Category: Organizational Learning

Problem description

Currently, there are prompt changes in the working environments resulting from globalization, competitions, as well as developments in technology. This has enforced different organizations worldwide to restructure their managerial provisions to succeed. Researches show that continuing modifications on modes of working have greatly affected the operation of businesses. The capability of a business to endure stiff competition from its competitors around the world depends on its ability to adjust to the continuing change, acquire new skills, and develop new concepts. Thus, it is very essential to create learning institutions, which is viewed as a planned decision. The institution for education is necessary as it helps to construct, studying, storing, and distributing the increased volumes of knowledge available in an organization. Besides, the institution also offers apt access to employees who need to tackle more imperative and intricate complications. Employees require both personal and professional development. Learning institutions not only need opportunities to meet these needs but also encourage employees on using new talents in inventive ways.

The main objective of this assessment was to know the views of higher education faculty members regarding the relations of learning institution subjects in the university environment. There were two hypothetical questions for this study. First, to what level, according to faculty members, have the subjects in the institution for learning been experienced in the Hashemite University environment? And secondly, are there any substantial variations in the observations about the learning institution disciplines depending on the demographic features of faculty members comprising of gender, academic level as well as years of experience.

Methodology

The study targeted all members of faculty at Hashemite University. To be able to discern the population frame for this assessment, the faculty members list was acquired from the registrar’s office. This was after getting authorization to carry out the study on campus. The total number of participants was 508 about the list. A computer program, which is specifically intended for randomizing numbers, was used to obtain a random sample of 250 members of faculty.

Data for this study was collected through the use of surveys in the form of questionnaires for learning organizations. This survey was meant to assess the degree to which the learning organization disciplines are available in higher education surrounding according to faculty members. The questionnaires comprised of five sub-scales associated with every learning organization discipline. In total, there were 35 items. All these items were evaluated on a Likert-type scale. Besides the data collected by the questionnaires, the demographics of the individuals participating in the study were also taken. These were about gender, years of practice, and academic ranks.

Two faculty members helped in the translation of the English version of the questionnaires into Arabic with instruction to maintain both the meaning as well as a form of the items more related to the original items. However, they were also instructed to give more preference to the correspondent meaning. After complete translation, other two members of the faculty translated it back and assessed it by five members of the faculty to ensure that the meaning and forms of items in the questionnaire are not lost in the process of translation. Any discrepancy was subjected to forward and back translation till all members of the panel were fully satisfied that the translation was accurate. Thirty faculty members helped to gather responses about the contents of the survey and its usage in the Arabic version. These faculty members were not included in the main study.

Faculty members that participated in the survey were contacted individually or through telephone. The kind of the survey as well as the purposes of the survey was explained to them. They were guaranteed discretion and secrecy. The faculty members who were willing to [participate in the study were given the survey and asked to finish it by the end of the second week. The paper surveys were then collected after two weeks.

Data analysis was then done using SPSS statistical package version 11.5. The first research question was associated with the degree of application of the learning organization disciplines in the Hashemite University environment according to the faculty members. This was answered by employing descriptive statistics to calculate the averages as well as standard deviations for variables and objects in the five sub-scales of the learning organization disciplines depending on the demographic features of the faculty members. Whenever there was any difference noticed, Turkey’s post hoc test was used.

Results

According to the study, faculty members of the university observed that practicing the 5 learning disciplines in the institution range from moderate to high. In line with the personal mastery discipline, members of the faculty pointed out that they are involved in incessant learning opportunities to realize both their personal as well as professional growth. Those who responded to the survey showed that they observe their mental models for their educational experiences. Besides, they also showed that they are knowledgeable about their educational practices and the significance of their principles and assumptions.

As well, the faculty members of the university showed that they are dedicated to the communal prospect of the institution and that they are contented in sharing different concepts with other members of the faculty. Such kind of argument is considered one of the greatest tools for encouraging open and innovative discussions. Communal focus amongst faculty members is necessary as it provides a perfect depiction and comprehension of what they need and could realize and contribute.

One more stream of results, concerning demographic variables, shows that no important variations exist in the opinions of the members of the faculty about the five learning organization disciplines depending on gender. According to the researcher, this outcome is indicated by the equal engagement opportunity and treatment in Jordan, particularly in the organizations for higher learning. The outcomes of the study also showed that irrespective of the rank of the members of the faculty, there is no variance in their views concerning the learning discipline.

Conclusion

Regarding a random sampling of the members of faculty at the institution, the initiative of the learning organization was successful. Studies showed that members of the faculty appreciate a working environment that encourages team spirit and open, straightforward, free communication with one another. They also appreciate long-term education by updating their skills for private and proficient growth. This is considered the most suitable environment for healthy working and can help in the advancement of the university. Although the study has revealed that the learning organization disciplines are indicated strongly in the environment of the university, Hashemite University is not fully embraced this fact and more effort should be applied to realize this (Khasawneh. 2010).

References

Khasawneh, S. (2011). Learning Organization Disciplines in Higher Education Institutions: An Approach to Human Resource Development in Jordan. Innov High Education. 36(1), 273–285.

Introduction and annotation

The essay presents a critique of an article. The article to be criticized is “Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation” by Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. published in 1991. The authors make use of the method of secondary data collection to explore the subject and make readers understand that learning, working and innovation are interrelated and not conflicting. It is rational to mention the secondary sources that should be analyzed. The secondary sources under analysis include books and journal articles written by other researchers. It is important to notice that secondary data collection presupposes using already existing information. To accomplish their goals, the authors of the article analyze the differences between how organizations formally describe work, both in training and manuals, as well as consider actual work performed. In addition, the issues related to learning, which are provided in the theory suggested by Lave and Wenger, are also taken into consideration.

The study provides that understanding various cultures will help organizations successfully ensure that the three concepts, namely working, learning and innovation, are not in conflict. To encourage working, learning, and innovation, organizations should close the gap between espoused and actual practices (Brown & Duguid, 1991). However, the study leaves room for further research to be carried out regarding the benefits and problems associated with organizations linking the three concepts. This can be found in the last section of the article where authors clearly state the limited scope of their work and deem that the benefits, as well as problems associated with the three major concepts, are analyzed in depth. Regarding the literature review section, the authors managed to use relevant and up-to-date sources. This provided them with the opportunity to help the reader to tie together the three concepts that are under consideration in this paper.

Concerning the perspective in which the research was carried out, I believe that it was in light of events that occurred during the 1990s, as well as late 1980s, when organizations faced the challenge of adopting change, providing customers with high-quality products and services, and, at the same time, ensuring that workers acquire new skills necessary for them to be able to keep abreast with technological advancement and changes in the business environment. Finally, in my opinion, the research has great significance and can be applied to the current situation in the management of human resources to attain a competitive edge. However, there will be a need to make some slight adjustments so that the current situations are factored in since the study was done over 21 years ago (Brown & Duguid, 1991). For instance, taking into consideration the fact that there have been drastic changes in terms of technological advancement, it is necessary to educate some employees who are not technologically adept.

Structure of the paper

It is necessary to mention that a good study should be structured in a manner that relevant sections or chapters are accessed easily. In my opinion, the authors failed to structure their paper so that that it would be easier for the reader to point out quickly the methodology or results in sections, for example. In my own opinion, such kind of work is boring and, even though it might have very vital information with regards to organization fostering learning, innovation and working, the same might go unread. However, the authors managed to introduce some sections, such as introduction, conclusion, and recommendation, for example, as well as other sub-topics in which they discussed issues relevant to the subject. Additionally, it is worth noting that vital sections, such as the aim of the study and guiding research questions, are not marked out in the paper. This might confuse the reader.

