Traditional or normative organizational theories describe how to build a successful organizational structure through lines of command, span of control and line of staff interaction. Behavioral approach to organization focuses on how handling of information and decision flow shapes the organization’s behavior. Organizational learning (OL) has increasingly gained popularity as a tool for improving organization performance.
According to Easterby and Lyles, organization Learning is associated with two primary change processes in the organization (2003, p.69). The first process is adaptive learning, which refers to system modifications made as response to changes in the environment. Adaptive learning is frequently characterized by lower degree of organization change processes that come more automatically with less cognitive inducement.
Generally, OL as an adaptive process demands that determination be made as to what environment the organization should listen. Even in steady environments, managers should generate proper guidelines to stir up the environment to increase performance. The second process of organization learning is called proactive learning, which refers to organizational changes that come because of willful management actions.
On the other hand, organizational knowledge, which is the main tool for organization learning, lies in two areas, technical and scientific. Technical knowledge refers to meanings of specific words or symbols that are used in operations and processes in the organization.
Technical organizational Knowledge enables employees to interpret the technical terms and phrases in both meaning and application and as such, their actions become relatively harmonized. Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, takes the form of generalized assumptions; that is, whenever action A is taken, B is the outcome.
However, scientific knowledge is not a popular organizational learning tool since most of the managerial problems are action specific and more often the results are highly varied. Therefore, managers should be keen to identify and modify the actions to best fit a given the problem at hand.
Organizational learning models
An organizational learning model refers to frameworks under which organizational learning takes place. The first framework is referred to as single/double-loop learning (Argyris 1990, p.96).Single-loop learning takes place when organizations or individuals tailor and modify their actions based on the expected and actual results.
The single-loop learning can further be reviewed followed by modification of the policies and assumptions employed to produce a more customized solution. The process of further reviewing the single-loop learning is referred to as double-loop learning. Other than single/double-loop model there is a four-stage spiral organizational learning model (Nonaka & Tekeuchi 1995, p.20).
This model puts forth four parameters of management that organization learning should be based on: externalization, internalization, socialization, and combination. These four processes are codified skillfully to form an infinite spiral model for purposes of organization learning.
The proposed organizational learning model
Organizational learning is typically very complex and no one single model of learning can address the needs of all situations. However, the four-stage spiral model would be applied in a relatively wide range of organizational situations. As early stated the process starts by listing key personnel skills before codifying and incorporating them into products and processes in the organization.
Further, a set of formal rules and policies are then generated and employees endeavor to learn and master them through the process of internalization. These set of rules, since they are shared among the members, become the benchmark for routine actions.
For example, in a manufacturing industry the production manager would formulate rules and guidelines, which would form the basis for production staff’s routine process handling in addition to understanding their duties and responsibilities. When this happens, the staff can then work more smoothly and can easily handle different situations in uniformity.
Conclusion
In every organization, there exist complex contradicting forces that result in conflicts in organizational learning processes. To attain effective learning therefore, the managers should consider organizational dynamics, which stem both from the employees and from the environmental conditions.
Further, managers can use frequent trainings, seminars to sensitize the members of the organization on the rules and policies (organizational knowledge) that govern routine operations. Lastly, it is worth noting that regardless of the organization’s learning framework, it should regularly be evaluated and properly modified to remain relevant.
In this essay, the author ponders over the importance of learning towards organizational stability and success. The author approaches this subject starting with the importance of networks in organizational learning, then proceeds to address the manner in which mature organizations facilitate strategic renewal by accessing external resources, and then finally on the role of absorptive capacity organizational learning.
Networks in Organizational Learning
The emergence of organizational learning is the key strategic management tool aimed at providing a competitive advantage to organizations. The same advantage is observed in effective corporate performance. However, in all instances of organizational learning, the significance of networks stands out as the most convenient and holistic way of obtaining knowledge.
The reason for this assertion stems out from the fact that learning is a process that is engraved in an action that is collective in nature (Lazega, 2001). In other words, through networks individuals are able to obtain information bearing different perspectives for their ultimate synthesis.
The second reason in favor of networks in learning is based on the concept of dynamics (Škerlavaj and Dimovski, 2007). This concept regards networks as being in a continuous state of evolution, which means that through networks learning is enhanced and made available in an updated format bearing different perspectives from different organizations, individuals, and geographical locations.
Thus, by bringing together information from these different dimensions, organizations are able to obtain a greater scope of knowledge as opposed to knowledge acquired within the organization alone.
Strategic Renew
Strategic renewal according to Burgelman (1991) is process that even though unplanned, leads an organization into a fundamental strategic transformation. Additionally, strategic renewal facilitates innovation, which is vital to progress, and organizational stability. Therefore, strategic renewal plays a significant role in enhancing the competiveness of business enterprises.
This is mainly because organizations’ external and internal environment remains volatile. This calls for strategic renew in order to remain adept to the demands of time especially the changing customer tastes and preferences as well as technological advancement.
Moreover, mature small and medium enterprises rely heavily on knowledge from external providers; that is, the suppliers, educational institutions and customers (Jones and Macpherson, 2006).
Therefore, by accessing this information and distributing it across the entire organization, strategic managers are able to reduce the cost of acquisition and the cost of time engaged in sourcing for the information. This is achieved by the 4I model (Crossan, Lane and White, 1999), which outlines interpreting, intuiting, integrating, and institutionalizing as the basic drivers in the acquisition of external knowledge.
Under basis, it is believed that strategic decisions depend entirely on short term knowledge, which comes mainly from external resource. Intuition influences the development of reason and influences the interpretation and overall process of acquisition of knowledge.
Absorptive Capacity in Organizational Learning
Absorptive capacity relates with the manner in which organization come to a point where they absorb new working procedures and new knowledge (Jones, 2006). Jones further observes those two dimensions under which absorptive capacity rests; this includes the realized and the potential.
Whereas the potential acts as a yardstick for measuring the optimal capacity, the realized indicates the current situation as regards the process of organizational learning. Absorptive capacity is more concerned with organizations exploring knowledge rather than exploiting it. In other words, by exploring knowledge individuals are inclined towards applying it in its refined form through a process of assimilation (Jones, 2006).
References
Burgelman, R. A. (1991). “Intra-organizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research.” Organization Science, 2(3): 239-262.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W. & White, R. E. (1999) “An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution”, Academy of Management Review, 24 (3): 522-537.
Jones, O. 2006, Development Absorptive Capacity in Mature Organizations: The Change Agent’s Role, Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University Business School
Jones, O. & Macpherson, A. (2006) “Inter-Organizational Learning and Strategic Renewal in SMEs: Extending the 4I Framework.” Long Range Planning, 39: 155-175.
Lazega, E. (2001). The collegial phenomenon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Škerlavaj, M. and Dimovski, V. 2007, “Towards Network Perspective of Intra-Organizational Learning: Bridging the Gap between Acquisition and Participation Perspective.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management v.2: 43-58.
International joint ventures between companies in the United States and companies in China often encounter challenges to joint learning in the organizational learning context. These difficulties usually manifest in two important areas: marginality and autonomy.
The degree of autonomy afforded to Chinese firms by their American host companies – often multinationals with headquarters in the United States – exerts significant influence on the efficacy, perceived legitimacy and buy-in afforded to organizational learning processes undertaken by these types of international joint ventures. Another potential impediment to organizational learning remains its perceived value by Chinese firms.
This paper will focus more or less exclusively on the impact that marginality and different comprehension levels of managerial autonomy have on organizational learning in international joint ventures. Other important elements highlighted include social contexts and mores, barriers to organizational knowledge creation and differences in intercultural communication styles (Dierkes et al, 2003:p 288).
As a result of these barriers, international joint ventures, though often very successful from a financial perspective, sometimes lack a strong commitment to organizational learning and knowledge creation, the assumption perhaps being that knowledge creation by definition can only thrive in a homogenous cultural understanding.
The following paper intends to analyze international joint ventures between American companies and Chinese firms, and aims to document practical and useful means to develop and implement organizational learning strategies that will be effective and viable for managers from the United States who have been appointed to design and set up an organizational learning module in the current Chinese business and cultural climate.
Organizational learning in the context of international joint ventures between Chinese and American firms may struggle simply because each culture has conflicting views on the value of knowledge management and knowledge sharing, and managers from the United States may find that knowledge management in the Chinese business environment does not enjoy the same support from academia and the business world that it does in his or her home country.
Su et al (2010) published a study in the International Journal of Knowledge Management that speaks to this discrepancy and becomes applicable for managers to understand the inherent differences between the two cultures, before they attempt to implement organizational learning processes.
The Su study employs a significant sample group of Chinese firms of multiple sizes, disciplines and fields, and includes businesses that rest in the hands of the state, those under private ownership, domestic firms and firms owned by foreign entities.
Su et al’s (2010) findings reveal that “knowledge sharing in Chinese firms is far short of being completely open, and that a wide range of factors, ranging from Chinese cultural values to attributes of the firm and individual employees, affect the extent of knowledge sharing” (p. 25).
The goal of organizational learning, as it pertains to knowledge management, stems from the conviction that assembling the complete extent of employee talent, knowledge, and know-how augments the effectiveness of the business overall.
Organizational learning creates a means by “which firms can solve problems, avoid repeating mistakes, and spread the adoption of best practices” (Su et al, 2010: p. 25). However, this definition seems applicable only in the Western context, and may only make sense to American managers.
The first important thing to note is that managerial autonomy and decision making in the Western business context is a well entrenched idea, yet in the Chinese business context, it is a fairly recent development.
From the time of the revolution in 1949 right up until the end of the 1970s, the People’s Republic of China Up ran on a centrally organized economy, wherein firms were essentially extensions of the government used to deploy pre-existing government plans. At that time Chinese firms and their managers held next to no autonomy, because it was not necessary.
They were protected firms, and competition was nonexistent. The widespread economic changes – including the “establishment of the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges, and the termination of financial support for most state-owned-enterprises” – did not in fact occur until well into the 1990s (Su et al, 2010: p. 28).
Since the year 2000, continual change has characterized the Chinese economy, but some of the old mindsets take more time to shift. The move toward private ownership and the opening of the markets continues to gather speed.
