Ana səhifə

What is a "Learning Organization"?


Yüklə 338.5 Kb.
səhifə1/4
tarix27.06.2016
ölçüsü338.5 Kb.
  1   2   3   4
Learning Organizations
(material here taken from Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Senge et al)

What is a "Learning Organization"?


A "Learning Organization" is one in which people at all levels, individually and collectively, are continually increasing their capacity to produce results they really care about.

Why should organizations care?


Because, the level of performance and improvement needed today requires learning, lots of learning. In most industries, in health care, and in most areas of government, there is no clear path to success, no clear path to follow.
"Why Bother?"

  • Because we want superior performance and competitive advantage

  • For customer relations

  • To avoid decline

  • To improve quality

  • To understand risks and diversity more deeply

  • For innovation

  • For our personal and spiritual well being

  • To increase our ability to manage change

  • For understanding

  • For energized committed work force

  • To expand boundaries

  • To engage in community

  • For independence and liberty

  • For awareness of the critical nature of interdependence

  • Because the times demand it


What's in it for the people?


Learning to do is enormously rewarding and personally satisfying. For those of us working in the field, the possibility of a win-win is part of the attraction. That is, the possibility of achieving extraordinary performance together with satisfaction and fulfillment for the individuals involved.
More answers:

  • It’s more fun to go to work in learning organizations.

  • Learning organizations give people hope that things can be better

  • Learning orgs provide a playground for creative ideas

  • Learning orgs provide a safe place to take risks with new ideas and behaviors and the challenge needed to stretch beyond perceived limits

  • In learning organizations everyone's opinions are valued and amount that people can contribute is not determined by position in the organization



The Problem: Six Learning Disabilities


  • Though we may see and think in straight lines, reality is made up of circles.

  • Linear thinkers are always looking for a thing or person who is responsible.

  • Systems thinkers take on greater responsibility for events, because their perspective suggests that everyone shares responsibility for problems generated by a system.

The following corporate learning disabilities arise when we view the world in linear, and not systematic, ways.


I am my position. Most people confuse their jobs with their identities ("I'm an accountant"). While they understand their daily tasks, people don't understand the purpose of the enterprises they take part in. Instead, they see themselves in a system in which they have little power and no need to take responsibility for poor results.
The enemy is out there. Some organizations and people find an external agent to blame when problems arise, a result of looking at the world in non-systematic ways. Focused on our positions, we can't see how our actions have an effect beyond their boundaries. Focusing on an external enemy is almost always a mistake-usually "out there" and "in here" are part of the same system.
Illusion of taking charge. Proactive managers are encouraged and admired when they tackle problems fast. But is taking action against an enemy on the "outside" really proactive? This brand of "proactiveness" is disguised reactiveness. Being truly proactive means seeing how we contribute to our own problems and solving those first.
Fixation on events. We're dominated by events: last month's sales, the new budget cuts, who got fired, product introductions, and so on. Events distract us from seeing long-term patterns of change that lie behind them, and that, of course, inhibits us from understanding these patterns. Slow, gradual processes like environmental decay, the erosion of the education system, or a decline in product quality are more destructive than sudden events.
Delusion of learning from experience. We may learn best from experiences, but people often never experience the consequences of many of their most important decisions directly. It may take years, for instance, to see the consequences of R&D decisions.
Myth of the management team. In most organizations, a valiant, experienced, and savvy management team stands ready to battle with problems and dilemmas. Nevertheless, teams in the business world tend to fight for turf and avoid anything that will make them look bad. To keep up the appearance of a cohesive team, they hide disagreement and come up with watered-down decisions that everyone can live with.

The Solution: Five Disciplines


The antidote to these learning disabilities and to the high mortality rate among Fortune 500 companies is to practice the five disciplines of a learning organization:

  • Systems Thinking,

  • Personal Mastery,

  • Mental Models,

  • Shared Vision, and

  • Team Learning

Learning organizations learn to innovate constantly by paying attention to these five "component technologies." They are never mastered, but the best organizations practice them continuously.



