Changing the Organisational Culture: from Command-and-Control to Learning Organisation - Literature review Example

Changing the Organisational Culture: From Command-and-Control to Learning Organisation May 29, Learning organisations are argued to be competitive organisations because they focus on learning and sharing learning that can lead to continuous organisational performance growth (Chatman, 2014; Senge, 1990). Organisational learning is critical to the present dynamic, knowledge-driven society because it can yield positive organisational outcomes (Deutschman, 2005; Senge, 1990, p.13). The organisation that I work for can be described as having a command-and-control thinking and culture. Organisational members are used to single-loop learning that comes with a bureaucratic culture. Our top management, being mostly new, wants to change it to a learning organisation culture. Change, however, is not easy because many employees and managers are already comfortable with the status quo. When the organisation conducted a survey regarding cultural change and learning organizations, 55% rejected it with comments of “not fixing something that is not broken” and “fearing the changes that come with the unknown.” The organisation also interviewed a random number of supervisors, managers and employees, and their general viewpoint is that they are “not familiar” with a learning organisation and they think it is “risky” to introduce changes that do not have “popular acceptance.” The paper reviews literature on the key themes and concepts of organisational cultural changes and learning organisations. It also analyses the shortcomings of these themes in offering insight to the organisational situation. These shortcomings are more based on the cultural identity of the organisation and what members expect from organisational changes. The paper describes how shifting to a learning organisation relies on persuasively communicating the concepts and applications of organisational learning and other learning tools to organisational success and turning the cultural change process into something that members can own through relationship interactions and relationship and power changes. Review of Literature As organisations seek to be increasingly competitive by changing themselves, some are willing to undergo complex and difficult organisational changes, including changing their organisational or corporate culture, in order to become learning organisations (Schabracq, 2007, p.67). Organisational culture refers to the group of artifacts, values, and assumptions that come from organisation members’ interactions (Keyton, 2011, p.28). Organisational culture can also be seen as how people think and do their jobs in the organisation (Pfister, 2009, p. 38). A learning organisation has its own idea of organisational culture. Senge’s 1990 book, The Fifth Discipline: the Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, popularized the concept and framework of a learning organisation. Senge (1990) asserted that a learning organisation is formed when metanoia happens, which means, a “fundamental shift or change” of the mind (p.13). Senge (1990) defined a learning organisation as going beyond adaptive learning which means survival learning to promoting generative learning which refers to learning that improves the capacity to create (p.14). He illustrated a learning organisation as “continually expanding its capacity to create the future” (Senger, 1990, p.14). Senge’s definition of a learning organisation underscores the role of creativity and creation of new capacities to become competitive in the long run. Its organisational culture is one that lives through organisational learning. Prange (2004) differentiated organisational learning from a learning organisation. She stressed that organisational learning are processes of individual and collective learning within and between organisations, while a learning organisation uses organisational learning to increase the “knowledge intensity” of organisations (Prange, 2004, p.23). Her definition emphasises knowledge management processes in the development of learning organisations. The culture of learning organisations is a culture of learning and openness in communication and interactions. Becoming a learning organisation, however, is not always easy, nor is there one absolute way to being one. Seddon and O’Donovan (2010) studied the reasons on why two decades after Senge’s The Fifth Discipline, learning organizations are not that widespread when they should be multiplying across industries. They noted the comments of one of the original reviewers of the book, W. Edwards Deming, who explained the practical implications of learning organisations. Deming argued that learning organisations are hard to form because learning in society is geared toward the destruction of generative learning, which has become the dominant management thinking in the workplace because of Tayloristic values and practices (Seddon & O’Donovan, 2010, p. 5.02). Seddon and O’Donovan (2010) depicted that what Deming sees as main management thinking can be called as command-and-control thinking (Seddon & O’Donovan, 2010, p. 5.03). Command-and-control thinking is present in bureaucratic organisations because budgets, targets, and the like influence decision-making in management levels, while managers control worker behaviours through rules and policies (Seddon & O’Donovan, 2010, p. 5.03). This thinking follows top-bottom communication and decision-making approaches which undercut the ability of employees and managers to learn more closely from one another. Seddon and O’Donovan (2010) focused on service organisations when analysing the application of learning organisations. They used Argyris and Schön’s concept of