In 2001 China joined the World Trade Organization, which created the need for “increased market openness, reduced government interference, and increased management autonomy,” and with it, more competition (Su et al, 2010: p. 28).
As a result, in less than 20 years, Chinese firms have found it necessary to fast forward their evolution from being completely protected business entities to engaging in competition with both domestic counterparts and foreign players.
Employees of Chinese firms may devalue their own tacit knowledge, as result, due to a perceived dearth of training, lack of expertise, or experience in the competitive business environment.
In the words of Su et al (2010), “in conjunction with evaluation apprehension, this uncertainty could reduce their willingness to share private knowledge with co-workers and/or superiors, and result in a lower level of knowledge sharing in Chinese firms as compared to their Western counterparts” (p. 28).
Similarly, another obstacle to effective organizational learning is the “entitlement mentality” left over from China’s centralized and protected public ownership economy period (Su et al, 2010: p. 29). During this era, workers were guaranteed secure employment for life and had full access to social welfare.
Nepotism abounded, wherein employees often received managerial appointments less through competence, and more through political connections and seniority, which bred a somewhat indolent managerial environment.
These types of managers may still exist, and as Su et al (2010) accurately state, these managers from the old guard “may resist practices…such as those aimed at increased knowledge sharing…[because] that may threaten their position or authority” (p. 29). Managerial autonomy was not as necessary when there was “no separation of responsibilities between the government and the firm, or between the government as the owner and the government as the manager” (Su et al, 2010: p. 29).
Losses and profits were subsumed by the state, therefore some of the most fundamental profit and loss responsibilities and concerns that seem de rigueur for American managers did not apply in Chinese firms until relatively recently.
Under the old system, ingenuity and resourcefulness did not net any personal benefit. Now, despite the fact that the Chinese economic system engenders more responsibility and business acumen for its managers, “there still may exist a large cadre of employees with little concern for how well their firms perform, in turn reducing their emphasis on or efforts toward knowledge sharing” (Su et al, 2010: p. 29)
On the other side of this equation lies the expatriate, and this goes both ways: the American manager stationed in China, or the Chinese manager stationed in the United States.
Both types of managers may face the issue of marginality while attempting to implement an organizational learning process, or by attempting to explain to headquarters in their home country why the organizational learning process in the foreign country is not working (Holsapple, 2004: p. 439).
Neither manager is “at home” – he or she may be well acquainted with local customs and culture, yet their superiors in each member country of the international joint venture may view them as marginal, or not a true member of any culture, by virtue of their peripheral status in the community because they were not born there.
Easterby-Smith et al (2005) point to this phenomenon, and its impact on organizational learning, herein: “perceived marginality affects perception and, thus, the influence of the sender…because the [multinational corporation] views senders as marginal, the information or knowledge they transmit is considered of less value or relevance than similar information from a member within the home country…
Information or knowledge flowing from them is likely to have little influence on the knowledge base or decision making of…the home office” (p. 218).
As an example, technological firms tend to live and die by their tacit knowledge, in the Western arena. American managers understand that “tacit, non-imitable knowledge is crucial for a firm’s competitive advantage” (Li, Huiping 2010, p. 98; Awad, 2004: p. 27).
A highly competitive business environment such as technology tends to encourage employees to forego their personal needs and share tacit knowledge freely in order to serve the competitive engine of the firm, otherwise “the value and uniqueness of knowledge-intensive resources can be swiftly lost to competitors” (Li, Huiping 2010, p. 98).
But given that competition still remains a relatively new concept in Chinese firms, this business imperative may be lost on some Chinese managers. Organizational learning processes often seek to gain open access to the kind of “deeply-embedded knowledge” that flows through the lifeblood of the firm (Li, Huiping 2010, p. 98).
This type of tacit knowledge often resembles practices and methods that may either be proprietary, or that can only be perceived and attained by the senior firm. Huiping (2010), speaks of “technological capability” itself as a form of tacit knowledge which varies from firm to firm, and may or may not avail itself to managers due to its inherently specialized nature (p. 98).
Tacit knowledge and capabilities after all derive from “internal learning processes” developed in close quarters with other employees of varying competence levels and talents (Huiping, 2010: p. 98). Technological aptitude is not a commodity. It cannot be bought and sold – only “imitated…with or without assistance…from the originating firm (Huiping, 2010: p. 98).
For this reason, managers are best served when they avail themselves of the autonomy index prevalent in the Chinese firm, as outlined earlier. In Western business, the tacit knowledge, or “skills, routines and processes…developed over time in a gradual process involving trial and error…are a primary source of competitive…or ownership…advantage” (Huiping, 2010: p. 98).
However many managers in Chinese firms may either not see the relevance of tacit knowledge to the business model, may feel threatened by it, or may feel too marginalized to act upon it. Chinese firms desire to join the international joint ventures to gain access to the tacit knowledge embedded therein, however their ability to acquire and act upon that knowledge in their own firms may be limited by their lack of autonomy.
Reference List
Awad, E. M. (2004) Knowledge Management. Delhi, Pearson Education.
Dierkes, M. et al (2003) Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Easterby-Smith, Mark et al (2005) The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. New Jersey, Wiley-Blackwell.
Holsapple, C.W. (2004) Handbook on knowledge management. Berlin, Birkhauser.
Huiping, L. (2010) Integration and accumulation of technological capability within joint ventures in China. Journal of International Management Studies [online] 10 (1). Web.
Su, W. et al (2010) Exploring the extent and impediments of knowledge sharing in Chinese business enterprise. International Journal of Knowledge Management [online] 6 (4) Web.
This research paper will discuss how organizational learning plays a positive role in an organization’s competition, innovation, financial and economic results. It will analyze how organizational learning plays a positive role in an organization’s competition, innovation, financial and economic results.
An assessment of how organizational learning increases organizational performance will also be discussed. The paper will also analyze on how successful articles have demonstrated the relationship involving business performance and organizational learning.
Lastly, the paper will highlight my views on organizational learning playing a positive role in an organization’s competition, innovation, financial and economic results using practical examples and recent modern media sources to support my analysis.
Organizational Learning
Organizational learning is a vibrant way of creating, acquiring and integrating knowledge to develop capabilities and resources so as to improve the performance of an organization (Lopez et al., 2005, p. 228). In strategic management, one of the basic ways to provide competitive advantage in organizations is the establishment of organizational learning (Lopez, et al., 2005, p. 227).
For companies to gain competitive advantage, they become more involved in creating new innovations, changing their organizational structures and procedures and renewing their organization. These changes will influence vibrant capabilities among organizations (Hedlund, 1994; Lopez, et al., 2005, p. 227).
Due to environmental changes over time, organizations need to efficiently process and create knowledge and information. To gain competitive advantage, companies should have the ability to replicate knowledge since having a greater position in the market may not make an organization to gain competitive advantage.
It is therefore encouraged that companies adapt to organizational learning to survive in a competitive and dynamic environment (Sharifirad, 2010, p. 323). Changes that are driven by suppliers, competitors and customers create continuous pressure for firms that improve the products and therefore help in increasing customer loyalty.
This therefore creates the need for organizational learning to gain competitive advantage (Lopez, et al., 2005, pp. 229-230).
The relationship between organizational performance and environmental changes are influenced organizational learning. When an organization adapts to new innovations it shows performance increase. Once organizations starts implementing decisions caused by change, then opportunities are created for new innovations and practices and therefore increasing performance.
Studies show that there is a curvilinear effect on the implementation of organizational innovation on performance. Implementation of changes should be moderate since having too much or little implementation will effect performance negatively (Naveh, et al., 2006, p. 275).
Organizational performance is greatly influenced by organizational learning and firm’s experiences (Garcia-Morales, et al, 2006, p. 518).
Organizations should use concepts of systems thinking to facilitate an environment that is open for collaborations and cross-functional communication to influence organizational learning and therefore to enhance performance (Maani and Fan, 2008, p. 1).
The article, Organizational learning, has succeeded in demonstrating how organizational learning has an impact on performance through research and measures placed within the organizations. Organizational learning is assessed using a scale that that collects information and identify multidimensional learning quality.
Through the use of questionnaires, business performance has been demonstrated with indicators such as financial and economic results as well as competitiveness and innovation and competitiveness (Lopez, et al., 2005, p. 232).
Through practical examples demonstrated in surveys and organizational results from various studies, I think that that organizational learning has a great impact on performance of an organization. When employees are trained, the performance of an organization is increased (Lopez, et al., 2005).
Conclusion
Studies indicate that there is a positive relationship between business performance and organizational learning leading to great competitiveness, innovations, financial and economic results. Great performance gives feedback on the efficiency of organizational learning (Lopez, et al., 2005).
References
Garcia-Morales, V. J., LLorens-Montes, F. J. & Verdu-Jover, A. J., 2006. Organizational learning categories: Their influence on organizational performance. International Journal of Innovation and Learning. 3(5), pp. 518 – 536. Web.
Hedlund, G., 1994. A model of knowledge management and the N-Form Corporation, Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp. 73-90.
Lopez, S.P., Peon, J. M. M. & Ordas, C. J. V., 2005. Organizational learning as a determining factor in business performance The Learning Organization, 12 (3), pp. 227-245.
Maani, K. & Fan, A., 2008. Systems Thinking for Team and Organizational Learning: Case of Performance Measure Conflicts in a Multinational Supply Chain, 1, pp. 1-21.
Sharifirad, M. S., 2010. Relationship between Knowledge Inertia and Organizational Learning. International Journal of Information Technology and Knowledge Management. 2(2), pp. 323-327.
Of late scientists, management scholars have become interested on the benefits that organizational learning has on an organization; they are of the agreement that an organization that constantly coaches, trains, mentors and counsels its employees is likely to have an edge of competitiveness in every phase of business (Hornsby and Warkeoczeski, 2000).
Learning in an organization improves employees’ productivity; it increases the personnel expertise, which in turn keeps a company competitive; however, learning faces a number of challenges. This paper analyzes the major impediments to effective organizational learning (OL).
Barriers to an effective OL
Barriers to an effective OL are factors that hinder the implementation of OL programs within an organization or they at least interfere with the practicability of the set programs; they impede the implementation of the change that learning is likely to bring out.