Systems thinking. From an early age, we're taught to break apart problems to make complex tasks and subjects easier to deal with. But this creates a bigger problem-we lose the ability to see the consequences of our actions, and we lose a sense of connection to a larger whole. Systems thinking helps us see patterns and learn to reinforce or change them effectively to gain and sustain a competitive advantage. Systems thinking is a framework for seeing patterns and interrelationships. It's especially important to see the world as a whole as it grows more and more complex. Complexity can overwhelm and undermine: "It's the system. I have no control." Systems thinking makes these realities more manageable; it's the antidote for feelings of helplessness. By seeing the patterns that lie behind events and details, we can actually simplify life.
Personal mastery. The discipline of personal mastery includes a series of practices and principles. Three important elements are personal vision, creative tension and commitment to truth.


  • Personal vision. Most people have goals and objectives, but no sense of a real vision. Maybe you'd like a nicer house or a better job, or a larger market share for one of your products. These are examples of focusing on the means, not the result. For instance, maybe you want a bigger market share to be more profitable to keep your company independent to be true to your purpose in starting it. The last goal has the most value, while the others are means to an end-means that might change over time. The ability to focus on ultimate desires is a cornerstone of personal mastery. Vision differs from purpose. Vision is a definite picture of a desired future, while purpose is more abstract. But vision without a sense of purpose is equally futile.




  • Creative tension. There are unavoidable gaps between one's vision and current reality. You may want to start a company but lack the capital, for instance. Gaps discourage us, but the gap is itself the source of creative energy. It provides creative tension. There are only two ways to resolve the tension between reality and the vision. Either vision pulls reality toward it, or reality pulls vision downward. Individuals and companies often choose the latter, because it's easy to "declare victory" and walk away from a problem. That releases the tension. But these are the dynamics of compromise and mediocrity. Truly creative people use the gap between what they want and what is to generate energy for change. They remain true to their vision.




  • Commitment to truth. A relentless willingness to uncover the ways we limit and deceive ourselves, and a willingness to challenge the ways things are characterize those with a high degree of mastery. Their quest for truth leads to a deepening awareness of the structures that underlie and generate events, and this awareness leads to the ability to change the structure to produce the results they seek.


Mental models. We understand the world and take action in it based on notions and assumptions that may reside deeply in the psyche. We may not be aware of the effect these models have on our perception and behavior, yet they have the power to move us forward or hold us back. Why do good new ideas rarely get put into practice? Often because they conflict with deep-seated internal images of how the world or the company works. These mental models limit us to familiar ways of thinking and acting, much to our detriment. That's why managing mental models-discovering them, testing their validity, and improving them-can be a breakthrough concept for learning organizations. Mental models govern how we make sense of the world and how we take action in it. An easy example is the generalization "people are untrustworthy." Such a sentiment shapes how we act and how we perceive the acts of others.
Shared vision. No organization becomes great without goals, values, and missions that become shared throughout the organization. A "vision statement" or the leader's charisma is not enough. A genuine vision breeds excellence and learning because people in the organization want to pursue these goals. “What do we want to create?" The answer to that question is the vision you and your people come together to build and share. Unlike the concept of vision that's bandied about these days-the "vision" that emanates from one person or a small group and is imposed on the corporation artificially-shared visions create a commonality that gives a sense of purpose and coherence to all the activities the organization carries out. Few forces in life and the business world are as powerful as shared vision.
Shared vision is vital for learning organizations that want to provide focus and energy for its employees. People learn best when they strive to accomplish things that matter to them. In fact, you can't have a learning organization without shared vision. The overarching goal that the vision establishes brings about not just commitment but new ways of thinking and acting. It fosters risk-taking and experimenting. It also encourages a commitment to the long-term.

Team learning. Have you ever been involved with a team of people who functioned together superbly? It may have been in business, school or sports. People trusted each other, complemented each other's strengths, compensated for each other's weaknesses, aimed for goals higher than anyone might have dared individually-and a result produced an extraordinary outcome. In such teams, each member is committed to continual improvement, each suspends judgment as to what's possible and so removes mental limitations, each shares a vision of greatness, and the team's collective competence is far greater than any individual's. Team members also recognize and understand the system in which they operate and how they can influence it.
These characteristics describe the essence of a learning organization. As with any team, the organization doesn't start off great, it learns to be great. Team learning is the process of aligning a team to avoid wasted energy and to create the results its members want. Team learning builds on the disciplines of shared vision and personal mastery, because talented teams are, necessarily, made up of talented individuals. Because the IQ of a team can be much higher than that of any of its members, teams are becoming the key learning unit in organizations.
The discipline of team learning involves mastering the practices of dialogue and discussion. In discussion (a word with the same roots as percussion and concussion) views are presented and defended and the team searches for the best view to support decisions. Participants in a discussion often want to win and see their view prevail. While dialogue and discussion can be complementary, most teams can't distinguish between them. The original meaning of the word dialogue, according to physicist David Bohm, suggests a free flow of meaning between people. Bohm contends that in dialogue a group accesses a "larger pool of common meaning" that can't be accessed by individuals alone. The purpose of dialogue, then, is to go beyond the understanding held by each team member, and to explore complex issues creatively from many points of view. After dialogue, decisions must be made and thus comes the need for discussion, where action is the focus.
I. The Learning Process





