The Learning Organization - Essay Example

The concept of organizational learning has now grown into the far more ambitious goal of a “Learning Organization”. Literature abounds with references to this idealized notion and industry experts have already handed over the responsibly for all future economic progress to Organizations that can learn and change. The concept of a learning Organization is the result of the great realization that “learning” as a process can be routinely incorporated into the functioning of any organization and that it can be managed, just as we can manage an organization’s material inventory, staff and sundry (Garavan, 1997). The paradigm shift in theory of management that resulted in the introduction of the Learning Organization is the shift of focus from mere “learning” to the “process of learning” (Senge, 1990). We now have a structured understanding not only of what we learn and how it can be applied but also how it is learned and communicated. As the rest of this paper endeavors to show, organizations also exhibit specific patterns of cognition, communication and evolution – with profound consequences for their economic output and vitality. It is perhaps best to start with an example. That the Japanese automakers have posed a serious threat to their American counterparts is common knowledge. Japanese cars have demonstrated greater efficiency and has generally been welcomed by the American Public. Not surprisingly, Japanese cars have been scrupulously examined by American engineers to decipher the secret of their performance. In one such test, it was found that a particular engine model was assembled with a set of three different bolts in America while the Japanese used only a single bolt standard. Each type of standard required a different type of wrench, complicating the inventory and incrementing the cost. It was found that this was because the American model was designed by three different teams of engineers while the Japanese model was entirely designed by one designer. Interestingly, this seemingly trivial action could have gone completely undetected though each of the three American teams were satisfied with their individual performance (Senge, 1990). It was not merely the lack of communication that resulted in the above complication. The fundamental breakdown of the American system of production was the lack of an integrated approach to design, production and testing (this is exactly what Senge [1990] would later call “systems thinking”). Trivial though it was, the tiny increase in the inventory control of a single car added to produce a significant elevation of the total production cost, thus making American cars less competitive in the market. This era is indeed one of increased competitiveness and unprecedented change. As Arie De Geus of Royal Dutch Company pointed out “The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage” that companies have in today’s crowded market place (Ortenblad, 2001). This is made explicit in Revan’s empirical formula:  which symbolically expresses the idea that learning in an organization must be equal to or greater than the rate of external change (Revans, 1998) .0Senge [1990] compliments this understanding with the dooming statistic that the average lifetime of an organization is less than that of a human being. After an initial period of growth and expansion, all industries reach a stage where it’s increased size make the dissemination of new information and the redressing of grievances exceedingly difficult. Frustration and discord rises within all ranks of management and labor until it can longer be settled by amiable means (Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydell, 1997). At this stage in its development, large organizations also develop elaborate defense routines that may both be overprotective and anti-learning. These are at times so embedded in the culture of the organization that they may hardly be questioned or challenged (Argyris, 1990). In apparent conformation with Newton’s Law of Inertia, massive organizations find it difficult to demonstrate change and flexibility. Consequently, employee participation and development falls within the organization. Despite this, serious attempts to remedy the situation are not taken until a major crisis befalls the organization. As Garavan [1997] has so romantically put it, there is a foolish sense of relief to “sink into the calm security of prescriptive organization” (Garavan, 1997). It should be said that the growth of the concept of a learning Organization is but a natural development in organizational theory in keeping with the tempo of the time. Many of the efficiency driven concepts of the 1980s such as Total Quality Management (TQM) and Business Process Re-engineering have outlived their utility and a greater degree of innovation is being sought after (Burgoyne, 1995). Burgoyne argues that such organizations had become vulnerable because they “had little spare capacity to come through a crisis” (Burgoyne, 1995). Technological advancements of this century have not only enabled direct competition of global brands but has also made possible the comparison and joint evaluation of different production, control and marketing strategies practiced worldwide. A learning organization is seminal in its conceptual design in that it not only requires all its discrete parts to learn and evolve continuously with time, but it also places a huge emphasis on “learning to learn” (Senge, 1990). That is, all