Organizational culture is the first impediment of OL if it has not been well managed; an organization with a negative organizational culture is likely to see a learning process as a disruption of the organizational status quo and is likely to repel against it.
In most case, organization learning comes with a change that the organization will go through, if the organizational culture adopted in an organization does not support a change process, then learning in such organization is difficult.
Another hindrance of organizational culture is an organization politics; in every organization, some internal politics that determine how things are done; these politic are not formal however, they have the ability to create attitude, perceptions and behavior within an organization. If the politics of an organization are not positive to learning, then the process is likely not to be successful (Schilling and Kluge, 2009).
Leadership within an organization plays a crucial role in the success of OL, leaders are seen as the pioneers of OL and they are constantly undertaking the process. When a company’s leadership is not effective and lack the expertise and knowledge to pioneer OL, the external processes are likely to influence the change.
Different employees understand things differently; leaders should be sensitive enough to know the kind of employees that they have then come up with the right approach.
In most cases, especially when it comes to training, the entire human capital cannot undergo the training since it might be very expensive to the company; however, some few employees are trained, and expected to diffuse the information and knowledge attained to other people.
The external environment that a company is operating in is likelihood impendent of organizational culture; the external environment includes competitors, the culture of the people around and organization and the relationship that prevail between people and the organization. Organizations need to recognize that external factors/forces affect learning and knowledge development in the organization.
To ensure that the effect is not negative, an organization needs to have good relationship with the external environment. To create good environment, a company need to be ethical in its processes and adopt corporate social responsibility activities; this will enhance the relationship that the company have with the external environment (Meinolf, Ariane, John and Ikujiro, 2003)
Conclusion
The success of organizational learning is hindered by internal and external factors facing an organization if the factors are not managed appropriately. The internal factors include organizational culture, organizational politics, leadership and informal team in the organization. The external factors likely to hinder organizational learning are corporate governance and culture of stakeholders, customers and the public.
References
Hornsby, T. and Warkeoczeski, L. 2000. New roles for leaders: A step-by-step guide to competitive advantage. Franklin: Hillsboro Press.
Meinolf, D., Ariane, A., John, C. and Ikujiro, N.,2003. Handbook of Organisational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schilling, J. and Kluge, A.,2009. Barriers to organizational learning: An integration of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(3), pp. 337–360
Organizations thrive in an environment that is evidently dynamic perhaps because of technological sophistication coupled with the emerging need to adapt to new changes. In organizations, especially the ones that I am quite familiar with, most influential daily chores entangle incorporation of strategies that see the organization achieve its intended goals and objectives.
Whether official, operative or operational goals, as Barnet Reckons “organizational goals are desired states of affairs or preferred results that organizations attempt to realize” (2009, Para.1). This is perhaps subtle given that every organization exists for some preset purposes in which it must involve itself.
Any other practice, be it human resource practices or according tasks to subordinate staff, attempts to foster realization of outcomes that are congruent with this preset purpose. This is crucial if an organization needs to succeed both in the short and in the end. Firms and organizations, consequently, attempt to come up with adaptive capabilities for them to survive.
Among such adaptive strategies, include building, and developing organizations that can learn. This would perhaps be impossible upon negating the approaches of change management. The two go hand in hand. This means that one cannot discuss one fully without inferring from the other one.
By appreciating the contribution of change management, as the paper unveils, integrating learning organization concepts is a view that is both theoretically and practically adequate in the realization, sustenance, and improvement of fundamental practices in an organization, all geared towards realizing the anticipated outcomes or rather organizational outputs.
Learning organizations
In almost every organization, organizational goals are ever in a continuous state of change. “Organizations must respond appropriately, by formulating new goals, as well as deciding the goals to accomplish, and in what order” (Barnet, 2009, Para.2). One of the responses is perhaps to develop a learning organization that can adapt to the new goals.
Peter Senge stands out as the founding father of the learning organization, as a concept of improving and ensuring sustained improvement of organizations.
According to Senge (1990), learning organizations are “…organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together” (p.4).
The learning organization concept acquired incredible recognition in 1990 upon the publishing of his book: The Fifth Discipline. As Cors (2003) writes, “…that a learning organization values, and derives competitive advantage from continued learning, both individual and collective” (p.10).
The perspectives of a learning organization are crucial for an organization to end up indulging in practices that are congruent with the existing dynamics in the operational environment of an organization.
While instituting a learning organization, five disciplines are critical. These disciplines are “systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team building” (Senge, 1990, p.2). The disciplines are, not only vital for theoretical construction of an organization likely to succeed in the future, but also for practical constructions of such organizations.
Senge argues that people normally seek out to “put aside their old ways of thinking (mental models), learn to be open with others (personal mastery), understand how their company truly works (systems thinking), form a plan everyone can agree on (a shared vision), and then work together to achieve that vision (team learning)” (Cors, 2003, 12). In fact, these crucial catalysts aid in the realization of the organization’s outcomes.
The rationale behind learning organizations is that in times of rapid changes, it is the organizations, which possess amicable flexibility coupled with high productivity, that have better chances of withstanding harsh waves. Consequently, “…organizations need to discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels” (Greenfield, 1975, p.70).
Engaging with an organizational environment, which gives opportunities for continuous learning, has the capacity to give rise to a working environment rich in self re-creation opportunities. This applies to both an organization and individuals.
Senge claims, “For a learning organization, “Survival learning” or, what is more often termed “adaptive learning”, is essential – it must be joined by “generative learning”, learning that enhances our capacity to create” (1990, p.14). Component technologies distinguish traditional organizations from learning organizations.
These technologies are the five key disciplines proposed by Senge, as priory mentioned. In this regard, successful application of Senge’s five disciplines has an enormous potential in the realization of the organizational primary outcomes: being what most imperative practices that an organization targets.
A justification of this argument is perhaps accomplishable through critical introspection of each of these disciplines.
Systems thinking
Systems theory perhaps forms a view of an organization pegged on the foremost learning organization’s view that does, not only present theoretical conceptualization of organizations’ success, but also a practical one. While looking at the manner of addressing the topic of management, some problems are evident.
People tend to strike attempts to propose an extension of undemanding frameworks to organizational systems that are complex, and characterized by dynamics. As Argyris and Schön reckon, “we tend to focus on the parts rather than seeing the whole, and to fail to see organization as a dynamic process” (1978, p.69).
Changing the manner in which people appreciate the value of organization systems has immense probabilities of prompting formulation and application of the right policies deemed vital for the excellence of an organization’s endeavors.
Cute policies pre-bargain for the improvement and sustained operation of an organization even in the wave of economic and financial challenges. Yet such organizations attain the projected outcomes quite precisely.
When a problem emerges, managers seek out for close interventional solutions. They take interventions that only produce short-term solutions. On the other hand, if one looks at the whole problem from the system’s angle, short-term interventions produce undue long-term costs.
For instance, reducing the amount of allocations to research and design may produce immediate satisfactory results helping in saving costs. However, this may severely injure the long-term dreams of the company by disdaining its endeavors for continuous re-innovation of its products and services. Consequently, its outputs end up being non-competitive as compared to those produced by other organizations.
As an element of the wider concept of a learning organization, system thinking, is vital for success of an organization since “…with small changes building on themselves, whatever movement occurs broadens producing more movement in the same direction” (Senge, 1990, p.81).
On a different account, institutional theories perhaps possess a chief drawback to systems theory that advocates for coming up with system maps. Scott (2004) notes that “Institutional theory considers the processes by which structures including schemas, rules, norms, and routines, become established as authoritative guidelines for social behavior” (p.23).
One of the versions of the institutionalism-empirical version holds that involvement of individuals with the organizations does not alter their values (Hanson, 2001, p.23: Burch, 2007, p.7: Meyer & Rowan, 2006, p.67). Instead, the constraints and the challenges imminent in the organizational structures prompt for behavior change. The values and affiliations that dictate that behavior largely remain unchanged.
Learning organization concept, on the other hand, infers that exposure to changing operational environment results to change of these values. That is why the individual continuously learns to meet the emerging new need of the organization.
As Bolman and Deal argue, “Failure to understand system dynamics can lead us into ‘cycles of blaming and self-defense: the enemy is always out there, and problems are always caused by someone else” (1997, p.27). What this means is that, by deploying system-thinking approaches in organizations, peoples can indeed change the way they analyze the organization.
Personal mastery
In an endeavor to foster and maintain workers’ motivation, it is crucial for organizations to learn themselves, recognizing the contribution of the human resources to the realization of the organizations’ outcomes.
Peck (1990) posits, “The discipline entails developing a personal vision, holding creative tension (managing the gap between our vision and reality), recognizing structural tensions and constraints, and our own power (or lack of it) with regard to them; a commitment to truth” (p.23). Organizations are only able to learn if led and managed by people who can learn themselves.
“Personal mastery is the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our vision of focusing our energies developing patience and seeing the realty objectively” (Senge, 1990, p.45). Therefore, personal mastery is an essential tool for the achievement of subtle organizational outcomes especially by noting that, it not only entails the possession of overwhelming skills and competencies, but also goes beyond them.
Inculcating attempts to foster motivation infers that a manager will always have something to offer that marshals and awakes dwindled workers’ morale. Enhancing employees morale translates to increased productivity of an organization and hence its outcomes.
More often than not, people who are in possession of personal mastery concepts engage in a learning mode that is continuous. Additionally, such people “are acutely aware of their ignorance, their incompetence, and their growth areas…In addition, they are deeply self-confidence” (Senge, 1990, p.142).
These aspects are crucial especially when it comes to awarding delegation of responsibilities as a way of fostering motivation as a vital tool for success of the organization in question. However, as Maxcy notes, “modern societies have many institutionalized rules which provide a framework for the creation and elaboration of formal organization” (2001, p.575).
This argument acts to weaken the contribution of personal mastery concept in the realization of the organizational goals. This is because, instead of people being guided by their own desires of growth and act accordingly to ensure more success of organization in terms of realizing its outcomes, they end up being led by rules of bureaucratically established organizational structures. Such rules do not encourage motivation.
Mental models
Realization of ample organizational outcomes calls for “an acute communication both horizontally and vertically within the organization” (Foster, 1999, p. 59). Without communication, all the organs of an organization cannot unify and or orient themselves into one direction- achievement of the anticipated outcomes.
