The Learning Organization – In Depth Myths and Realities Series

Myths and Realities by Sandra Kerka, 1995The Learning OrganizationAt least since the 1990 publication of Senge’s The Fifth Discipline, the concept of the learning organization (LO) has been promoted as a way to restructure organizations to meet the challenges of the coming century. What are learning organizations-in theory and in practice? Are they a real solution or the latest in a series of reform fads? The myths and realities are explored in this publication.

Getting a Grip on the Learning OrganizationOf course, there is not yet a consensus on the definition of a learning organization. Any type of organization can be a learning organization-businesses, educational institutions, nonprofits, community groups. Some authors agree that LOs start with the assumptions that learning is valuable, continuous, and most effective when shared and that every experience is an opportunity to learn. LOs have the following characteristics (Calvert et al. 1994; Watkins and Marsick 1993):

They provide continuous learning opportunities. They use learning to reach their goals. They link individual performance with organizational performance. They foster inquiry and dialogue, making it safe for people to share openly and

take risks. They embrace creative tension as a source of energy and renewal. They are continuously aware of and interact with their environment.

Senge’s “five disciplines” are the keys to achieving this type of organization: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. According to Senge, the fifth, systems thinking, is the most important and underlies the rest.

Of course, in a sense “organizations” do not learn, the people in them do, and individual learning may go on all the time. What is different about a learning organization is that it promotes a culture of learning, a community of learners, and it ensures that individual learning enriches and enhances the organization as a whole. There can be no organizational learning without individual learning, but individual learning must be shared and used by the organization (P. West 1994). The familiar litany of challenges and changes-global competition, technological advances, quality improvement, knowledge work, demographic diversity, changing social structures-is driving organizations to adapt and change. “The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage” (Murrell and Walsh 1993, p. 295).

The LO: Is Anybody Out There?In theory, the learning organization concept is appealing. However, according to Watkins and Marsick (1993), “everyone is talking about [it] but few are living it” (p. 3). We “know a lot about learning-organization theory, but far less about how to apply it” (Calvert et al. 1994, p. 40). Nevertheless, examples can be found of LO principles in practice in the workplace and in schools. Johnsonville Foods in Sheboygan, Wisconsin,

appears to have been an LO long before the label was coined. In the early 1980s, the sausage manufacturer implemented several programs based on the notion of using the business to build great people; that way, the organization cannot help but succeed (Watkins and Marsick 1993).

These programs included:(1) personnel development fund-each employee is given $100 per year for any learning activity;(2) member interaction program-employees (members) spend time “shadowing” other workers to learn how their jobs and those of others fit into the whole;(3) resource center;(4) Personal Responsibility in Developing Excellence (PRIDE) teams investigate quality of work life issues; and(5) company performance share-profit sharing is based on evaluation of individual and team performance as well as personal growth and development.According to Honold (1991), profits and productivity are up, absenteeism and turnover down, and morale is high.

Several businesses are mentioned often in the literature as practicing LO principles (Solomon 1994; Watkins and Marsick 1993), such as Harley-Davidson, Motorola, Corning, AT&T, and Fed Ex. Ford’s Lincoln Continental division broke product development records, lowered quality defects, and saved millions. At Chaparral Steel, 80% of the work force is in some form of educational enhancement at any time. They now produce a ton of steel in 1.5 employee hours, compared to the national average of 6.

It should be a given that schools are “learning organizations.” Duden (1993) describes how Sullivan elementary school in Tallahassee applied LO quality principles and a vision statement to transform itself. The school’s core values include the following: individuals are valued, teachers are professionals, parents are partners, decision making is shared. (These values apply equally to the workplace by substituting worker, manager, customer for individual, teacher, parent.) Due to the transformation at Sullivan, teacher approval ratings are up 20%, test scores remain high, and parents are more involved.