sections of the company, including the senior management, are taught the basic processes in which information is collected and assimilated. The hierarchical organization and administrative structure of the company is such that “they maintain a rich informal environment, heavily laden with information, which spurs diffusion of ideas that work” (Peters & Waterman, 1982). In a Learning Organization, there are no static models of evaluation and collaboration. The separation between various departments, technology and marketing as well as management and labor is vague and inconsequential. Ideas are encouraged, so that small failures find greater tolerance and acceptance so long as the company learns from its mistakes (Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydell, 1997). This work cannot be complete without at least once stating the definition of a Learning Organization from Pedlar et al: “one which facilitates the learning of all of its members and continuously transforms itself” (Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydell, 1997). This ‘learning’ takes place in “individuals, teams, the organization, and even in the communities with which the organization interacts”. Furthermore, “…it is a continuous, strategically used process - integrated with and running parallel to work …which enhances the organizational capacity for innovation and growth. The learning organization has embedded systems to capture and share learning” (Watkins & Marsick, 1993). The traditional division of labor in terms of an assigned project and its completion is not part of a learning organization, but everyone is allowed to pursue his or her own aspirations so long as it conforms to the basic functioning of the organization (Senge, 1990). A learning organization nurtures new and revolutionary modes of thinking. As has been stated earlier, literature abounds with definitions and explanations of what a learning Organization is and how it should be implemented. These definitions at times seem so exclusive of each other that one author has gone so far as to state that “One must conclude at this stage that the notion of the learning organization is in a state of evolution and its precise form is yet to be defined” (Garavan, 1997). He also gives the most comprehensive classification of the literature that pertains to a learning organization. Garavan suggests that some authors tend to treat a ‘Learning Organization’ as a variable that can be externally incorporated into an existing organization. These authors tend to have an objective and functional view of reality,; insisting that there are specific traits that can be indentified and later incorporated into the behavior of employees and into the functioning of the organization. “The idea that a strong learning organization has a distinct and positive impact on performance is very popular, and commentators have identified a range of benefits of developing such an organization” (Garavan, 1997). The other set of writers argue that a learning organization is a culture by itself and that no particular traits can be isolated for such an organization as it is not the individual trends but the entire organization that is responsible for the learning behavior. The proponents of the variable theory have been accused of “indiscriminately applying psychological theory to organizations” (Hendry, Jones, & Cooper, 1994). Chief among these is the work of Argyris and Schon [1978] which made numerous references to the single and double loop models of learning and understanding. Their work has been noted by Garavan [1997] for “a high tendency to use the language of stimulus- response theory”. On the other hand, he also reminds writers who see the learning organization as a culture that “Such a metaphor has significant limitations; primarily [in] its assumption of functional unity, whereas in reality organizations are not normally characterized by harmony”. Pedler [1990] puts emphasis on the learning of all of an organization’s members while Hayes et al [1988] and Slater [1995] shifts this to increase the competitiveness of all of an organization’s functions. Senge [1990] is broader in his analysis of the Learning Organization in that he brackets all the perspectives of the learning organization together (Garavan, 1997).His work has been extremely influential in academic and business circles and provides a lot of insight into his idea of what a learning organization is and how it can be achieved. He proposes the cultivation of five disciplines of human behavior and conduct that are necessary for the creation of a collaborative learning organization. For the depth of his vision and the greater clarity of his expression, it is worthwhile to examine Senge’s work in greater detail. Also, it is the closest guide that we have to learning how to create a functioning learning organization. Senge [1990] begins by arguing that to learn is an inherent tendency in all human beings and that it is not only instinctive in our psyche but is also enjoyable. Therefore, he argues that a learning organization is more suited to our natural predisposition than a mechanistic or prescriptive organization. He suggests that to be a part of a successful functioning learning organization, all its individual members should develop in them five fundamental disciplines. These are (Senge, 1990): Personal Mastery – This is the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening of our personal vision, focusing our energies, of