Ardent communication is somewhat impossible without concrete conceptualization of the organization’s strengths and weakness. In an attempt to conceptualize these weaknesses and strengths, it calls for incredible possession of the ability to build and implement mental models as guiding principles of the organization.
Mental models are “‘deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures and images that influence how we understand the world, and how we take action” (Senge, 1990, p.8).
Before communicating and advocating for the implementation of a certain policy believed upon evaluation to contribute to the improvement and success of an organization, its re-introspection is crucial. This happens by seeking to establish generalizations that may have negative repercussions to the wellbeing of an organization at the end.
As Sennett notes, “The discipline of mental models starts with turning the mirror inward; learning to unearth our internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and hold them rigorously to scrutiny” (1998, p.91).
Application of the mental models in organization and management of organizations have the capacity to unveil all the potential constraints of growth of the organization and hence its subsequent presence in the future.
In fact, “If organizations are to develop a capacity to work with mental models then it will be necessary for people to learn new skills and develop new orientations, and to bear institutional changes that foster such change” (Edmondson & Moingeon, 1999, p.70).
Endeavors to propel an organization in the right direction call for maneuvering through persistent game playing and existing internal organizational politics, which are commonly present in traditional organizations. Mental models may by far aid in the discovery of these impediments, which, on the other hand, renews the organizations towards meet the growth caliber forecasted by the organization.
This perhaps relies on the fact that mental models aim at “seeking to distribute business responsibly far more widely while retaining coordination and control” (Edmondson & Moingeon, 1999, p.72).
Building shared vision
The capacity to develop and maintain a shared picture on the intended or anticipated desirable future of an organization enormously inspires organizational leadership. Shared vision can be “uplifting – and to encourage experimentation and innovation” (Finger & Brand, 1999, p.21). Innovation is a subtle practice of the organization seeking to diversify its products to meet the emerging and changing needs of its clients.
Encouraging all the stakeholders of an organization to work in direct congruence with the established shared vision of the organization arguably has the consequences of being potentially useful to sustain and improve practices deemed vital for excellence of an organization in both the short run and the long run.
In fact, without vision, an organization has no guiding platform. According to Bolman and Deal, “When there is a genuine vision (as opposed to the all-to-familiar ‘vision statement’), people excel and learn, not because they are told to, but because they want to” (1997, p.67). Essentially this helps to shift organizational management practices to a model similar to kaizen model of management.
This model has been incredibly successful in Toyota Company. It has seen the company grow into what it is today. The model emphasizes for all employees, from the most senior to the subordinate level, to contribute to continuous improvement in the services they render to an organization. This continuous improvement is what results into continuous growth of an organization.
The growth, consequently, sees an organization increase its productivity and hence a reduction in the unit costs of production. This makes the organization to be competitive. Competitiveness, on the other hand, ensures sustained presence of an organization in the market amid existing dynamics that challenge it.
Team learning
Team learning refers to “the process of aligning and developing the capacities of a team to create the results that its members truly desire” (Senge, 1990, p. 236). For enhancement of team learning, the prior two disciplines, personal mastery and shared vision, need enhancement.
People, however, need to act coherently in order to build a learning team. “When teams learn together, not only can there be excellent results for the organization, but also members will grow more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise” (Senge, 1990, p. 237). A well-constructed organizational working team facilitates ardent communication through hierarchical structures.
This communication relies much on dialogue. Dialogue permits room for clarification and counter arguments. Consequently, meanings transfer themselves through the entire work teams in the most efficient and effective manner. How does this help in the improvement of an organization? Hanson (2001) offers a response to this interrogative.
He argues that “When dialogue is joined with systems thinking, there is the possibility of creating a language more suited for dealing with complexity…focusing on deep-seated structural issues and forces rather than being diverted by questions of personality and leadership style” (p.650).
In fact, poor organizational communication deters attempt to orient all the workers of an organization to the preset goals and objectives of an organization. Since the goals and objectives are the guiding principles of an organization, anything that negatively affects the two also affects the practices that organizations view as vital for their sustenance and improvement.
Significance of learning organization concept in improvement and sustenance of organization’s practices
The concept of a learning organization is critical and essential for the improvement of the practices such as human resource that helps in ensuring increased motivation and improvement of workers attitudes toward the organization.
Poor attitudes towards work, dwindled morale, and or internal politics within an organization are incredible impairments to the improvement of an organization and hence the sustenance of its competitive edge in the future.
According to Argyris and Schön, “People can overcome these counterproductive consequences by themselves, in groups, or in the organizational cultures in which they work by examining “expert” advice in order to surface the gaps and inconsistencies” (1978, p.35).
Leaders of an organization, consequently, have the noble responsibility of compelling employees to employ creative thinking consistent with the organizational needs while attempting to handle their perceptions about the organization for which they work. This way, they can “…fill employees with as much intrinsic motivation and as deep sense of organizational stewardship as any company executive” (Branson, 2007, p.473).
The learning organization concept merely entangles the inculcation of the practice of self-reflection and introspection of one’s actions before acting. As Benyamin Lichtenstein writes, incorporating learning organization concept in the management of organizations has the repercussions of prompting change even to the rigid traditional approaches in organizational management.
He argues, “Managers and all decision-makers in science and the professions must move beyond a purely rational model of understanding to one that is transactional, open-ended, and inherently social” (Lichtenstein, 2000, p.48). Open-minded model infers that the managers incorporate all decisions of all stakeholders and interest groups in the activities of the organization while making subtle organizational decisions.
In this context, the learning organization concept remains relevant in promotion of improvement of an organization practices.
In an attempt to prove the theoretical and practical adequacy of learning organization view in providing improvement and sustenance of an organization’s foremost practices, it is crucial perhaps to consider the importance of adopting the concept of a learning organization in the organizational management practices.
Learning organization and promotion of continuous improvement
The concept of a learning organization has an impeccably close link between it and the performance of an organization. Deane et al. (1997) recognizes that undue gap may perhaps exist between performance and learning organization (p.23).
However, their article titled Creating a Learning Project Environment presents “a model that helps managers assess and narrow these gaps to foster a continuous improvement cycle: typical of learning organizations” (Pace, 2002, p.458). Performance implies escalation of the ability of an organization to improve its realization of its outcomes in terms of quality and quantity.
Quality is vital in ensuring increased competence and competitiveness of an organization. As Levine posits, “Some investigators are finding that a focus on organizational learning has immense potential to build the collaboration and continuous improvement programs that promote organizational performance” (2001, p.23).
In this context, increasing performance is an essential catalyst for the improvement of an organizational practice. Consequently, learning organization, closely linked to performance, stands out as a view that is both theoretically and practically relevant on improvement and sustenance of an organization practices.
Learning organization and innovation
In the prior sections of this paper, innovation stands out as essential if at all organizations have to remain competitive. In fact, Argyris and Schön (1978, p.47) and Senge (1990, p.98) have proactively advocated for the capacity of a learning organization to foster innovation. For people working in an organization to engage in innovative activities, it is paramount that they all seek the guidance of a shared vision.
One of the disciplines of a learning organization fortunately happens to be the shared vision. Preskill and Torres (1999) reckon, “Ramus and Steger developed a list of supervisor behaviors that support employee’s creativity and innovation…using the extensive literature on organizational learning” (p.21).
As a repercussion, it follows, therefore, that there exists a relationship between learning organization and innovation. It is arguable that learning organization is not just a theoretical concept, but also a practical one.
Learning organization and community building
Many management scholars have campaigned for learning organization as a vital tool for promoting the emergence of learning communities. Glasmeier et al. notes, “…the learning community combines the emotional and intellectual learning needed to break through defensive routines and effective learning behavior” (1998, p.110).
Breakdown of the so referred defensive behavior stands out as an essential endeavor in restructuring the old bureaucratic management techniques.
The traditional approaches of the structure of organizations, on the other hand, carry remarkable blame on their capacity to foster the creation of localized groups of people within the larger working group, which feels not properly considered in the realization of the overall objectives of the organization.
This is perhaps because of the inability of these traditional approaches to encourage delegation of responsibilities within an organization. According to Cors, “By combining intellectual and emotional learning, the learning community fosters a vision of wholeness: the ability to bring one’s whole self to the organization” (2003, p.30).
Wholeness is critical in ensuring and maintaining the feeling of self-belonging. When employees feel that they are part of the organization, they tend to do anything within their capacity to ensure that the organization’s growth is positive.
It is not by coincidence that learning organization significantly sound like to contribute to the creation of an “Organizational climate that fosters a fabulous formula for employees’ happiness and ownership of organizational values at once” (Glasmeier et al., 1998, p.115).
Learning organization, as both a theoretical and practical approach of fostering improvement of organizational practices is critical for the growth of an organization coupled with its guaranteed sustenance. In fact, it has a value. It impeccably facilitates the recognition of the fact that technology alone solely is not enough for the purposes of modernization of organizations.
Some behavioral change is also vital. Such a change would perhaps break down the way the decision-making organ of an organization operates. For instance, a compelling example is shifting from closed-door style of management to open door or rather round the table management style.
This has the effect of promoting a more communally formed organization management, which significantly quickens the decision making process (Donohue & Patterson, 1999, p.241).
Quick and effective decision-making process is vital for the improvement of organizational practices especially with the modern dynamic operational environment. Given that learning organization has the capacity to give raise to community building, the concept stands out as, not only theoretical, but also practical in endeavors to improve and ensure the presence of an organization in the future.
Conclusion
Based on the expositions made in the paper, it is evident that there are some views that both theoretically and practically essential especially once applied by organizations. These views, as the paper has revealed, can significantly boost the performance of any organization. Organizations operate in dynamic environments. The dynamics are instigated by changing technologies coupled with the sophisticated existing technologies.
Change is, therefore, inevitable. The paper argues the integration of the learning organization concepts as one of the necessary changes that are essential for improvement and sustenance of organizations’ practices.
Learning organizations are those “organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, nurturing new and expansive patterns of thinking where collective aspiration is free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together” (Senge, 1990, p.4).
