business Review 23 (4): pp. 541–58. Field, L. 2017. “Interest Differences and Organizational Learning.” Administrative Sciences 7 (3): pp. 1–26. Field, L. 2019. “Habermas, Interests and Organizational Learning: A critical perspective.” The Learning Organization 26 (3). Garvin, D.  A., A.  C.  Edmondson, and F.  Gino. 2008. “Is Yours a Learning Organization?” Harvard Business Review 86 (3): pp. 109–116. Guba, E.  G. 1981. “Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries.” Educational Communication and Technology Journal 29 (2): pp. 75–91. Jamali, D., and Y.  Sidani. 2008. “Learning Organizations: Diagnosis and Measurement in a Developing Country Context: The Case of Lebanon.” The Learning Organization 15 (1): pp. 58–74. Joo, B.-K. 2012. “Leader–Member Exchange Quality and In-Role Job Performance: The Moderating Role of Learning Organization Culture.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19 (1): pp. 25–34. Lee, V.-H., K.-B. Ooi, A. S. Sohal, and A. Y.-L. Chong. 2012. “Structural Relationship between TQM Practices and Learning Organisation in Malaysia’s Manufacturing Industry.” Production Planning & Control 23 (10–11): pp. 885–902. Lertpachin, C., B.  Wingwon, and T.  Noithonglek. 2013. “The Effect of Marketing Focus, Innovation and Learning Organization on the Building of Competitive Advantages: Empirical Evidence from ISO 9000 Certified Companies.” Journal of Strategic Marketing 21 (4): pp. 323–31. Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Enquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Maden, C. 2012. “Transforming Public Organizations into Learning Organizations: A Conceptual Model.” Public Organization Review 12 (1): pp. 71–84. Marsick, V. J., and K. E. Watkins. 1994. “The Learning Organization: An Integrative Vision for HRD.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 5 (4): pp. 353–60. Marsick, V.  J., and K.  E.  Watkins. 2003. “Demonstrating the Value of an Organization’s Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 5 (2): pp. 132–51. Merriam, S.  B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Örtenblad, A. 2001. “On Differences between Organizational Learning and Learning Organization.” The Learning Organization 8 (3): pp. 125–33. Örtenblad, A. 2002. “A Typology of the Idea of Learning Organization.” Management Learning 33 (2): pp. 213–30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

300   Laurie Field Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne, and T. Boydell. 1991. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Piggot-Irvine, E. 2010. “One School’s Approach to Overcoming Resistance and Improving Appraisal: Organizational Learning in Action.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38 (2): pp. 229–45. Rana, G., and A. Goel. 2014. “Ethan Learns to Be a Learning Organization: Culture Change Prompts Greater Openness and Empowerment.” Human Resource Management International Digest 22 (6): pp. 12–14. Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Shenton, A.  K. 2004. “Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects.” Education for Information 22 (2): pp. 63–75. Stothard, C., S.  Talbot, M.  Drobnjak, and T.  Fischer. 2013. “Using the DLOQ in a Military Context: Culture Trumps Strategy.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 15 (2): pp. 193–206. Vieta, M. 2014. “Learning in Struggle: Argentina’s New Worker Cooperatives as Transformative Learning Organizations.” Relations Industrielles 69 (1): pp. 186–218. Voolaid, K., and Ü. Ehrlich. 2017. “Organizational Learning of Higher Education Institutions: The Case of Estonia.” The Learning Organization 24 (5): pp. 340–54. Wall, K. L., and J. C. Preston. 2010. “Action Research in the Development of a Chinese Family Enterprise.” Organizational Development Journal 28 (4): pp. 77–90. Wilson, J. P., and C. Beard. 2014. “Constructing a Sustainable Learning Organization: Marks and Spencer’s First Plan A Learning Store.” The Learning Organization 21 (2): pp. 98–112.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

Pa rt V

S T U DY I NG T H E L E A R N I NG ORGA N I Z AT ION

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

chapter 20

The Lea r n i ng Orga n iz ation Su rv ey: Va lidation of a n I nstrum en t to Augm en t R e se a rch on   Orga n iz ationa l Lea r n i ng Amy C. Edmondson, Francesca Gino, and Patrick J. Healy

