Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

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.

Click Here To Order Now!