Knowledge and Process Management Volume 12 Number 1 pp 53–64 (2005)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/kpm.217
& Research Article
A Contextual Theory of Learning
and the Learning Organization
Povl Erik Jensen*
Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Learning and accumulation of new knowledge in an organization always require two transformation processes: one transformation process from data to information and another from information to (new) knowledge. This is so because only information, and not knowledge, can be
shared and spread among the members of the organization. This article describes these transformations processes as social processes that take place in a concrete context. The processes
lead from Data ! Information ! Knowledge ! Action ! Learning ! New Knowledge. But
not all these processes have the same progression or produce the same kind of results. One
can differentiate between single-loop, double-loop and triple-loop learning.
These findings are analysed for the consequences they provide for the learning individual
and the learning organization. The qualitative difference between the learning organization
and other organizations is shown to be the coordination and cooperation that the individuals
perform in a close working relationship. Against this background achievements and shortcomings of attempts to become a learning organization are summarized. Copyright # 2005 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Learning and accumulation of (new) knowledge in
an organization always start with the individual.
A brilliant researcher gets a new idea leading to a
new patent. A salesman’s intuitive feeling for market trends works as a catalyst for a brand new product on a new market. Workers in production
processes use their years of working experience to
initiate an entirely new way to organize the processes (Nonaka, 1991). In each case, an individual’s
personal knowledge has to be transformed into
information that other members of the organization
can use in their accumulation of knowledge in
order for it to be used to create (new) values for
the firm.
The focus of this article is how these transformation processes occur, which factors support the
*Correspondence to: Povl Erik Jensen, Department of Industrial
Economics and Strategy, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjergvej 3, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
transformation and which factors hinder it. The
hypothesis is that the processes are made up of a
changing combination of facilitated learning
mechanisms and organizational structures in
which the context plays an overwhelming role.
The whole idea of a company working with these
processes and structures in order to become a
learning organization is quite common nowadays.
But in a way all organizations are learning organizations. If they were not, they would not be able to
survive in a changing environment. For the purpose of this article, it is therefore interesting to distinguish the real learning organizations from all
other (types of) organizations.
LEARNING AS A SOCIAL PROCESS
What happens when an individual learns can only
be understood when it is seen as incorporated into
a social matrix including other individuals and artifacts. To understand organizational learning these
RESEARCH ARTICLE
artifacts are of crucial importance. Artifacts (language, definitions, instruments, signals, icons, procedures, machines, methods, laws, organizations,
etc.) must be seen not in their conventional meaning but as imbedded in the concrete social context
in which the learning takes place.
It is therefore of great importance to look at the
cooperation of individuals and artifacts in a concrete common working life; to look at how knowledge is created in a transformation process that
begins with data being transformed into information, and information into knowledge; and to look
at the dimensions of knowledge in order to be able
to conclude what qualifies an organization to be
labelled a learning organization.
DATA, INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE
To create information is to organize data in a formula (von Krogh and Roos, 1996, p. 165). By contrast,
to create knowledge is to use information for a productive purpose in a certain context. All productive
knowledge is contextual (Bloor, 1991, p. 5). This
means that all (productive) knowledge is linked to
and dependent upon an organizational context. In
order to understand learning and accumulation of
knowledge in an organization, it is necessary to
define the content of the organizational context.
We are hence presented with three different concepts: data, information and knowledge (Boisot,
1998, p. 12). Moreover, two transformation processes exist: one in which data is transformed to
information by being organized in a certain formula, and a transformation process where information
is transformed into knowledge by being related to,
or being used for, a productive purpose in a certain
context. The starting point for both transformation
processes is observation, the meaning of which is to
be understood in its broadest sense. All observations involve the act of seeing or identifying a difference but ‘observation’ can also mean ‘to indicate’
or ‘to point out’ (Luhmann, 1996, p. 257).
A paradox exists between these two forms of
observation according to whether they only lead
to the creation of information or to both information and knowledge. Just seeing or identifying a
difference leads only to the creation of information,
while both seeing and identifying a difference and
pointing it out leads all the way to the creation of
knowledge. This is because both seeing a difference
and pointing out that difference can only take place
by employing a concept, and the only ways to
establish and use concepts are in a context.