The LO concept is not confined to established, permanent institutions. Smith and Stodden (1994) show how it can applied to an ad hoc organization. The Restructuring through Interdisciplinary Team Effort Project involved schools in improving outcomes for vocational special needs students. School teams consisting of regular, special, and vocational teachers; support staff; parents; and other stakeholders attended a summer institute to learn how to build a team-driven learning organization in their schools. The focus was on collaborative procedures “powerful enough to transform a loosely bound group of interdisciplinary stakeholders into a dynamic team of learning organizers” (p. 19) who are continually discovering how to create and improve upon the systems in their schools.

A Blurred Vision

Theoretical support and some real-life examples notwithstanding, some critics claim this emperor has no clothes. Despite Ford’s success with LO principles, the director Fred Simon “was asked to take early retirement-some say forced out-by managers uncomfortable with the learning organization” (Dumaine 1994, p. 148). Apparently, the benefits were not explained well enough to top management, who were unprepared for the initial chaos of building an LO; people were not willing to discuss problems openly, toppling a pillar of the LO structure. GS Technologies (ibid.) used Senge’s dialogue technique to get labor and management to listen to each other, but not spreading its use fast enough through the company caused fear and suspicion among excluded workers.

Jacobs (1995) and W. West (1994) cite a lack of critical analysis of the theoretical framework of the learning organization. They suggest that, apart from anecdotes, few studies support the relationship between individual and organizational learning and there is little discussion of how the individual benefits. West calls for research that details conditions under which the concept is successful, types of organizations that cannot use the model, and what happens when it is imposed on the unwilling. Kuchinke (1995) thinks “the concept is being oversold as a near-universal remedy for a wide variety of organizational problems” (p. 307). He states that the primary purpose of most organizations is not to acquire knowledge/learning but to produce goods and services. He suggests that LO advocates have not taken advantage of the findings of organizational learning research.

On the school front, there is also a gap between myth and reality. Shields and Newton (1994) analyzed schools participating in the Saskatchewan School Improvement Program (SSIP) using Senge’s five disciplines: (1) personal mastery-SSIP focused on action, not learning, and staff development activities were few; (2) mental models-little discussion of concepts such as school climate or leadership; (3) shared vision-some schools had a mission statement but goals were not identified and impact on students was unclear; (4) team learning-teachers paid lip service, but were not team players; and (5) systems thinking-there was more compartmentalization, “them vs. us” attitude. Isaacson and Bamburg (1992) also sized up schools along the disciplines, concluding that “it is a stinging experience to read about LOs and realize how few schools and districts fit the definition” (p. 44).

Secretarial support staff in a Canadian university (May 1994) felt their learning opportunities were restricted and learning efforts undervalued. They had fewer opportunities, less funding, and limited time off work for learning. Managers viewed only secretary-related courses as appropriate professional development. This despite the strategic plan declaring that the university is dedicated to enabling, developing, and empowering learning for all. May concludes: “It is a sad paradox that the institutions most clearly dedicated to helping adult learners to learn are such slow learners themselves” (p. 47).

Even Senge himself has some discouraging words. Asked by O’Neil (1995) whether schools are LOs, he answered: “Definitely not” (p. 20). He finds that most teachers are oppressed by trying to conform to rules, goals, and objectives. Schools are build on the

model of passive ingestion of information, and the educational enterprise is fragmented and stratified. Although cooperative learning is often advocated for students, “the idea that teachers and administrators ought to learn together really hasn’t gone too far” (ibid.).

Bridging the GapWhat barriers prevent the learning organization from becoming a reality? “One of the barriers to the successful creation of generative learning organizations is the lack of effective leaders” (Murrell and Walsh 1993, p. 295). The learning organization requires a fundamental rethinking of leadership. Leaders become designers, teachers, and stewards of the collective vision (Senge 1990). Managers must change the belief that only they can make decisions, and employees must change the belief that they don’t have to think on the job (Honold 1991). Leadership in an LO is the ability to coach and teach; it is not exclusive, authoritative, or assumed, but learned and earned. “Effective leadership may emerge anywhere true learning is taking place” (Gratton 1993, p. 100).