  1. New skills

    1. Aspiration (disciplines: personal mastery, building shared vision)

      1. capacity of groups to orient toward what they truly care about

    2. Reflection/conversation (mental models, team learning)

      1. reflection on deep assumptions and patterns of behavior

      2. being skilled at real conversation is not easy

    3. Conceptualization (systems thinking, team learning)

      1. seeing larger systems and forces -> building public, testable models




  1. New awareness and sensibilities

    1. “seeing” underlying structures driving behavior

    2. imagining alternatives

    3. “believing is seeing”

    4. understanding unstated assumptions




  1. New attitudes and beliefs

    1. new awareness breeds new attitudes and beliefs

    2. changing the unstated assumptions (change at the deepest level)

      1. fallacy of the need to be in “control” to be effective

        1. revealing our uncertainty, ignorance, lack of knowledge are preconditions for learning

        2. frees our innate capacity for curiosity, wonder, and experimentation

        3. results in understanding and confidence that we have more power to shape our future than we may think

      2. no amount of advanced planning is sufficient

        1. “the critical path is never the critical path”

II. Architecture of Learning Organizations




  1. Three critical elements of building anything

    1. Materials for construction (guiding ideas)

    2. Tools for design and build

    3. Overall plan of how it should look and support what we want to do




  1. Guiding Ideas

    1. Many organizations have no good ideas, dominated by:

      1. climb the corporate ladder

      2. do whatever it takes to win personally

    2. can be developed and articulated deliberately

    3. start with vision, values, and purpose

    4. Powerful Guiding Ideas characteristics

      1. Philosophical depth

      2. Seeing the process as ongoing (guiding ideas are not static)

    5. Three key guiding ideas for learning organizations

      1. The Primacy of the Whole

        1. Relationships are more fundamental than things

        2. Organizations are not things, they are patterns of interaction

        3. We cannot grasp what it means to be human by looking at the parts

      2. The Community Nature of the Self

        1. Hard to distinguish self apart from community/family/work/play

        2. When we do not take other people as objects for our use, but see them as fellow human beings with whom we can learn and change, we open more possibilities for being ourselves more fully

      3. The Generative Power of Language

        1. Our reality comes from interaction with our environment and the language we use to describe it

        2. Our ability to think about and describe the world in new language gives us other possibilities for action




  1. Theory, Methods and Tools

    1. Help us enhance the capabilities that characterize learning organizations: aspiration, reflection/conversation, conceptualization

    2. Theory: (Greek for spectator, same root as theater) bring into public space a play of ideas to help us understand our world better

    3. Methods: procedures for dealing with particular types of issues

    4. Tools: what you make, prepare, or do with

  2. Innovations in Infrastructure

    1. Providing people the resources they need: time, management support, money, information, contact with colleagues, and more

  3. Integrity of the Architecture

    1. Without guiding ideas, there is no passion, no sense of direction/purpose

    2. Without tools, people cannot develop the skills and capabilities needed for deeper learning

    3. Without innovations in infrastructure, inspiring ideas and powerful tools lack credibility because people lack opportunity and resources to pursue their visions and apply the tools




  1. Putting it all together

    1. The power of these ideas comes when we put them all together

      1. The triangle of organizational architecture represents the more tangible form of efforts

      2. The circle represents the more subtle underlying discipline-based learning cycle

      3. The key focus for activity is in the triangle

      4. The central causality of change is in the circler

    2. Both the triangle and the circle continuously affect and influence one another. Together they represent the tangible and subtle changes involved in building learning organizations.

We tend to assume that which is most tangible is most substantial and that which is intangible is insubstantial. In fact, the opposite is true.