From the above reasoning, the following definition of the differences between data, information
54
Knowledge and Process Management
and knowledge can be created: data can be defined
as a seen or recognized difference between two
states of a system; information can be defined as
the situation where this difference makes a difference (Bateson, 1979, p. 5). Knowledge can be
defined as the situation where insight is achieved
in a context by pointing out information from
data as the difference that makes a difference. To
achieve new knowledge and to use (new) knowledge is to test this insight according to different
situations (Boisot, 1998, p. 34).
An example can illustrate how the three concepts
work together. A student participating in a course
in economics is asked to answer the following
question:
In the same period of time both employment and
unemployment numbers have grown in the
same population. Give an example of descriptive
statistics of such a period. Explain how this
development is possible!
In Descriptive Statistics the student finds lists of
employment and unemployment (data). In accordance with the question he transforms the lists
into information, i.e. finds a certain period where
both employment and unemployment have
increased in the same population. By the use of
knowledge the student again transforms this information into (new) knowledge in order to explain
how this development can occur: if the labor force
has grown in the period in question, both employment and unemployment may have grown as well.
And it is from his knowledge that the student both
extracts the concept labor force together with the
definition of the concepts employment and unemployment to create the new knowledge, which can
explain that it is possible for both employment
and unemployment to increase in the same period
for the same population.
Different individuals will possess different
knowledge even if they have experienced the
same kind of childhood, have received the same
formal education, have been employed in the
same company etc. This is because they have not
acquired the knowledge in exactly the same contexts. All knowledge is therefore peculiar to the
individual and is unique.
CONTEXT
A context can be defined as systemic relations
between individuals and environment (Engeström,
1987, p. 39). Lave (1988) uses the word setting to
describe the relation between an acting individual
and the arena in which the action takes place,
P. E. Jensen
Knowledge and Process Management
where the arena is defined as a fixed institutionalized frame. Both refer to action theory (action theory was developed in the Soviet Union in the 1920s
by people like Leont’ev, 1978, and Vygotsky, 1982,
who worked in the fields of education and child
psychology), where the definition of context is
very narrow and precise. The activity in itself is
the context. The context is shaped by the activities
involving individuals and artifacts. This means that
the context is not, in itself, a framework or a container in which actions take place. It is at the
same time developed internally by the individuals
acting and thereby creating the context and externally given to them in the form of other individuals, artifacts and the specific history that have
created the concrete context (Nardi, 1996, p. 76).
The context is both shaping the structure in
which the action takes place and is created by the
very same actions involving individuals, artifacts
and social interpretation. A given context understood this way is shaped and changed all the
time, but under given conditions. But not every
action changes or develops the context. It is only
essential events that (re)create the context, and
structure is necessary to ensure that events can
recreate events.
A classroom is an example of a context. The
school, the curriculum and the teachers set the arena, but the students, their background, their
advance knowledge and their willingness to learn
also give form and life to the context. The books,
the blackboard (or whiteboard) and what the teacher writes on it make up the artifacts; but so also
do the concepts and the definitions of them, which
are part of the curriculum.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
possess. Knowledge has to be articulated in a
way so that at least one other member of the organization can understand it.
Within an organization, knowledge is codified in
terms of words, drawings, symbols or other forms
of representations, which are meaningful for other
members of the organization (Sanchez, 1997, p.
171). Concrete materials in terms of drawings,
documents, tools or other artifacts, which could
function as a common reference point, strengthen
learning across different fields of knowledge
among experts.
Whereas education is often associated with formal teaching, learning should be associated with
a production process over which the individual
who is learning has some kind of influence. Competence building is based upon learning. One can
also learn from one’s mistakes if one is allowed
to, rather than being punished as a consequence.
This means that learning constitutes a change in
and of practices and that learning takes place as a
negation of meaning between the participants in a
community of practice. The participants in a community of practice learn in cooperation where different interests, points of view and power relations
are at stake, challenged and under consideration.
This means that ‘action learning’ is what an individual learns when he is involved in an activity.
When an individual has learned to do a different
action he has acquired new knowledge. Combining
this with the processes of transformation from data
via information to knowledge we can create the following chain of learning:
Data ! Information ! Knowledge ! Action
! Learning ! New Knowledge
LEARNING
Learning is the process in which changes in knowledge take place inside an individual. This could
involve the recognition of new or changed causal
relations, modifications or a rejection of previously
held beliefs, or changes in earlier individual faith
(Heene and Sanchez, 1997, p. 6). Organizational
knowledge is thus the set of beliefs about causal
relations or phenomena that are shared by the individuals in an organization.