Methodology

Although the authors did not have the section titled methodology, one will be able to find out that they made use of secondary sources, such as books, journals, and other published materials to come up with the study while going through the entire work. Interestingly, the justification for such an approach was not provided. The approach is characterized by biased data collection, as well as outdated data. Additionally, the sampling criteria for the literature used were not elaborated. However, it seems to me that the authors selected books related to the topic of research.

In light of the approach taken by the authors, I hold the view that they were aware of their research approach regarding what was happening in their world since there were no better ways to be used to compare the conclusion of another study to compatible investigations of learning of innovation so that they can argue the suggestion that description of any job covers the three major concepts under investigation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).

Results and findings

In my opinion, I suggest that the authors managed to link their findings with their aims and objectives. They discussed in-depth the three concepts namely learning, working, and innovation in a manner that these issues are not only linked to one another but also linked to organizational performance. Additionally, in the discussion of the findings, they not only used theories but expounded on them giving the reader more insight into the issues that have been investigated.

Practical implications and originality

With regards to the practical implication of the study, I believe that findings and discussions of the same apply to the current business world where organizations are seeking to gain competitive edges so that their future survey is guaranteed. Bearing in mind that human resource is the greatest asset an organization has, striking a clever balance regarding working, innovation and learning are very significant. I believe that this work is very important for today’s world of business since it has strategies that can be adopted by organizations to ensure that learning, working, and innovation are in harmony. This will play a crucial role in making an organization attain its goals and objectives successfully.

When considering the issue of originality, I tend to believe that this piece of work exhibits a very little level of originality. This is because the authors did not come up with anything new based on the theories they tried to draw ideas from (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).

My gain

The opportunity to go through this work to critique was very important in terms of structuring my work. It is necessary to provide an outline of my work so that the readers have an easier time trying to locate areas of interest. Additionally, just like any other study, I have learned that it is very important to leave room for further studies to be carried out. I have also learned that coming up with an article or study exhibiting a higher level of originality is an important aspect of academics, and, for that matter, the topic to be chosen should be well thought out.

Limitations of the study

Although the topic was relevant in terms of practical implications, the methodology used raises questions of generalization, as well as validity and reliability of the data. The important sections of the study, such as methodology and purpose, among other sections are not brought out clearly. In my view, the failure to collect primary data through such tools as interviews, questionnaires, and observation, makes one hold the view that the information generated might not reflect the happening in any organization as a result of time-lapse.

Several issues have been brought out from the critique of the article. The manner with which the study was carried out, practical implications, and what I have learned from the exercise are among them.

References

1. Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. 1991, Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organizational Science, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 40-57.
2. Denzin, K. & Lincoln, Y. 2005., The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Introduction

Research organizations state that societal learning plays a significant role in enhancing an organization’s performance. Literature has shown that the influence of an organization’s internal framework is minimal when it comes to producing distinctions on the learning levels.

Vertical integration is a structural feature that leads to interdependence (Sorenson, 2000). The class objective of this paper is to assess the level of which interdependence and in specific vertical integration influences organizational learning. Another class objective that will be discussed in this paper is whether vertical integration hinders learning by doing. The last class objective is whether vertically integrated corporations gain less from experience in production than non- integrated organizations in steady surroundings.

Discussion

Vertical integration strictly restricts a corporation’s capacity to learn through doing. This is because reasonable managers find operation optimizations intricate especially when choosing on highly inter- reliant options. Integration can smooth the progress of learning by doing through cushioning activities within the organization.

Firms improve in production by achieving experience, that is, they learn new things by doing. There is a positive association linking working experience and staff performance. Organizations, however, undeniably differ in their capacities both to gain knowledge internally and to learn from the actions of others (Sorenson, 2000).

Integration brings about interdependence in corporations. Vertical integration slows down an organizations growth rate by reducing its baseline volume from which the organizations growth occurs. Integrated organizations can thus be disadvantaged in comparison to their less integrated competitors. Research has further shown that vertical integration may impair with other learning types in an organization. These include the expansion of vibrant routines and the incorporation of knowledge established outside the organization (Sorenson, 2000).

Vertical integration also restricts the probability of learning from other people. An integrated firm has less contact points with the exterior surrounding. While distributors might beneficially dispense knowledge across the competing manufacturers, integrated firms bar this option by not associating with suppliers.

Vertical integration restricts the probability of learning from other people through the fact that even when this firms do gain knowledge from other suppliers, they may find it hard to incorporate that knowledge into the organizations’ particular production procedures they have established. Integrated firms thus undergo problems of learning disabilities besides numerous dimensions (Argote, 1999).

The above results do not, however, mean that organizations should not vertically integrate. As anticipated, vertically integrated organizations essentially learn more efficiently than their less inter- reliant competitors in unstable surroundings. Organizations may opt to integrate due to interdependence in their innovative design architecture.

Integrated organizations that thrive well will gain from distributors deciding to start producing the particular constituents that they want. Victorious firms can thus disintegrate. Success augments the level of vertical integration remarkably (Argote, 1999).

Modularization in the computer business elucidates changes in the worth of vertical integration with time. As the accessibility of standard constituents increases, the benefit of internal production reduces resulting to an attrition of vertical integration benefits as the corporation matures. Regional distinctions might create the vertical integration outcomes (Argote, 1999).

Conclusion

Organizations suffer from trade- offs especially when selecting the most favorable organizational framework to smooth the progress of learning. In particular, firms that vertically integrate into constituent production gain less through learning by action compared to those firms that acquire constituents from external distributors. It is, therefore, evident that though integration impairs learning through doing, this only affects the corporation’s performance under constant environments.

References

Argote, L. (1999). Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge. Kluwer: Boston.

Sorenson, O. (2000). Letting the market work for you: An evolutionary perspective on product strategy. Strategic Management J. 21, 277–292.

Introduction

In line with survival motive in the era of globalization, various organizations are examining their management systems to attain competitive capacity. This is essential towards remaining relevant in their area of operations.

Since its inception at the beginning of 1990, Learning Organization (LO) has received overwhelming attention as managers realize that they need to build an organization that can remain relevant in the ever changing business environment.

Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008) argue that it is vital that companies should become learning organizations due the tougher competition, and shifting customer preferences. The authors argue that in learning organizations, employees continually acquire, create and transfer knowledge.

Consequently, employees will help their organizations acclimatize to the volatile business environment faster than their competitors. The learning organization is applicable to business organization in general and to service sector such as academic, hospital organization, and hotels (Senge, 1994, p. 48).

Thus, this reflective treatise attempts to explicitly review aspects of learning in Microsoft Company with the view of identifying learning models applied by the company. Besides, the paper relates Garvin’s diagnostic tools to those in use at Microsoft and HP.

Moreover, the treatise identifies the concepts of organization learning, continuous knowledge acquisition, system thinking, knowledge sharing, team learning, personal mystery, and mental models in organizational learning. In conclusion, the paper reflects on success of the applied institution learning module existing in Microsoft Company.

According to Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino, experience is the basis from which learning organizations justify progress in terms of productivity and self motivation. Garvin, in article published in the Harvard Business Review, illustrates a learning association as “an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge and modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge insight and insights” (Garvin, 1993, p.1).

Learning organization

A learning organization do engage in active process of learning through promotion of learning, facilitation, and rewarding collective learning since it does not rely on ad hoc process with the hope that learning will occur through chance.

Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino in an article, “Is Yours a Learning Organization?” published in Harvard Business Review (March 2008), replicates on organization edifice wedges as “supportive learning environment, concrete learning processes, and practices leadership that reinforces learning” (Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino, 2008, p.14).