A set of guiding ideas articulated by one generation of management can be changed by another. An infrastructure developed and implemented today can be redesigned tomorrow. A current set of tools and methods can be supplanted by a new set of tools and methods. The very reason why we focus o the triangle- because here is where we can make changes-also means that those changes can be short-lived.
By contrast, the deep learning cycle, which seems so evanescent and uncertain at first glance, endures. Once we begin to assimilate systems thinking as a way of seeing the world, we become “looped for life.” Once we learn to distinguish our assumptions from the “data” upon which those assumptions are based, we are forever more aware of our own thinking. The changes produced by the deep learning cycle are often irreversible.
Having begun to practice the learning disciplines, it does not mean we will retain high levels of mastery automatically. As in any discipline, our level of expertise ultimately depends on how far along our own developmental path we travel, and on our commitment to continual practice. But we do not forget the basic principles we have learned. The first deep effect of the learning cycle is orientation-al – we become oriented to a way of being that remains with us, as a sort of inner compass. We may not always operate in the manner of that discipline, bet we tend to know when we are , and when we are not.
Results
Ultimately learning is judged by results.
The rationale for any strategy for building a learning organization revolves around the premise that such organizations will produce dramatically improved results, compared to more traditional organizations.
The problem is knowing how and when to measure important results. There are two interrelated issues in assessing results of learning processes: patience and quantification.
We must be patient precisely because deeper learning often does not produce tangible evidence for considerable time (think of Engineer Exam study methods).


  • “You do not pull up the radishes to see how they are growing.”

  • If calculus were invented today, many organizations would not be able to learn it. They would send everyone off to the three-day intensive program. They would then tell everyone to try to apply what they’d learned. After three to six months, they would assess whether it was working. They would undoubtedly conclude “this calculus stuff” was not all it was made out to be and go off and look for something else to improve results.

Time periods for measurement must be congruent with the gestation period of the learning.


Quantification. Guiding principle “Measure quantitatively that which should be quantified; measure qualitatively that which should not be quantified.” Many of the most important results of organizational learning are not quantifiable: intelligence, openness, innovativeness, high moral quality, courage, confidence, genuine caring.
Some organizational cultures have an insatiable appetite for quantitative measurement – even when they misrepresent the truth and reality.
There are times when organizations would be better off without a measurement than retaining a faulty one.

Learning Lexicon


One of the most powerful tools of the organizational learning movement is language. The Learning Lexicon is an etymological dictionary that allows you to gain a deeper sense of common words such as "learning" and "system" by tracing them back to their original roots. The entries here are excerpted from The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Copyright 1994 by Peter M. Senge, Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Richard B. Ross, and Bryan J. Smith. Reprinted with permission.

Archetypes
The word comes from the Greek archetypos, meaning "first of its kind." A stepchild of the field of systems thinking, systems archetypes were developed at Innovation Associates in the mid 1980s. At that time, the study of systems dynamics depended upon complex causal loop mapping and computer modeling, using mathematical equations to define the relationships between variables. Charles Kiefer, I.A.'s president, suggested trying to convey the concepts more simply. Jennifer Kemeny (with Michael Goodman and Peter Senge, based in part upon notes developed by John Sterman) developed eight diagrams that would help catalogue the most commonly seen behaviors. Some archetypes, including "Limits to Growth" and "Shifting the Burden," were translations of "generic structures"--mechanisms which Jay Forrester and other systems thinking pioneers had described in the 1960s and 1970s. (Art Kleiner)

Authority
Like the word "author," this word can be traced back to the Greek authentikC3s, which meant "do-er," master, or creator. The English meaning of "authority" (possession of the right and power to command) stems from the fact that the creator of a work of art or craft has the power to make decisions about it. (Charlotte Roberts)

Related Documents:
Communal-Rational Authority, Control, and Self-Managing Teams: Implications for Leadership, by James R. Barker

Community
The word "community" has old roots, going back to the Indo-European base mei, meaning "change" or "exchange." Apparently this joined with another root, kom, meaning "with," to produce an Indo-European word kommein:  shared by all.

We think the idea of "change or exchange, shared by all," is pretty close to the sense of community in organizations today. Community building is a core strategy for sharing among all its members the burdens and the benefits of change and exchange. (Juanita Brown)

Intimacy
The word "intimacy" stems from the Latin intimatus, to make something known to someone else. (Another derivation is the verb "intimate," which originally meant "to notify.") In its original meaning, in other words, intimacy did not mean emotional closeness, but the willingness to pass on honest information. (Charlotte Roberts)


Learning
These Chinese characters represent the word "learning." The first character means to study. It is composed of two parts: a symbol that means "to accumulate knowledge," above a symbol for a child in a doorway.