Inquiry and dialogue can be threatening; people are typically not rewarded for asking tough questions or identifying complex problems (Gratton 1993). Other barriers cited by Watkins and Marsick (1993) include the inability to recognize and change existing mental models, learned helplessness, tunnel vision, truncated learning (incomplete transfer of past learning), individualism, and a culture of disrespect and fear. They assert that a learning organization cannot be created in an atmosphere of layoffs, downsizing, “retirement on the job,” and a part-time, overtaxed, temporary work force.

The LO in SightIt seems that the concept of the learning organization is clear enough to some to be putting it into practice; to others, it is fuzzy and amorphous and needs critical attention. However, useful insights can still be drawn from theory and practice. The learning organization is best thought of as a journey, not a destination (P. West 1994), a philosophy, not a program (Solomon 1994). Few would argue that bureaucracy, Taylorism, or passive learning are the best ways to work and learn in the world today. The LO has a lot to offer to the reform and restructuring of organizations, but building one is clearly an enormous task. However, one can begin with the attitude that learning is “a sustainable resource, not a limited commodity” (May 1994, p. 53) and work on developing the mindset of a culture of learning. It must be recognized that the visioning process is ongoing, not a one-time event (O’Neil 1995).

The learning organization-myth or reality? “There is no such thing as a learning organization. . . . It’s a vision that sees the world as interdependent and changing. A learning organization is always evolving” (Solomon 1994, p. 59). “You never arrive. . . . You can never say `We are a learning organization’” (Hammond and Wille 1994).

ReferencesCalvert, G.; Mobley, S.; and Marshall, L. “Grasping the Learning Organization.” Training 48, no. 6 (June 1994): 38-43. (ERIC No. EJ 484 475)

Duden, N. “A Move from Effective to Quality.” School Administrator 50, no. 6 (June 1993): 18-21. (ERIC No. EJ 465273)

Dumaine, B. “Mr. Learning Organization.” Fortune130, no. 8 (October 17, 1994): 147-157. (ERIC No. EJ 490 452)

Gratton, M. “Leadership in the Learning Organization.” New Directions for Community Colleges 21, no. 4 (Winter 1993): 93-103. (ERIC No. EJ 479 918)

Hammond, V., and Wille, E. “The Learning Organization.” In Gower Handbook of Training and Development, 2d ed., edited by J. Prior. Brookfield, VT: Gower, 1994.

Honold, L. “The Power of Learning at Johnsonville Foods.” Training 28, no. 4 (April 1991): 55-58.

Isaacson, N., and Bamburg, J. “Can Schools Become Learning Organizations?” Educational Leadership 50, no. 3 (November 1992): 42-44. (ERIC No. EJ 454 329)

Jacobs, R. L. “Impressions about the Learning Organization.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 6, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 119-122.

Kuchinke, K. P. “Managing Learning for Performance.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 6, no. 3 (Fall 1995): 307-317.

May, S. “Beyond ‘Super Secretary’ Courses.” Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education 20, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 45-54. (ERIC No. EJ 495 823)

Murrell, P. H., and Walsh, J. P. “Leadership Development at Federal Express Corporation.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 4, no. 3 (Fall 1993): 295-302. (ERIC No. EJ 473 917)

O’Neil, J. “On Schools as Learning Organizations.” Educational Leadership 52, no. 7 (April 1995): 20-23. (ERIC No. EJ 502 905)

Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday, 1990.

Shields, C., and Newton, E. “Empowered Leadership.” Journal of School Leadership 4, no. 2 (March 1994): 171-196. (ERIC No. EJ 483 293)

Smith, G. J., and Stodden, R. A. “Restructuring Vocational Special Needs Education through Interdisciplinary Team Effort.” Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education16, no. 3 (Spring 1994): 16-23. (ERIC No. EJ 482 768)

Solomon, C. M. “HR Facilitates the Learning Organization Concept.” Personnel Journal 73, no. 11 (November 1994): 56-66.