Garvin et al., (2008) argue that by using the diagnostic tools, managers can assess areas of the organization that require urgent improvement. Thus, this help in moving the company closer to an ideal learning organization from the usual. The managers play a significant role in setting up the learning environment for their employees.

As result, creating an effective learning environment will allow employees to draw upon resources, thus making sense out of things and construct consequential solution to business challenges (Fielden 2001).

As mentioned earlier, in the changing business environment of the twenty-first century, only sustainable competitive advantage and will permit businesses to learn faster than its rivals. Firms that implement learning organization training programs have shown improvements in their productivity by an average of about 17 per cent.

Same as in HP, Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation organizational learning is highly valued. The organizational learning here covers individual employees, business manager, business group, and sector-specific needs as they apply to company’s values, mission, and business main concerns.

Garvin (1993) suggests that a learning organization should posses the capacity for problem solving, learning from past experience, experimentation, learning from best practices of other successful organizations, and swift and efficient transfer of knowledge.

On the other hand, Senge (1990) argues that an organization can develop its learning organization attribute through system thinking, shared vision, mental modeling, personal mastery, and team learning. Our organization applies Senge’s five basic disciplines or component technologies of learning, that is, systems thinking, personal mastery, building of shared vision, mental models, and team building.

The learning processes at Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation are basically based on Senge’s principles of organization learning-‘disciplines’ while those at Hewlett Packard are inclined towards Garvin’s model.

These values have been embedded in the company’s tradition and practiced by our employees over the years. For example, at Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, it is responsible for the developing and driving growth strategies between management and employees.

Systems thinking

According to Senge (1990), systems thinking theory is the cornerstone of the learning organization model. Coherently, this system factors in discipline as a concept of theory and body. Senge argues that managers tend to focus on sectors rather than the whole.

The key perception in this line of thought is that recognition of organization systems facilitates informed and appropriate decision science by management unit and other employees. At Microsoft, the organization is viewed in this perspective enabling the training of about 92,000 employees via the four employee education organizations.

The four parts of management that facilitate learning organization at Microsoft are the engineering department responsible for product development, sales and customer care department, leadership and management that is responsible for professional development of employees, and the marketing department.

Personal mastery

Senge (1990) argues that individual learning do not warranty organizational learning. However, organization learning cannot function independently without individual learning. He further notes that organization can also learn from people who learn.

Therefore, through personal mastery is the discipline that allows people to acquire knowledge patiently in a continuous manner, while allowing such individuals to see reality objectively. For example, at Microsoft, there is an enterprise of a large governance team called the Learning Council that is responsible for streamlining learning organization within the company’s four learning organizations.

The council’s main responsibility is to make certain that there are links in learning and development initiatives undertaken by the organization in pursuit of its business priorities.

In addition, the other key area that the learning council is involved in is provision of strategic planning methodologies and directions for a range of learning communities at the Corporation. Moreover, the learning council ensures that systems, processes, and learning infrastructure are available to enable organizational learning to take place.

Continuous knowledge acquisition

Porth et al. (1999) asserts that continuous knowledge acquisition is crucial for adapting to and surviving in the competitive business environment. Thus, it becomes an important feature of learning organization. Continuous knowledge can be through activities such as research and development, market research, and competitor analysis.

Team Learning

Microsoft Regional Sale Cooperation is involved in team learning through formal and informal activities via its various departments (Senge 1990) just as the HP Company. For example, the engineering excellence is one of the central learning organs tasked with ensuring that learning takes place across all the organizations’ engineering departments.

In addition, it ensures the delivery of guidance, curriculum, and expert advice to all junior engineers. Similarly, ensuring continuity in the acquisition of knowledge is the Sales and Marketing group that are involved in carrying out frequent market research for new products to ensure availability of market.

The group has helped the organization to continue to grow through growth in the market share. Some commentators argue that team learning can also be achieved through direct experience and learning from other individuals’ experience what is referred to as benchmarking.

Knowledge sharing

Fielden (2001) argues that knowledge is only useful when it is made freely available. Consequently, sharing information with employees is significant for organization learning process. Knowledge sharing is the distribution of knowledge or what has been previously leant (Dixon, 1999).

He further notes that knowledge sharing begins with making information available to everybody in the organization. Knowledge sharing can be expanded through shared vision, communication, knowledge, values, and information by developing the cultural norms of sincerity, open-mindedness, trust, and honesty (Porth et al. 1999).

Knowledge sharing is a key success of knowledge management strategy. In addition, to achieve knowledge sharing between employees, leadership commitment is a channel to speed up and reinforce knowledge sharing (Nymark, 1999).

After knowledge acquisition, there is need to store the information in organizational repository system so that other members can easily access and use it in their work as practiced in HP training department. In Microsoft, the corporate learning and development department is tasked with ensuring that knowledge is developed and managed in an open environment where it is accessible to all.

Shared vision

A company that has objectives to attain the status of a learning organization should employ people that are commonly referred to as high caliber workers.

The distinguishing feature of such workers is that they have high levels of education and posses the capacity to acquire new knowledge rapidly and constantly while adjusting to new conditions within a common vision (Senge 1990).

Secondly, they have the capability to work under no supervision and are able to set their own goals and objectives, while observing the attainment and results of these goals.

Mental model

A learning organization comprises of workers who have excellent interpersonal skills. They have the capacity to solve problems through creative evaluation of different possible outcomes, and by using their own ideas to find solutions to the rising problems (Barrow and Loughlin, 1992, p. 5).

Microsoft knows that strong performance is a prerequisite for future career development and thus employ people with global mindsets, customer focus, result oriented, and deep business understanding (Hewlett-Packard 2010).

Same as in HP, the acquired talents are put into rigorous development program which relies on feedback from development center sessions to evaluate the learning process. However, the evaluation process at Microsoft relies on feedback from managers thus might not be flawless owing to personal attitudes that the managers have towards their employees at the corporation.

The above interactive prospects facilitate elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy and hierarchical levels and go a long way in reducing overhead costs, while efficiently increasing productivity. A study done in the Dutch proved that there is higher productivity in companies that have flat and organizational structure which promotes integration among employees as is exhibited in Microsoft and HP companies (Nymark, 1999).

As a result, acquisition of knowledge is encouraged and proper management encouraged that functions on inclusivity of interactive process.

Nymark (1999) asserts that it is impossible to force workers to be spontaneous, the same way it is impossible to force people to act more autonomous, to be imaginative, or to take more responsibility. Therefore, the organization managers have no direct leeway to force workers to act spontaneously, or take initiatives.

In conclusion, Microsoft is a learning organization just like HP. Though they share more or less the same learning models, there are several quantifiable dissimilarities in balancing one model to another. Microsoft is more aligned to Senge’s organizational learning features which include personal mastery, shared vision, mental model, team learning, and systems thinking.

On the other hand, HP tends to apply more of Garvin’s model. To improve the organization, the management unit should endeavor to institute inclusive organization that motivate employees to internalize essential learning attributes which makes learning in the organization interesting and relevant.

In addition, this model should be inclusive and easy to follow in order to ensure that the system is non discriminative. Relevancy is critical in designing this alternative due to the fact that knowledge and learning environment is not constant.

Factually, relevancy is vital in ensuring that the goal or target of continouse knowledge sharing is achieved within the shortest time possible. It is important to establish a flexible module that can be modified to fit into the need of parties involved.