But as long as knowledge is created and possessed only by individuals and not by organizations, organizational knowledge exists only in the
relations between the individuals in the organization. The most important task of knowledge management is therefore to create the best possibilities
for information sharing between individuals and
coordination of the knowledge that individuals
A Contextual Theory of Learning
This new knowledge that the individual has
acquired can be divided in two categories: explicit
knowledge (theory) and implicit knowledge
(knowledge of praxis). But these two categories
should not be seen as having a causal relationship.
They can be converted from one category to the
other and vice versa. If activity (praxis) is the starting point, experience will become the turning
point. The individual speculates about why he is
doing the things he is doing. If teaching is the starting point, theory will become the turning point.
There is thus a difference between the causality in
which two categories of knowledge has been
acquired. This means that the two categories of
knowledge must be treated independently. Theoretical knowledge involves looking at things from an
elevated, detached viewpoint and from this perspective generalizations can be drawn. Practical
knowledge does not involve knowing a lot of rules
55
RESEARCH ARTICLE
or theories. It means judging which rule is the most
appropriate in the concrete situation.
Another important consideration in the discussion of knowledge is the difference between
espoused theory and theory-in-use. The way individuals act in the world depends of how they interpret the world. The theory of action approach
posits the existence of a behavioral world created
by the individuals in an interaction (Argyris and
Schön, 1996, p. 50). These interpretations are again
dependent on the way in which individuals are in
control of generating, interpreting, testing and
using data and information about the world. These
actions of generating, interpreting, testing and
using data and information will very often lead to
a difference between what a person is saying and
believes to be doing and the things that the person
really is doing. This is because the person, as a consequence of the testing discovers that he has to
explain or justify a given pattern of activity
(Argyris and Schön, 1996, p. 13). However, the person in action does often not realize this difference
between what is said and what is done. This means
that a person can believe that in reality he is doing
what he is saying. This lack of awareness is in a
way ‘designed’ in the head of that person to enable
him to justify the fact that on the one hand he does
things differently from what he says he does.
Furthermore it enables the person to deal with
the fact that it is not acceptable to express the real
nature of his actions in public.
Argyris and Schön give an example of the differences between espoused theory and theory-in-use
and the (perceived) difficulties in revealing these
differences. The case describes a large electronics
firm, where the Information Technology group,
according to top management, did not react to the
users’ needs and always had difficulties with line
management. The head of the IT group (the CIO)
was interviewed about his thoughts and feelings
after a staff meeting in which the problems were
discussed.
When asked what led him not to make these
thoughts and feelings public, he looked astonished. ‘If I said these feelings and thoughts, all I
have done was add fuel to the fire.’ . . . when
some of the professionals were asked if they had
any idea of their bosses’ private thoughts, they
responded with words that were almost identical
to the ones the CIO used. When they were asked
what led them not to say so, they responded with
the same look of astonishment. ‘Are you kidding?’, said one of them. ‘That would make things
worse.’ Quite likely, the subordinates were also
carrying on internal monologues that were not
56
Knowledge and Process Management
vocalized. Thus we have people holding private
conversations about each other and thinking that
the others do not hear these conversations. In
actuality, the others do hear them but act as if
they do not. (Argyris and Schön, 1996, p. 87f.).
CHANGING THE PROCESSES
OF LEARNING
Not being aware of this difference between what is
said and what is done will often present an obstacle
to learning. But to be aware of this difference could,
at least in some situations, mean that the individuals have to change the context or even, in radical
situations, break out of the context and create a
whole new context. This leads to three degrees of
learning situations:
(1) Single-loop learning. Such instrumental learning
consists of becoming better at doing what you
can already do. Thus the actions involved that
exist in this context must be of identifiable
types.
(2) Double-loop learning. This is learning that results
in a change in the values of the theory-in-use,
as well as in its strategies and assumptions
(Argyris and Schön, 1996, p. 20f.). This means
that the individual involved is aware and can
then take the context into consideration in the
learning process.
(3) Triple-loop learning. In this situation is it impossible to learn in the given context. Thus the
individual involved has to break out of, and
completely change, the context. This means
creating or accepting new values in the theoryin-use as well as new strategies in the learning
process (Bateson, 1987, p. 287ff.).
