Barriers to Learning - Coursework Example

Barriers to Learning Total Number of Words: 2,997 Table of Contents I. ………………………………………………………………… 3 II. Introduction …………………………………………………………. 4 III. Organizational Learning ………………………………………. 5 IV. The Knowing-Doing Gap ……………………………………… 6 V. Argyris Action Science …………………………………………. 9 VI. Senge’s Dance of Change ……………………………………. 10 VII. Psychological Limitations to Strategic Thinking …. 12 VIII. Summary ………………………………………………………………. 14 IX. Conclusion ………………………………………………….…………. 16 References ………………………………………………………………………. 17 - 19 Abstract Organizational learning is vital to the growth and success of an organization. In line with the organizational learning, it is necessary to determine the barriers to learning and eventually come up with necessary solutions in order to fully maximize the benefit of an organizational learning. This study will discuss about the Knowing-Doing Gap, Argyris Action Science, Senge’s Dance of Change, and Psychological Limitations to Strategic Thinking to give us a better understanding why certain learning processes are more successful and beneficial to a group than the others. Also, the author will provide several solutions to each identified barrier to learning. Introduction Organizational learning can be acquired through constant reading, listening, or even thinking. It is necessary for the growth and sustainability of an organization. The rapidly changing global market environment creates a tight competition among the local and international businesses. In order to cope with the business challenge that has resulted from globalisation, organizational learning is recommended to help the organization in keeping up with the constant changes in the world of business. In line with the economic changes, new theories and learning techniques emerges almost everyday. (Gephart et al., 1996) Learning is not always effective because it is possible that a member of an organization would choose not to share his knowledge within the organizational team or subordinates. Sometimes, adequate trainings and other learning-related support is provided to the team but despite the high investment costs on trainings and time invested on teachings, many still fails to learn and be successful in converting the knowledge into actions needed in accomplishing the goals set by the organization. For learning to be effective, the organizational process of learning should be carefully analysed, developed, monitored, and aligned with the innovative goals of an organization. (Cummings and Worley, 1993) There are a lot of internal and external factors that could directly affect the learning capacity and efficiency of each individual and the organization as a group. As part of the study, the author aims to elaborately discuss the different theories behind the barriers to learning. Several issues in relation to the Knowing-Doing Gap, Argyris Action Science, Senge’s Dance of Change, and Psychological Limitations to Strategic Thinking will be carefully analysed to give us a better understanding why certain learning process are more successful and beneficial to a group than the others. In line with the topic, the author will provide several solutions to each barrier to learning. Organizational Learning Schwandt (1997) defines organizational learning as “a system of actions, actors, symbols and processes that enables an organization to transform information into valued knowledge which in turn increases its long-run adaptive capacity.” (Schwandt, 1997; p. 343) It may take place under two conditions: mistake or failure and achievements. (Argyris, 1999; p.67) McGill and Slocum (1993) defines it as “the process whereby organizations becomes aware of the qualities, patterns, and consequences of their own experiences, and develop mental models to understand these experiences.” (McGill and Slocum, 1993; p. 72) Automatically, when the organization continuously expands its capacity to create its future, organizational learning happens. (Senge, 1990; p. 14) Mental models play an important role in the process of organizational learning because we use it as a way of creating an image or perspective of a situational event, activity or concept as we try to solve an organizational problem. (Marquardt, 1996; p. 45) It means that by creating mental images on the mind, it would be easier for the learners to determine the possible outcome of a strategic plan for action. The Knowing-Doing Gap Due to the increase in global corporate and organizational competition, a lot of business and organizational leaders are aiming to maximize their personal wealth rather than expanding the value of its shareholders. (Gutpa, 2002) In line with this matter, it is possible for an organizational politics to set boundaries within an organization when it comes to effective learning. Political barriers to learning are often used in some organization to prevent the members of the team from becoming more competitive than the leader and managers. For many years, organizations have always been going through the process of synthesizing their acquired knowledge from external sources with their past and current experiences. (Sarvary, 1999) Organizational learning is difficult and is often being neglected by the stakeholders. The constant process of knowledge implementation and critical review helps narrow down the gap between theoretical knowledge and the actual application of the theory. (Gupta and McDaniel, 2002) These are necessary in making appropriate decisions in determining critical organizational actions. There is a big difference between knowing how to address an organizational problem and other issues using the knowledge of business theories and strategies in comparison with a manager’s ability to effectively address the problem by implementing