chapter 2 2.0 literature reviewshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/22386/6/06...2.0...

lli68

Chapter 2

2.0 Literature Review

The organisation of learning in organisations has been the popular theme of

allure and fancy for the new breed of HRD professionals and savant CEOs

(Senge, 1980; Mumford, 1994). The confluence of organisalion structure and ils unique

manifestations have, however, not been cogently reviewed and analyzed Literature

assumes the learning process and measures its outcome as an evidence of learning.

Thus the unique manifestations of structurally determined processes are to be

delineated for the purposes of c1arirying the objectives of the study.

2.1 Organization Structure

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, capitalist producers had social and

economic aspirations controlling the technology of production and collecting their dues

(profit) from the expanse of their markets. Socioeconomic realities bear close

interaction with the socio-political realities in which they emerge. With the increasing

pace of democratization of world politics, the challenge today is in inventing structural

forms to complement worldwide organizational networking and strategic performance;

over and above financial effectiveness (Chandler, Hagstrom & Siovell, 1998).

Alongside industrial growth, sparked by scientific inventions; a new set of

sciences about society emerged. Collectively referred to as the social sciences, the

fields of enquiry now specialize in sociology, psychology, economics and anthropology

(bearing direct influence on management of the firm) on the one hand; and history,

geography and administration (civics) on the other (See Table 1) Weber's theory of

bureaucracy for example finds a place in studies by sociological thinkers; historians and

political scientists. Bureaucracy as a functional theory appears a result of the tensions

of socio-economic organization and the rationale of social accountability manifest in

efficiency. Bureaucracy served single product organizations well, as long as the

markets for the produce existed. Division of labor, unity of command, authority and

responsibility, span of control and departmentalization further entrenched itself in

organization thinking with the first prints on SCientific Management, (Cherrington,

1989) courtesy FW Taylor, engineer at Midvale Steel and later Bethlehem Steel. The

uncertainty minimizing or 'environment taming' tendency is laced together by the

reductionist logic of time and motion study and specialization oflabor. Taylor is still

Research Project 12/68

revered by managers for his elucidation of 'responsibility' in organization. Khandwalla

(1977) identified three functions of organization structure, viz.;

I. mechanisms to reduce external and internal uncertainty

2. undertaking wide variety of activities, through departmentalization, division of labor,

delegation of authority

3. Coordination.

Table I: The Core Concerns of Social Sciences and Core Questions for NamzatlOna nalvsls Q I A I .

Social Science Core Concerns Questions for Organizational Analysis

Economics Allocation of Society's How do organizations make decisions scarce resources to regarding the allocation of their resources"

. alternative ends Political Science The legitimate and non- How IS power handled III organizations?

legitimate use of power With what consequences? Coercive, Normative, Utilitarian modes of control (Ideology of Organizational Elite), SIze, technology, business environment

Sociology The Structure and What are the anatomical and physiological Functioning of Society properties of the organization, as a social

system? Order, disorder, stability, continuity, change

Social Psychology The behaviour of human What are the organizational implications of beings in a social settinK different models of the human being?

Source: Khandwalla PN (1977) Organizational Design, Harcourt Brace JovanoVIch, Toronto, p42.

Structure has been the focus of the modern social institution of the business

organization for around five uninterrupted academic decades. Formal structures were

given significant attention since the Woodward studies, when the revelation of

organizational structure serving the technical production system came as an unexpected

surprise. Lawrence & Lorsch (1967) found evidence to substantiate that environmental

stability affected the choice of organization structure. The more complex the firm's

environment, the more informal and situationally relevant decision making rules that

prevailed in the firms under study. A decade later, Khandwalla (1977) in an extensive

study of Canadian firms and US found even more complex relationships between

structure and technical system, size and environment than had been indicated

previously. Mintzberg broke from such empirical tradition .in 1979, to differentiate the

researchability of organization structure to its synthetic theorization. In his book ,

Mintzberg (1979) identified six design principles around which almost all kinds of


organizations known to exist then could configure themselves. These principles include

I) mutual adjustment (coordination) 2) direct supervision 3) standardization of work

processes 4) standardization of work outputs 5) standardization of skills and 6)

standardization of norms (beliefs). These configurations are well known, depicting the

early capitalist entrepreneur in Simple Structures, and the modern complexity

confronting business conglomerate as Adhocracy. Depending on the design parameter,

the configuration of the firm could evolve from the Simple Structure into a Machine

Bureaucracy, a Professional Bureaucracy, a Missionary, or a Divisionalised Form.

Mintzberg suggested of this theorization that hybrids of these configurations are likely

to describe the reality in organizations. Formal organigrams of these configurations

included the matrix organization, the divisionalised structure, the functional, regional

and product departmentalization and process departmentalization.

Mintzberg;s theory provides researchers a framework to decipher the

functioning of organizations, to understand what really happens inside the organization,

because of the structure. Miller (1983) later attempted to give empirical credibility to

Mintzberg's structural frameworks for at least three types of firms, - the Simple

Structure, The Machine Bureaucracy and the Adhocracy. Organicity of the Adhocratic

structure found consistent relationship with the studies of Lawrence and Lorsch,

reconfirming the differentiation and integration functions of Organization Structure.