When a person has to go from double-loop learning to triple-loop learning, it is a consequence of a
double bind. On one side learning within the given
context does not work because, even if the person
changes the values and strategies in the theory-inuse, this does not result in the expected consequences. On the other hand, the person sees the
context as given and unchangeable. This means
that either the person breaks down or breaks out.
The latter means that the person would resort to
triple-loop learning and, in other words, creates
an entirely new context.
Represented in a diagram it looks as shown in
Figures 1–3. Single-loop learning includes an adoption of ways to do things better (illustrated in
Figure 1 by the single feedback loop). But existing
norms and routines are not changed. Double-loop
P. E. Jensen
Knowledge and Process Management
Figure 1 Single-loop learning
Figure 2 Double-loop learning
Figure 3 Triple-loop learning
learning includes the kind of learning where norms
and routines are changed, where the values
guiding the existing context and strategies are
questioned and assumptions are under consideration (illustrated by the double feedback loop in
Figure 2). In situations where double-loop learning
takes place (going from single-loop learning) there
is an adoption of the results of the actions that stems
from the new activity, which can be calculated
ahead and that, in fact, becomes the new activity.
In situations where triple-loop learning takes
place an entirely new activity that cannot be precalculated has to be formulated and achieved. It
is, of course, a contradiction to do or to plan an
activity that is not known. Thus the new activity
is achieved as a result of the contradictions
between the activity, on the one hand, which could
be calculated to be the answers to the new
demands from the environments (double-loop
feedback) and a feasible new context selected
from among those which seem to be at hand and,
on the other hand, the unknown and unpredictable
future. This means that the context which, in fact,
becomes the result of the ‘breaking out’ will be different from the one predicted, because the new
A Contextual Theory of Learning
RESEARCH ARTICLE
activities lead to results other than those being
calculated. This is so even though these activities
are available or are seen as a possibility from the
vantage-point of the existing context. In this way
these activities expand, transform and even break
the frameworks of the calculated new context
and develop into something even more distant
and uncontrollable. That is why the new context
never is, and never can be, qualitatively the
same as planned in advance from the old context
(Engeström, 1987, p. 184f.).
These kinds of new activities are different from
the adjustment of organizations by the changing
of routines. They are the creation of new activities
that lead to new contexts. Changes in the formatting context represent a parallel to double-loop
learning. Double-loop learning is a process that
questions the formatting context that, in turn, gives
meaning to the routines guiding single-loop learning. So if double-loop learning in itself is a routine
(as Nelson and Winter (1982, p. 16f.) regard it to
be), it has to be of a different kind than those routines guiding single-loop learning. And even so, it
will be impossible to treat triple-loop learning as
routine, because triple-loop learning cannot be calculated in advance, and thus is not consistent
enough or predictable enough to become a routine
(Ciborra and Schneider, 1992, p. 273). Triple-loop
learning is not something that happens automatically leading to new, more appropriate behaviour.
On the contrary, resistance towards changes can
lead to ignoring facts or the suppression of events,
abnormalities and disturbances under the name of
‘leadership’ (Ciborra and Schneider, 1992, p. 272).
Triple-loop learning also involves recognizing the
difference between espoused theories and theoryin-use, which is often a painful process.
Let us see how such learning processes can be
illustrated. In the example above where a student
in economics had to answer a question in descriptive economics about employment/unemployment, a student who is well trained in the
application of descriptive statistics will have little
difficulty in finding the appropriate statistics
sources and extracting the appropriate data from
them. The more the student uses these kinds of
statistics, the better (and faster) he will be at collecting the appropriate data. Single-loop learning has
occurred, i.e. the student uses his ‘action programme’ (see Figure 1), which in this situation
‘tells’ him what kind of descriptive statistics he
can use in order to fulfil the ‘production process’,
i.e. to answer the question by giving an appropriate
estimate over a period in which both employment
and unemployment have grown for the same
population.
57
RESEARCH ARTICLE
In a situation where the student does not have a
clear understanding of the definition of the concepts and relations between employment and
unemployment (i.e. does not know the definition:
labor force ¼ employment þ unemployment), he
has to learn these definitions before being able to
answer the question. And in this context, learning
is the same as changing the ‘action programme’.
