Organization Learning And Learning Organization Part 3

3. Politics and vision

Here we need to note two key problem areas. First, there is a question of how Peter Senge applies systems theory. While he introduces all sorts of broader appreciations and attends to values – his theory is not fully set in a political or moral framework. There is not a consideration of questions of social justice, democracy and exclusion. His approach largely operates at the level of organizational interests. This is would not be such a significant problem if there was a more explicit vision of the sort of society that he would like to see attained, and attention to this with regard to management and leadership. As a contrast we might turn to Peter Drucker’s (1977: 36) elegant discussion of the dimensions of management. He argued that there are three tasks – ‘equally important but essentially different’ – that face the management of every organization. These are:

To think through and define the specific purpose and mission of the institution, whether business enterprise, hospital, or university.

To make work productive and the worker achieving.

To manage social impacts and social responsibilities.

He continues:

None of our institutions exists by itself and as an end in itself. Every one is an organ of society and exists for the sake of society. Business is not exception. ‘Free enterprise’ cannot be justified as being good for business. It can only be justified as being good for society. Drucker (1977: 40)

If Peter Senge had attempted greater connection between the notion of the ‘learning organization’ and the ‘learning society’, and paid attention to the political and social impact of organizational activity then this area of criticism would be limited to the question of the particular vision of society and human flourishing involved.

Second, there is some question with regard to political processes concerning his emphasis on dialogue and shared vision. While Peter Senge clearly recognizes the political dimensions of organizational life, there is sneaking suspicion that he may want to transcend it. In some ways there is link here with the concerns and interests of communitarian thinkers like Amitai Etzioni (1995, 1997). As Richard Sennett (1998: 143) argues with regard to political communitarians, it ‘falsely emphasizes unity as the source of strength in a community and mistakenly fears that when conflicts arise in a community, social bonds are threatened’. Within it (and arguably aspects of Peter Senge’s vision of the learning organization) there seems, at times, to be a dislike of politics and a tendency to see danger in plurality and difference. Here there is a tension between the concern for dialogue and the interest in building a shared vision. An alternative reading is that difference is good for democratic life (and organizational life) provided that we cultivate a sense of reciprocity, and ways of working that encourage deliberation. The search is not for the sort of common good that many communitarians seek Guttman and Thompson (1996: 92) but rather for ways in which people may share in a common life. Moral disagreement will persist – the key is whether we can learn to respect and engage with each other’s ideas, behaviors and beliefs.

Take Mike’s experience. According to his understanding, most employees in Eden are quite satisfied with what they are now and prefer not to make any change with their positions. A few of them are willing to attribute extra time learning new skills or expertise even though Eden had promise some bonus or overtime pay for them.

A few problems also came out in the leadership. Personally, we think the visions and the objectives of Eden being set by the leaders are sometimes too broad and ambitious. Some executives themselves don’t have very clear ideas of how to follow through the objectives being set up. As for the company, the leaders are unable to deal with the unexpected trouble. I’ve approached with a few executives in Eden and found that few of them have clear knowledge about the laws and related regulations concerning to the disabled.

No ideas or theories can be practiced without any criticism or complaints no matter how well it is accepted. It’s just the situation the supporters and the companies who hug the idea of “LO” have to face when the theory has been brought out for years. At the beginning of the new “LO”, most corporate seem to hug this idea and hold it as the best policy of their company. However, after years of practicing Senge’s ideas, people found problems came out after one another. These include a failure to fully appreciate and incorporate the imperatives that animate modern organizations; the relative sophistication of the thinking he requires of managers (and whether many in practice they are up to it); and questions around his treatment of organizational politics. It is certainly difficult to find real-life examples of learning organizations Kerka (1995). There has also been a lack of critical analysis of the theoretical framework. Scholars like Matthias Finger and Silvia Bűrgin Brand (1999) provide us with a useful listing of more important shortcomings of the learning organization concept. They conclude that it is not possible to transform a bureaucratic organization by learning initiatives alone. They believe that by referring to the notion of the learning organization it was possible to make change less threatening and more acceptable to participants. ‘However, individual and collective learning which has undoubtedly taken place has not really been connected to organizational change and transformation. Part of the issue, they suggest, is to do with the concept of the learning organization itself. They argue the following points. The concept of the learning organization:

Focuses mainly on the cultural dimension, and does not adequately take into account the other dimensions of an organization. To transform an organization it is necessary to attend to structures and the organization of work as well as the culture and processes. Focusing exclusively on training activities in order to foster learning… favors this purely cultural bias.

Favors individual and collective learning processes at all levels of the organization, but does not connect them properly to the organization’s strategic objectives. Popular models of organizational learning (such as Dixon 1994) assume such a link. It is, therefore, imperative, ‘that the link between individual and collective learning and the organization’s strategic objectives is made’ (ibid.: 147). This shortcoming, Finger and Brand argue, makes a case for some form of measurement of organizational learning – so that it is possible to assess the extent to which such learning contributes or not towards strategic objectives.

The exact functions of organizational learning need to be more clearly defined.

In perceiving the basic ideas and the examples of LO, it’s better now for us to also grasp some ideas about the related idea “organizational learning” (OL) and the comparison between them.

4. 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 it’s 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."

4.1 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.

4.2 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 adaptive ness 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" equivocally"?] 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.