Watkins, K. E., and Marsick, V. J. Sculpting the Learning Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.

West, P. “The Learning Organization: Losing the Luggage in Transit?” Journal of European Industrial Training18, no. 11 (1994): 30-38. (ERIC No. EJ 497 198)

West, W. “Learning Organizations: A Critical Review.” In Proceedings of the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference,edited by L. Martin. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1994. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378 359)

Learning in organizations

In recent years there has been a lot of talk of 'organizational learning'. Here we explore the theory and practice of such learning via pages in the encyclopaedia of informal education. We examine some key theorists and themes, and ask whether organizations can learn?

contents: introduction · learning · learning in organizations – experiential learning – single- and double-loop learning – informal learning – distributed cognition – communities of practice · can organizations learn? · further reading and references

linked pages: learning · experiential learning · chris argyris: single- and double-loop learning · informal learning · communities of practice

LearningFor all the talk of learning amongst policymakers and practitioners, there is a surprising lack of attention to what it entails. In Britain and Northern Ireland, for example, theories of learning do not figure strongly in professional education programmes for teachers and those within different arenas of informal education. It is almost as if it is something is unproblematic and that can be taken for granted. Get the instructional regime right, the message seems to be, and learning (as measured by tests and assessment regimes) will follow. This lack of attention to the nature of learning inevitably leads to an impoverishment of education. In a similar fashion, when we come to examine the literature of human resource development and more generally that of organizational and management change, the idea that ‘learning’ may in some way be problematic is only rarely approached in a sustained way.In order to start thinking about learning we need to make the simple distinction between learning as a product and as a process. The latter takes us into the arena of competing learning theories - ideas about how we might gain understandings. The former takes us to learning as either a change in behaviour or a change in our mental state. To explore these areas go to:learning. What is learning? Is it a process or a product? How might it be approached?Four different orientations to theorizing learning:the behaviourist orientation. The behaviourist movement in psychology has looked to the use of experimental procedures to study behaviour in relation to the environment. the cognitive orientation. Where behaviourists looked to the environment, those drawing on Gestalt turned to the individual's mental processes. In other words, they were concerned with cognition - the act or process of knowing.the humanist orientation. In this orientation the basic concern is for human growth. We look to the work of Maslow and Rogers as expressions of this approach.the social/situational orientation. It is not so much that learners acquire structures or models to understand the world, but they participate in frameworks that that have structure. Learning involves participation in a community of practice.Learning in organizations

As Mark Easterby-Smith and Luis Araujo (1999: 1) have commented the idea of organizational learning has been present in the management literature for decades, but it has only become widely recognized since around 1990.Two developments have been highly significant in the growth of the field. First it has attracted the attention of scholars from disparate disciplines who had hitherto shown little interest in learning processes. A consequence of this is that the field has become conceptually fragmented, and representatives of different disciplines now vie over who has the correct model of organizational learning…. The second development is that many consultants and companies have caught onto the commercial significance of organizational learning… Much of the effort of these theorists has been devoted to identifying templates, or ideal forms, which real organizations could attempt to emulate. (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999: 1-2)The central template or ideal form in the 1990s and into the twenty first century was the notion of the learning organization. A helpful way of making sense of writing on organizational learning is to ask whether writers fall into one of two basic camps. The dividing line between them is the extent to which the writers emphasize organizational learning as a technical or a social process. Here we can again turn to Easterby-Smith and Araujo (1999: 3-5):The technical view assumes that organizational learning is about the effective processing, interpretation of, and response to, information both inside and outside the organization. This information may be quantitative or qualitative, but is generally explicit and in the public domain…. The social perspective on organization learning focuses on the way people make sense of their experiences at work. These experiences may derive from explicit sources such as financial information, or they may be derived from tacit sources, such as the ‘feel’ that s skilled craftsperson has, or the intuition possessed by a skilled strategist. From this view, learning is something that can emerge from social interactions, normally in the natural work setting. In the case of explicit information it involves a joint process of making sense of data… The more tacit and ‘embodied’ forms of learning involve situated practices, observation and emulation of skilled practitioners and socialization into a community of practice.A classic expression of the technical view can be found in the work of Argyris and Schön   on single- and double-loop learning (1978, 1996). Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998) provide a fascinating example of the social perspective in action in their studies of apprenticeship and communities of practice. Interestingly Donald Schön   (1983; 1987) also provides some insights into the use of ‘tacit’ sources in his exploration of reflective practice. Those operating within the social perspective may view organizational learning as a social construction, as a political process, and/or as a cultural artifact (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999: 5-7).  Here we will explore the notions of single- and double-loop learning and community of practice. We will also look at the notions of experiential learning and informal learning.Experiential learning. Christine Prange (1999: 27) in her review of organizational learning theory, notes that when we review the processes of organizational learning ‘we encounter “learning from experience” as a genuine component of almost all approaches’. We review Kolb’s (1984) famous formulation, go back to John Dewey’s (1933) exploration of thinking and reflection, and Kurt Lewin’s use of the notions of feedback