The second character means to practice constantly, and it shows a bird developing the ability to leave the nest. The upper symbol represents flying; the lower symbol, youth. For the oriental mind, learning is ongoing. "Study" and "practice constantly," together, suggest that learning should mean: "mastery of the way of self-improvement." (Peter Senge)

The roots of the English word for learning suggest that it once held a similar meaning. It originated with the Indo-European leis, a noun meaning "track" or "furrow." To "learn" came to mean gaining experience by following a track-- presumably for a lifetime. (Art Kleiner)

Mental Models
The concept of mental models goes back to antiquity, but the phrase (to our knowledge) was coined by Scottish psychologist Kenneth Craik in the 1940s. It has been used by cognitive scientists (notably Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert of MIT), and gradually by managers. In cognition ,the term refers to both the semipermanent tacit "maps" of the world which people hold in their long-term memory, and the short-term perceptions which people build up as part of their everyday reasoning processes. According to some cognitive theorists, changes in short-term everyday mental models, accumulating over time, will gradually be reflected in changes in long-term deep-seated beliefs. (Art Kleiner)

System
A system is a perceived whole whose elements "hang together" because they continually affect each other over time and operate toward a common purpose. The word descends from the Greek verb sunistC!nai, which originally meant "to cause to stand together." As this origin suggests, the structure of a system includes the quality of perception with which you, the observer, cause it to stand together.

Examples of systems include biological organisms (including human bodies), the atmosphere, diseases, ecological niches, factories, chemical reactions, political entities, communities. industries, families, teams -- and all organizations. You and your work are probably elements of dozens of different systems. (Art Kleiner)



Related Terms: Systemic Structure and Systems Thinking.

Systemic Structure
Some people think the "structure" of an organization is the organization chart. Others think "structure" means the design of organizational work flow and processes. But in systems thinking, the "structure" is the pattern of interrelationships among key components of the system. That might include the hierarchy and process flows but it also includes attitudes and perceptions, the quality of products, the ways in which decisions are made, and hundreds of other factors.

Systemic structures are often invisible -- until someone points them out. For example, at a large bank, whenever the "efficiency ratio" goes down two points, departments are told to cut expenses and lay people off. But when bank employees are asked what the "efficiency ratio" means, they typically say, "It's just a number we use. It doesn't affect anything." If you ask yourself questions such as: "What happens if it changes?" you begin to see that every element is part of one or more systemic structures.

The word "structure" comes from the Latin struere, "to build." But structures in systems are not necessarily built consciously. They are built out of the choices people make consciously or unconsciously, over time. (Richard Ross, Charlotte Roberts, and Art Kleiner)

Related Terms: System and Systems Thinking.



Systems Thinking
At its broadest level, systems thinking encompasses a large and fairly amorphous body of methods, tools, and principles, all oriented to looking at the interrelatedness of forces, and seeing them as part of a common process. The field includes cybernetics and chaos theory; gestalt therapy; the work of Gregory Bateson, Russell Ackoff, Eric Trist, Ludwig von Bertallanfy, and the Santa Fe Institute; and the dozen or so practical techniques for "process mapping" flows of activity at work. All of these diverse approaches have one guiding idea in common: that the behavior of all systems follows certain common principles, the nature of which are being discovered and articulated.

But one form of systems thinking has become particularly valuable as a language for describing how to achieve fruitful change in organizations. This form, called "system dynamics," has been developed by Professor Jay Forrester and his colleagues at Massachusetts Institute of Technology over the past forty years. "Links and loops," archetypes, and stock-and-flow modeling-- all have their roots in the system dynamics understanding of how complex feedback processes can generate problematic patterns of behavior within organizations and large-scale human systems. (Peter Senge and Art Kleiner)



Related Terms: System and Systemic Structure.

Teams
The word "team" can be traced back to the Indo-European word deuk  (to pull); it has always included a meaning of "pulling together." (The modern sense of team, "a group of people acting together," emerged in the sixteenth century.)