When this learning process has taken place, there
has been a change/development in the student’s
‘action programme’. Double-loop learning has
occurred (see Figure 2). By using the changed
action programme, the student is able to ‘produce’
the wanted output, namely the answer to the question (which is of course the same result as before:
an appropriate estimate over a period in which
both employment and unemployment increased
in the same population).
However, if the student is not at all familiar with
the Labor Market Theory context a different kind of
problem arises. If, for example, the student is an
African Bushman, he will probably not be in a situation, a context, where people can be unemployed. A
Bushman’s occupation is to gather food; this is how
he is ‘employed’, but he is never unemployed. So he
will not be able to understand the word ‘unemployment’. He will not be able to apply the Labor Market Theory to his ‘action programme’ because this
theory is too far from his context in which his action
programme suits. Both the input (here the question
in descriptive economics about employment/
unemployment) and the output (an appropriate
estimate over a period in which both employment
and unemployment have increased in the same
population) are too far from the inputs and outputs
the Bushman can handle in his context, e.g. food
gathering. The Bushman must create a whole new
context for himself to be able to create an ‘action
programme’ and a ‘production process’ that can
handle these kinds of inputs and outputs before
triple-loop learning can occur (see Figure 3). How
this can take place is illustrated below.
So the context in which learning takes place is in
itself of the utmost importance for the degree of
learning and for any barriers to learning. The learning process is based on the assumption that the
learning individual is aware of the guiding values
for his behaviour. Which strategies and possibilities
for action are available to the individual, and what
are the consequences of the strategies and possibilities according to the ‘world’ that surrounds that
individual? Only in a situation where the individual is aware of these values can he investigate
whether one of the values is consistent or inconsistent, either in itself or in relation to other values
(Argyris and Schön, 1974, p. 134).
58
Knowledge and Process Management
THE LEARNING INDIVIDUAL
All learning is context-dependent. From this it
follows that all (productive) knowledge also is
context-dependent. When an individual acquires
new knowledge, he has learned. Learning takes place
as a transformation process where information is
transformed into knowledge by being used in a
certain context. For this transformation process to
occur there must be some kind of correspondence
between the individual’s old knowledge and the
information that should be transformed into new
knowledge. One way to create this correspondence
is by using inference.
Creating inference is something an individual
does automatically. Inference is created from the
individual’s interpretation of the world. Does the
inference fit into this interpretation or is it a taboo
to make this inference? The individual’s interpretation of the world is created through a historical process, where the way of life that the individual is born
into and grows up in shapes the foundation. This
starting point in interpreting the world can either
be strengthened, assuming the individual continues
his or her life in the same way as during childhood,
or it can be modified, even changed dramatically,
if the individual moves into another way of life.
The strengthening of the interpretation of the
world also takes place when an individual moves
into different contexts, as long as changing between
different contexts confirms the first interpretations.
This is what happens when a person goes from one
job to another in the same industry. However, this
strengthening especially takes place when others
confirm the individual’s understanding of his or
her own situation and role in the same context.
A second way of strengthening the interpretation
of the world occurs when others accept or even
internalize the individual’s interpretation of the
world. In these situations, single-loop learning
(see Figure 1) takes place because the action programme is used, but not changed, when the founding interpretation of the world is strengthened.
Thus Figures 1–3 can be expanded in the ways
shown in Figures 4–6. These figures show three
degrees of learning and the consequences of the
learning situation according to the contexts and
individuals’ interpretations of the world.
In the case of single-loop learning, the conceptions
of the world are unchanged and the kind of learning
that takes place is instrumental because actions and
strategies for actions occur in order to use or by
virtue of using the action programme (ses Figure 4).
In the case of second-loop learning, the conceptions of the world have been modified. The interpretation of the given context, which is tested by
P. E. Jensen
Knowledge and Process Management
Figure 4 Single-loop learning according to the learning
persons conceptions of the world
predicting the output that should occur when a certain input is present, has shown itself not to be correct when the original action programme was used.
Thus the action programme must be modified and
the modification takes place according to the modified conceptions of the world (see Figure 5).
Here we see the case of double-loop learning,
which results in a change in the values guiding
the existing context, as well as its strategies and
assumptions, according to the (now modified) conceptions of the world. The modified conceptions of
the world have provided a more useful interpretation of the context in which the learning person
acts, because the output he observes is more in
line with that expected.