The theme of organicity is similar in the works of Khandwalla (1977), Miles and

Snow's (1979) Analyzers, and Bums & Stalker (1961(See Table If). Two broad

structural systems emerged in empirical studies, since the observations of Bums &

Stalker on twenty industrial firms in England. They are a) the Mechanistic Structure -

characteriesed by environmental stability, strong internal authority centralised by rules,

procedures and clear hierarchy of authority and b) Organic Structures - characterised

by rapidly changing environments, adaptive, free flowing and spontaneous internal

environment. This scale of structural identity (Khandwalla, 1977) later got the title of a

Universal Theory of Organization Design (Cherrington, 1989, p 526), because of its

represntativeness of five major design issues; namely division of labor,

departmentalization, span of control, delegation of authority and coordinating

mechanisms. Researchers started to explore associated phenomena of Organization

Structure such as Entrepreneurial Top Management Style (Covin & Slevin, 1988),


Strategic Mission (Covin, Slevin & Schultz, 1994), Automation (Parthasarathy & Sethi,

1992) and Knowledge Management (Hedlund, 1994) These studies are known to tend

towards the objective representation of reality, and therefore formal in nature. They

also imply in some sense that Organicity in firms is associated with advanced

information processing capability (learning) to deal with the extensive diversity of the

firm's environment Organic structures facilitate involvement in decision-making, which

affects the implementation offirm strategy.

Barr, Rao et al (1997, p!38) suggest that in alliance formation too, managers'

(informal) interpretations of concepts in their organizations could influence the (formal)

interpretation of the alliance itself. The cycle of interpretation, action and interpretation

shapes the belief system in the organization. The informal structure is also known to

researchers themselves since the Hawthorne studies (bingers and rate-busters) and the

behavioural interventions of organization scientists like Dowling (1978) and Argyris

and Schon (1978). Employees in organizations tend to carry subjective interpretations

of their organizations in their minds (Mintzberg, 1979, p468). The organizational

structures which become inexplicable from the formal perspective of organization

structure are therefore yet to receive comprehensive theoretical interpretation. Scant,

almost fleeting attention has in fact been made, although not from the perspective of

informality, but from the viewpoint of alternative structures for organization

development interventions (Rubinstein & Woodman, 1984). The parallel organization

structure (drawn from the rearrangement of formal organization employees) of

Organization Development interventions offer almost an antithesis of formal

bureaucratic (Weberian) organization; which include fewer levels of authority, multiple

links between employees cutting across hierarchy, rotational or flexible job

assignments, and significantly the opportunity to analyse and invent knowledge, while

also addressing the efficiency objective.

The strategy-structure framework evidently continues to engage the attention

of theorists. Environmental dynamism, it appears has reached a point of complexity,

wherein the dimensions of time, (Hagstrom & Hedlund, 1994) innovation and

intraprneurialism (Scott , 1998, P 183, Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998) have reached a

confluence of compulsive engagement on organization structure. What is significant is

therefore, how structure is perceived by the employees who inhabit it and are supposed


to use it for economic and social purposes ( Nadler, Gerstein & Shaw, 1992) This is a

concern area of this study.

Table II: Characteristics of Mechanistic and Organic Systems

Mechanistic System (appropriate to stable conditions)

The specialised differentiation of functional tasks into which the problems and tasks facing the concern as a whole are broken down. The abstract nature of each individual task, which is pursued with techniques and purposes distinct from those of the concern as a whole The reconciliation for each level of the hierarchy of these distinct performances by the inunediate superiors The precise definition of rights and obligations and technical methods attached to each functional role

The translation of rights and obligations and methods into the responsibilities of a functional position A hierarchic structure of control, authority, and conununication

A reinforcement of the hierarchic structure by the location of knowledge of actualities, exclusively at the top of the hierarchy.

Organic Systems (apj1J"opriate to chaneine conditions)

The contributive nature of special knowledge and experience to the conunon task of the concern The realistic nature of the individual task which is seen as set by the total situation of the concern as a whole The adjustment and continued redefinition of individual tasks through interaction with others

The shedding of responsibility as a limited field of rights, obligations and methods. Thus problems may not be avoided as someone else's responsibility The spread of commitment to the concern beyond any technical definition

A network structure of control, authority and conununication. Sanctions derive from presumed community of interest with the rest of the organization. Knowledge about the technical or conunercial nature of the task may be locked anywhere. This location becomes the ad-hoc centre of authority and communication.

Adapted from: Bums T & Stalker GM (196 J) The Management of Innovation, . . Tavistock, London, pp 120-122.

2.2 Strategic Posture

The concept of strategic posture is sparsely attended to in strategy management

literature. Covin, Slevin & Schultz (1994) have considered the risk taking propensity of

the top management with regard to investment decisions and strategic actions in the

face of uncertainty; the extensiveness and frequency of product innovation and the

related tendency towards technological leadership, and the pioneering nature of the

1\t:'.)t;'Uft..,{' J flljCl.'