We define "teams" as any group of people who need each other to accomplish a result. this definition is derived from a statement made by former Royal Dutch/Shell Group Planning coordinator Arie de Geus: "The only relevant learning in a company is the learning done by those people who have the power to take action." (Art Kleiner)

Theory, Method, Tool
By the term "theory," I mean a fundamental set of propositions about how the world works, which has been subjected to repeated tests and in which we have gained some confidence. The English word "theory" comes from the Greek root word theo-rC3s, meaning spectator. This derives from the same root as the word "theater." Human beings invent theories for the same basic reasons they invent theater--to bring out into a public space a play of ideas that might help us better understand our world.

It is a shame that we have lost this sense of the deeper meaning of theory today. For most of us, theory has to do with "science." It suggests something cold, analytic, and impersonal. Nothing could be further from the truth. The process whereby scientists generate new theories is full of passion, imagination, and the excitement of seeing something new in the world. "Science," as Buckminster Fuller often said, "is about putting the data of our experience in order."

New theories penetrate into the world of practical affairs when they are translated into methods and tools. "Method" comes from the Greek mC)thodos-- a means to pursue particular objectives. It gradually evolved into its current meaning: a set of systematic procedures and techniques for dealing with particular types of issues or problems.

"Tool" comes from a prehistoric Germanic word for "to make, to prepare, or to do." It still carries that meaning: tools are what you make, prepare, or do with. (Peter Senge)



Vision, Values, Purpose, Goals
Although this discipline is called "building shared vision," that phrase is only a convenient label. A vision is only one component of an organization's guiding aspirations. The core of those guiding principles is the sense of shared purpose and destiny, including all of these components:

Vision : an image of our desired future
A vision is a picture of the future you seek to create, described in the present tense, as if it were happening now. A statement of "our vision" shows where we want to go, and what we will be like when we get there. The word comes from the Latin videre, "to see." This link to seeing is significant; the more richly detailed and visual the image is, the more compelling it will be.

Because of its tangible and immediate quality, a vision gives shape and direction to the organization's future. And it helps people set goals to take the organization closer.



Values : how we expect to travel where we want to go
The word "value" comes from the French verb valoir, meaning "to be worth." Gradually it evolved an association with valor and worthiness. Values describe how we intend to operate, on a day-to-day basis, as we pursue our vision. As Bill O'Brien points out, Adolf Hitler's Germany was based on a very clear shared vision, but its values were monstrous.

A set of governing values might include: how we want to behave with each other; how we expect to regard our customers, community, and vendors; and the lines which we will and will not cross. Values are best expressed in terms of behavior: If we act as we should, what would an observer see us doing? How would we be thinking?

When values are articulated but ignored, an important part of the shared vision effort is shut away. By contrast, when values are made a central part of the organization's shared vision effort, and put out in full view, they become like a figurehead on a ship: a guiding symbol of the behavior that will help people move toward the vision. It becomes easier to speak honestly, or to reveal information, when people know that these are aspects of agreed-upon values.

Purpose  or Mission : what the organization is here to do
"Mission" comes from the Latin word mittere, meaning "to throw, let go, or send." Also derived from Latin, the word "purpose" (originally proponere ) meant "to declare." Whether you call it a mission or purpose, it represents the fundamental reason for the organization's existence. What are we here to do together?

The "mission" is more popular in organizations today, but it has unfortunate military, religious, and short-term overtones: "Our mission is to take this hill [or die in the attempt]!" I prefer the word "purpose"; it suggests more of a reflective process. You will never get to the ultimate purpose of your organization, but you will achieve many visions along the way.



Goals : milestones we expect to reach before too long
Every shared vision effort needs not just a broad vision, but specific, realizable goals. Goals represent what people commit themselves to do often within a few months. The word may have come from the Old English goelan, to hinder, and goals often address barriers and obstacles which we must pass to reach our vision. (Bryan Smith)
Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations: An Overview

What is Organizational Learning?

Argyris (1977) defines organizational learning as the process of "detection and correction of errors." In his view, organizations learn through individuals acting as agents for them: "The individuals' learning activities, in turn, are facilitated or inhibited by an ecological system of factors that may be called an organizational learning system" (p. 117).

Huber (1991) considers four constructs as integrally linked to organizational learning: knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory. He clarifies that learning need not be conscious or intentional. Further, learning does not always increase the learner's effectiveness, or even potential effectiveness. Moreover, learning need not result in observable changes in behavior. Taking a behavioral perspective, Huber (1991) notes: An entity learns if, through its processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors is changed.