Introduction The concept of the learning organization has received attention in the field of ­organizational studies for more than three decades (Garratt 1987; Garvin 1993, 2000; Örtenblad 2013; Senge 1990), yet researchers have developed few useful scales to measure learning within organizations and to further systematic empirical research on the topic.1 In part because learning is such a complex process, studies on organizational 1  The most widely cited instruments to measure learning organizations are the Learning Organization Profile (LOP) (Marquardt 1996), the Organizational Learning Survey (OLS) (Goh and Richards 1997), and the Dimensions of a Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) (Marsick and Watkins  1999). Building on this strong foundation, we offer an instrument for which psychometric properties and the processes used to develop it are reported and validated. In contrast, the psychometric properties of the LOP and the process used to develop it have not, to our knowledge, been reported and the psychometric properties of the OLS and DLOQ have been challenged (Chakrabarty and Rogé 2002; Kim, Egan, and Tolson 2015).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

304   Amy C. Edmondson, Francesca Gino, and Patrick J. Healy learning and learning organizations have lacked tools that can be used to trace, identify, or measure learning within an organization. Moreover, most writings in these areas tend to be prescriptive and unempirical (Moingeon and Edmondson 1996; Tsang 1997). This chapter reports on the development and validation of an instrument to measure several features that operationalize the notion of a learning organization: The Learning Organization Survey (LOS). Introduced by Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008), the LOS includes ten constructs, in three groups or clusters: (1) an organization’s culture or environment for learning, (2) its structures and learning processes, and (3) leadership guidance and support of learning. In the sections that follow, we present the results of two empirical studies conducted to assess the validity of the survey scales and discuss how researchers and practitioners can benefit from the use of this tool. Two main questions drove this work. First, can a survey be developed that incorporates elements—ideas and constructs—of learning organizations identified in the literature and has adequate statistical properties for use across varied organizational settings? Second, if so, what are the relationships among the various constructs in the survey? The chapter first briefly outlines the key features of learning organizations as identified in past research on organizational learning and learning organizations, and discussed in depth by Garvin et al. (2008). We then present two studies that document the creation and validation of the LOS, ultimately showing that it is a valid and reliable tool for measuring organizational learning across organizations or work units within the same organization. Finally, we discuss implications for future research and practice.

Features of a Learning Organization Prior work suggests that organizational learning is enabled by a culture and environment for learning, structured learning processes, and leadership that values and supports learning (e.g., Edmondson 1999, 2002; Garvin 2000; Senge 1994). Based on this past work, we developed and validated an instrument that measures these three organizational attributes. The instrument is designed to assess properties of an organization as a whole or of an organizational unit—an intact department or site within an organization. Using the instrument to measure learning of a unit inside an organization is typically preferable as prior research has found substantial variation in learning across work units within the same organizations (e.g., Edmondson 1996, 1999). Based on prior research on organizational learning (Argote 1999, 2013; Argyris and Schön 1978; Edmondson 1999; Dixon 1992, 1999; Garvin 2000; Huber 1991; Senge 1990; Tichy and Cohen 1997), we targeted the learning environment or culture, learning processes, and leadership for learning as three clusters of components of a learning organization—two of which are constructed of discrete constructs. The learning environment cluster consists of four constructs: psychological safety, valuing differences, openness to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

The Learning Organization Survey   305 new ideas, and time for reflection. The learning processes cluster consists of five constructs: experimentation, information collection, analysis, education and training, and information transfer. Finally, the leadership that reinforces the learning cluster is a single construct characterized by a set of behaviors including inviting input from others, asking probing questions, and listening attentively. We define each construct in Table 20.7 and list the specific items used to measure each in Table 20.8. For further discussion of the three clusters and their sub-components, see Garvin et al. (2008). Our three learning organization clusters are mutually reinforcing and to some degree overlapping. Just as leadership behaviors help to create and sustain supportive learning environments, so too do supportive environments enable learning processes to function smoothly and efficiently. Similarly, learning processes provide settings and opportunities for leaders to display learning behaviors and cultivate them in others. For these reasons, we would expect scores on the three building blocks to be at least partially correlated within any given organization. Moreover, organizations (and departments and groups) that wish to foster learning need not all focus on the same levers. Organizations are likely to place differential emphasis on environment, processes, or leadership, a choice that could be determined by such idiosyncratic factors as culture, history, or other capabilities. The result of such different endeavors might well be a wide variety of different learning profiles.