The paper has attempted to prove the learning organization view as not just a theoretical concept, but also a vital practical tool that leads to improvement and sustenance of organizational practices. To achieve this, the paper has presented some essential disciplines of learning organizations. These disciplines include system thinking, building a shared vision, team learning, mental models and personal mastery.
It has given some of the importance of the learning models in an attempt to provide a solid argument that the learning organization is both a practical and theoretical view that can improve an organization’s practices. In this regard, learning organization promotes innovation and performance. It facilitates community building within an organization. These are subtle tools for the improvement of organization’s practices.
Reference List
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Barnet, R. (2009). Organizational Goals. Web.
Bolman, G., & Deal, E. (1997). Reframing Organizations, Artistry, choice and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Branson, M. (2007) Improving leadership by nurturing moral consciousness through structured self-reflection. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(4), 471-495.
Burch, P. (2007). Educational policy and practice from the perspective of institutional theory: Crafting a Wider Lens. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 84-95.
Cors, R. (2003). What Is Learning Organization? Reflections on Literature and Practitioner Perspectives. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Deane, R., et al. (1997). Creating a Learning Project Environment: Aligning Project Outcomes with Customer Needs. Information Systems Management. New York: SUNY Press.
Donohue, J., & Patterson, M. (1999). Review: Organizing thinking about organizations. Public Productivity and Management Review, 23(2), 240-246.
Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1999). Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization. London: Sage.
Finger, M., & Brand, B. (1999). The concept of the “learning organization” applied to the transformation of the public sector. London: Sage.
Foster, W. (1999). Administrative Science, the Postmodern, and the Community: In Begley, P. Values and Educational Leadership. New York, NY: SUNY Press.
Glasmeier, K. et al. (1998). The Relevance of Firm-Learning Theories to the Design and Evaluation of Manufacturing Modernization Programs. Economic Development Quarterly, 12(2), 107-124.
Greenfield, B. (1975). Theory about Organization: A New Perspective and its Implication for Schools’, in M.G. Hughes (ed.), Administering Education: International Challenge. London: Althone Press.
Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional Theory and Educational Change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 637-661.
Lichtenstein, B. (2000). Generative Knowledge and Self-Organized Learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(1), 47-54.
Maxcy, J. (2001). Educational Leadership and Management of Knowing. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(6), 573-588.
Meyer, D., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education, in Meyer and Rowan: the New Institutionalism in Education. New York: SUNY Press.
Pace, W. (2002). The Organizational Learning Audit. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(3), 458-465.
Peck, M. (1990) The Road Less Travelled. London: Arrow.
Preskill, H., & Torres, T. (1999). Evaluative Inquiry for Learning in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Scott, W. (2004). Institutional theory in Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Sennett, R. (1998). The Corrosion of Character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York: Norton.
Majority of the organizations have acknowledge the imperative of organizational learning and the concept of a learning organization has been the fundamental orienting summit in this. Researchers have tried to recognize the superlative forms that authentic organizations could try to imitate. This means that learning organization is an ideal, towards which organizations require to develop so that they can retort to various pressures.
As a result, the definition of ideal learning organization is indescribable. On the one hand, it is where people persistently expand their ability to construct the outcome that they truly desire, where novel patterns of rational reasoning are natured, where there is freedom of collective aspirations and where people are constantly learning to observe the whole as a group.
On the other hand, the learning organization is an apparition of possibility, which does not occur by just training individuals but through learning as a whole at all organization levels. This implies that a learning organization facilitates learning of every person as it transforms itself continuously.
Therefore, system thinking, personal mastery, mental model, shared vision and team learning characterize an ideal learning organization and consequently, the manager should strive to achieve these characteristics by determining and alleviating all the barriers against these characteristics through development of focused strategies that will enable the organization to exist in the competitive business environment.
Characteristics of ideal learning organization
System thinking is a conceptual framework that involves an approach of reasoning about, as well as the language for illustrating and understanding the forces and the relationships that mould behavior of the system (Serrat, 2009). For instance, system thinking assists the managers and the employees to know how to change the system effectively and acting in line with the economic world.
Personal mastery is the commitment that an individual makes to the learning process (Agarwal, 2007). For example, learning cannot take place in an organization until people start learning via defining what they want to achieve and how. According to a recent research, most workplace learning is incidental and not due to formal training hence, organizations need to develop a culture where personal mastery is a daily activity.
Mental models are the assumptions that the individuals and the organizations hold and the assumptions need challenge for an organization to be a learning organization.
This is because individuals possess theories that they aspire to follow and work theories that they truly adhere to while organizations possess reminiscences that conserve some behaviors (Ramalingham, 2008). Therefore, in constructing a learning organization it is significant to substitute confrontational attitudes with a culture that is open and that which facilitates inquest and conviction.
Shared vision encourages employees to learn since they possess universal identity, which bestow them focus and vigor (Agarwal, 2007). As a result, it helps the organization to triumph in a competitive business environment.
Therefore, the organization should build its vision from an individual vision. This means that the manager should not create the vision of the organization by himself but through the interaction with the employees.
Finally, team learning is the sum of the individual learning. It entails thinking skills, which allow people to build up intelligence, which is greater than an individual talent. Learning organizations possess structures, which enhance team learning, and they include boundary crossing and the openness (Serrat, 2009).
For example, employees and employers should develop open communication and shared meaning because it is a fundamental in a modern learning organization.
Observable behavior for the characteristics of ideal learning organization
In system thinking, people have embraced the notion that system thinking enhances individual learning and as a result, they focus on the system as a whole (Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008). For instance, the employees and the employer believe that they are in a position of making the organization a better place through adherence to the laid down rules and regulations.
Therefore, people work towards achieving the organization vision. As a result, the manager provides the employees with the required skills and the tools to facilitate the triumph of the organization.
On the other hand, people who apply personal mastery think in a different way. This is because they study how to use rationale and instinct to produce something (Serrat, 2010). For example, in case a conflict occurs in the absence of a manager, they will look for a solution rather than waiting for the manager to provide the way forward.
This is because these people are system thinkers and they interconnect everything that is around them and they feel connected to the organization as a whole. In addition, they will not let things fall apart when the solution is within their means.
Mental model allow people to reflect on what they have done and rectify their mistakes so that the organization achieve its vision and mission (Zarei, 2007). As a result, people are ever researching about the market situation and the organization adaptation.
For instance, learning results from looking at the universe the way it should be and for that reason, managers usually allow employees to attend business meetings so that they gain business knowledge and leave behind assumptions that can lead to downfall of the organization.
Finally, shared vision enables the company to have a goal that the employer and the employees have discussed and agreed on it (Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008). As a result, people are enthusiastic and they work collaboratively because they have a universal goal that they freely chose.
On the other hand, team learning allows open discussion and communication to flow freely across the whole organization and in every direction. For instance, the employer can freely dialogue with the employee without any segregation.
The results of the above behaviors
The above behaviors facilitate continuous improvement, the innovation, community building and allow the organization to tackle the challenges that they face (Agarwal, 2007). To begin with, when the employees reflect on what they have done, they will know where the problem occurred and rectify and this will facilitate continuous improvement.
Additionally, when people believe that they can think for themselves, they become creative and innovative. For instance, through system thinking, the employees can develop new ways of doing things that minimizes on the input while maximizing on the output. As a result, the organization reduces the cost of resources while the customers receive better services.
Additionally, community building combines the emotional and the intellectual learning. This combination is imperative because it help the organization to fit well in the competitive environment (Larsen, McInerney, Nyquist, & Donna, 2007).
For instance, free communication allows the manager to solve any problem that may occur in the learning organization without any difficulty. Therefore, this promotes an environment where people are working towards achievement of the organization goals. As a result, the pace at which the organization adapt to change increases.
Finally, the behaviors in the learning organization assist the organization to meet the following challenges. To begin with, rapid changes occur in the organizations when people are not prepared ( Cors, 2005) but in an ideal learning organization, people adapt to changes and change is viewed as learning opportunity through problem solving.
Secondly, the learning organization helps people to shift from compliance role to customer serving (Zarei, 2007). For instance, the organization require to ensure that a tactical alignment exists between the needs of the clients, the goals of the organization, individual learning and the allocation of resources.
Thirdly, the behaviors in the learning organization assist employees to formulate the use of substitute strategies, which amalgamates learning in the workplace. These substitute methods are cost effective. Finally, in a learning organization, managers are teachers and employees have power to assume responsibility and accountability for their own learning.
Barriers to achieving characteristics of ideal learning organization
Learning organizations may find it difficult to accept personal mastery due to its intangible nature as well as lack of the quantification of its benefits (Ramalingham, 2008). As a result, people view personal mastery as a threat to the organization thus employees empowerment become counterproductive because they are unaligned.
Moreover, deficiency of the culture of learning is a barrier to achieving an ideal learning organization (Cors, 2005). This happens when the organization does not have time to facilitate learning because of its hierarchical structure and when the employees are not interested in the learning process.
Additionally, managers with closed minds hinder learning because they are unwilling to participate in the mental models (Larsen, McInerney,Nyquist, & Donna, 2007). For instance, leaders who are threatened by change may feel insecure to engage in shared vision.
Finally, the size of the organization is a barrier to learning because when employees are more than one hundred, knowledge sharing decreases because of complexity of the organization structures, weaker relationship among the employees, decreased trust and ineffective communication.
Determination of progress towards a learning organization
There are ways in which a manager can determine whether the organization is progressing towards a learning organization.
To begin with, the manager can evaluate the characteristics of the organization to establish if the organization is on the road to becoming a learning organization (Serrat, 2010). For instance, if the following characteristics exists then the organization is on the right path. They include, open communication, teamwork, personal initiative and rational thinking.
Furthermore, the manager can also analyze the performance of an organization and he will know if the organization is on the course of a learning organization (Agarwal, 2007). For instance, an organization that fits well in the competitive market is a learning organization.
This is because in a learning organization, the employees are innovative and tackle any challenge that comes their way and as a result, they triumph in a competitive business environment. Therefore, the following characteristics are compelling to the organization and me: personal mastery, mental model, shared vision and team learning.
How my organization can achieve personal mastery, mental model, shared vision and team learning
My organization can achieve the above characteristics through collaborative work. For instance, I will create a shared vision with all the employees. This means that individual vision will be incorporated into the organizational vision so long as it facilitates the achievement of the organization goals.