the right business strategy. (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000) A lot of managers are not aware about the difference of knowing and effectively finding the right solution to the problem. Many times, this contributes to the failure of the managers in accomplishing their goals. For this reason, the theory of Knowing-Doing Gap was developed to give importance to real action over knowledge. The Knowing-Doing Gap is about the challenge of turning knowledge on organizational performance into actions that are consistent with the acquired knowledge. (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000) Therefore, it is highly recommended for each team members to actively engage in thoughtful actions rather than wasting time trying to contemplate and talking about the organizational problems. Taking action would definitely generate more valuable experiences in which the team members could learn from. Based on a research, some organizations are more consistently able to successfully adopt the ‘learning by doing’ philosophy. (Angehrn, 2005) Many times, these companies gets better at it as the organization grows and absorb new people into the group. In some cases, organizations that are composed of intelligent and hard working individuals fail to translate their knowledge on organizational performance into action. For this reason, it can be concluded that one company can be compared to other organization in terms of its management systems and practices rather than the quality of people behind it simply because a remarkable organizational performance can also be seen from organizations that is composed of ordinary people. Many times, the leaders behind successful organizations have the competitive advantages of knowing by doing. It means that these people could easily convert what they know into a useful strategy and do an actual implementation of the plan. Over the years, researchers were able to prove that a constant acquisition of a new knowledge within a classroom setting is less effective than learning something new through an actual doing of the task. (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000) This answers the question why some of the organization that spends so much on formal trainings still fails to show a positive effect on the overall organizational performances. According to Jeffrey Pfeffer (2000), “One learns to be a leader by serving as a leader.” (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000) The problem is that this practice is not always followed because a lot of organizations and managers would prefer to talk, conceptualise, and rationalize about the organizational problems and issues rather than confront or find a direct solution to solve the problem. There are just so many companies with people who would get ahead by doing smart talks instead of smart actions. Most of their time is being wasted on talking rather than in doing productive things to help accomplish the goal of the organization. To avoid the Knowing-Doing Gap, it is important that each members of the organization is aware of the said theory. Keeping the theory in mind would enable the team members especially the leaders to think more about the possible solution to the problem and how to act on the it rather than to think about the problem all the time. Argyris Action Science Cris Agyris states that information gathering such as knowledge, understanding, know-how techniques or practices are considered to be the central feature of a learning organization. (Argyris, 1996; p. 3) These information may be gathered through an ‘organizational inquiry.’ He said that gathered information should be the basis for organization action. It means that organizational actions that are not based on information are considered as self-defeating and illogical. Among other learning theories, the ‘double-loop learning’, a simple reactive learning framework based on stimuli-response, have been found to have a great relevance in the context of training and development. (Chowdhury, 2006; Argylis, 1976) The focus of this learning theory is to solve complex and ill structured organizational problems through effective social interactions. Argylis designed and implemented an action theory called ‘action science’ that consolidates the role of learning in an organizational level. (Argyris, 1993) He believes that an organization is a collection of interdependent and interlocked individuals. (Argyris, 1996; pp. 6 – 8) It means that a systematic interdependence and networking between and among the individuals regarding the information and knowledge is the key to a successful organizational learning and problem solving. Each members of the organization are expected to have the ability to acquire knowledge on their own. In the absence of a good communication network among these people, organizational learning is unlikely to take place. Therefore, communication gap is considered as one of the main factors of organization learning failure. In order for the leaders to sustain a systematic interdependence within the organization, it is advisable to build a good professional relationship among the team members. Regular short meetings among the team members would open a better communication opportunity for them to learn from each other’s point-of-view as well as past and current experiences. Senge’s Dance of Change Senge enumerated five disciplines that are considered to be important in establishing an effective learning organization. These are: (1) Systems Thinking; (2) Personal mastery; (3) Mental models; (4) Building shared vision; and (5) Team learning. (Senge, 1990) ‘Systems-thinking’ is similar to Argylis’ systematic interdependence and network in order to convey the knowledge from a member of the group to another member because each individual is believed to have a personal mastery about a specific matter. Senge believes that the mental models are considered the most important way of solving conflicts. With regards to the issue on mental models, Senge heavily draws the work of Argylis specifically from the ‘double-loop learning’. (Sobrero, 2004) Senge noted that it is important for the organization to have a shared vision. There are a lot of cases wherein organizations that do not practice a shared vision. This could result to a lot of miscommunication and conflicts that could lead to an unsuccessful learning organization. Some organization may have a vision but is never shared among the members of the organization. A shared vision is necessary to avoid misunderstanding between the stakeholders as well as any possible chaos of the free-flowing voices and information among the group. There are so many leaders and managers in an organization who are not aware and do not understand the importance of a shared vision. Most of these people believe that an order and structure directly comes from a strict control and regimentation. This process is not effective as it often leads to stagnation and restricts the growth of organizational learning. The fifth disciple that Senge highlighted is the importance of ‘team learning.’ The concept of team learning is highly connected to the previous concept called ‘building shared visions.’ According to Senge, team learning is the process wherein the team members would build a shared vision in order to achieve a common goal. (Senge, 1990) Team learning is possible only when there is a good foundation of trust and respect among the members of the team. In the absence of a team learning, it would be more difficult for each member to acquire the maximum learning potential that is possible only through a group/team learning. As the saying goes: “two-heads are always better than one.” Senge also emphasis that “the only competitive advantage of any organization is its managers’ ability to learn faster than their competitors.” (Senge, 1990) Agreeing to Senge statement, Jack Welch of General Electric also believes that the desire and the organization’s ability to learn from any sources as well as its capability of the members to transform the knowledge into action is the ultimate competitive advantage. (Sobrero, 2004) Psychological Limitations to Strategic Thinking Strategic thinking is vital in solving the organizational problems and other related issues. However, strategic thinking is not practiced all the time due to the psychological limitations of each individual. There are several factors that hinder a person to do a strategic planning. It is possible that a person may not have the capability to conduct a strategic planning due to lack of adequate knowledge and wisdom to perform and come up with a good strategic planning. In some cases, organizational leaders simply avoid doing a strategic thinking because of the pressure attached to it. (Bonsignore, 1997) There are instances that an organization leader tends to implement a flawed plan because of the absence of a critical thinking about the social, technical, and financial implications and effects of the strategy. A weak strategic analysis could result to a greater damage arising from the existing organizational problem. According to Kees van der Heijden (2002), “companies that do not survive are most likely to have failed in overcoming their flaws in relation to thinking at a personal and organizational levels.” (Van Der Heijden, 2002) For this reason, it is important for each organization to address and find the right solution to prevent the possible flaws when developing an effective strategic plan. In order to gain competitive advantages in relation to a strategic thinking, it is important for the organization to have sufficient strategic tools that will help the managers and leaders in attaining their responsibility with regards to developing a strategic plan for the organization. A proposed strategic plan must always be subject to further review by the senior management. This will minimize the possible damages in line with the implementation of a flawed plan. Based on past researches, it has been proven that group interaction techniques are effective in improving the analysis of a proposed strategic plan. (Bonsignore, 1997) Another solution for a better strategic planning is to have different sets of direct thinking tools. These tools are helpful in simplifying the thinking process of the strategic planner. Also, these tools will enable the planner to easily detect possible flaws in the plan faster. Summary Organizational learning is necessary in a successful organization. Barriers to learning are inevitably present in any organization. For this reason, it is important to remove the barriers to learning effectively. In line with determining the barriers to learning, this study discussed about the Knowing-Doing Gap, Argyris Action Science, Senge’s Dance of Change, and Psychological Limitations to Strategic Thinking. The Knowing-Doing Gap highlights the importance of being able to convert knowledge into strategic actions. Knowledge alone is not enough to solve an organizational problem. Aiming to avoid the Knowing-Doing Gap, each members of the organizational team needs to be aware of this theory. The Argyris Action Science gives emphasis to the importance of a systematic interdependence and networking between and among the individuals regarding knowledge sharing. To achieve this goal, it is advisable to build a good professional relationship among the team members. Implementing a regular short meeting among the team members is another way of creating an open communication within the group. It also creates an opportunity for them to learn from each other’s point-of-view as well as past and current experiences. Senge’s Dance of Change uses some of Argyris’ theory in coming up with the five disciplines that are vital in an effective learning organization: The Systems Thinking serves as the backbone of Senge theory, The Personal mastery, Mental models, Building shared vision, and Team learning are necessary in supporting the systems-thinking. According to Senge, the competitive advantage of any organization depends on the managers’ ability to learn faster than their competitors. Similar to the solution provided under Argyris, an open communication among the team members is necessary in order for the organizational team to build a shared vision as well as to gain benefits from team learning. All these are necessary in maximizing the full potential of ‘systems-thinking’ for the benefit of the organization as a whole. Lastly, the Psychological Limitations to Strategic Thinking is about creating an effective strategic plan to help achieve the goal of the organization. In order to develop an effective strategic plan, strategic thinking is necessary. To avoid implementing a flawed plan, it is critical to have the senior managers to review the proposed strategic plan. Other option includes the use of strategic tools. It is also recommended to use group interaction techniques to improve the analysis of a proposed strategic plan. Conclusion Barriers to learning are present in any organizations. The success of an organization is not totally dependent on the intelligence of the people behind the group. Some organizations could perform better than the others because these people have the ability to immediately address the organizational problems by taking the necessary actions in solving the main cause of the problem. Therefore, it is important for any organization to pay more attention on teamwork in order to achieve a united strategic plan in achieving a common organizational goal. Some of the barriers to learning were very well described by Senge, Argyris, and the other philosophers. In many cases, barriers to learning are either synonymous or are very closely related to each other. To achieve a successful organizational learning, it is necessary for the team members to establish a good professional relationship with the other group members. Open communication and trust among the members would result to a more successful organizational learning. Due to the constantly changing market environment, it is important for each of the team members to continuously update their general knowledge. This is one way for them to contribute some future inputs that are necessary in sustaining the growth and development of an organizational learning. *** End *** References: 1 Angehrn, A. (2005) ‘Learning to Manage Innovation and Change through Organizational and People Dynamics Simulations’ Proceedings of the International Simulation & Gaming Association Conference (ISAGA05), 2005. Retrieved: May 16, 2007 < http://www.calt.insead.edu/ > 2 Argyris, C. (1976) ‘Increased Leadership Effectiveness’ New York: Wiley 3 Argyris, C. (1993) ‘On Organizational Learning’ Cambridge, MA: Blackwell 4 Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1996) ‘Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice’ Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 5 Argyris, C. (1999) ‘On Organizational Learning’ 2nd Ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. p. 67 6 Bonsignore, M. (1997) ‘Seven Lessons About Quality Improvement: An Executive’s Perspective’ Strategic Management Research Centre. Review. Vol. 2, No. 1. July, 1997 Retrieved: May 16, 2007 < http://webpages.csom.umn.edu/ > 7 Chowdhury, M. (2006) ‘Human Behaviour in the Context of Training: An Overview of the Role of Learning Theories as Applied to Training and Development’ Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 7, No. 2, June 2006. Retrieved: May 16, 2007 < http://www.tlainc.com/ > 8 Cummings, T. and Worley, C. (1993) ‘Strategic Interventions’ Organizational Development and Change. South-Western College Publishing. pp. 492 – 501. 9 Gephart et al. (1996) ‘Learning Organizations Come Alive’ Training and Development. December, 1996. pp. 35 – 45. 10 Gutpa, A. (2002) ‘The Knowing-Doing Gap’ Mid-American Journal of Business. Vol. 17, No. 2, Fall 2002. Retrieved: May 16, 2007 < http://www.bsu.edu/ > 11 Gupta, A. and McDaniel, J. (2002) ‘Creating Competitive Advantage by Effectively Managing Knowledge: A Framework for Knowledge Management’ Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, October 2002. Retrieved: May 16, 2007 < http://www.tlainc.com/ > 12 Marquardt, M.J. (1996) ‘Building the Learning Organization’ New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 45 13 McGill, M.E. and Slocum, J.W. (1993) ‘Unlearning the Organization’ Organizational Dynamics. 22; 67 – 78. 14 Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. (2000) ‘The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action’ Harvard Business School Press. ISBN: 1-57851-124-0. 15 Sarvary, M. (1999) ‘Knowledge Management and Competition in the Consulting Industry’ California Management Review. 41 (2), 95 – 107. 16 Senge, P. (1990) ‘The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Science of the Learning Organization’ New York: Doubleday. p. 13 17 Schwandt, D.R. (1997) ‘Integrating Strategy and Organizational Learning’ in Shrivastava, P. et al. ‘Advances in Strategic Management’ Volume 14. Organizational Learning and Strategic Management. pp. 337 – 359. 18 Sobrero, P. (2004) ‘The Steps for Futuring’ Journal of Extension. Vol. 42, No. 3. June 2004. Retrieved: May 16, 2007 < http://www.joe.org/ > 19 Van Der Heijden, K. (2002) ‘The Sixth Sense: Enhancing Organizational Learning with Scenarios’ John Wiley & Sons. October 1, 2002. Read More