16/68

firm as evident in the firm's propensity to compete with industry rivals aggressively and

proactively. The more risk-taking, proactive and pioneering the firm, the more

Entrepreneurial as opposed to Conservative its strategic posture. Stacey (1993)

considered posturing apart from positioning ,to be a firm's competitive performance

characteristic. In static analysis of the firm, Stacey conceives posture to refer to the

composition of the firm's activities in terms of product lines and markets operated in ;

the technologies on which those activities are based ; the manner in which the

organization is structured and controlled , and the predominant shared behaviors or

culture of the people in the organization This is thus a sharp departure from the

posture perspective empirically derived thus far. Stacey's differentiation of posture

from the innovation, risk-taking , pioneering and proactiveness perspective (Miller,

1983; Zahra,1991) has to do with the viewpoint from the organization's boundary.

Posture in this sense is the inward looking view of the organization from its boundary.

Thus the differentiation of posture from structure is imminent in the recent writing on

strategy, a reason probably for lack of empirical and theoretical substantiation in this

respect. Evidence of posturing as a process characteristic of strategy as opposed to the

content feature of strategy is also sparse.

2.3 Learning

Learning has often been the province of educational and developmental

psychology, freeing itself seldom for organizational analysis and interpretation. There is

however a broad realization that no organizational level learning can take place, unless

individuals themselves undergo unique and personalized learning experiences which

they acquire by virtue of their employeeship. The review of learning however, cannot

progress without the knowledge of the existing streams of learning theory and the

coexisting organizational and social learning perspectives.

2.3.1 Individuallearning

Overt behaviours of humans are resultant outcomes of the process of learning.

The process matures as a result of the individual's interaction with his environment ,

which is ambivalent and vast. Inborn features of individuals such as the amount of

stimulation an individual requires , as sensed by the human brain's reticular activating

system (RAS) affect the amount and variety of thinking the human nervous system can


balance with its interactive environment (Hayes, 1994) . Personality traits theorists like

Eysenck have indicated that introverts take longer to condition a stimulus, but retain it

longer than extroverts, who wish to be conditioned by as many newer stimuli as is

required to achieve an acceptable level of brain functioning. The Brain Dominance

Theory has recently become basis of popular literature in management (Hermann, 1996,

Leonard & Strauss,1997). The theory broadly explains that the left brain is devoted to

processing of logical data, analytical reasoning, rule seeking and problem solving. The

right brain is the centre for data on music, speech and such synthesizing activities,

requiring integration of apparently discrete pieces of data. Mintzberg (1989) first

explored the brain dominance theory on planning and strategy making in firms, and

went on to argue that planning is analytical, whereas strategy-making is a synthetic

process (Mintzberg, 1994).

Two broad processes - classical and respondent conditioning explain the

maintenance of motor, verbal, cognitive and emotional responses. These concepts

known as behaviorism in learning, are based on the study by Russian scientist Pavlov

and the American scientist Skinner. Another concept known as vicarious learning or

modeling based on direct observation and experience of the individual learner was

introduced by Bandura (Sheldon, 1995).

Pedagogues too undertake such learning. Piaget (France) and Vygotsky

(Russia) are two scientists who studied the learning process of children. While Piaget's

work gives us an idea of development, wherein the child shifts from a experiential

concrete view of the world to constructing a abstract reflective view of the world as

adult; Vygotsky measures development by the tasks undertaken by the child with the

assistance of socially interactive others. In assisted contexts the child is able to integrate

internal developmental processes awakened by the interaction in performance

assistance, which when internalized become the content of the child's independent

development achievement (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In all of the above, irrespective

of the definition of learning, what is common is that the learner utilises associative

processes whereby new and relatively durable responses are added to the leamer's

repertoire.

We also process information in the conscIOus mind, and interpret them .

Cognitive learning processes refer to reliance on sensory data in its context and the

"

Research J~rojecf 18/68

application of abstract (private) rules to associate the relationships between data sets

giving rise to 'self-concepts' that influence the learner's ability to discriminate amongst

complex stimuli. Reflective or ruminative thoughts about not-so-pressing behavioral

decisions are therefore likely to be associated with more distant contingencies.

Disruptive external stimulation may force a short-term problem solving thought pattern

even in the midst of such casual or relaxed learning. Cognition is a memory intensive

and language dependent representation of the learner's external world. Practically,

therefore, the ability of cognitive language to influence adaptive behaviour is still

questioned. Behavioral therapists (Sheldon, 1995) hint at the role of reinforcement in

such processes as well.

Sharing some of the assumptions of cognitive learning, and indebted to

behaviorists, Bandura's Social Learning Theory, on the other hand focused on the

determinism of behaviour in the so~ial environment Primary influences in social

learning are

a) Outcome expectations - the estimate of a person that given behaviour will

lead to certain outcomes and

b) Efficacy Expectations - representing the conviction that one can

successfully execute the behaviour required to produce the specific

outcome.

Perceived self-efficacy therefore leads to the adoption of particular behaviour .

Efficacy expectation sources could include i) performance accomplishments ii)

vicarious experience, iii) verbal persuasion and iv) Imagining - the step-by-step coping

of threats. However, Bandura's theory is skeptically treated on the grounds of poor

parsimony , ambiguities between outcome expectations and efficacy expectations and

the dearth of empirical evidence to support behavioural change as a strengthening of

self-efficacy. It appears therefore , that the cognitive theories of learning are to be

applied carefully.