double-loop learning to replace single-loop learning that happens in command-and-control organisations. See Figure 1 for the single-loop learning cycle. Single-loop happens through incremental learning of new skills when actions lead to mismatch or errors. Actions are changed because of these mismatches in targets and standards and actual actions of the workers. Single-loop learning can be seen as a way of controlling worker behaviour by ensuring that they closely follow rules, targets, and standards. Figure 1: Single-loop Learning from Argyris and Schön Source: Seddon & O’Donovan (2010, p.5.04) Double-loop learning is different from single loop learning because it examines underlying assumptions about what governs actions in organisations. Single-loop learning is survival learning because organisations learn what they can to merely survive, while double-loop learning uses existing learning for future growth (Seddon & O’Donovan, 2010, p. 5.05). Double-loop learning results to generative learning because it can change patterns of thinking and doing (Seddon & O’Donovan, 2010, p. 5.08). Seddon and O’Donovan (2010) recommended that, in order for firms to be learning organisations, they must adapt double-loop learning in transforming their system. Systems thinking is essential to their learning organisation model. Source: Seddon & O’Donovan (2010, p.5.08) Shifting toward the state of a learning organisation is a complex process with different approaches or strategies, including double-loop learning through systems approach. Seddon and O’Donovan (2010) showed that systems thinking that integrates double-loop learning can change how performance is defined and measured. Their study demonstrated that demand induces improvement; the system drives performance, so changing it can improve performance; and that absorbing variety in production or services can reduce costs (Seddon & O’Donovan, 2010, pp. 5.08-5.09). Another scholar agreed with the use of double-loop learning for learning organisations. Tagg (2010) examined cultural changes among higher education institutions. He stressed that double-loop learning is significant to learning organisations, but many times, universities see and use organisational learning as a set of innovation add-ons without transforming the system (Tagg, 2010, p.57). He stressed the importance of leadership and organisational changes to cultural changes toward learning organisations (Tagg, 2010, p.60). His study is important in showing the role of leaders and organisational dimensions in effective organisational changes. These ideas of double-loop learning, however, seem to lack contextual variables. They do not fully detail how organisations will deal with the politics and economics of cultural changes. Apart from double-loop learning, learning organisations must also respond to other aspects of organisational operations to become successful. Organisational politics is one of the often neglected factors in analysing the failures of learning organisations in maximising organisational learning. Finger and Brand (2004) showed from their study of learning organisations in the public sector that a learning organisation is about changing the culture and structure, with greater importance placed on the relationship of the organisation to its political environment (p.140). They bring light to the reality that every organisation is also political, and not apolitical, because power is a driving force for embracing or rejecting cultural changes. Other theories and approaches on changing the organisational culture emphasise or integrated diverse organisational components. Phelan (2005) proposed revitalisation as a cultural change strategy, Chatman (2014) highlighted the role of senior leadership in organisational cultural changes, Spicer (2011) used cognitive mapping, while Smith (2012) suggested a relationship framework in implementing cultural changes. Phelan (2005) stressed that learning organisations actually happen through revitalisation, a concept borrowed from cultural anthropology. He based his model on Kotter and Heskett’s 1992 study of performance of 207 businesses in 22 industries from 1979 to 1990. They learned that successful cultural changes occurred when organisational leaders followed an exact sequence and did not rush or skip any step. Phelan (2005) called this the period of revitalisation that has six functions: mazeway resynthesis, communication, organisation, adaptation, routinisation, and the new steady state (Phelan, 2005, pp.50-51). The period of revitalisation needs to be tested across companies and industries, however. Some companies that are already in transition to learning organisation levels but are still having systematic problems may have difficulties in adapting revitalisation strategy to their issues. Leadership is critical to organisational cultural changes too, apart from revitalisation. Chatman (2014) agreed with Tagg (2010) that senior leadership is fundamental to changing organisational cultures. Chatman (2014) used Genentech as her case study. Its Senior Vice President Jennifer Cook led the cultural changes, but she made sure that the employees and managers owned the program by actively contributing to its formation and implementation. Through Cook’s leadership, Genentech reshaped its cultural identity to something that people truly believed in and tried to apply in daily workplace life. Genentech’s success, nevertheless, must be evaluated from a learning organisation model or approach. Its components and processes, as well as outcomes, deserve further scrutiny if it does reflect a working learning organisation Aside from leadership, cognitive mapping is a practical means for examining complex issues that initiate double-loop learning because assumptions and