Weick (1991) argues that the defining property of learning is the combination of same stimulus and different responses, however it is rare in organizations meaning either organizations don't learn or that organizations learn but in nontraditional ways. He further notes: "Perhaps organizations are not built to learn. Instead, they are patterns of means-ends relations deliberately designed to make the same routine response to different stimuli, a pattern which is antithetical to learning in the traditional sense" (p. 119). Or else, he argues, Organizational Learning perhaps involves a different kind of learning than has been described in the past: "the process within the organization by which knowledge about action-outcome relationships and the effect of the environment on these relationships is developed" (Duncan & Weiss 1979). In his view, "a more radical approach would take the position that individual learning occurs when people give a different response to the same stimulus, but Organizational Learning occurs when groups of people give the same response to different stimuli."



What is a Learning Organization?

Senge (1990) defines the Learning Organization as the organization "in which you cannot not learn because learning is so insinuated into the fabric of life." Also, he defines Learning Organization as "a group of people continually enhancing their capacity to create what they want to create." I would define Learning Organization as an "Organization with an ingrained philosophy for anticipating, reacting and responding to change, complexity and uncertainty." The concept of Learning Organization is increasingly relevant given the increasing complexity and uncertainty of the organizational environment. As Senge (1990) remarks: "The rate at which organizations learn may become the only sustainable source of competitive advantage."

McGill et al. (1992) define the Learning Organization as "a company that can respond to new information by altering the very "programming" by which information is processed and evaluated."

Organizational Learning vs. Learning Organization?

Ang & Joseph (1996) contrast Organizational Learning and Learning Organization in terms of process versus structure.

McGill et al. (1992) do not distinguish between Learning Organization and Organizational Learning. They define Organizational Learning as the ability of an organization to gain insight and understanding from experience through experimentation, observation, analysis, and a willingness to examine both successes and failures.

What is Adaptive Learning vs. Generative Learning?

The current view of organizations is based on adaptive learning, which is about coping. Senge (1990) notes that increasing adaptiveness is only the first stage; companies need to focus on Generative Learning or "double-loop learning" (Argyris 1977). Generative learning emphasizes continuous experimentation and feedback in an ongoing examination of the very way organizations go about defining and solving problems. In Senge's (1990) view, Generative Learning is about creating - it requires "systemic thinking," "shared vision," "personal mastery," "team learning," and "creative tension" [between the vision and the current reality]. [Do Japanese companies accomplish the same thing with "strategic" and "interpretive" equivocality"?] Generative learning, unlike adaptive learning, requires new ways of looking at the world.

In contrast, Adaptive Learning or single-loop learning focuses on solving problems in the present without examining the appropriateness of current learning behaviors. Adaptive organizations focus on incremental improvements, often based upon the past track record of success. Essentially, they don't question the fundamental assumptions underlying the existing ways of doing work. The essential difference is between being adaptive and having adaptability.

To maintain adaptability, organizations need to operate themselves as "experimenting" or "self-designing" organizations, i.e., should maintain themselves in a state of frequent, nearly-continuous change in structures, processes, domains, goals, etc., even in the face of apparently optimal adaption (Nystrom et al. 1976; Hedberg et al. 1976; Starbuck 1983). Hedberg et al. (1977) argue that operating in this mode is efficacious, perhaps even required, for survival in fast changing and unpredictable environments. They reason that probable and desirable consequences of an ongoing state of experimentation are that organizations learn about a variety of design features and remain flexible.



What's the Managers' Role in the Learning Organization?

Senge (1990) argues that the leader's role in the Learning Organization is that of a designer, teacher, and steward who can build shared vision and challenge prevailing mental models. He/she is responsible for building organizations where people are continually expanding their capabilities to shape their future -- that is, leaders are responsible for learning.



What's the Relationship between Strategy and Organizational Learning?

Or, as Mintzberg (1987) says: the key is not getting the right strategy but fostering strategic thinking. Or as Shell has leveraged the concept of Learning Organization in its credo "planning as learning" (de Geus 1988). Faced with dramatic changes and unpredictability in the world oil markets, Shell's planners realized a shift of their basic task: "We no longer saw our task as producing a documented view of the future business environment five or ten years ahead. Our real target was the microcosm (the 'mental model') of our decision makers." They reconceptualized their basic task as fostering learning rather than devising plans and engaged the managers in ferreting out the implications of possible scenarios. This conditioned the managers to be mentally prepared for the uncertainties in the task environment. Thus, they institutionalized the learning process at Shell.