The process of learning approach as opposed to the behavioural outcome

approach, either through operant or classical conditioning has also been the province of

experience. Kolb (1984) rests his experiential learning theory on the continuity of

consciousness and the interplay perceived by the learner between expectation and

experience. In this sense, Kolb' s theory has a different epistemological base than


previous behaviourist and cognitive learning approaches. The structure of the learning

process is assumed to be rooted in the structure of social knowledge, from which

personal knowledge comes alive. It is the transaction between internal characteristics

and external circumstances that shapes and actualizes the developmental potentialities

as well. This is also reflected in the experiences of Argyris & Schon (1978) in applied

behavioural science experience in organizations. They discovered the possibility of

learners warding off new, merely Espoused theories by defending their identities with

an actual operational Theory-in-use. According to Argyris & Schon, experience

mediates the leamer's conceptual and attitudinal view of the world.

Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory takes into consideration both the structure

of human cognition and the stages of human growth, which theorists like Lewin and

Piaget had explored and left unresolved between conflicts of observation and action,

concrete experience and abstract concepts. Learning in this model is conceived of in a

four-stage cycle (See Fig ). Immediate concrete experience is the. basis for

observation and reflection. These observations are assimilated into a 'theory'; which

generates implications for further action and consequent experiences. The effective

learner needs four kinds of generic adaptive abilities, namely • Concrete Experiencing

(CE) , Reflective Observation (RO) , Abstract Conceptualisation (AC) and Active

Experimentation CAE). The individual must involve himself without bias in new

experiences (CE); observe and reflect on these experiences from many perspectives

(RO); create concepts to integrate observations into logically sound theories (AC) and

make decisions to solve problems (AE). The learning model implies that the learner

choose a set of learning abilities in particular situations; involving of course, resolving

the polar opposites of approaches to situations. In this process, the learner progresses

in varying degrees from actor to observer, from specific involvement to general

analytical detachment. The definitions of the four basic learning modes (Kolb, 1984,

p68) are given below.

Concrete Experience . An orientation towards concrete experience focuses on

being involved in experiences and dealing with immediate human experiences in a very

personal way. It emphasizes feeling as opposed to thinking; a concern with uniqueness

and complexity· of present reality as opposed to theories and generalisations : an

intuitive 'artistic' approach as opposed to the systematic scientific approach to

20/68

problems. People with concrete-experience orientation enjoy and are good at relating

to others. They are often good intuitive decision-makers and function well in

unstructured situations. The person with this orientation values relating to other people

and being involved in real situations, and has an open-minded approach to life

execute the solution

select the solution

choose model or

goal

~ Active

Experiment ation

ON CONVERm:NCE

~ ~ evaluate

__________ consequenc es of

solutions

compare it with reality

Concrete Experience

~ identify differences (Probl,m,\

~ ASSIM!LATlOl'( Reflective

Observatio n ,.---

Abstract ~ Sele~ Conceptuali ~ pro

sation / consider

( alternative solutions

Fig.l

Kolb's Experiential Learning Model compared with a typical problem-solving process

Source: Kolb DA (1994) Management and the Learning Process, in Des, Paul & Mabey, C (1994) Managing Learning, Routledge, p279.

Research Project 21168

Reflective Observation An orientation towards reflective observation focuses on

understanding the meaning of ideas and situations by carefully observing and impartially

describing them. It emphasizes understanding as opposed to practical application ; a

concern with what is true and how things happen as opposed to what will work; an

emphasis on reflection as opposed to action. People with a reflective orientation enjoy

intuiting the meaning of situations and ideas and are good at seeing their implications.

They are good at looking at things from different perspectives and at appreciating

different pints of view. They like to rely on their own thoughts and feelings to form

opinions. People with this orientation value patience, impartiality and considered,

thoughtful judgment

Abstract Conceptualisation: An orientation towards abstract conceptualisation focuses

on logic, ideas and concepts. It emphasizes thinking as opposed to feeling, a concern

with building general theories as opposed to an artistic approach to problems. A person

with an Abstract-Conceptual Orientation enjoys and is good at systematic planning,

manipulation of abstract symbols and quantitative analysis. People with this orientation

value precision, the rigor and discipline of analyzing ideas and the aesthetic quality of a

neat conceptual system.

Active Experimentation: An orientation towards active experimentation focuses on

actively influencing people and changing situations. It emphasizes practical applications

as opposed to reflective understanding; a pragmatic concern with what works as

opposed to what is absolute truth; an emphasis on doing as opposed to observing.

People with an active-experimentation orientation enjoy and are good at getting things

accomplished. They are willing to take some risk in order to achieve their objectives.

They also value having an influence on the environment around them and like to see

results.

The application of the model has been attempted by Kolb in the classroom in

what he terms as basically a self-directed learning approach that is facilitated by the

teacher. The Experiential learning Theory is also backed by empirical evidence on the

dominant learning style preferences of people in various academic fields (Kolb,1984),

managers in India ( Varghese & Ahmad, 1991) and managers in a large American

industrial organization (Kolb,· & Wolfe, 1991).