Finally, paradigms must be constantly evaluated, reevaluated, analyzed, and clarified to ensure that they are as precise as possible. Learning in an organization is vital in goal attainment. Generally, learning process is continuous and relies on structured systems that control information dispensation.

List of References

Barrow, M & Loughlin, M 1992, “Towards a learning organization,” Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 3-7.

Dixon, N M 1999, “The Changing Face of Knowledge,” The Learning Organization, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 212-216.

Fielden, T 2001, “A Knowledge Management State of Mind. Info World, 23: 47.

Garvin, D 1993, “Building a Learning organization,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 2 no 4, pp. 78-91.

Garvin, D A, Edmondson, A C and Gino, F 2008, “Is yours learning organization,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 86 no. 3, pp. 109-116.

Hewlett-Packard 2010, Organization learning: Hewlett Packard (HP), viewed on https://www.slideshare.net/maronoman/hp-challenges-organizational-learning

Nymark, S R 1999, “A study of flexibility and renewal in Danish companies,” Human Resource Development International, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 59-66.

Porth, S et al. 1999, “Spiritual Themes of the ‘Learning Organization,’” Journal of Organization Change Management, vol. 12 no. 3, pp. 211-220.

Senge, Peter M et al, 1994, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, Currency Doubleday: New York.

Senge, Peter M., 1990, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency Doubleday: New York.

The article ‘Culture and organizational learning’ by Cook and Yanow explores the issue of organizational learning and the types of learning that they undergo as well as answers an intriguing question on if organizations learn.

The writer’s argument from the cultural viewpoint is that an important characteristic of human beings is their potential to act or capacity to operate in teams or groups. Groups of individuals, who share a common practice or experience, are considered to be of the same culture.

A culture is constructed on the basis of inter subjective meanings where constituents get across in their joint practice through actions, language, and objects (Cook & Yanow 2005, p. 368). The meaning-holding language, acts, and objects are cultural relics through which the combined knowledge possessed by an organization is utilized, expressed, and transmitted.

Organizations are persistently engaged in actions that uphold or transform their cultural identity. These activities create organizational learning since organizations, which are viewed as cultures, undergo learning via activities that involve cultural relics.

Learning involves organizational attainment, preservation, or changing the capabilities of undertaking initiatives that should be fully understood (Cook & Yanow 2005, p. 370).

There are four key points raised in the article regarding organizational learning and culture. One of the points states that there is a possibility that an organization may have numerous cultures, none of which may be dominant or among its numerous cultures, there may be one dominant over the others.

Another significant point is that cultural comprehension of organizational learning is an important way of creating appropriate channels of exploring new ideas. The third point states that in most cases, organizations acquire new members who provide a great learning opportunity for the organization.

According to the article, error detection and correction are important subjects in organizational learning because a company can learn by detecting its own faults so it is easy for it to seek fir appropriate remedies (Cook & Yanow 2005, p. 378).

In my opinion, there are a number of questions that the article raises. The issues are if organizations learn given the fact that they are made up of many people who have different goals and opinions, and if different cultures can promote organization learning as people come from different cultural backgrounds.

Thus, if the organizational culture contradicts the values of its members’ cultures, it becomes difficult for them to adopt it. That is why the next questions are if the fear of change affects group learning since this process involves changes in the way people perceive each other and their surrounding, and if detecting errors and correcting them assist in organizational learning aimed at bringing innovations.

Moreover, the knowledge gained is not only through learning some facts about the things that go wrong, but also considering the positive changes that are essential for organization growth.

Organizational learning is important for managers when implementing organizational change because by adopting strategies that enhance acquisition of new knowledge, it would be easier to develop and adopt strategies that bring changes without much resistance from other members.

In order to achieve a meaningful change, organization culture should be dynamic so as to accommodate other cultural inputs and promote cultures that assist the company in achieving its goals.

Since an organization involves people and groups, it can learn if its members agree to work as a group and chart out a common course in developing and adopting change strategies (Cook & Yanow 2005, p. 370-378).

Reference

Cook, SDN & Yanow, D 1993, ‘Culture and organizational learning’, Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 373-390.

Cook and Yanow (2005) provide valuable insights on two approaches to organizational learning. The researchers considered peculiarities of cognitive and cultural organizational learning. Notably, Cook and Yanow (2005) single out some shortcomings of the two approaches. Notably, they also suggest specific ways to address these shortcomings.

Thus, Cook and Yanow (2005) focus on cognitive organizational learning. Cognitive approach suggests that “organizational learning entails observable organizational change linked to individual cognition” (Cook & Yanow 2005, p. 369). This approach holds that organisational learning can be identical or similar to an individual’s learning.

Therefore, major principles of the cognition of the individual are transferred to the process of organizational learning (Skerlavaj et al. 2010). Notably, the concept of change is central in the cognitive approach. Thus, some changes for better are seen as effective organizational learning. However, it is important to note that this approach has many limitations.

As far as the cultural organizational learning is concerned, it is rather more comprehensive. This approach holds that organizational learning “is understood to involve shared meanings associated with and carried out through cultural artifacts” and it is regarded as “an activity of the organization, that is, an activity at the level of the group, not at the level of the individual” (Cook & Yanow 2005, p. 375).

Therefore, group activity is brought to the fore (Moynihan & Landuyt 2009; Alas &Vadi 2006). Cook and Yanow (2005) pay special attention to the role of new members of the group. These new members can foster the process of organizational learning (Busco et al. 2002; Schein 2009). Though, this approach is really comprehensive there are certain limitations as well.

As for shortcomings of the first approach (i.e. cognitive approach), Cook and Yanow (2005, p. 369) state that it is associated with some challenges concerning “the ontological status of organizations as cognitive entities”. In terms of theorizing organizational learning, cognitive approach does not provide specific definition of what this process is and whether it can be similar (or identical) to the cognitive processes of individuals.

Besides, there is no definite theory explaining peculiarities of the process of individuals’ cognition. This fact is associated with another limitation to the perspective. Thus, it is rather difficult to base the theory of organizational learning on the theory of individual cognition as the latter is incomplete and has lots of limitations.

At that, it is clear that individuals have different cognitive capacity. More so, organizations consist of many individuals with different cognitive capacity. Therefore it is rather unclear what organizational learning is. Hence, it is problematic to compare individual’s cognition to organizational learning.

As far as cultural perspective is concerned, it addresses some limitations concerning the cognitive approach. For instance, it holds that organizational cognition is based on the process of the group condition. This approach holds that organisational learning is constituted by cognition of each individual and the entire group, by existing knowledge (and/or culture) within the organization and knowledge (some sort of culture) of newcomers.

The cooperation between individuals within organization leads to sharing knowledge, i.e. it lead to organizational learning. However, there are still some shortcomings of the cultural perspective. For instance, this approach does not provide researchers with a specific theoretic background as cognitive processes of groups are also yet to be theorized (just like individual cognition theories). Apart from this, the researchers claim that this approach can be inapplicable to big organizations.

However, Cook and Yanow (2005) suggest specific measures to address the shortcomings of the two approaches. In the first place, the researchers claim that cultural perspective is more complete though cognitive perspective should not be left aside.

Thus, the authors see the best way to analyse organizational learning in a combination of the two approaches (though the basis is still cultural approach). Thus, the researchers suggest that analysis should first be implemented within small organizations. This will help researchers define major principles which, in their turn, could be tested when analysing larger companies.

Cook and Yanow (2005) also stress that it is important to focus on interactions between individuals. It is especially effective to take into account the ways newcomers learn the culture of the organization which is new for them.