and action learning; and take note of David Boud and associates useful contribution on the nature of reflection.Single- and double-loop learning and organizational learning. This model of learning goes back to some work that Argyris and Schön did in 1974, but it found its strongest expression and grounding in organizational dynamics in 1978. Single-loop learning with it’s emphasis on the detection and correction of errors within a given set of governing variables is linked to incremental change in organizations. Double-loop learning involves interrogating the governing variables themselves and often involves radical changes such as the wholesale revision of systems, alterations in strategy and so on. We examine the notion of theories of action, single and double-loop learning, and the organizational orientations and practices linked to each.  Informal learning. All of a sudden a number of researchers and policy pundits have rediscovered ‘informal learning’. But is there really such a thing? We examine the current debates and conceptualizations and what some of the implications may be for those interested in developing the educative qualities of organizational life.Communities of practice. This notion has been popularized by Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998). We explore the idea that organizations may be a constellation of communities of practice.Can organizations learn?Prange (1999: 27) comments that one of the greatest myths of organizational learning is the ‘who question’, that is, ‘the way in which learning might be considered organizational’. There are those who argue that it is individuals, not organizations, who learn. In other words, learning refers to the processes of thinking and remembering that take place within an individual’s brain.Traditionally, the study of cognitive processes, cognitive development, and the cultivation of educationally desirable skills and competencies has treated everything cognitive as being possessed and residing in the heads of individuals; social, cultural, and technological factors have been relegated to the role of backdrops or external sources of stimulation (Salomon 1993: xii)This notion relates to a particular view of selfhood. In this way of coming to understand our selves the body plays a crucial role. The skin becomes a boundary - everything that happens outside the wall it forms becomes the other - the world outside; what is inside isme - the world inside. In this three relatively simple and apparently 'natural' ideas rule (Sampson (1993: 34):the boundary of the individual is coincident with the boundary of the body;the body is a container that houses the individual;the individual is best understood as a self-contained entity. However, when we come to examine human behaviour in its everyday context, when we look at ‘real-life problem-solving situations, a rather different set of cognitive processes appear:People appear to think in conjunction or partnership with others and with the help of culturally provided tools and implements. Cognitions, it would seem, are not content-free tools that are brought to bear on this or that problem; rather, they emerge in a situation tackled by teams of people and tools available to them... What characterizes such daily events of thinking is that the social and artifactual surrounds, alleged to be ‘outside’ the individual’s heads, not only are sources of stimulation and guidance but are