Due to conceived unidimensionality of each dialectic (AC_CE and AE_RO)

Kolb developed a two dimensional map of learning space to map four basic forms of

knowing. They are convergence, divergence, assimilation and accommodation. The

description of the four basic learning styles based on both research and Kolb's clinical

observation of LSI scores is briefly captured in the table below. Kolb has also presented

evidence on levels explained by various task-oriented skills and behaviours which

include I) Jungian personality Type (also a dialectically opposed adaptive orientation

based typology) 2) Early Educational Specialization (Undergraduate College Major.l)

3) Professional Career (more action than reflective) 4) Current Job and 5) Adaptive

Competencies (congruences between personal skills and task demand~) . As such, the

LSI is to be treated as possibility processing structures resulting from individual

programming in transacting with the human world. The LSI is also useful in terms of

appreciating human development, a third dimension, apart from the AC CE and

AE RO dialectic. (See Fig.3)

Table III: Four Basic Forms of Knowing

Style Convergent Divergent Learning Assimilative Accommodative !Feature Learning CE-RO Dominant Learning Learning

AC-AE - Dominant AC-RO Dominant CE-AE Dominanl 1. Strength Problem Sohing, Imaginative Ability Inductive Reasoning Doing things,

Decision Making, Awareness of Meaning Theoretical Model Carrying out plaru Practical and Values Creation Getting involved il Application of Ideas new experiences

2. Effective Intelligence Tests, 'Brainstorming' ideas Practicality demand is Immediate change Situation singular right session, alternative not compulsive or requirement

answer generation immediate 3. Organiza Hypothetical- Observation based Integration of Intuitive. Trial-ani

lion Deductive meaningful 'gestalt' disparate Observations Error Reasoning

4. Use of Controlled High High, sometimes s Emotion as 'pushy' or

impatient 5. People Low High Low High

Orientati on

6. Task Technical Issues, Theorization Opportunity chase Orientati focused on specific action, risk-taking on problems

Varghese & Ahmad (1991) report that Indian managers overuse the Concrete

Experiencing and Active Experimentation learning styles. This implies a value for

dealing in immediate human interactive situations in a very personal way, emphasizing


feeling as opposed to thinking. It also implies that the Indian managers have a value for

pragmatic issues, being preoccupied with what works, rather than reflecting on what is

happening and the process determinants of their actions. The study however does not

explain the association oflearning with any other contextual factors like industry sector

(environment) or culture in the organisation.

2.3.2 Organizational Learning

The LSI instrument has also been used to analyse the organization as a learning

system (Kolb, 1994), wherein the managers adopt typical problem solving processes in

typical functional groups. Results indicate that managers in marketing use the concrete

and active learning styles, whereas managers in engineering utilize the abstract and

concrete learning styles. In contrast employees in personnel utilize the concrete and

reflective learning styles, and finance managers use the abstract learning styles. The

study has repercussions for organizational structuring, as differentiation is evident in

organizational adaptation in the internal environment; whereas the need to adapt to the

external environment would be due to the creation of a corresponding internal need to

integrate and coordinate the different organizational units. This implies therefore a

resolution in some way of the differences in learning styles in a balanced and purposeful

manner. Imbalances in learning style conflict resolution could be effective if it matches

environmental demands in a stable environment, but not necessarily so in complex,

changing environmental demands and opportunities. The implication therefore for

mangers is that when one learning style dominates others, the learning effectiveness

could be reduced in the long run. Miller (1983) for example agrees that differentiation,

an underlying factor in entrepreneurially oriented firms , allows for diversity of talent

and experience to coexist within organizations.

Organization structure and learning have been studied by Fiol & Lyles (1985),

who report that learning is supported by certain contextual factors of organization like

culture, strategy, structure and environment In fact, theorists have also suggested that

organizations should be intentionally designed to enhance the organizations' capability

to learn. Similar refrain of self-renewal processes is present in the Design theories of

Khandwalla (1992) . Nicolini & Meznar (1995) trace this trend in literature and provide

reasons for the diverse perspectives on organizational learning. The reasons include i)


the many sided character of the phenomenon; and ii) the different conceptualizations of

the phenomenon, namely the restrictive interpretations of organizational learning itself

Organizational learning is distinguished as

(a) focus on behaviour and

(b) as information processing systems of the organization.

However, the difference is subsumed by the significance in their similarities - a

form of acquisition of abstract knowledge. The difference however, is that in the first

one, abstraction is a necessary condition for knowledge acquisition; in the second,

abstraction is a condition for the occurrence oflearning.

2.3.3 Organizational learning Vs Individual Learning - Distinction making

The hidden assumption about the difference then, is that learning is different

from other nonintentional, nonconscious cognitive organizational change. The latter

would merely constitute adaptation (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Hence, behavioural

adaptation making incremental adjustment as a result of environmental changes or

structure change does not qualify as organizational learning for some theories.

Cognition that develops theoretical insights, knowledge and association with past

action, the effectiveness of those actions and possible future actions constitute low

level learning. Higher learning is said to take place when the development of an

understanding about causation , that affects the entire organization takes place as in

double-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Nicolini & Meznar (1995) however find

this distinction inadequate for the narrowness of the boundaries mapped by it; and

because it obscures the relationship between the two forms of cognitive organizational

change. Von Kroogh, Roos & Slocum (1994) also find that methodological restrictions

could constrain the degree of novelty in the knowledge produced. One such limitation

could be relative managerial inaction in decision taking, wherein managers resource

allocation decisions develop into cognitive rigidities, due to conventional wisdom and

past experiences.