Additionally, the employees will accesses the organization information because this will enable them to know their expectations thus facilitating mental model. For example, an employee who does not understand the importance of time management may appreciate time by reading the organization values and beliefs about time.
Moreover, through empowering people to act as well as well as acknowledging and supporting their risk taking behaviors, personal mastery prevails. This is because people will be willing to learn because no one is restricting them since they are responsible and accountable in whatever they do.
Finally, the organization can achieve team learning via open communication. For example, employees can manage change through expecting the change and generating the change that the organization requires. This will enhance team learning because the employees will need to work collaboratively in order to determine what is best for the organization.
Barriers to achieving the above characteristics
There are two major barriers to achieving the above characteristics and they include individual and organizational barriers. Individual barriers include conservative people who fear change and since learning is a personal choice, they may decide not to engage in it. Additionally, compulsory training can hinder personal mastery because employees will view it as a control and not personal development.
On the other hand, organizational barriers include the organization structure that can interfere with shared vision. For example, lack of free flow of information from bottom to top is a hindrance to shared vision.
Moreover, lack of the required tools and ideas to create sense of the prevailing situation act like a barrier to team learning. For example, employees cannot discuss about the organization goals when they do not know the vision and the mission of the organization.
Strategies to overcome the barriers
The organization can alleviate the above barriers through three strategies that include learning environment that is supportive, creation of learning processes and reinforcement leadership behaviors.
A learning environment that is supportive will alleviate closed mindedness because the employees will realize the importance of change and the learning process. Additionally, this environment will help the employees feel that learning is not a compulsory process but an individual wish.
Moreover, creation of the learning processes will help managers realize that organization structures should facilitate free flow of information so that employees interact freely with the manager. This is important because it facilitates the sharing of the vision. Furthermore, the learning process assists the employees to know what the organization expect from them and what they should do to achieve the organization vision and mission.
Finally, reinforcement leadership behaviors overcome the barrier to personal mastery and mental model. In this situation the manager, usually recognize employees who do their best to make sure that the organization produce excellent services. For example, if a manager rewards an employee who is always willing to learn, other employees will also strive to learn so that they receive the award.
Conclusion
In conclusion, system thinking, personal mastery, mental model, shared vision and team learning characterize an ideal learning organization. As a result, the manager should alleviate the barriers to achieving these characteristics and they include individual and organizational barriers.
The alleviation is possible through development of focused strategies that are learning environment that is supportive, creation of learning processes and reinforcement leadership behaviors. If the organization succeeds in becoming a learning organization, it will triumph in a competitive business environment.
References
Agarwal, A. (2007). Learning Organisation. HR Folks International , 23 (6), 39-45.
Cors, R. (2005). What is a Learning Organisation? Reflections on the Literature and Practitioner Perspectives. Enginearing Professional Development , 32 (7), 11-20.
Garvin, D., Edmondson, A., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yous a Learning Organisation? Havard Bussiness Review , 143 (18), 49-58.
Larsen, K., McInerney, C., Nyquist, C., & Donna, S. (2007). The Learning Organisations. Havard Business Review , 120 (9), 3-16.
Ramalingham, B. (2008). Organisational Learning for Aid, and Learning Aid Organisations. Capacity. Org , 4 (33), 6-20.
Serrat, O. (2010). Building Learning Organization. Knowledge Solution , 50 (9), 12-25.
Serrat, O. (2009). Dimensions of the Learning Organisation. Knowledge Solution , 42 (3), 1-7.
Zarei, H. (2007). Identifying the Barriers of Developing Organiisational Learning in Adminstrative Organisations. Iranian Journal of Management Studies , 1 (1), 17-18.
The main focus of this study is to examine organizational learning and knowledge among Indian companies. The study also pays special attention on the influence of the local culture, customs, traditions and business practices on the organizational learning and knowledge among Indian firms.
The study relied mainly on the secondary data and personal experience in collecting and analyzing information relating to organizational learning practices in India and how they are affected by culture and customs.
This paper does not investigate the probability of an organizational performance impacting on the learning capacity, which may be possible, and the researcher acknowledges this as a limitation of the study. Future studies carried out on the same subject may explore this further.
Introduction
Indian economy in the in the recent years have seen considerably transformation in its business environment. Since independence, the Indian economy was state controlled until the World Bank and IMF intervened in 1990 that it became a free market economy. A number of reforms have been witnessed in all sectors of its economy including liberalization of its foreign market (Leitch et al. 1996).
This study is based on the work of the earlier scholars who explored the nature of organizational learning in the Indian firms, their main features and the challenges these organizations were facing following liberalization of the Indian economy (Budhwar 2003).
In the early 90’s, Indian organizations were very closed to competition and were operating in a secure and steady business environment and therefore any learning that was taking place within these organizations was at a singlet loop learning.
However, with the liberalization of the Indian economy many organizations started experiencing myriad challenges of globalization, portfolio management, advancement in technology, introduction of novel systems and professionalism, thus the need to transform into doubled loop learning (Budhwar 2003).
Liberalized Indian economy and the stiff global competition have put a lot of pressure on the Indian firms, thus are making a lot of effort to improve and develop their staff to counter these challenges (Budhwar 2003). Expatriates in India are known to be very knowledgeable and skillful.
The Indian Human Resources departments are also in relentless pressure to establish wide scale professional transformation in line with the new technology and the global market. Therefore, drawing of the organization learning of the Indian leadership from the strategic Human Resources perspective is very important in this study (Jakubik 2008).
Literature Review
Cases where organization learning can be a disaster
Organization learning can either be beneficial or disastrous to a business entity. Organizations can learn wrong ideas for instance manufacturing products with low demand in the market or making false conclusions.
Thus, learning process does not always have t o be beneficial in all cases and scholars should move away from the conception of organization learning as an effective and efficient instrument in achieving organizational productivity (Nidumolu et al. 2001).
Counterproductive performance implications of organization learning are also very common. Superstitious form of organization learning takes place when organizations translates certain events as results/outcome of learning process when the reality is that there is no link whatsoever between learning and the results (Hong 2008).
In a usual circumstance there several factors that can mutually influence the outcome in an organization. At times people rely on the historical events that led to success to bring success in the present and in the future.
This at many times can cause catastrophe especially in the case where business environment changes so fast. There is also case of competency trap when organizations opt for a substandard technology based on experimental results and keep on using it even when there is superior alternative (Gourlay 2006).
Сonception of organization knowledge
To be noted is that in Indian organization, Knowledge is shaped through well connected, constant interaction of two categories of knowledge and that is explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is the type of knowledge that can be expressed in languages and is objective, while tacit knowledge is the type which is extremely personal and is very difficult to express and convey (Teece 2007).
Examples of tacit knowledge include technical skills represented in day-to-day knowledge of crafts persons and personal skills that characterize individual approach and beliefs. Examples of explicit knowledge are scientific formulas and specifications of product (Enriches & Lim 2005).
There are four styles of knowledge creation in these organization namely; externalization, internalization, socialization and combination of knowledge. According to Hong (2008), “externalization is the transformation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge while internalization is the conversion of explicit knowledge into a tacit knowledge”.
Socialization involves conversion of an individual tacit knowledge into another person’s tacit knowledge, while a combination entails conversion of one’s explicit knowledge into another person’s explicit knowledge (Hong 2008). The transformational process in an organization can well be understood through these knowledge creation processes. Traditional information processing models are giving way to the new models of knowledge creation in organizations. The succession of the four methods of knowledge creation has resulted in an upward spiral of knowledge in some of the Indian organizations and fastens additional knowledge creation at higher level (Jakubik 2008).
Indian manufacturing superiority is attributed to their experience-geared, practical methodology of knowledge and this is a big contrast of the language –geared methods used in European nations and US. Experience is analogue type and entails processing of knowledge of vibrant nature; while language geared methodology is static, digital type of knowledge that exhibits a state of affair of a particular object at a specific point in time (Jakubik 2008).
The relationship between these two types of knowledge is jointly compensative. Since analogue type of knowledge is mostly tacit and is engrave in an individual thus hard to be expressed and communicated to others. In the social context of the lower labor mobility in India, the development and progression of personal expertise is very important for the buildup of production technology.
Most companies in India have become successful by converting analogue, tacit knowledge into digital, explicit knowledge common in most advanced production facilities (Hong 2008).
Learning process
Organizational learning in all organizations entails four unified processes and these are discovery, intervention, creation and generalization. Learning process starts with the discovery of gaps between the real and the expected outcomes (Gourlay 2006). Intervention includes identifying the cause of the error and finding the necessary solution to the problem.
Production entails implementation of the solutions and generalization entails drawing of appropriate conclusion and using the results in future or the same problem. Learning process assist employees of an organization to use the knowledge they have acquired to transform and enhance the organization.
Models of learning in organizations emphasizes on leadership and administration, culture and communication mechanisms. In organizational learning top leadership provides support to the group learning and individual persons (Monika &Toyama 2007).
Learning in networks
Learning networks are mechanisms through which learning can be facilitated within an organization. These mechanisms can be specifically valuable in building up formal and informal networks in the organization.
Intra organization networks are significant since they improve the chances of securing an individual knowledge and diffusing it across the organization. Informality permits knowledge about complex issues and solutions to be passed extensively in the organization as well as playing an important part in spreading tacit knowledge (Tregaskies 2003).
One of the most significant elements of networking in an organization is the organizational structure. Organization structure refers to the well-established model of relationships among different constituents or components within an organization. Organization structure is further split into formal and informal structure. Formal structures are well planed and enable an organization to meet its objective effectively and efficiently.
It is through formal structure that decision-making process takes place following the organization’s hierarchy. Informal structure on the other hand confines all relationship patterns that are not openly designed. This structure materializes as a result of complex interaction among employees of an organization. Informal interpersonal networks play a very important role in the learning process in organizations (Pritchard 2000).
It also enhances formal structures by offering support to the top leadership, ensuring stable business environment, and acts as effective communication channel. However, the informal networks can also result to the generation of erroneous information or opposition to the transformation desired by the management (Tregaskies et al. 2005).