actually vehicles of thought. Moreover, the arrangements, functions, and structures of these surrounds change in the process to become genuine parts of the learning that results from the cognitive partnership with them. In other words, it is not just the ‘person-solo’ who learns, but the ‘person-plus’, the whole system of interrelated factors. (Salomon 1993: xiii)This is not a new idea – for example, John Dewey recognized the significant of the environment in being and learning. It links into a dialogical   understanding of selfhoodand the work of people like George Herbert Mead  (Cole and Engeström 1993 provide a useful historical overview of the development of thinking around distributed cognition).We can see how individual and organizational learning may connect in the work of Chris Argyris and Donald Schön (1978; 1996). They suggest that each member of an organization constructs his or her own representation or image of the theory-in-use of the whole (1978: 16). The picture is always incomplete – and people, thus, are continually working to add pieces and to get a view of the whole. They need to know their place in the organization.Hence, our inquiry into organizational learning must concern itself not with static entities called organizations, but with an active process of organizing which is, at root, a cognitive enterprise. Individual members are continually engaged in attempting to know the organization, and to know themselves in the context of the organization. At the same time, their continuing efforts to know and to test their knowledge represent the object of their inquiry. Organizing is reflexive inquiry….[Members] require external references. There must be public representations of organizational theory-in-use to which individuals can refer. This is the function of organizational maps. These are the shared descriptions of the organization which individuals jointly construct and use to guide their own inquiry….Organizational theory-in-use, continually constructed through individual inquiry, is encoded in private images and in public maps. These are the media of organizational learning. (Argyris and Schön 1978: 16-17)With this set of moves we can see how Chris Argyris and Donald Schön connect up the individual world of the worker and practitioner with the world of organization.Those interested in distributed cognition take this further. It can be argued that there are stronger and weaker versions of distributed cognition. The strong,or more radical, version would take the position that cognition in general needs to be reappraised and approached as principally distributed (see, for example, Cole and Engeström 1993; Pea 1993). The ‘proper unit of psychological analysis should be joint (often, but not necessarily) socially mediated activity in a cultural context’ (Salomon 1993: xv). A weaker, or less radical, version would hold that ‘solo’ and distributed cognitions are separate from one another, but should be taken in ‘an interdependent dynamic interaction’ (ibid.: xvi). Both ideas are often difficult to grasp as the notion of individual cognition is very deeply ingrained in much that is written about the area. As Salomon and Perkins (1998) put it, ‘we do not ordinarily consider possession of an artefact knowledge, yet possession of a database constitutes a kind of organizational knowing. Patterns of division of labour within an organization are kinds of know-how that have no easy individual analog’.In their review of individual and social aspects of learning, Salomon and Perkins comment:

If organizations can learn, this does not mean that they learn very well. A strong theme in the literature on organizational learning is the weakness of the learning system involved. The learning of the collective suffers from a startling range of limitations… Some of these are equally characteristic of solo and collective learning entities. For instance, rare high-stakes events—marriage decisions in an individual or major shifts of direction in a business—are difficult learning targets because they do not occur often to disambiguate the lessons of experience, and because by the time they occur again circumstances may have changed substantially.Other problems of learning are exacerbated by the specifically organizational character of the learning. For example, different individuals and units within an organization may hold somewhat different criteria of success. Also, advocates of a policy are likely to interpret any difficulties with it as reflecting an insufficiently vigorous pursuit of the policy, while opponents interpret the same data as signifying a bad policy. Feedback about the results of organizational actions may be distorted or suppressed as people rush to protect their turf or to maintain a positive climate….In summary, organizations, like individuals, can learn. Many of the fundamental phenomena of learning are the same for organizations… However, organizational learning also has distinctive characteristics with reference to what is learned, how it is learned, and the adjustments called for to enhance learning. These derive from the fact that any organization by definition is a collective, with individuals and larger units in different roles that involve different perspectives and values, passing information through their own filters, and with noisy and loss-prone information channels connecting them.As a result, it seems likely that organizational as against individual learning has a number of characteristic features. It will tend to be:Situated and concerned with communities of practice.More ‘informal’ and involve far less ‘teaching’ than in the individual caseRelatively unregulated.Contradictory. ‘The social entity can often be divided against itself, with different tacit beliefs and concealed agendas harboured by different subgroups or individuals’ (Salomon and Perkins 1998).Further reading and referencesArgyris, C. and Schön, D. (1996) Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice,Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Expands and updates the ideas and concepts of the authors' groundbreaking first book. Offers fresh innovations, strategies, and concise explanations of long-held theories.Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (eds.) (1999) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage. 247 + viii pages. A collection with a good overview and some very helpful individual papers. The opening section provides reviews and critiques, the second, a series of evaluations of practice.Tennant, M. (1997) Psychology and Adult Learning 2e, London: Routledge. 182 + xii pages. While not written directly into the organizational learning field, this book does provide a dood discussion of the relevance of psychological theory to adult education. Includes material on humanistic psychology and the self-directed learner; the psychoanalytical approach; adult development; cognitive developmental psychology; learning styles; behaviourism; group dynamics; critical awareness. There is helpful material on experiential learning and situated learning plus updates on the literature.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 318+xv pages. A fascinating expression of a social theory of learning that examines the integral role that communities play in our lives. Organizations are approached as constellations of communties of practice. Includes chapters on community, learning, boundary, locality, identity, participation, belonging, organizations and education.

ReferencesArgyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective,Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1996) Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice,Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993) ‘A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition’ in G. Salomon (ed.) Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations(pp. 1-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Malhotra, Y. (1996) ’Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations: An Overview’http://www.brint.com/papers/orglrng.htmPea, R. D. (1993) ‘Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education’ in G. Salomon (ed.). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Prange, C. (1999) ‘Organizational learning – desperately seeking theory?’ in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage.Salomon, G. (1993) ‘No distribution without individual’s cognition: A dynamic interactional view’ in G. Salomon (ed.) Distributed cognitions—Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Salomon, G. and Perkins, D. N. (1998) ‘Individual and social aspects of learning’, Review of Research in Education 23.Sampson, E. E. (1993) Celebrating the Other. A dialogic account of human nature, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization, London: Random House.

Case Studies of the Learning Organisation

MOTOROLA UNIVERSITY

Motorola continues to grow at a significant rate, with 20000 associates hired each year. With this growth, Motorola has the need to train people for their own hiring. Jeff Oberlin, director of Motorola University's Department of Emerging Technologies and Human Resource Trends explained:

"We can't keep using traditional classroom methods of instruction to spread the message for Motorola. Our reach isn't far enough to get to everybody. We must find creative ways to help new associates, world-wide, become productive members of a team and receive consistent messages about how we do business; the core values of Motorola, and the tools and techniques we use."

Jeff's charter is to closely re-examine MU's methods of spreading information, delivering training, and determining new and better ways of providing Motorolans with the knowledge and skills required to meet the ever-changing demands of the industry.

He went on to say, "The use of CD-ROM, Internet applications, wireless data, and a host of other emerging technologies must be fully explored. Our intent is to find those situations where alternative training delivery is the best way to transfer information."

Multimedia training would allow Motorola to:

Get training to all Motorolans world-wide, including emerging markets Reduce training times and costs Increase knowledge of the firm

The first step is to build a department of technology to research, develop, and eventually teach the how-to aspects of multimedia based learning.

"Once we determine how to use the various technologies available to us, we want to share that knowledge with the business." Motorola is looking for associates with expertise in a number of areas:

Computer based training The Internet Satellite and business television Wireless communication Corporate education departments Software Video

The Conception

Motorola University was started in 1981 as the Motorola Training and Education Centre. It was created to provide training needs and established itself as a corporate department.

During the 1980s, Motorola University's original aim was to help its company build a quality culture which would then develop an internal training system. In addition, they set up corporate-wide training plans and training investment policies.

By 1990, Motorola University had expanded its operations in the United States, Eastern Europe, South America and the Asia-Pacific region. The Galvin Centre for Continuing Education was opened in 1986 while the Singapore Training Design Centre was opened in 1989.