The newcomers also share their knowledge and also create organizational culture in some way. Finally, the researchers claim that it is essential to take into account what is wrong as well as what is good in the organizational change. In other words, it is necessary to analyse positive and negative experiences of organizations to understand peculiarities of organizational change.

On balance, it is possible to state that Cook and Yanow (2005) reveal peculiarities of cultural and cognitive approaches. Notably, the authors claim that the cultural approach contains fewer limitations than the cognitive perspective.

The researchers also provide specific ways to theorize organizational learning. Some of the most important points to take into account are the size of the organization, positive as well as negative changes and interactions between the individuals within the organization.

Reference List

Alas, R & Vadi, M 2006, ‘ The impact of organizational culture on organizational learning and attitudes concerning change from an institutional perspective’, International Journal of Strategic Change Management 1.1/2, pp. 155-170.

Busco, C, Riccaboni, A & Scapens, RW 2002, ‘When culture matters: Processes of organizational learning and transformation’, Reflections 4.1, pp. 43-54.

Cook, SDN & Yanow, D 2005, ‘Cultural and organizational learning’, in JM Shafritz, JS Ott & YS Jang (ed.), Classics of organization theory, Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Moynihan, DP & Landuyt, N 2009, ‘How do public organizations learn? Bridging structural and cultural divides’, Public Administration Review 69.6, pp. 1097-1105.

Schein, EH 2009, ‘On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning’, Reflections 4.4, pp. 27-38.

Skerlavaj, M, Song JH & Lee, Y 2010, ‘Organizational learning culture, innovative culture and innovations in South Korean firms’, Expert Systems with Applications 37, pp. 6390-6403.

Introduction

In the face of escalating global competition, convergence of technology, and an exponential explosion of knowledge, organizations endeavoring to sustain their competitive advantage in the marketplace must strengthen their capacity to position and exploit their tangible and intangible assets to the fullest (Yeung et al, 2010).

Increasingly, the capability of an organization to achieve and maintain a competitive edge inarguably depends on its commitment and success in managing such intangible resources as manpower skills, organizational adaptability, flexibility, propensity to experiment, knowledge bases, and many other strengths that are unique to the organization, and which other competitors cannot provide (Argyris, 2004).

Many business analysts and other theorists are firm on the assertion that in the knowledge-based economy witnessed in the 21^st century, organizational learning, ability to adapt to change, and innovation are the most fundamental intangible assets that any organization needs to obtain and exploit to attain maximum organizational performance, effectiveness, and growth (Chiva & Alegre, 2009).

By critically comparing and contrasting the concepts of organizational learning and learning organizations, this essay aims to bring out the strong points in each concept that can effectively be used by organizations to achieve their goals.

Defining ‘Organizational Learning’ and ‘Learning Organizations’

It is imperative to look at what the process of learning actually entails before attempting to define the concepts. According to Wilhelm (2009), learning is basically the acquisition of knowledge, behaviors, value systems and skills through an active process of synthesizing diverse types of information.

As such, organizational learning is an increasingly popular area of knowledge within organizational theory that concerns itself with studying and evaluating different models and theoretical perspectives about the way an organization learns and adapts to change (Wilhelm, 2010).

In organizational development, learning is incorporated as a distinguishing feature of an adaptive organization in terms of creating an enabling environment for the organization to sense changes in indicators from internal as well as external environment and adapt accordingly. Organizational learning can be defined from either the technical or social perspective.

According to Marshall & Smith (2009), “…the technical view assumes that organizational learning is about the effective processing, interpretation of, and response to, information both inside and outside the organization” (para. 7). However, the social view on organizational learning takes a deep interest on how individuals make sense of their daily experiences at work. These experiences, according to the author, often derive from unambiguous sources or from implicit sources.

On the other hand, learning organization as a concept of organizational development employs theoretical and conceptual findings of organizational learning and other objective sources of information in order to stipulate concrete and tailor-made recommendations about how to come up with organizations that have the capacity to effectively and efficiently learn (Kline & Saunders, 1997).

As such, a learning organization is the expression given to an organization that actively facilitates the learning of its employees for purposes of continuously transforming itself towards the attainment of its goals and objectives.

The notion of the learning organization was mainly conceptualized from the systems thinking theory – a framework that permits individuals to evaluate businesses as bounded entities rather than separate and individualized objects (Madsen & Desai, 2010). Indeed, the concept of learning organizations measure and evaluate the performance of the entity as a whole although various mechanisms have also been developed to measure the performance of various components.

Comparing and Contrasting the Concepts

The above concepts can be compared in terms of their related objectives. Available literature reveals that both the concepts of organizational learning and learning organization have a primary role of enhancing the performance of organizations, thus maintaining their competitive advantage.

Indeed, Yeung et al (2010) is of the opinion that organizations cannot afford to shut down their major avenues of learning how to do new things based upon the existing social and economic conditions and in line with the best practices of the industry as this will guarantee their survival in the tumultuous economic environment of the 21^st century.

The concept of learning organization offers the backbone through which organizations can implement the learnt experiences to enhance performance improvement (Marshall & Smith, 2009).

Both concepts are aimed at assisting organizations to, among other things: Maintain levels on innovation, productivity, and competitiveness; effectively respond to internal and external pressures; have adequate knowledge to link available resources to customer needs; enhance the quality of outputs at all levels; enhance corporate image by becoming more focused on the needs of people; and enhance the pace of change occurring within the organization (Marshall & Smith, 2009; Yeung et al, 2010; Wilhelm, 2010).

Another similarity close to what has been discussed above is that both concepts – organizational learning and learning organization – have developed as a direct result of the pressures facing contemporary organizations.

The literature on how the business environment started to drastically change towards the end of the 20^th century has been well documented, with many analysts arguing that businesses had to find mechanisms to learn and understand the ever shifting economic environment and rapid technological advancements that presented new ways of conducting business (Kline & Saunders, 1997; Madsen & Desai, 2010).

According to Argyris (2004), the development of organizational learning by organizations was a well-calculated move aimed at steering them from stability traps that surfaced during this time. Shifting economic trends and difficulties occasioned by these and other influences also occasioned the development and formalization of learning organizations.

The concepts, however, can be compared and evaluated differentially in terms of process versus structure. According to Malhotra (1996), organization learning can be perceived as the process through which organizations put in place mechanisms and frameworks aimed at gaining insight and understanding from their varied experiences through adaptation, experimentation, examination, and an active desire to evaluate what is working for the organizations and what is likely to lead to failure.

Learning organizations, on the other hand, must have a comprehensive structure in place to ensure the stipulated and recommended measures learnt from both the external and internal environment of the organization are effectively implemented to ensure continuous performance, thus enhancing the competitive edge of the organization.

As such, organizational learning becomes an individualized and organization-wide process that aims to progress the achievement of goals and objectives of the organization.

However, for this to happen, the entity must have a structure for integrating the recommendations and measures for the desired changes to take place. According to Marshall and Smith, (2009) organizational learning should be evaluated in terms of existing processes used by the organization to attain performance improvement, while learning organization is an ideal structure of an organization.

The concepts can also be contrasted in terms of roles played by individuals. While the available literature on organizational learning seems to agree that learning can take place both at the organizational and individual level, the concept of learning organization seems to take a holistic view that all evaluations must be undertaken at the organizational level rather than the individual level (Marshall & Smith, 2009).

This is line with the systems thinking theory. This kind of thinking have occasioned questions from some scholars and critics, who are yet to be convinced that organizations can learn by themselves distinct from the individuals who manages the functions of such organizations.

Harvard professors Argyris and Schon offered a credible response to the critics by arguing “…that although the social organization does not have a physical body as the human body does, it has a collective brain that is made possible by the communicative exchange between and among the brains of the individual organizational members” (Xin-An, n.d., para. 7).