Multinational networks
One of the traditional methods used by multinational companies in India to pass knowledge across its branches internationally was through deployment of its staff or expatriates across different countries.
Expatriates developed a knowledge warehouse from exposure to variety of situations and cultures which benefited these organizations massively. They developed a wide range of ideas and view in their assignments that was drawn by the organization to enhance their competitive advantage (Tregaskies 2003).
Besides this, there are several structural mechanisms that were used by these organizations and these are international project teams or task force, steering committees, international informal networks and international boards. These structural devices provided a different learning experience to the traditional method of using expatriates.
Use of the local people is specifically useful in helping local workers who are unfamiliar with the goals, technologies and managerial practices of the multinational organization. These devices are also important in developing global innovation since they take into consideration the local factors. The above devices offset the disadvantages of using expatriates (Tregaskies 2003).
Whilst benefiting and conveying knowledge from internal interactions and networks can be of substantial advantage, the development of networks with the outsiders is equally important.
These external networks provide the Indian organizations with access to skills and knowledge that was not available in their organization. Specifically, network creation with the research and development organs, suppliers, and even the competitors presented the organizations with new expertise and knowledge (Tregaskies et al 2005).
Barriers to learning in an organization
The most logical discussion of barriers to effective organizational learning was first provided by Olsen and March in 1975. Their list was further expounded by a number of authors including Harsh in 2009. Budhwar (2003) conducted a series of study to establish different barriers of organizational learning in India against the fundamental changes that were taking place.
There are four major factors that create interruption in the learning process within Indian organizations and these are individual beliefs, personal actions, managerial action, and environmental response. Interruption linked to individual beliefs and action results when and individual’s role in an organization is restricted and is not able to learn. This is also known as role constrained learning.
The other set of individual interruption is experienced when a person modifies their behavior but the effects of these acts on the organizational conduct and action is indistinctness. In this case, individual learning and development of skills ensues but adaptation to the organization’s environment does dot essentially takes place (Pritchard 2000).
Another barrier to the learning process in Indian organizations occurs when employees of an organization makes erroneous conclusions in relation to the effects of an organizational actions to the environment. This also called superstitious learning.
The other barrier is learning under ambiguity and occurs when reasons for changes in an organizational environment are unclear or cannot be identified. This also occurs when the connection between environmental response and individual learning is broken up (Teece 2007).
Another barrier to the organizational learning in India is the situational learning which refers to the situation where learning occurs but is either forgotten or not documented/ stored for future use and is a very common occurrence in crisis management.
In this case learning takes place but does not transform individual mental models and thus have no long-term effect on an individual since leaning specific for a particular situation. In such cases individual benefits from the knowledge in solving immediate problem but does not sustain it to help in solving future reoccurrence of the same problem (Harsh 2009).
Fragmented learning is another barrier to the learning process in Indian organizations and takes place when only an individual or a section of individuals within an organization gets to learn but not the whole organization. This kind of barrier is common among the decentralized organizations that lack networking ability to reach all the departments/individuals within an organization.
The most common case of this problem arises when each department has experts in a particular subject but the whole organization cannot apply these skills or knowledge (Tregaskies et al. 2005).
Another type of barrier to effective learning in Indian organizations is referred to as opportunistic learning. This is in most cases is not considered as a barrier but rather a strategy to evade normal procedures of an organization to partly achieve learning.
This occurs when certain clique of individuals in organization want to cut the link between the shared knowledge and organization’s action in order to grab an opportunity that cannot hang around for the entire organization to be transformed or is not desirable for the transformation of the organization (Halal 2006).
Methodology
Data collection and analysis
The study relied mainly on the secondary data and personal experience in analyzing organizational learning practices in India. The study pays special focus on the influence of the local culture, customs, traditions and business practices on the organizational learning and knowledge among Indian firms.
Most the materials used in the study was obtained from the ministry of human resource development and ministry of labor and employment offices in Mumbai. Other materials were acquired from the government library and internet sources. Literature review provided more insight of the industry and expound on the researchers experience within Indian business sector.
This chapter encompassed the in-depth discussions of significant subject, which included the limitations of the study. There is a logical presentation of study methods to offer further assistance to emerging and existing researchers.
Based on a study by Saunders et al. (2007), the research consequently progressed from philosophy of the study, approach, strategic applications, study plan, data gathering advancements and substantiation of results. The theoretical framework of this study was based on the causes, effects, and solutions of organizational learning and knowledge in India.
Findings
Significance of organizational learning among Indian companies
Indian market is becoming g increasingly dynamic and has established itself among the world dominant business centers. This can be proven through a variety of available economic indicators.
Organizations operating or about to operate in the Indian market have no other option but to embrace organizational learning and knowledge to get familiar with the Indian market and to develop custom products for different markets within the Indian economy (Jakubik 2008).
The study found out that there is escalated significance attached to the human resource development (Denton1998). This is proved by the availability of the in-house training and development facilities in many companies within the public sector.
In support of the literature reviews, the study also established that top management tend to focus more on the new ideas for change, but disregard the element of organization process, which facilitates the flow of knowledge and information in different units within the organization.
The study also showed a significant disparity between the Indian firms and their foreign counterpart in terms of the organizational learning capacity thus supporting the study carried out by Budhwar (2003).
The results from the study found out that the private companies in India were swifter in responding to the organizational changes within and without. A number of scholars have shown a lot of influence of the Japanese models of management in Indian companies.
From the researchers personal point of view there is a linear relationship between the company’s financial turnover and the organizational learning capacity. This result is partially supported by the study of Dierkes et al. (2001), who suggested a positive correlation between organizational learning practices and the financial performance of the companies.
Influence of culture and customs on the learning process
From the study, we found out that most Indian companies have effective and durable learning in a centralized and hierarchical organizational structure in addition to the decentralized structure. Organizational culture, structure and leadership forms the most significant drivers of learning and knowledge in Indian organizations.
For that reason, any attempt to alter organization structure without adjusting organizational culture plus the leadership style, in most cases result to lack of improvement or acts as obstacle to organizational learning (Dierkes et al. 2001)
Among Indian companies, organization culture acts as a sieve for recognizing and comprehending information within these companies. The mental model engraved in these cultures affects the way employees of these companies perceive transformation in the social, political and technological surrounding that necessitates organization to learn (Jakubik 2008).
The mental model in organizational culture dictates value of knowledge and creates the team or individual who is significant holder of knowledge and authentic agent of the learning process. Organizational culture among the Indian companies is often subdivided or distinct between different departments or profession, therefore learning becomes hard to be evenly enforced within a company (Dierkes et al., 2001).
The custom in these culture especially those that deals with challenges within an organization also affects the organizational course to learning. For instance, companies that put a lot of limitation or based on dictatorial leadership which punishes employees who deviated from the customs of the organization have found it more difficult to convince their workers to learning process (Dierkes et al., 2001).
Conclusion
The findings of the study reflect the significance of organization learning and knowledge and its improvement in Indian managers. This study provides authenticity to measuring of the organizational learning capacity in Indian companies. The response from the managers is based on type of ownership and the type of industry with ICT sector and the Multinational companies leading.
These two sectors exhibits excellent development and capabilities, however their manager’s feels environmental assessment and conservation should be given a priority. The ICT sector is presently focusing on the level of growth and the advancement of information communication technology, which is the basis for the organizational learning capacity.
The public sector and the manufacturing sector in India exhibits an average score when it comes to organizational learning capacity. All the same, the performance of organizations in India and the rest of the world are significantly influenced by the organizational learning capacity.
The study finds massive implications for the organizational learning capacity of managers in Indian companies, cased in the context of learning economy following the reforms. This study adds to the theories and practices that have already been carried out.
References
Budhwar, P. 2003. Employment relations in India. Employee Relations, 25 (2), pp. 132-48.
Denton, J. 1998. Organizational Learning and Effectiveness. London, Routledge.
Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J. & Monika, I. 2001. Handbook of organizational Learning and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.487-491.
Enriches, J.H. & Lim, J.S. 2005. Model of organizational knowledge creation and strategic use of information, Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 56(6), pp. 620-629
Gourlay, S. 2006. Conceptualizing knowledge creation: a critique of Monika’s theory, Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), pp.1415-1436
Halal, W.E. 2006. Knowledge management: how to foster creation and flow. Handbook of business strategy, pp. 297-301
Harsh, O.K. 2009. Three dimensional knowledge management and explicit Knowledge reuse. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 10(2), pp.1-10
Hong, J. 2008. Moving cultures and the creation of new Knowledge and dynamic capabilities in emerging markets. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(3), pp. 196-202
Jakubik, M. 2008. Experiencing collaborative knowledge creation processes. The Learning organization, 15(1), pp. 5-25
Leitch, C., Harrison, R., Burgoyne, J. and Blantern, C. 1996. Learning organizations: the measurement of company performance. Journal of European Industrial Training, 20 (1), pp. 31-44.
Monika, I. & Toyama, R. 2007. Why Do Firms Differ? The Theory of the Knowledge- Creating Firm, in Ichijo, K., and Nonaka, I. (eds.). Knowledge creation and management. New challenges for managers, pp.13-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nidumolu, S., Subramani, M & Aldrich, A. 2001. Situated learning and the situated Knowledge web: exploring the ground beneath knowledge management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (1), pp.115–50.
Pritchard, W. 2000. The transnational corporate networks of breakfast cereals in Asia. Environment and Planning, 32, 789–804.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 2007. Research Methods for Business Students, 4th ed. London: Prentice Hall.
Teece, D.J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), pp. 131-135
Tregaskies, O. 2003. Learning networks, power, and legitimacy in multinational subsidiaries. International journal of Human Resources Management, 14, (3), PP. 431-447
Tregaskies, O., Glover, L., and Ferner, A. 2005. International Human Resource Networks. London: CIPD.
An organization has numerous constituent parts, which are finance, marketing and personnel departments. The above functional departments interact in the course of daily operations of the organization. An organization is a subsystem of a larger system within the community.
System methodology assists in analysing the effects of interactions between organization and the surrounding, how the various feedbacks generated affect competence and effectiveness of the entity. System methodology is a discipline entailing viewing of objects holistically and as a communication of its integrated constituent.