The social construction of organizational learning may then be aided by a

inflection point or a sharp discontinuity in the history of an ongoing organization

(Nicolini & Meznar, 1995). The researcher or the observer external to the

organizational system has to perform the task of describing a peculiar pattern of change

in the system by projecting it against the background of the interaction between the

organization and its enacted environment. The organization then becomes both the

explicans (what is to be explained) and the explicandllm (what we explain by) . The

identity of the organization before and after the discontinuity changes, if organizational

learning has taken place. Organizations go through a process of construing the identity

of those in charge by transforming change, past choices, past experiments, inventions

and so on into formal accountable knowledge. in a sense, the phenomenon is political,

for these members shape the organization, transforming knowledge into a set of

organizational experiential constraints that members perceive as the objective aspect of

the organization. The will of those in charge is thereby posited as social construction to

control the future behaviour of the organization in the light of the past. Yet the

question of how to reconstruct the experiential stream from the description of the

experience complicates the process of understanding. Knowledge crafting or concept

mapping ( Rogers, 1998) as a tool is of managerial interest, just as is the social

construction of organizational knowledge. It is a control lever for management as these

attempts get into the unconscious cognitive process, unlike the application perspective

of behavioural scientists like Argyris & SchOn (1978) .

Social construction of organizational knowledge by the creative process of

bringing forth a world from a history-dependeht, context-sensitive and entity embodied

knowledge base is the premise of autopoesis or self-generation (Von Kroogh, Roos &

Slocum, 1994). Two important implications of claiming that cognition itself is

autopoetic are I} Knowledge is intimately connected to Observation and 2} The notion

of information is redefined. 'Embodied knowledge' suggests that all knowledge is

dependent on the leamer, or that somebody knows everything. Knowledge, however

depends upon the 'point of observation' of the learner.

Fig. 2


The Experiential Theory of Growth and Development

ncreasing complexity and relativism via he integralion of dialectic adaptive mode

chavioural omplexilY

Symbolic Complexi

erceptual Complexity

!Divergence

ESimilation

Integration. Self as procc, ransacting vith the \\'orl

pecializatit . Self as onlent -

Inleracling '11h the worl

differenl inunerse

in the worlt

Source: Kolb DA (1984): Expeticllfial Learning, Prentice Hall, Englewood, Cliffs, NJ; p141

~ ...... ~


Distinctions in observations and the norms of observation then determine

differences in learning. The distinctions made reveals the knowledge of the

distinguisher. With increases in knowledge, finer and finer knowledge structures

resembling a process of scaling takes place. Information in autopoesis is a process of

interpretation. Data in the environment like books, papers, computer programmes etc.

are therefore not information Information is dependent on the learner who uses data to

develop knowledge. The learner in this case is both open and closed. The learner is

closed to knowledge but open to data. The more manifest the data, the more

convenient for the learner to make meaningful conversion to information. Increasingly

fine distinctions in data develop knowledge through interpretation. Shared knowledge

by such collectively determined distinctions amongst organizational members is known

as organizational knowledge. Organizational knowledge is also scaleable and provide

guidelines when members need to negotiate on the content of observations. As

organizational members increase, differences in observations require finer distinctions

or more diverse scaling. Learners may discard distinctions, use old distinctions on new

situations, use distinctions in a metaphoric sense, put words in new contexts, introduce

new distinctions etc. Hence , in the development of knowledge 'languaging' or the

intersubjective distinctions made between organizational members become important.

E.g. 'The corporate strategist may bristle when he hears the sales manager talking

about the 'strategy of telephone sales' (Von Kroogh, Roos & Slocum, 1994, p61).

Hence unlike cognitive theory, in autopoetic theory, the world is not pre-given to be

represented. Knowledge is connected to observation;

a) The notion of information is redefined.

b) Organizational knowledge is shared among members

c) Organizational knowledge is scaleable and connected to the organization's history

d) Organizational knowledge demands and allows for languaging.

e) Organizational knowledge requires self-description

t) Organizational Knowledge requires the presence of human relationships.

2.3.4 Experiential Learning Theory - A holistic interpretation?


Learning also implies an interaction between the learner and the environment

Knowledge is the summary of transactions between social knowledge and personal

knowledge (Kolb,1984, p36). In experiential learning, unlike other cognitive

approaches, the process of these transactions is called learning. The transformation of

expenence is the process whereby knowledge is created. Learning in this sense

transforms experience both in its objective and subjective forms. The experiential

learning theory is therefore versatile to comprehend symbolic complexity (AC),

behavioural complexity (AE), affective complexity (CE) and perceptual complexity

(RO). The integration of these adaptive modes of dialectic nature explains

'development' in Kolb's theory, different from Piagetian cognitive development ( See

Fig 3)

The individual self therefore develops types of conSCIOusness, from one

immersed with the world in the undifferentiated state to one interacting with the world

in a cOlltellt state. Integration occurs by growing out of specialization in the content

state to transact with the world as a process. This is distinct from the feedback of

double loop learning, (Argyris & Schon, 1978) to the extent that mere discovery of

assumptions influencing action, does not guarantee the flow of experience. Experience

may not fit with selective aspects of the interpretative consciousness. Interpretation in a

way is self-sealing and self self-fulfilling (Kolb, 1984, p 156) Interpretation of feedback

also stifles feedback, due to specialization of our adaptive orientations. The judgment

oflearning in Experiential Learning theory is extended to indicate successful adaptation

in the future - a time dimension, as well as to situations similar to the one in which

learning is measured. Development is scaled by the transformation of interpretative

consciousness to the integrative consciousness, where one is freed from the traps of

specialised structures. Development in this sense may be mapped as a cultural 'tool'

(Rogers, 1998) extending the scope of the theory beyond individual lifetime.