Other advocates of the learning organization perspective believe that an organization must never be seen as a collection of distinct individuals; rather, it is a collection of mutually dependent and intermingled individuals.

According to Xian-An (n.d.), the concepts of organizational learning and learning organization can further be differenced in terms of scope. The author firmly maintains that “…an organization that manifests learning is not necessarily a learning organization; just like a person who can play some music is not necessarily a musician” (para. 44).

Consequently, the author argues that an organization must exhibit so much learning in addition to deeply entrenching the learning process as a ubiquitous thread in its organizational framework in order to qualify to be called a ‘learning organization.’ The basic premise that reinforces this assertion is that the functioning and scope of a learning organization is holistically dependent on an integrated system rather than piecemeal procedures and practices as is the case in organizational learning (Xian-An, n.d.; Marshall & Smith, 2009).

As such many reputable organizations have often used the organizational learning concept to create and share knowledge, hence enhancing their competitive advantage, but few organizations can be said to be fully-fledged learning organizations since the scope of learning organizations is much deeper than mere creation and sharing of knowledge for performance improvement (Yeung et al., 2010).

Differences exist between the two concepts in terms of their theoretical backing and orientation. While it evidently known that the ‘learning organization’ concept greatly utilizes the systems thinking theory in its approach, the ‘organizational learning’ has utilized many organizational and behavioral theories in attempting to understand how individuals learn, and how the knowledge learnt by the individual can be transferred to the organization to assist in performance improvement and maintenance of a competitive advantage (Madsen & Desai, 2010).

It is, however, imperative to note that although the theoretical orientations of the concepts may be different, their objectives are more or less the same as discussed elsewhere in this paper.

Conclusion

This paper has critically compared and contrasted the concepts of organizational learning and learning organizations. It has been demonstrated that although many formal organizations make use of organizational learning in an attempt to remain competitive and improve profitability through acquisition and sharing of knowledge, few are yet to conceptualize the dynamics of a learning organization (Marshall & Smith, 2009).

A detailed evaluation of the concepts revealed some similarities and differences in key areas of process and structure, objectives, precedents of the concepts; roles played by individuals, scope of concepts, and theoretical orientation. Although these concepts are relatively new in the organizational arena, they are destined to shape the performance and resilience of organizations in a long time to come.

List of References

Argyris, C. (2004). On Organizational Learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Chiva, R., & Alegre, J (2009). Organizational Learning Capability and Job Satisfaction: an Empirical Assessment in the Ceramic Tile Industry. British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, Issue 1, pp 20.1 323-340.

Kline, P., & Saunders, B (1997) Ten Steps to a Learning Organization, 2^nd Ed. London: Great Ocean Publishers.

Madsen, P.M., Desai, Y (2010). Failing to Learn? The Effects of Failure and Success on Organizational Learning in the global Orbital Launch Vehicle Industry. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, Issue 3, pp 451-476.

Malhotra, T. (1996) Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations: An Overview. Web.

Marshall, J., & Smith, S (2009) Learning Organizations and Organizational Learning: What have we Learnt? Management Services, Vol. 53, Issue 3, pp14-19. Viewed

Wilhelm, W. (2010). Sustaining Organizational Learning. T+D, Vol. 64, Issue 5, pp 52-56. Viewed

Xin-An, L. Surveying the Concepts of the Learning Organization. Web.

Yeung, A.C.L., Lai, K., & Yee, R.W.Y (2010). Organizational Learning, Innovativeness, and Organizational Performance: A Qualitative Approach. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45, Issue 11, pp 2459-2477.

Introduction

The field of organizational learning entails knowledge about theories and models in an organization which are learnt and afterwards adjusted to. In the field of organizational development, learning is taken to be a characteristic of an organization which is adaptive. According to Argyris and Schon (1978), organizations involved in these kinds of task should be quick in pointing out which changes are occurring in the environments within and without them and so be able to acclimatize as fast as possible.

This paper is a critical evaluation of a human resource development program and its subsequent intervention basing on the theory of action research as developed by Chris Argyris.

The paper will start with a discussion of the concepts of adult learning followed by an insight into the theory at hand. Another theory which will be idealized in practice is the Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. The paper will also consider in brief, the application of Kolb’s theory to some students as it has happened in a past real life process (Mezirow, 1975).

Learning is relative and permanent change in the behavior of a person which results from the experiences a particular person undergoes. This results to a change in the in the way a person thinks, perceives issues, and reacts to his current environment. This is in no way affected by his genetic make up or resulting from naturalization.

The overall process of learning makes the person increase in sophistication, flexibility and creativity. Learning is not a fixed entity but is a process through which concepts are derived and through experience, these concepts get modified with time (Argyris and Schon 1978).

Adult learning falls in three domains which can be classified as emancipatory, instrumental and communicative. The instrumental learning domain involves learning which results in manipulation of the environment. This type of learning is task oriented and consists of solving problems.

Once a person has learnt using this kind of method, it is possible to know the resulting changes through the productivity of the person, his performance or his behavior. Communicative learning on the other hand deals with the dynamics of how people understand each other. In this type of learning, a person knows the other person means through the use of writing, art, speech or drama. This domain does not determine truth but attempts to establish the justification or validity behind beliefs.

For adults, learning is a complex affair which does not merely occur in the three domains but occurs in stages (Easterby-Smith and Lyles 2003). This makes the learning process not instantaneous and has a time delay which can be exemplified in four levels as shown below:

Not aware

↓

Aware but post facto

↓

Aware post facto but does not act in time

↓

Aware and consequently acts

From the above discussions, to deliver a successful human resource development program in organization A, the adult learning process should then go hand in hand with the stages of human resource development which are discussed below.

The investigative stage comprises the strategies and tools for investigation which are needed to be selected and then devised when the concerned person has the level of learning required in his mind. This stage can use survey questionnaires or apply the use of interviews and focus groups.

The design stage brings together all the aspects than are involved in adult learning. These aspects include basic types of learning in modification of behavior and modeling, learning principles, rational discourse and the challenging of Para-dynamic assumptions.

The implementation stage is when the developers of the human resource programs must have the appropriate and the required skills which are necessary for the development of the learning strategies. The three learning domains that is the instrumental, the emancipatory, and the communicative approach have a strict requirement of professionalism and competence in a certain set of skills which are required for the comprehension of the values that underpin each of them (Delahaye 2005).

The evaluation is if looked at in the view of a legitimate system completes the cycle where all the issues that were raised in the investigative stage are solved. Communicative and emancipatory learning require more active research strategies as compared to instrumental learning due to the fact that the latter method is more susceptible to cost benefit analysis methods which are mechanistic while on the other hand are indicators to the former methods.

According to Argyris and Schon (1978), Action Science starts with a study of how human beings design their mode of actions in various situations. A predefined set of economic variables usually have consequences which they govern therefore triggering the actions. The design difference in the variables acts as the gap separating single and double loop learning (Bontis and Serenko 2009) (a).

Single loop learning is involved with the sole achievement of the results which are needed whilst as much as possible try to have fewer divergences. A combination of both the discussed cycles of learning occurs when there is an inquiry into the sources of the disagreements together with an achievement of the same.

In simple terms, double loop learning can be termed as learning about the first mode of learning that is the single loop learning. These two cycles have been made practical by Argyris in both personal and organizational behaviors in his various works. The difference between this and experimental research is that in experimental research, environmental variables are controlled and the researchers attempt to look into the cause and is usually effected in an environment that is isolated (Bontis and Serenko 2009) (b).