biases are determined. Spicer (2011) used a company as a case study for his cognitive-mapping process. The company is a product of a merger. He noted that the merger was not successful in culturally merging two companies because of the absence of systematic approach to cultural changes and the lasting identification of managers with former companies. Spicer (2011) showed that when managers used cognitive mapping, the more they were open to identifying and challenging assumptions about their culture that helped them generate a new shared understanding of a merged cultural identity (p.258). Cognitive mapping offers a practical tool for exposing management values and perceptions about corporate culture. The study lacks an empirical testing, however, of how organisational changes can result from cognitive mapping. Finally, organisational relationships are also essential to learning practices. Smith (2012) applied organisational cultural changes on a professional services firm. She used the following stages of cultural changes: “Stage 1: Mapping the Cultural Terrain; Stage 2 Disrupting Current Patterns and Assumptions; Stage 3 Inventing New Patterns and Assumptions; Stage 4 Integrating and Building” (p.7). It can be seen that double-loop learning is again present in these stages because of the ability to determine and challenge unhelpful patterns and assumptions of thinking and acting in organisations. She concludes that by observing and changing relationships along three axes of relationships– vertical, lateral, and external – managers can surface, scrutinize, and change the shared assumptions that are the foundations of organisational culture (p.12). The article is important in expressing the role of relationships in building organisational learning and learning organisations because relationships are essential to people’s interactions and learning from one another. The model has to be further tested in toxic environments where people have negative workplace relationships, but still manage to continue their jobs. Thus, the review of literature shows the strengths and weaknesses of learning organisation concepts and processes. Application of Theories and Strategies to the Case The organisation that I work for wants to become a learning organisation but first, it must surmount challenges to its cultural changes. Some of the first level-management and many employees are against organisational changes because they do not understand the concepts of organisational learning and learning organisation in relation to the company’s vision, mission, and goals, as well as to their respective jobs. Their lack of knowledge of these concepts renders the organisational change as a threat to their stable duties and responsibilities. Schein (2010) stressed that organisational cultures have strength and stability that are products of duration and emotional intensity of the organisation’s history (p.3). He is right that the workforce has become generally emotionally attached to the cultural identity of the bureaucratic organisation because it is the way that life has been already for a long time. As a result, the organisation must present a compelling communications strategy to inform organisational members of the nature, components, goals, directions, and outcomes of the cultural changes toward a learning organisation, in order to help the workforce see the relevance of the new cultural identity to their own individual and collective learning processes (Carr, 2006, p.5; Bunniss, Gray, & Kelly, 2012). The communication process must not be top-bottom, but engage bottom-up communication patterns too by asking for honest feedback regarding the cultural change program and incorporating feedback to communication tactics and methods because these practices encourage sensemaking (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Harris & Nelson, 2008, p.29). As people make sense of the cultural changes actively and collectively, the more that uncertainty is reduced and the more that they will be open to cultural changes (Harris & Nelson, 2008, p.29). The concept of the learning organisation must be carefully explained together with organisational learning too, so that employees will understand how the organisational cultural changes will result to a successful learning organisation. Some of the comments from managers are that the cultural changes are “unclear” and that they cannot be attained because there are no “tested” or “practical” tools for application. The organisation must then have form a cultural change management committee that will include managers and representative employees. This way, they can shared feedback on what they think needs to be changed in the organisational system so that it can fully adapt double-loop learning practices and tools. In addition, Spicer’s (2011) cognitive mapping tool can help the committee understand why they need to change the cultural identity of the organisation. Cognitive mapping uses qualitative methods to graphically describe and analyse organisational issues and problems (Davies, 2011). The organisation can conduct interviews and focus group discussions to apply cognitive mapping as the first step of double-loop learning where participants learn to surface and undercut underlying questions and assumptions about organisational identity. In addition, the organisation must have concrete performance management systems that will align the new culture with performance measures (Dervitsiotis, 2004). These performance measures prove the sincerity of the change effort since it will be properly monitored, assessed, and rewarded (as needed). Finally, leadership is important in addressing the political and economic aspects of creating learning organisations. Studies that are used in this