The key ingredient of the Learning Organization is in how organizations process their managerial experiences. Learning Organizations/Managers learn from their experiences rather than being bound by their past experiences. In Generative Learning Organizations, the ability of an organization/manager is not measured by what it knows (that is the product of learning), bur rather by how it learns -- the process of learning. Management practices encourage, recognize, and reward: openness, systemic thinking, creativity, a sense of efficacy, and empathy.

What is the Role of Information Systems in the Learning Organization?

Although, Huber (1991) explicitly specifies the role of IS in the Learning Organization as primarily serving Organizational Memory, in my view, IS can serve the other three processes (Knowledge Acquisition, Information Distribution, and Information Interpretation) as well. One instance of use of IS in Knowledge Acquisition is that of Market Research and Competitive Intelligence Systems. At the level of planning, scenario planning tools can be used for generating the possible futures. Similarly, use of Groupware tools, Intranets, E-mail, and Bulletin Boards can facilitate the processes of Information Distribution and Information Interpretation. The archives of these communications can provide the elements of the Organizational Memory. Organizational Memory needs to be continuously updated and refreshed. The IT basis of OM suggested by Huber (1991) lies at the basis of organizational rigidity when it becomes "hi-tech hide bound" (Kakola 1995) and is unable to continuously adapt its "theory of the business" (Drucker).



Does IT Impose Any Constraints on Organizational Learning?

Huber (1991) notes that "it might be reasonable to conclude that more learning has occurred when more and more varied interpretations have been developed, because such development changes the range of the organization's potential behaviors..." (p. 102). However, most extant information systems focus on the convergence of interpretation and are not geared for multiple interpretations (Argyris 1977). Mason & Mitroff (1973), in their seminal article, had noted that the Lockean and Leibnitzian characteristic of the dominant MIS model as its limiting characteristics. These designs are based on the convergence of interpretations. In contrast, Kantian and Hegelian inquiry systems (Churchman 1971) are needed for facilitating multiple interpretations. These systems also underlie the notion of "unlearning" (Hedberg 1981) which implies discarding of "obsolete and misleading knowledge." While Kantian inquirer offers complementary interpretations, the Hegelian inquirer offers a "deadly enemy" contradictory interpretation. The dialectic of convergent and divergent inquiry facilitates the surfacing of hidden assumptions.

Argyris (1977) has argued that the "massive technology of MIS, quality control systems, and audits of quality control systems is designed for single loop learning." Essentially, he asserts that the problem of using IT is in its reinforcement of the prevailing [rigid] structures (cf: Orlikowski 1991). He attributes the overarching command-and-control structures for the "gaps of knowledge" that top managers design to manage effectively: "Another set of attitudes usually developed is that lower level managers and employees can be trusted only to the extent that they can be monitored" (p. 117). He argues that the problems related to MIS implementation are more related to organizational factors than to the underlying technology.

Argyris (1977) re-examines the debate around the implementation crisis of MIS in light of the theory of Organizational Learning (the detection and correction of error). His analysis suggests that many of the recommendations to overcome the difficulties may be inadequate and, in some cases, counterproductive.

Argyris (1977) suggests that there are "deeper" reasons behind the implementation gap of MIS, especially when the technology was used to deal with the more complex and ill-structured problems faced by the organization. He suggests that the MIS need to be viewed as a part of a more general problem of Organizational Learning. He avers that an organization may be said to learn to the extent that it identifies and corrects error. This requirement, in turn, implies that learning also requires the capacity to know when it is unable to identify and correct errors.

He argues that the overwhelming amount of learning done in an organization is single loop because the "underlying program is not questioned": it is designed to identify and correct errors so that the job gets done and the action remains within stated policy guidelines. "The massive technology of MIS, quality control systems, and audits of the quality control systems is designed for single loop learning" (p. 113). The trouble arises when the technology is not effective and when the underlying objectives and policies must be questioned. [Compare with IT reinforcing the existing controls (Orlikowski 1991); Also the discontinuous change may pose this need.]

He states: "Most organizations, often without realizing it, create systems of learning that suppress double loop inquiry and make it very difficult for even well designed information system to be effective" (p. 114).

  1   2   3   4


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət