The Learning Organization as a Philosophical Concept - Essay Example

Learning Organisation Introduction The Learning Organization as a philosophical concept continues to spread widely among modern companies. The concept cuts across from 5the smallest companies in the village up to the largest multinationals operating in various continents. The achievements attained by companies because of the philosophy depend on the interpretation of the same by a specific company as well as its considerable commitment. Easterby-Smith (2012, p. 47) states that Richard Karash defines a Learning Organization as an organization where employees across all levels continue increase their abilities to generate results that satisfy organizational targets. It is important for people to get a clear difference between learning organization and organizational learning. Peter Senge was behind the popular spreading of learning organization. The definition of learning organization is inclusive of various issues among them an ideal learning environment as well as a perfect tune with the goals of the organization. In such an organization, employees increasingly expand their abilities to get results desired by the organization (Hughes & Tight 2011, p. 21). In the institution, the environment allows generation of new ideas, expansion, and development of the same. It allows the collective aspirations to grow as people continue to learning wholesome. The value of learning organization A learning Organization relies on the mastery of five measurements. First, systems thinking come out at the top of dimensions. The idea of handling an organization as a complex system constituting smaller systems also complex in nature defines the systems thinking. It requires comprehension of all components different from the manner in which a health physician understands the body of a human being (Edmondson 1999, p. 56). Important elements in this respect include recognition of complexity within an organization besides having long-term targets. According to Senge, organizations should apply system maps displaying the connections within the system (Finger 2009, p. 93). Personal mastery is the second dimension defined by Senge Peter. It entails a process where an employee puts in effort to facilitate focus and energy in addition to being in constant state of gaining knowledge (Cohen & Prusak 2001, p. 63). The other aspect is the mental model. Assumptions ingrained deeply together with generalisations, pictures, and images that determine the way people comprehend the environment defines the third dimension (Gadamer 2009, p. 74). It is necessary to take note of the same and recognize the challenges to give for embracing fresh concepts and modifications. Another dimension is building shared vision. One of the most powerful motivators is shared vision. It is always that an idea envisioned by a leader will trickle down to junior employees (Dixon 2004, p. 136). The essence in this context is to have transfer on a picture defined in the context of future situations. Means of influencing the vision are commitment, dialogue, as well as enthusiasm. People with vision must avoid dictatorship to gain better results. Other scholars point that storytelling is another method that works well in imparting vision among other employees (Factor 1994, p. 41). Finally, team learning is the last dimension identified by Senge. It constitutes a moment where staff members’ reason together defined as brainstorming to reach a consensus on attaining goals set by the company. Brainstorming works together with capacity building to develop shared vision, a component of partnership. Barriers to learning organization A leader comes face-to-face with barriers to learning organization. Barriers are many and include résistance and stubbornness to change, ignoring purple elephants, absence of direct leadership, disregarding the success of teams, lack of value for learning, excessive control, and short-term focus (Castells 2001, p. 79). Adapting to learning organization Leadership plays a big role in a learning organization. Scholars from various fields focus on the role of a leader in developing a learning organization. Senge (1990) for instance, defined three roles of leaders with the responsibility of reshaping the traditional approach to issues related to being a boss. The first role is a leader becoming a designer. It is possible to liken a designer leader to the designer of a ship as opposed to the captain of the ship. Three definitional modes define a leader as a designer (Hayes 2008, p. 65). A leader should develop a common vision entailing a shared purpose and values. It is also the duty of a leader to determine the strategies, policies, as well as the appropriate framework applied in translating guiding concepts into business decisions (Bolman 2007, p. 112). Finally, a leader designer must build efficient learning procedures that give room for continuous improvement of structures, strategies, and plans of action. A leader as a designer should carry teaching abilities. In this case, the teacher becomes a coach working with metal models within the organization. He ought to comprehend the tacit ideas of restructuring and reality of the views to realize success beyond superficial conditions and events (Gilley 2000, p. 61). A leader is also expected to be a steward. It appears vague of all the ideas. It relies on the attitude of the leader. A leader should feel part of something greater with the desire to serve as opposed to leading. The impact of technology Various organizations and consultants continue to embrace the commercial value of organizational learning. Various scholars explored the area to identify ideal forms and templates emulated by real organization. Learning Organization is an ideal path for an organization on the way to evolve and respond to pressures from different fronts. Recognition characterises learning organization as well considering an employee both as an individual and as collectively (Garvin 2000, p. 31). Other managers hold that it is difficult to isolate realm examples of learning organization. According to them, lack of a realistic vision and irrelevance of the vision to the overall company objective constitute the reasons. The other reason is the process of focusing on developing templates as well as the necessity to present the same in a commercially attractive way to consultants (Argyris & Schön 2006, p. 174). This point presents the difference between organizational learning and learning organization. Most theorists dealing with learning organization continue to draw and apply concepts form organizational learning but those in the later theory do not use ideas from the former. Literatures in the two fields take different tracks because of the differences in central concerns (Bohm 2001, p. 251). Literature on learning organization focuses on action orientation and aims at using precise evaluative and diagnostic techniques that help in identification, promotion, and evaluation of quality learning procedures within the company. On the other hand, literature on organizational learning concentrates on detached collection and analysis of procedures entailed in employees as well as collective learning within the institution (Argyris & Schön 2008, p. 191). Organizational learning is both an activity and process through which institutions attain the ideal of learning as an organization (Habermas 2004, p. 162). The concept of learning organization offers leaders and other players in an organization an image of how issues run within the company. Writers among others Senge introduce interesting dimensions developed through personal means increasing organizational efficiency. Bibliography Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (2008). Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (2006). Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Bohm, D. (2001). ‘Dialogue – a proposal’, the informal education archives. Bolman, L. (2007). Reframing Organizations. Artistry, choice and leadership 2e, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Castells, M. (2001). ‘Information technology and global capitalism’. On the Edge. Living with global capitalism, London: Vintage. Cohen, D. & Prusak, L. (2001). In Good Company. How social capital makes organizations work, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dixon, N. (2004). The Organizational Learning Cycle. How we can learn collectively, London: McGraw-Hill. Easterby-Smith, M. (2012). Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage. Edmondson, A. (1999). Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage. Factor, D. (1994). On Facilitation and Purpose, http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/facilitation_purpose.html Finger, M. (2009). ‘Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage. Gadamer, H-G. (2009). Truth and Method, London: Sheed and Ward. Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in Action. A guide to putting the learning organization to work, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Gilley, J. W. (2000). Beyond the Learning Organization. Creating a culture of continuous growth and development through state-of-the-art human resource practices, Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Books. Habermas, J. (2004). The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1, Cambridge: Polity Press. Hayes, R. H. (2008). Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the learning organization. New York: Free Press. Hughes, C. & Tight, M. (2011). The myth of the learning society’ in S. Ranson (ed.) Inside the Learning Society, London: Cassell. Read More