Hence, either by autopoesis or by the social construction perspective, as a

whole, the organization learning phenomenon works as a structuring reSOlirce that

helps shape organizational identity or activity. The implications of structuring by


learning could be on strategy implementation, either through entrepreneurship

behaviour or opportunism in alliance making or internal culture definition.

2.4 Entrepreneurship Ilntrapreneurship Orientation

Entrepreneurship is a manifestation of social non-conformity, at the roots of,

which is a desire to shape distinction in identity and simultaneously secure the benefits

of the identity such as economic gain and social prestige. It is as such a difficult, risk

prone transaction between individual and social knowledge domains, highly dependent

upon skillful, social adaptation and influencing skills. Entrepreneurship has been defined

as the process of creating something different with value by devoting the necessary

time and effort, and assuming the accompanying financial, psychic and social risks, and

receiving the rewards of monetary and social satisfaction (Hisrich, 1990) . However,

for long, the process was measured at the level of the individual, a reason for which

most research done in the field is on small and medium size firms Very little work

appears on the entrepreneurial activity carried out in teams or groups within

organizations (Kasl, Marsick, & Dechant, 1997) large or small. That entrepreneurial

environments exist within firms was itself considered odd, although the cases of

Internal Venturing reported by journalist and writer Gifford Pinchot III (1985) were

celebrities in their firms in their own time.

Entrepreneurship has been often criticized as a non-researchable or research

unfriendly problem. Although, the process (Bhave, 1994, Low and Abrahamson, 1997,

Birkinshaw, 1997) of entrepreneurship has been pursued with insightful frameworks,

the phenomenon itself appears only randomly amenable to generalization. That is to say

that contexts of entrepreneurship (Zahra & Covin, 1995) throw up variants of the

process, stretching the limits of theorization. This difficulty bears commonality with the

review of Organizational Structure and organizational learning.

Entrepreneurship as a phenomenon has also been the tug of war between

economists and psychologists, one emphasizing innovation and the other the need for

achievement (McClelland, 1961); behavioural predispositions such as risk-taking,

proactiveness and autonomy (Hisrich, 1990) and intuition (Hisrich & lankowicz,


1990) The strategy perspective to entrepreneurship is also in fashion (Quinn, 1979;

Miller, 1983; Dess, Covin & Slevin, 1997) The premise or locus of entrepreneurship

(internaVexternal) (Pinchot, 1985; Abetti, 1997) and the mode of entry (Chaganti &

Schneer, 1994) into the process has also added complexity to the strate~,'y-making

dimension for researchers. The strategy research stream since the works of Miles &

Snow (1979) and Porter (1980) have also prompted a search for taxonomies ( Kanai,

1995) and typologies (Woo, Cooper & Dunkelberg, 1991) in Entrepreneurship Theory

(Prabhu, 1998). The effort is at best, conceptual and has received little attention from

other researchers.

Popular management literature (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998) goes to town about

Intrapreneurship facilitation as value drivers within companies (Scott, 1998), although

the deficiencies of entrepreneurship (Kets deVries, 1985) and ineffective

entrepreneurship management style (Covin & Slevin, 1988; Khandwalla,1997) are yet

to be empirically analyzed in process-failure mode. Also, the empirical evidence on the

social construction of entrepreneurship (Chung & Gibbons, 1997) within organizations

is scant. Empirical evidence on the use of an entrepreneurial top-management style

(Covin & Slevin, 1988) the entrepreneurial strategic posture (Covin, Slevin & Schultz,

1994) and entrepreneurial strategy making (Miller, 1983) do not conceive of

entrepreneurship in the process sense discussed by Lumpkin & Dess (1996) In

research, Entrepreneurship was conceived of more as a decision-making behaviour,

tending towards entrepreneurial action. Besides one component of Entrepreneurial

Orientation - autonomy implying freedom in operating in differentiated roles, has been

given insufficient attention in conceptual and empirical work on entrepreneurship,

probably because it was seen to be the preserve of the individual entrepreneur around

whom firms existed.

Conceptual treatise on the clarity of the Entrepreneurship process (Lumpkin &

Dess, 1996) exists. In fact the clarity on the concept of Entrepreneurship Orientation

(EO) as process, as distinct from entrepreneurship as content, (also leaning on the

evolution of literature in strategy management) allows examination of the decision

making styles and the methods and practices that managers use to act entrepreneurially.