Feedback is information generated from previous occurrences, later synthesised thus influencing future happening of a similar event. Such is representative of many organizations as many events form a vicious cycle where the output of an event becomes the input of the same event (Diederen 38). In an entity, there exist varied feedback results from events like auditing.
The feedback acts as a control tool and any logical organization looks at means of implementing the feedback to boost its performances. Feedback may be positive or adverse and its implementation endeavours improving management while making decisions.
Palm Incorporated
Integrated in the California state in 1992, Palm Incorporated specialised in manufacturing of electronic gadgets like smart phones. It is responsible for other products lik operating system facilitating development of the smart phones. Over years, this entity has majorly played in the software products thus aiding create leading computer appliances.
In the past decade, the organization has sold some of its shares to entities that are its strategic partners. In 2010, the entity became a Hewlett Packard’s subsidiary. The change in ownership allowed injection of more capital and facts, therefore, changing its fortune.
Before the entry of the strategic partners, the entity was facing a downturn, because of its inability to compete effectively with its rivals who had made considerable progress in developing cellular devices that acted as mini computers. Palm had failed to develop products that were at par with other competitors and gradually lost customers (Edward).
First feedback loop
Environment, organization’s narration and resource are inputs to the organization. The environment is the industry in which the entity operates and provides information as to the “taste and preferences” of the market (Edward). The environment include rival of Palm Incorporated who also manufacture electronic gadgets and software products.
To remain a feasible business, Palm Incorporated has to analyse the standards of its rivals. This is with the essence of ensuring that the entity is at par with the rest. Observation of market and rivals’ trend should help Palm Incorporated develop competitive products. Resources like workforce and raw materials are contributions into the organization assisting in the physical production of output.
An organization will always want to uphold the product’s quality and standards therefore maintaining its market share. Palm Incorporated is a leading firm in this industry and must maintain the quality associated with firms of its standards. Government regulators and other environmental concerns of the institute are part of the environment (Edward).
The regulator specifies standards that the Palm Incorporated and other firms have to meet to freely, operate in the markets. The production department at the reference firm ensures that the output has surpassed the regulatory standards. The above loop paints a brilliant depiction of how feedback information influences the organization’s operation.
In an organization selling products to the market, various factors named above generates feedback. The environment, including the competitors, institute measures trying to counter the products marketed by palm incorporated. Regulatory bodies perform tests on the product and ascertain whether it meets the quality needs.
The production department generates a report related to the usage of the allocated resources. The above swapping of information forms a loop that shapes how Palm Incorporated conducts its business. A variety of the information serves as input since it determines the expected output.
Second feedback loop
Since Palm Incorporated is a large corporation, it ought to publicise the financial results as per the statutory requirements. Given the technological advancement information travels at elevated speed (Argyris 2). A positive financial result affects Palm’s shares positively resulting in increased value. Moreover, a positive result creates goodwill, as it indicates that the company is doing well.
Furthermore, good results generate the above feedback, which is output from the organization. Generally, such information results in increase in the clientele level. Additionally, poor financial results are an indication that the entity is not effectively performing. However, such results are detrimental to the Palm Incorporated since they result in smaller value of its shares.
Most stakeholders in the financial sector interpret this as failure of the management to implement appropriate strategies that thus spurring its success. Furthermore, it would indicate an inadequate staffing resulting to underperformance. The effect is loss of clientele, therefore, worsening the Palm Incorporated situation. Such output generates feedback to the organization.
In addition, positive results connote that Palm is a financially sound organization and the management should further implement their policies to boost the organization’s performance. Negative results indicate the reverse, which is reversible through radical steps. In such instances, most corporations call for “extraordinary general meeting” to discuss the path necessary for the organization to take (Argyris 4).
Measures that most organizations institute, embrace ultimatums to management, firing of directors and seeking further investments. Financial results, bestow an indication of the profitability of an entity resulting from its activities, it therefore becomes paramount to analyse the feedback that result from publicising such results.
The above debate reveals a convoluted pattern of feedback generated by various actions resulting in a feedback loops. In this loop, publicising an entity’s results generates output into the system, followed by input, which is a variety of measures depending on temperament of financial results (Argyris 5).
Loops play a pivotal part in ensuring effectiveness in organizations as they form complex associations between various factors involved in running of an entity thus proofing the importance the feedback generated.
Theory of organizational learning
The basis of this theory is the ability of an organization to learn from its errors. It emphasizes the aptitude to distinguish and correct mistakes. However, an error implies disparity between what transpired and the anticipated budget. However, organizational learning is a dynamic speculation allied to behaviourist studies that
. gives insight in any erudition practice in an organization (Argyris 6). It admits that execution of feedback is difficult task especially when it is depressing. Precisely, the theory digs into the internal factors of an organization that deter not only employees but also the organization, from correcting errors.
This theory has highlighted corporate philosophies, policies and structures as deterrents to organizational learning. The theory brings in, a behaviourist characteristic of organizational learning by asserting that workers and managers have a central position to participate in this process. Majorly, workers are normally afraid of embracing their errors.
Regarding this theory, learning depends on the organizational flexibility, malleability and readiness to rethink current business exercises (Argyris 2). For efficacy in learning, the management and employees ought to aspire for change. Due to uniqueness of diverse corporations, strategies developed to foster organization are rather different. However, individual’s learning is division of organizational learning thus a platform for accomplishing the overall learning in the entity.
Learning opportunities
From the late 1990s to 2005 Palm Incorporated was on a down turn because of its inability to compete effectively.Given the nature of smart phone clientele, this entity was on a path towards failure, as its product did not match those of its rivals (Edward). Its strategic plan was very effective as it brought on board new shareholders who did not only bring in additional capital but too complimented the operation of Palm Incorporated (Edward).
The calculated plan was a response to failure of Palm’s clientele to purchase products. The feedback synthesised by Palm’s management, indicated that they had to make cellular devices that could rival those of other entities. Plunging sales resulted in actions that rejuvenated Palm becoming a leading organization in smart phones.
However, changes in shareholding enabled Palm to invest in research for purposes of developing advanced cellular gadgets. Additionally, plunging in the sales volume was the first indication for existence of problems (Edward). The management had to correct the dipping trends in sales, therefore, taking the necessary appropriate measures.
Merger with Hewlett Packard was a shrewd move, as the premeditated partners input more knowledge into Palm. Poor financial results result lowers the value of an entity’s shares culminating in loss in investment (Edward). The management need to swiftly in changing the financial fortunes of the entity.
Poor results indicate that policies governing the organization need re strategizing. This is possible through meetings that involve the directors with the responsibility of providing guidance on an entity’s policies
Organizational learning can be defined to be an ongoing process of creation, attainment, and transfer of knowledge, coupled with an adjustment in behavior to result to fresh insight and knowledge beside producing an asset of higher level (Nielson, 1997, p. 2). The experience of large western developed nations has been the backbone for the development of organizational learning. However, there has been an underrepresentation of the learning experience of firms that are based in non-western countries.
Aims and Purpose
Part of the aims of the this project will be to draw a critical analysis regarding the differences between the conventional view of the learning process and the learning processes and strategies that are based in other regions of the world, particularly in the Asian part of the world including China.
The purpose of the entire project is to avail information to foreign investors who intend to establish their business operations in my region and nation. This is believed to go a long way into helping managers develop an organizational learning strategy that will enable them incorporate the local staff and be able to establish a feasible business operation.
Literature Review
The Asian policy makers have been compelled to devise fresh development strategies following the severe economic downturn in the region. As a result of the reassessment, the focus has been redirected to the main Chinese based economies: Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. These economies are perceived to be more resilient as compared to their main export competitors such as Japan and South Korea (Dierkes, et al, 2003, p. 716).
This resiliency is caused by the ability of the Chinese based firms to be corporately flexible and adaptable that enables them to put up with fluctuations in the market (Wolf, 2000, p. 8). Most Chinese firms are small and medium – sized.
Scholars have been expressing their concerns with regard to whether these firms are competitive and innovative enough to deal with both social structural changes and economic downturn. For quite some time now, focus has been mainly aimed at the large firms rather than these small and medium sized ones (Dierkes, et al, 2003, p. 716).
Characteristics, Learning Strategies and Processes
The Chinese based firms that are found in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan have three main characteristics. First, the enterprises are small and medium in size (Yeung, et al, 2011, p. 34). They under the management and ownership of a single person, relatives or family. Second, their access to the key sources of advanced technology and markets of developed nations is limited.
Their entry into the production process takes a reverse of the product life cycle. Third, majority of the firms are integrated into production networks at the local and global level (Dierkes, et al, 2003, p. 719-720). Focus on the learning strategies of the firms based in China has been a latest one. Its focus has been on the economic progress of these nations for about the last thirty years.
The attention has been mainly on models of transfer of western based organizational systems and technology to these economies. However, the learning process of the local enterprises has been forfeited by these models. Researcher shows that latecomer technological firms such as China based ones can do well through imitation (Yu, 2007, p. 18; Watkins & Ehst, 2008, p. 103-104).
It is revealed that Asian based firms had shown progress in their processes and growth by use of interfirm cooperation. These firms had grown through imitation of the innovation process and as such had refuted the western concept of the product life cycle which attributes business growth to the market place product innovation (Dierkes, et al, 2003, p. 721).
Conclusion
Chinese based firms are small and medium in size, have a limited admittance to advanced technology and are incorporated into production networks at local and global level. Their attention has been recent due to their economic progress.
The focus has been on the diffusion of western technology and systems of management into them. Their growth has through creativity and imitation of innovation which is different from the western perspective of the product life cycle.
Reference list
Dierkes, et al., 2003. Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowledge. NY: Oxford Publishers.
Neilson, R., 1997. Collaborative Technologies and Organizational Learning. London Idea Group Inc.
Watkins, A.J. & Ehst, M., 2008. Science, technology, and innovation: Capacity building for sustainable growth and poverty reduction. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.
Wolf, C., 2000. Asian Economic Trends and their Security Implications. Arlington: Rand Corporation.
Yeung, et al., 2011. The Globalization of Chinese Companies: Strategies for Conquering International Markets. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.
Yu, F.T., 2007. Taiwan’s economic transformation in evolutionary perspective: Entrepreneurship, innovation systems and government. NY: Nova Publishers.