developing patience and of seeing objective reality. Mental Model – Mental models are deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations and pictures that may influence how we view the world and take action. Building Shared Vision – Where there is a shared vision, people work not because they have to but because they want to. A shared vision is necessary for a learning organization. Team Learning – Beginning with the interesting question of “ how can a team of committed managers with individual IQ of 120 have a collective IQ of 63?” Senge goes on to explain the importance of not just learning but learning as a group. Systems Thinking – Systems thinking is a conceptual framework to make full patterns clearer and to help us see change quickly and more effectively. The application of these models have been at the heart of the revival and subsequent success of many major organizations. The Royal Dutch/ Shell and General Motors (Walker & Guest, 1952) are common examples. By recognizing the need to remain learning these organizations were able to surmount the “mental barriers” that prevented them from achieving their full potential and subsequently went on to be market leaders. For an organizational learning program to succeed across an organization (Betts & Holden, 2003): 1. It should be acknowledged as important and interesting by individuals and their immediate work groups both individually and organizationally, 2. It should have the blessing of the immediate management, 3. It should be a collective process and must incorporate functionality at all its stages, 4. It should recognize existing power patterns within the organization. In the development of a Learning Organization, the impetus to change must come from within and this often requires extensive realignment of existing socio structures (Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydell, 1997). The senior management has a major role to play in the functioning of the organization. In true Gandhian principles, they should lead by example and should themselves be willing to constantly learn and change (Ortenblad, 2001). The Learning organization is the product of a cumulative set of changes that allow for greater individual freedom and expression. Mistakes and minor failures should be allowed and this can at times requires a greater understanding from the management. “There is a tendency within the business and economics literature to equate learning with competitive advantage. However, the concern in the psychological context is to go beyond issues of competitive advantage and consider the process of learning as well as the outcomes of the learning process” (Garavan, 1997). Thus an organization that is focused only on instant profitability can never be a true Learning Organization. The aspiration of every learning organization is to develop into a body that is “more consistent with man’s higher aspirations than simply food, shelter and clothing” (Senge, 1990). Every learning organization faces the dilemma that it may be not able to directly experience the results of the massive administrative and structural changes that it implements (Garatt, 1999). This is especially important for new learning organizations as they seek a greater vindication of their ideas. However, the concept of a learning organization is a revolutionary step to the organizations of the future. Senge [1990] explains that most of the ailments that the society faces today are the result of our failure to understand collective behavior and enterprise. Thus, the learning organization is not just a radically new business model but also has greater implications for our civilization and future progress. The next natural step in this organizational evolution can only be the creation of a “Learning Society”. Given the pace of development today, this cannot be too far away. References Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning: A theory in perspective. Massachussets: Allyn and Bacon. Betts, J., & Holden, R. (2003). Organizational Learning in a Public sector Organization: a case study in muddled thinking. Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol 15, No 6 , 280 - 287. Burgoyne, J. G. (1995, September 21). Feeding minds to grow the business. People Management . Garatt, B. (1999). The Learning organization Fifteen years on: Some personal reflections. The learning Organization, Vol 6, No 5 , 202 - 206. Garavan, T. (1997). The Learning Organization: A Review and Evaluation. The Learning Organization, Vol 4, No 1 , 18 - 19. Hendry, C., Jones, A. M., & Cooper, N. (1994). Creating a Learning Organization: Stratergies for Change. Sutton Coldfield: Sutton Coldfield Man made Fibres Industry Training Organization. Ortenblad, A. (2001). On the Differences between Organizational Learning and Learning Organization. The Learning Organization, Vol 8, No 3 , 125 - 133. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1997). The Learning Company: A startergy for sustainable development. London: Mc GrawHill. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best Run companies. New York: Harper and Row. Revans, R. W. (1998). The ABC of Action Learning. London: Lemos and Crane. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Doubleday publishers. Walker, C. R., & Guest, R. H. (1952). The Man on the Assembly Line. New York: Harvard University Press. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Scultping the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco: Josey Bass. Read More