EO is in fact different for two reasons: i) Entrepreneurial process is conceivable at the


level of the firm and ii) It is possible to explain the entrepreneurship process as a

. combination of any of the five dimensions constituting the construct of EO. These

dimensions are autonomy, risk-taking, innovation, proactiveness, and competitive

aggressiveness. Hence, the absence of anyone of five EO dimensions can also explain

EO, if in its context of occurrence other factors like structure (Miller & Droge, 1986),

environment & technology (Parthasarathy & Sethi, 1992) can determine the

Entrepreneurship process This perspective is also consistent with the competency

based perspective of Human Resources Management (HRM), which has been

traditionally delinked from research on entrepreneurship (Joseph, 1997). EO could also

be a competency for firms in their contexts, nurtured through designed learning and

structural mechanisms to enhance the firms' competitive position. The competency

based view of HRM (Lado & Wilson, 1994) , in fact, is an off-shoot of the systems

perspective to management theory, which implies specific inputs, their transformation

and corresponding outputs from the system. Miller (1983) for example states that

change agents must seek to comprehend the capacities of the organization structure

and identify common organizational types before making predictions about firm

behaviour. Ritualisation (purposeful and intentional enactment) of innovation,

competitive aggressiveness and such other EO dimensions therefore need to be

carefully studied. The potential of minimal disruption in behavioural adaptation is a

potential benefit of applying the Experiential Learning Theory, for which learning in

this study is measured on the LSI instrumentation developed by Kolb (Kolb, Rubin &

McIntyre, 1971).

The research conducted for this study is modeled on the systems approach to

management, in coherently investigating the relationship between organization'

structure, learning style and EO, Learning is to be viewed as process in converting

knowledge inputs into different knowledge forms, particular kinds of which support <

EO, In accordance with the review above the objectives of the study are as below,

2.4 Objectives:

L To identify relationships between organization structure types and

learning styles of managers


2. To attempt a scale construction for EO, as an empirical tool

3. To identify learning style preferences in typical EO contexts

2.5 Hypotheses

In line with earlier studies on Organization Structure and Strategic posture, the

expectation is that the entrepreneurial strategic posture will be associated with organic

structure (HI J 0 below)

The typical learning style associations with structure are hypothesised according

to features of behavioural, perceptual, affective and symbolic complexity posited in

the items measuring the structure and posture of the organization. Hence, for behaviour

requiring a freeing of the self from the restrictive symbolic interpretative consciousness

, of tried and tested private rules of adaptation , namely Concrete Experience - is

associated with a people oriented structure allowing for individuation and informality in

communication and free adaptation to changing circumstances, i.e. Organicity. (HlJ).

Consequently the dialectically opposite learning style namely Abstract

Conceptualistaion is hypothesised to be associated with the Mechanistic Structure , in

which abstraction is preferred and contented with over concreteness in situations (that

require adaptation by behavioural complexity) (Hl2). Sophisticated control and

information systems (logically encoded for predictive interpretations) , predetennined

job descriptions requiring adherence to prescribed behaviour and structured channels of

information with selective restrictions (on· financial and operating information) on

perception are features of symbolic complexity.

Reflective Observation, a learning mode requiring the understanding of ideas

and the meaning of situations - an emphasis on how things happen is hypothesised to be

associated with an Organic Structure, which is typified by the relative freedom of

operation and the valuation of expertise. (Hl2). Active Experimentation which requires

that the individual emphasise the practical applications as opposed to reflective

understanding of how and why things work is hypothesised to be associated with a

Mechanistic Structure ; where the reconciliation of performance/results is validated


through getting personnel to follow fonnally laid down procedures that are designed to

make things work (HI2).

This manner of dialectics is hypothesised for all four basic learning modes and

learning styles of the Experiential Learning Theory as tabulated below. Similarly

associated behaviour observed in respective structures and operationalised as EO

constructs, have been hypothesised to occur more strongly in Organic Structures than

in Mechanistic Structures (ill, 5-10).

Hypotheses Set I

Expected Learning Styles & Entrepreneurial Orientation in Typical

Organizational Structures

Mechanistic Structures Organic Structures

1. Abstract Conceptualisation Concrete Experiencing

2. Active Experimentation Reflective Observation

3. Convergent Learning Divergent Learning

4. Assimilative Learners Accommodative Learners

5. Low Entrepreneurial Orientation High Entrepreneurial Orientation

6. Low Autonomy High Autonomy

7. Low Risk Taking High Risk Taking

8. Low Competitive Aggressiveness High Co~etitive Aggressiveness

9. Low Proacti veness High Proactiveness

IO.Low Innovation High .lnnovation

II.Conservative Strategic Posture Entrepreneurial Strategic Posture

A desire for influencing people and teams to take risk in exploring the 'open'

world is supported in the CE learning mode. The second set of hypotheses (HII)

expects that people oriented 'influencer' learning modes like accommodation (emphasis

on carrying out plans, getting involved in new experiences and risk taking) and

Divergence -(emphasis on alternative idea generation, imagination and giving meaning

i<esearch FroJect

34168

to the 'gestalt'/whole picture) would be typical learning styles in high EO situations.

(HIlI,3) Consequently, convergent (emphasis on the right answer, focus on specific

problems) and assimilation (emphasis on theorization and low value for practicality)

would be nurtured as basic learning styles in low EO situations. (HII, 2,3) Similarly,

basic learning modes have been hypothesized as in Mechanistic Structures for low EO

situations and Organic structures for high EO situations.

Hypotheses - Set II

Expected Learning Styles in Typical EO Situations

Low EO Situations High EO Situations

1. Abstract Conceptualisation Concrete Experience

2. Active Experimentation Reflective Observation

3. Convergent Learning Style Divergent Learning Style

4. Assimilator Learning Style Accommodative Learning Style

chapter 2 2.0 literature reviewshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/22386/6/06...2.0...

Documents