paper barely touched on the economics of cultural changes when budget is essential to organisational transformation. Senior management must be prepared in convincing shareholders that cultural changes are good for the bottom line and the welfare of the organisation. Moreover, senior management must lead in rallying the organisation toward the vision of a learning organisation. They themselves must express how they intend to apply double-loop learning in their management decisions. They must also be able to practically apply double-loop learning to workplace relationships and interactions. The management must show the people what organisational learning means to the management and daily roles and responsibilities of the people. Smith’s (2012) organisational cultural change process has pragmatic steps that can be applied to the organisation because it does not force changes, but introduce the concepts slowly into workplace relationships. Moreover, Smith’s model combines cultural changes with continuing daily organisational work. This is one of the concerns of the organisation, how it can continue operations without being thoroughly disrupted by widespread organisational cultural changes. Smith (2012) showed that it is possible to create incremental changes and fundamental changes without derailing the company from its daily operations (also in Hellriegel & Slocum, 2009, p.516). Shifting the mind should not entirely displace company operations, or else, shareholders and employees will feel that the cultural changes are additional expenses and work, instead of a way of transforming the organisation into something that is more empowering and liberating of command-and-control thinking and practices. Conclusion The concepts of cultural changes and learning organisation are elusive because they can be stuck in visionary stages. They might also seem like a beautiful dream to employees who do not find them relevant to existing duties and responsibilities. Studies used in the paper showed that it is possible to shift from a bureaucratic organisation to a learning organisation through adapting double-loop learning in every step, from the communication of the cultural plans to the actual implementation and monitoring of organisational change success. Moreover, the paper shows that these concepts need to be further tested in how they can be applied on a step-by-step basis without losing flexibility and customisability. As a learning organisation, nevertheless, it helps that even the formation of a learning organisation is a learning process with openness to participation and changes along the way. Hence, the learning organisation can be a practical shift that starts with the mindset of organisational members, but still accompanied with political, economic, and political support. References Bunniss, S., Gray, F., & Kelly, D. (2012). Collective learning, change and improvement in health care: trialling a facilitated learning initiative with general practice teams. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(3), 630-636. Cameron, K.S., & Quinn, R.E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Carr, P. (2006). Implementing culture change: Organization development. Vancouver: ASTD Press. Chatman, J. (2014). Culture change at Genentech: Accelerating strategic and financial accomplishments. California Management Review, 56(2), 113-129. Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 62(3), 279-301. Dervitsiotis, K.N. (2004). The design of performance measurement systems for management learning. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15(4), 457-473. Deutschman, M.T. (2005). An ethnographic study of nursing home culture to define organizational realities of culture change. Journal of Health & Human Services Administration, 28(2), 246-281. Finger, M., & Brand, S.B. (2004). The concept of the ‘learning organisation’ applied to the transformation of the public sector. In M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo, & J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational learning and the learning organization: Developments in theory and practice (pp.130-156). California: SAGE. Harris, T.E., & Nelson, M.D. (2008). Applied organizational communication: Theory and practice in a global environment (3rd ed.). New York: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. (2009). Organizational behavior. Ohio: Southwest Cengage. Keyton, J. (2011). Communication and organizational culture: A key to understanding work experiences (2nd ed.). California: SAGE. Phelan, M.W. (2005). Cultural revitalization movements in organization change management. Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 47-56. Prange, C. (2004). Organizational learning- Desperately seeking theory? In M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo, & J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational learning and the learning organization: Developments in theory and practice (pp.23-43). California: SAGE. Schabracq, M.J. (2007). Changing organizational culture: The change agents guidebook. England: John Wiley & Sons. Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). California: John Wiley & Sons. Seddon, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Why aren’t we all working for learning organisations? E-Organizations and People, 17, 5.01-5.14. Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Smith, D.M. (2012). Changing culture change. Reflections, 12(1), 1-13. Spicer, D.P. (2011). Changing culture: A case study of a merger using cognitive mapping. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 245-264. Tagg, J. (2010). The learning-paradigm campus: From single- to double-loop learning. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2010(123), 51-61. Read More