Today, many mangers, supervisors and employees from all parts of Motorola have attended diversity training. This training helps participants to have more opportunities to develop and achieve their full potential

Apple Japan

Until 1989, Apple Japan, the Japanese arm of the multinational Apple Computing corporation, held only 1 percent of the country's personal computer market. The appointment of a new company president marked the beginning of an era -- he started the drive to increase Apple's presence in the market and accelerated change. The company was to achieve annual sales of $1 billion by the end of 1995.

To meet this challenge the corporation approached the management consultant firm, Arthur D. Little, who have built up a wealth of experience in information technology and company restructuring. Apple Japan requested a sweeping plan to penetrate the market and increase efficiency within the company. In order to do this, they planned to reposition the brand, expand the range of distributors, improve customer management, and introduce the concept of the Learning Organisation into the workplace.

Methods

In order to implement Learning Organisation techniques, Apple was advised to tackle the Five Disciplines which are essential to a learning organisation: Team Learning, Shared Visions, Mental Models, Personal Mastery and Systems Thinking.

Although group meetings were a regular part of company practice, more time was allowed for group discussions and team education. This kept the work teams well informed and increased every individual's input to their project. With the increased emphasis on team learning, a shared vision was naturally introduced, allowing each member to work towards the same goal irrespective of their position.

Each employee of the company had their own mental model of how the organisation, their managers and team colleagues operate. By trying to bring each person's mental model into line with the rest of the team, the learning process was made more efficient

and teams acted more coherently. Personal Mastery was also addressed by encouraging managers to set their staff challenging but reasonable goals, and introducing training programmes.

The crucial discipline was Systems Thinking, which brought all the other factors together. This enabled each employee to make decisions, taking the whole system into account, instead of focusing specifically on their own problems.

These disciplines were implemented by moderate restructuring and a program of education that was applied to everyone in the organisation.

Results

The re-organisation resulted in a marked improvement in the company's sales, with growth exceeding the most optimistic projections:

Market Share grew to 15% in 1995 from 1% in 1989. Annual sales soared to $1.3 billion in 1994, with the sale of 520 000 computers

Although not all of the success can be attributed to the introduction of the Learning Organisation concept, the results indicate an unprecedented improvement. The learning organisation was a major player in instituting this growth.

Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales (YPF) 

YPF, the largest company in Argentina, is today a focused, highly productive oil and gas company involved in the exploration and production of oil and natural gas. It also refines, markets and distributes oil and petroleum products.

In 1989, the company employed 52 000 permanent and temporary staff, and included holdings in fields as far away from its main business as hospitals and cinemas. The challenge facing the company was to transform itself from an inefficient state-owned bureaucratic centre into an efficient private company that could attract international investment.

In order to facilitate this change, the company went about re-designing its organisational structure and culture. They turned to the American management consultant firm, Arthur D Little.

Methods

From the outset, the Arthur D Little team worked with the YPF management in re-organising their business. It was felt important that this re-design be only the first step in a long term aim of becoming a dynamic and modern organisation. The concept of the Learning Organisation was introduced.

The establishment of a measurement system was perhaps the biggest step -- this enabled the employees to evaluate and review what was going on in the company, thus learning about current processes and seeing what worked well. The introduction of working groups also benefited the business, as ideas could be discussed, and perceptions aired. Everyone in the business became more aware of the company's purpose and the collective effort reaped dramatic results.

Results

Losses of almost $579 million in 1990 were transformed into profits of $256 million in 1992 and $706 million in 1993 The number of staff was reduced from 52000 to around 6000 In July 1993, 44% of YPF was offered on the New York and Beunos Aires stock exchanges, raising $3 billion for the Argentine government. $1 billion has since been raised with the sale of further 13 %

This entire restructuring was completed in just two years, leaving the company with a strong framework and tools for continuous learning and improvement.