Testing the Validity of the Los The LOS was designed to allow researchers to examine relationships among the various constructs that assess the level of learning within and across organizations. Responses collected with the LOS can help scholars and practitioners gain a deeper understanding of the extent to which an organization is functioning as a learning organization. The survey may also be used to gain insights into differences across industries, firm types, and even countries, thus enabling better understanding of factors affecting organizational learning. First, we examine the psychometric properties of the LOS. Two stages of field testing were conducted in the instrument development process to ensure the reliability and content validity of the scales. At each stage, employees (managers and front-line staff) from different organizations filled out the survey, which asks questions about factors that influence learning as reflected in their organization or work group. A total of 130 participants from two organizations responded to the first version of the survey in the first stage; 302 participants from two populations participated in the second stage and version. All participants completed the LOS survey online. We then coded their responses and analyzed them using the SPSS and AMOS programs. Item analysis procedures were performed at each stage. Reliability testing enabled revision of each version of the survey into its final form. Analysis of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for each scale

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

306   Amy C. Edmondson, Francesca Gino, and Patrick J. Healy identified items with low item-total correlations (Cronbach  1951). These items were replaced or revised in later versions with an overall eye toward content validity. Field tests continued until acceptable reliability and content validity were achieved.

Study 1: Initial Validation Sample. The primary sample used for construct validation consists of 432 subjects from a nonrandom sample from multiple organizations. This sample included people working in the service sector, in manufacturing, and in government or other public organizations. Annual organizational revenue varied from less than $2 million to more than $100 million. The respondents’ roles in the organization included senior management, middle management, supervisors, technical professionals, and hourly employees. Data analysis. The goal of this round of analysis was to examine the construct reliability and validity of the theory-based constructs comprising the learning organization. Several techniques were employed to determine a final version of the instrument with adequate psychometric properties and demonstrable construct validity. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was selected to assess the construct validity for the measure of dimensions of the learning organization because it examined whether the proposed dimensions of the learning organization had attributes that could provide organized interpretations of learning behaviors. Data analysis consisted of two distinct phases. Because the total data pool was relatively large and data were collected from different organizations, samples from different populations were analyzed separately to provide a means of cross-validating the results. Thus, in Phase 1, we analyzed samples from two organizations: The World Bank Group (N = 44) and OR Manager, Inc. (N = 86).2 These two samples were designated as exploratory and confirmatory samples. In Phase 2, we refined some of the scales of the survey based on the results of Phase 1. In Phase 2, we analyzed samples from two other populations: the Advanced Management Program (AMP) (N = 100) and the Wildland Fire Community (N = 202).3 The reliability for the measures of the learning organization was estimated for both the initial and refined instruments. 2  The World Bank Group sample consisted of 44 newly promoted leaders attending an executive education program at The Harvard Business School. All respondents in this sample were either new functional leaders or country managers. The OR Manager, Inc. sample consisted of 86 directors, vice presidents, editors, managers, and other employees from OR Manager, Inc., an organization that serves perioperative leaders and other healthcare professionals involved in the management of operating rooms. 3  The AMP sample consisted of 100 leaders from a range of organizations and geographies attending an executive education program at The Harvard Business School. All respondents in this sample were executive-level managers or above in their organizations. The Wildland Fire Community sample consisted of 202 public sector employees from Wildland Fire Community (WLF), an organization tasked with managing controlled burns and wildfires. Respondents in this sample consisted of individuals on top-level incident management teams (IMTs), ground-level firefighting crews (FCs), and everyday working units (EWUs), the responsibilities and learning needs across teams varying greatly.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