In an organization context for instance, learning is comprised of the traditions in human resources. In this case the people involved or else the adults in organization A get to increase their skills and experience as they get more formalized education. For any organization to be deemed as successful the determining factor is the knowledge of the employees within that organization and so it entirely means that the learning process must go on.

This therefore means that an organization should be ready to improve its human resources through facilitation, promotion and rewarding of collective learning. For ones knowledge to be useful to an organization, then this knowledge must be captured. This is made possible using the normal methods of primary data acquisition like interviews.

In a classroom where the Kolb’s experiential learning theory was applied, the class was divided in groups where a quarter of the students got divided into divergers, another quarter used the assimilator whilst the remaining two quarters were equally divided into convergers and accommodators.

The divergers group consisted of people who focus on concrete information and observations which are reflective. Such kinds of cases are found amongst mathematicians who deal with abstract numbers. Assimilators dealt with experiences and learnt in a way that they had to get the logic behind their information. The learning mode subjected to accommodators was that which had much focus on experiments and the teachers involved them in learning new experiences (Kolb, 1994).

In an experimental research later conducted in the same class, most students said that Kolb’s style was very effective in that it encouraged most people to work in groups and so they were able to help each other. Personal experience through this theory showed that learning was faster amongst the student community one would fit into their styles with much ease having the option of the four. In this method of experiential learning one can easily be able to gather new skills with ease.

Argyris (1990) claims that in model I of learning, one should infer about the behavior of someone else. In this case, on a real life basis the teacher did not check up the validity of the behavior and then advocate his/her view in an abstract manner which did not seek to explain how the person reasoned.

The theory which was in use in such a case was that the person was implicitly disposed to winning. Students who engaged in this mode in the classroom could easily be told out from the ones in Kolb’s theory due to their protective nature of reasoning. The strategy which has been primarily put in place is the control of the environment in a unilateral manner and also for the protection of one’s self and also for the others (Argyris and Schon 1978).

This model has entrenched itself into deep defense actions and routines. The end result of this model is that it seen as a way in which the person is moving away from some truth and thus the reaction which is posed is not one that is governed by the person but one that is judged by whatever the person is moving away from. In an organization, this tends to hide the person from in-competency by being defensive towards what he cannot do (Bontis et al. 2002).

This model is operationalized by people advocating some courses of action which tend to discourage inquiry, people treating their views with absolute confidence of correctness and not stating facts which would lead to eventual embarrassment.

Model II has values which include giving of valid information, internal commitment and freedom of informed choice. There is evidence of strategies which are shared and individuals participate the design and consequent implementation of actions. This eventually leads to an increase in the likelihood of double loop learning.

When a different theory is experimented in class, a different output is generated. This will be deduced from a case study of Mezirow’s theory. Teachers applied the use of emotions in class and in some other group, the use of critical rationalism. This methods required the students to behave in a receptive manner where they had to be ready to learn something and at the same time, be open to the issue at hand be it a belief or otherwise.

This method proved to be more of psychological oriented and hard to implement as compared to the others. The existence of this mode required a lot from both the teachers and the students where the teachers had to incorporate themselves into the learning environment and showcase their willingness to adopt the changes. The learners on the other hand had to be ready, though complicated, to transform. The complication comes in because the method has to incorporate the use of someone’s feelings and also emotions.

To the organization, it should adopt a strategy of intervention which can be formulated and implemented in some steps. In the beginning, the intervening person should map the problems as the clients see it.

At this stage, one should have an idea of the determinants of the problems together with how they relate to organization A. from that step the person involved should have within him a map which will be in line with the needs and commitments of the clientele. After this step, the model should be tested by looking at the predictions in the model which have the capability to be tested. If these predictions do not stand for themselves by looking into history, then the model should consequently be modified.

The other important phase in intervening the model so as to make it improve is invention of solutions. These are solutions to the model which should then be simulated so as to test their possible impacts (Imants 2003). After these the person should go ahead by producing the intervention. After this step one gets to study the major causes of errors so that when the novel model is created, things work out better. If at this stage everything works correctly, then there is no disconfirmation for that particular map.

Following model II in this sequence, then it is very possible to have human resource and organization development in the organization. According to Common (2004), clients need to give their full dedication towards this phase. By this, risks will have been minimized and all parties have to agree on the starting point.

In action research, the process of change goes in three processes starting by unfreezing, changing and then refreezing. Unfreezing occurs is when people or the human resources get aware that there is need for change. Changing involves diagnosis of the situation and exploration and testing of new models. Refreezing is the adoption or the application of the new behavior (March and Olsen 1975). Thus action research can be viewed as a series of three phases which are planning, transformation and then view of the results.

Other interventions are interpersonal interventions which aim at the development of the individual skills. In this case group dynamics can be utilized whereby; people are gathered into small meetings and then they decide on the subject matter. This subject should be within the list stipulated prior by the facilitator of the meeting.

This helps the members to understand each other better and improve on their behavior. Group interventions on the other hand try to assist teams in making sure that organizations are more effective (Common 2004). They usually assume effective communication between groups and ensure a good balance between personal needs and group needs. Their functionality is through consensus with no majority rule or autocracy.

Inter-group interventions are very important in that they make sure that all parties within the organization work as team. This helps in making sure that here is interaction within departments in the organization (Easterby-Smith and Lyles 2003). Such interventions can be conflict resolution meetings. In search meetings, teams meet and discuss feelings that they might be having concerning other departments and therefore solve any issues arising from such.

Comprehensive interventions enhance change throughout the organization. This can be through the use of surveys to get information. In such surveys, the attitude of the employees in the entire organization is gathered and a comprehensive report on the collected data is disseminated (Garvin 2000). If the so stated interventions and others are incorporated into the system of organization A, then the model will improve and in the end, there will be a gross improvement in the human resource program.

References

Argyris, C. (1990) Overcoming Organizational Defences: Facilitating Organizational Learning, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bontis, N. et al. (2002) “Managing an Organizational Learning System by Aligning Stocks and Flows”. Journal of Management Studies 39 (4): 437–469.

Bontis, N. and Serenko, A. (2009) (a). “Longitudinal knowledge strategizing in a long-term healthcare organization”. International Journal of Technology Management 47 (1/2/3): 276–297.

Bontis, N. and Serenko, A. (2009) (b) “A causal model of human capital antecedents and consequents in the financial services industry”. Journal of Intellectual Capital 10 (1): 53–69.

Common, R. (2004) “Organizational Learning in a Political Environment: Improving policy-making in UK government”. Policy Studies 25 (1): 35–49.

Delahaye, B. (2005) Human Resource Development: Adult Learning and knowledge management. 2nd Edition, Wiley, Brisbane.

Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. (2003) The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

Garvin, D. (2000) Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Imants, J. (2003). “Two basic mechanisms for organizational learning in schools”. European Journal of Teacher Education 26 (3): 293–311.

Kolb, David A., (1994) “Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences” in “Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom”, Ed. Feldman, K.A. & Paulsen, Boston, Ginn Press.

March, J. and Olsen, J. (1975). “The uncertainty of the past; organizational ambiguous learning”. European Journal of Political Research 3: 147–171.

Mezirow, J. (1975). Education for Perspective Transformation: Women’s Reentry Programs in Community Colleges. New York: Center for Adult Education Teachers College, Columbia University.

Introduction

In order to survive in this era of globalization, various organizations are re-examining their management systems in order to attain competitive capacities to survive and remain relevant in their areas of operations. Organization Learning since its inception at the beginning of 1990s has received overwhelming attention as managers realize that they need to promote organizational change that is more suitable for the ever changing business environment that has become turbulent and complex (Cook & Yanow 1993).

Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008) argue that it is vital that companies should become learning organizations due the tougher competition, and shifting customer preferences.

Globalization and competitive pressures (Cook & Yanow 1993) have compelled many organizations to promote learning at all levels; individual, team and organizational. According to Assmann (1995) interactions in organizations takes place between members and the physical surrounding as well.

Differences between Cognitive and Cultural theories of Organizational Learning

The argument in cultural perspective is based on the premise that organization learning is done by key individuals in the organization whose actions then influence the organisational change. On the hand, cultural perspective is based on the foundation that organizations learn because they have the capabilities just like those those human posses that allow them to learn.

Therefore, cognitive perspective to organizational learning is viewed by Cook and Yanow (2005) as a compliment to the cultural perspective. They argue that the cognitive perspective treats organizational learning unequivocally as learning at the individual level while the cultural perspective on the other hand focuses on learning on a collective level, that is, the whole organization. Furthermore, cultural perspective is closely linked to those epistemological approaches that support collective learning.

Shortcomings of the theories

According to Cook and Yanow (2005), the basic problem that arises from the application of the cognitive theory is the fact that it is not possible to see cognition occurring in the organization.

The Cognitive perspective of Organizational Learning is based on the assumption that “all deliberate actions had a cognitive basis, that it reflected the norms, strategies and assumptions as models of the world which had claims to general validity and that human action and learning could be placed in the larger context of knowing” (Argyris & Schon 1996, p.10).

Consequently, people assume that cognition has been attained when they notice changes in the organization’s pattern of activities that result from actions of organization’s key individuals (Cook & Yanow 2005). From cultural perspectives Organizational Learning is not possible unless some learning first takes place in the executive subculture.

Alternative approaches

The approaches offered by the authors are to split the cognitive perspective into two approaches. The first approach that treats organizational learning as learning that focuses on the individual learning in organization context while the second approach uses individual learning as a model for understanding some types of group organizational activities (Cook & Yanow 2005).

Conclusion

In summary, the paper looked at the two perspectives of organizational learning: cognitive perspective, and cultural perspective. In addition to the key differences in these perspectives, the paper also examined the major shortcomings of these approaches to organizational learning.

And by focusing on the shortcomings of these two perspectives the paper describes the possible alternative approaches for studying organizational learning. Finally, all the two perspectives on organizational learning in some way refer to the transfer of the learning process from the individual to collective or organizational level.

Reference List

Argyris, C & Schon, D 1996, Organizational Learning II Readings, Addison-Wesley, Alabama.

Assmann, J 1995, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity”, New German Critique, vol. 65, pp. 125-133.

Cook, D & Yanow, D 1993, “Culture and Organizational Learning”, The Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 2 no. 3, pp. 54–83.

Cook, D & Yanow, D 2005, “Culture and Organizational Learning,” In JM Shafritz, JS Ott and YS Jang (eds), Classics of Organization Theory, Thompson Wordworth, pp. 79-90.

Garvin, D, Edmondson, A, & Gino, F. 2008, “Is yours learning organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 3 pp. 109-116.

The task of analyzing organizational learning is very complex. Several researches have explained organizational learning using different theories. The field of organizational learning is large and researches often fall prey to disappointments becoming unaware of other important but categorically different researches from their own.

Shipton (2006) classified the various theories of organizational learning. This essay analyses the evaluations of theories offered in the journal and offers a way of advancing the theories. It will also note any challenges hindering theory advancement.

The article divides the theories of organizational learning into two continuums. One continuum covers theories using normative approaches and the other continuum covers theories using explanatory approaches. The article identifies two major categories of theories.

The first category describes organizational learning in the focus of the whole organization. The second category describes OL as individual learning done in the organizational context. Some studies are not clearly distinct and their description borders on the two categories. The article has used the degree of emphasis to classify such studies (Shipton 2006).

The article first analyses the theory describing OL as individuals learning in the context of the organization and falling into the first continuum of normative approaches. It notes that literature in this category mainly highlights learning as inspirational. It highlights dialogue’s benefit of improving communication among individuals and groups.

The environment plays a key role in facilitating learning and organizations are encouraged to be decentralized and flat to promote dialogue. Personal communications are emotional and the organization has to have mechanisms to solve concerns and anxieties. Emotional issues make overall learning in the organization complicated.

The article notes that many researches have not shown the complexity however when deeply analyzed, the researches place the individual at the center of the initiatives incorporated to stimulate learning.

The evaluation of this theory advocates for a focus on how individual leaning mechanisms assist organizational learning. Secondly, it identifies a research gap in use of empirical evidence to justify learning activity effects on the organization (Shipton 2006).

The article also evaluates the same theory as above, but which falls on the second continuum of explanatory perspective mainly due to their descriptive nature. In this category, the article points out two distinct views. In the first view, research is concerned with knowing how individual learning takes place under either stressing or enabling environments. Research also focuses on cognitive ability of the individual.

The second view emphasizes on the process of knowledge construction. The article further notes that research works falling into this category evaluate knowledge using a ‘situated learning’ approach. According to the article’s findings, tacit knowledge sharing is not clear. Furthermore, it is difficult to picture how to encourage best practices when implementation happens subconsciously in daily work (Shipton 2006).

In the second theory category described as organizational focus, the article reviews research works in the first continuum of prescriptive perspective. The article places research works focusing on the organization in this category. Individuals are not the focus of the research studies reviewed unless they form the first state in which the organization learns.

The article notes that works reviewed were clear on the outcomes of organizational learning. Based on the notion that organizational learning sanctions become measurable when they work, studies in this category have investigated strategic renewal and learning curve.

The former refers to dynamic movement of knowledge in the institution while the later looks at the time it takes to transfer knowledge effectively in the institution (Argote 2005).

Although in this category learning curve offers a direct way of measuring learning, the review article criticizes the various researches for failing to elaborate what lies between individual level learning and organizational level learning. Furthermore, the article finds out that the researches ignore tacit knowledge’s influence on learning (Shipton 2006).

Finally, the review article evaluates researches in the organizational focus category that fall into the second continuum of explanatory perspective. Researches falling in this continuum focus on the changes associated with organizational learning. Additionally, they look at possibilities of inadequate results despite any efforts made to enhance organizational learning.

Lastly, they look into the role of tacit knowledge in molding the capacity of the organization (Bennet & Bennet 2008). In this category, researches fall under behaviorist or cognitive perspective. The former views procedures and sequences as learning mines. The later associate learning with potential that later assists in sharing understanding of awareness and actions.

The common view among the various researches in this category is codification of knowledge in the organization. However, reviewed research has not shown whether codification as a storage and retrieval mechanism for knowledge stimulates or hinders progress (Shipton 2006).

The review article concludes that the typology used in the review is usable when comparing theories whose consideration does not fall in one context. In order to advance the theories discussed in the article, future research must be more focused and in depth employing empirical methods.

However, the author notes that such an in depth look might return the researcher to the disillusionment of having no knowledge of other non-related but significant theories (Shipton 2006).

Bibliography

Argote, L. 2005, Organizational Learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Springer, New York, NY.

Bennet, D & Bennet, A 2008, ‘Engaging tacit knowledge in support of organizational learning’, VINE, vol.38, no.1, pp. 1-25. Web.

Shipton, H. 2006, ‘Cohesion or confusion? Towards a typology for organizational learning research.’ International Journal of Management Reviews, vol.8, no.4, pp. 233-252, EBSCOhost Business Source Premier Web. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00129.x .