The Learning Organization Survey   307 Examining instrument reliability. A number of measurement models have been proposed to estimate the reliability of a scale (Lord and Novick 1968), the most common being Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Cronbach  1951). As shown in Table  20.1, the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha reliability estimates for the three clusters of a learning organization were high, ranging from 0.795 to 0.947. Similarly, as shown in Table 20.2, Cronbach’s alpha for each of the constructs within each cluster of the LOS were acceptable. Descriptive statistics and convergent validity. Table 20.3 and Table 20.4 present univariate statistics and correlations among constructs included in the LOS. Although Table 20.4 reports the results for analyses conducted on data from the WildLand Fire Community, the nature of the results does not change when we use data from other surveyed organizations. In general, all of the subscales had nearly one 1.5 standard deviation on a 7-point scale, thus showing adequate variation to capture variability among different work units in the same organization. All of the correlation coefficients were significant at the level of p ≤ 0.01, indicating strong convergent validity of the subscales in assessing each target learning organization construct. Overall, these correlations suggest adequate convergent validity for all constructs; only a few correlations were high (higher than 0.70), but even those were not high at each of the levels measured.

Table 20.1  Reliability analysis for LOS aggregate constructs

Learning Environment Learning Processes Leadership for Learning

World Bank

OR Manager, Inc.

AMP

Wildland Fire Community

0.795 0.863 0.798

0.823 0.947 0.901

0.782 0.939 0.821

0.900 0.947 0.928

Table 20.2  Reliability analysis for LOS constructs

Psychological safety Valuing differences Openness to new ideas Time for reflection Experimentation Information collection Analysis Education and training Information transfer Leadership

World Bank

OR Manager, Inc.

AMP

Wildland Fire Community

0.673 0.581 0.649 0.390 0.746 0.879 0.727 0.811 0.798 0.798

0.656 0.523 0.789 0.525 0.841 0.854 0.836 0.924 0.921 0.901

0.644 0.548 0.593 0.552 0.720 0.880 0.797 0.873 0.892 0.821

0.783 0.503 0.850 0.633 0.828 0.888 0.856 0.924 0.924 0.928

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

308   Amy C. Edmondson, Francesca Gino, and Patrick J. Healy

Table 20.3  Means, standard deviations, and zero-order intercorrelations Variablesa 1. Psychological safety 2. Valuing differences 3. Openness to new ideas 4. Time for reflection 5. Experimentation 6. Information collection 7. Analysis 8. Education and training 9. Information transfer 10. Leadership

N

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

202 202 202 202 201 192 197 202 202 202

5.05 4.22 5.27 4.27 4.28 4.26 4.34 5.46 4.71 4.88

1.19 1.50 1.56 1.21 1.32 1.46 1.51 1.33 1.39 1.24

.54 .76 .59 .57 .35 .63 .53 .65 .70

.53 .52 .44 .32 .57 .38 .49 .49

.59 .59 .36 .65 .53 .63 .71

.52 .46 .66 .49 .61 .58

.53 .58 .47 .57 .45

.47 .28 .48 .34

.59 .79 .71

.67 .47

.70

Note: All correlation coefficients are significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed). a Each dimension is measured by seven-point scale.

Table 20.4  Reliability analysis for LOS constructs for Wildland Fire Community Wildland Fire Community Psychological safety Valuing differences Openness to new ideas Time for reflection Experimentation Information collection Analysis Education and training Information transfer Leadership

0.860 0.780a 0.885 0.827 0.797 0.844 0.853 0.922 0.917 0.922

a If item 3 is deleted then α = 0.780; otherwise, with all 4 items measuring valuing differences, α = 0.694.

Study 2: Further Validation of LOS with a Large Healthcare System Sample We conducted further validation with a large sample of employees from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). At the time the data were collected, the VHA had set a transformational goal of becoming a first-class learning organization. As a preliminary step toward achieving this goal, senior leaders from the VHA Employee Education

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/22/2019, SPi

The Learning Organization Survey   309 Office and the VHA Office of Academic Affiliations asked Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN, geographic groupings of VHA hospital facilities) and facility executives to complete the LOS for the purpose of establishing a baseline view of leadership’s perceptions of the current status of the VHA as a learning organization. Sample. Leaders from the 21 VISNs and 142 hospital facilities in the following executive positions were invited to participate in the survey: VISN directors, VISN Chief Medical Officers (CMO), Facility Directors, Facility Associate Directors (AD), Facility Chiefs of Staff (COS), and Facility Nurse Executives. Also included in the sample were the VISN and facility-level designated learning officers (DLO), who are the individuals responsible for coordinating the ground-level efforts related to the goal of transforming the VHA into a first-class learning organization. The response rate to the survey was 67 percent (N = 542). Descriptive statistics and instrument reliability. Table 20.5 shows means and sample sizes for individual occupations. Means of groups with fewer than ten respondents are not reported for the sake of union-negotiated protection of confidentiality. Internal consistency for the VHA sample, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, is reported in the last column of Table 20.5 for the three clusters of a learning organization and the nine subscales. The cluster alphas were quite high, ranging from 0.922 to 0.951. Alphas for the nine subscales were also high, ranging from 0.714 to 0.898, with only one falling below 0.815. Values reported are for standardized items as appropriate for items averaged to form a scale. Data analysis. As the primary purpose of administering the LOS in the VHA was to survey perceptions of leadership, our analysis examined differences between occupation groups in their responses to the survey—specifically, between the facility DLOs responsible for coordinating change and the individuals who make up the facility-level leadership teams, which consist of a facility director, facility associate director, facility chief of staff, and a nurse executive. These individuals represent the  groups of people who will work together toward the transformational goal; ­little  ­substantive change can occur at individual facilities without input from the leadership team. A one-between ANOVA for each of the LOS scales examining the ­differences between occupation groups indicated significant differences between occupation groups for each of the scales examined. Table 20.6 displays the results of the ANOVAs. Follow-up tests conducted for the differences between facility DLOs and the facilitylevel leadership indicated highly significant differences between DLOs and the individuals who comprise leadership teams. These differences are consistent with the results of internal VHA surveys examining executives and lower-level employees in areas such as job satisfaction, organizational culture, and other organizational climate variables. These parallel findings indicate adequate discrimination between groups known to differ in their organizational perceptions and provide further support for the LOS.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Total

Reliability

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

α

Learning Environment Climate for Learning Valuing Differences Openness to New Ideas Time for Reflection

-

1.22 1.52 1.37 1.27 1.10

-

0.82 0.65 0.89 0.90 1.45

4.90 5.34 4.85 5.76 3.81

1.02 1.29 1.38 1.22 1.16

5.03 5.40 5.16 5.48 4.21

0.96 1.26 1.08 1.22 1.32

4.96 5.37 4.85 5.49 4.22

0.92 1.12 1.12 1.19 1.17

4.97 5.44 5.05 5.48 4.04

1.02 1.22 1.08 1.17 1.31

4.93 5.40 4.70 5.27 4.39

1.13 1.28 1.23 1.37 1.35

4.31 4.79 4.13 4.85 3.54

1.01 1.19 1.17 1.27 1.16

4.73 5.13 4.74 5.31 3.86

1.15 1.36 1.25 1.34 1.40

4.82 5.25 4.76 5.32 4.02

1.06 1.26 1.22 1.28 1.30

0.922 0.831 0.714 0.858 0.815

Learning Processes Experimentation Information Collection Analysis Education and Training Information Transfer

-

1.25 1.43 2.07 1.40 1.41 1.49

-

1.05 1.87 0.92 0.76 1.64 0.82

5.38 5.17 5.53 5.13 5.56 5.38

0.99 1.28 1.35 1.30 0.98 1.11

5.34 4.97 5.34 5.32 5.54 5.37

0.86 1.26 1.10 1.09 1.08 0.94

5.14 4.78 5.28 5.03 5.32 5.14

0.96 1.26 1.20 1.12 1.02 1.12

5.34 4.87 5.45 5.30 5.58 5.35

0.84 1.30 1.05 1.10 1.00 0.97

5.35 4.84 5.57 4.80 5.81 5.43

0.94 1.38 1.04 1.21 1.02 1.07

4.56 4.15 4.78 4.20 4.94 4.54

0.93 1.27 1.18 1.19 1.17 1.13

4.88 4.36 5.13 4.91 4.93 4.89

1.09 1.30 1.31 1.12 1.39 1.24

5.09 4.67 5.24 4.90 5.35 5.11

0.99 1.33 1.20 1.21 1.16 1.13

0.951 0.859 0.855 0.828 0.886 0.898

Leadership

-

0.77 -

N