But there is, of course, the possibility that the
actual image of the world in no way can be brought
into correspondence with the conceptions of the
world held by the learning person. As examined
earlier, in this situation the person is faced with
two options for action: break down or break out.
The former reaction is not of relevance to this article. The latter can be illustrated in the following
way (see Figure 6).
Figure 5 Second-order learning according to the learning
person’s conceptions of the world
A Contextual Theory of Learning
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Figure 6 Triple-loop learning according to the learning
person’s conceptions of the world
The old perspective of the world is crackled and
a new, and completely different, image has been
formed. But as discussed earlier, this is it not a process without problems, as is the case with a process
modifying existing conceptions of the world as well
as changing the action programme according to
these modified conceptions. The actual context
the person is acting in is not a fixed and external
frame to him. The activity itself is the context
with its (other) people and artifacts and its specific
historical relations. Thus all these figures create the
actual context (Nardi, 1996, p. 76).
The context is changing as a consequence of the
activity, the learning process. This could also be
said to be the case under single-loop learning and
double-loop learning if one adopts a very rigid,
conservative perspective. However, the changing
of the context is of an entirely different quality in
the case of triple-loop learning from that in the
two others. As a consequence of the new conceptions of the world, the person in question must
break out of the given context and make another
and expanded context, in which the individual becomes aware of the meaning and the consequences
of the conceptions of the world to which the individual is now subscribing. This means that the meaning and consequences of the activities and actions
he is doing, as a part of that new context, are
ones that he is fully aware of. This illustrates clearly
the case of triple-loop learning, a specific kind of
learning where the individual is aware of the differences between the kinds of espoused theory
and theory-in-action which that individual is using.
The unawareness of the differences between
espoused theory and theory-in-use which is
‘designed’ in the brain (Argyris and Schön, 1996,
p. 83) becomes known but not without psychical
pains for that individual.
This new situation provokes uncertainty: uncertainty about the codification, which before was
59
RESEARCH ARTICLE
taken for granted; uncertainty about the abstraction
that before gave structure to the world. The world
now seems confusing and ambiguous. But at the
same time, this new ambiguity opens the door to
new interpretations of earlier collected data and
information—interpretations that open the door
to new and surprisingly different ways of acting,
which can give way to new innovations, and new
ways of doing things, which again can create
more productivity and new (kinds of) values for
the stake-holders. However, this often has to take
place in cooperation with others within or outside
the organization.
If we return to the Bushman from the above
example, it seems reasonable that a situation (a
context) in which he must become a ‘laborer’ (a
worker), not being able to decide when and where
to gather food, but instead be in a situation where
he can become unemployed, would seem frightening to him. A whole lot of new concepts must be
learned before he can actually use his new ‘action
programme’ to produce a relevant output (in this
example still an appropriate estimate over a period
in which both employment and unemployment
have grown in the same population; see Figure 6).
The Bushman needs to take into consideration the
concepts of the standard economic function of supply and demand for labour and the aspects of the
impact of income tax on the supply and comparative labour productivity, i.e. he must create new
conceptions of the world that interpret the actual
context in order to be able to function as a labourer
or, as in this case, as a student in economics.
THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION
In the last section we saw how individuals under
different circumstances learned and stored new
knowledge. But in order to transform this individual knowledge into values, which can benefit
the company, the knowledge of the individual
has to be transformed ‘back’ into information,
which again can provide the foundation for the
creation of new knowledge in the minds of other
individuals in the organization.
Now it is not possible, even if it was appropriate,
to create a situation where exactly the same knowledge is created in the head of more than one individual in the organization. The individual
knowledge should not be duplicated but be complementary to the knowledge of other individuals
in the organization in order to accommodate the
demands from the stakeholders. One way to organize this complementary knowledge among the
employees of a company is to create redundancy
60
Knowledge and Process Management
Figure 7 Redundancies of knowledge among three employees
of knowledge in the organization in order to create
a situation where one part of the individual’s
knowledge is shared by all (as far as it is possible)
and the other parts are unique. This is illustrated in
Figure 7.
The redundancies (illustrated by the dark spot
between the three circles) are important because
they promote a dialogue between the three employees. The redundancies are one amongst other functions that create a common cognitive foundation
upon which a discussion can take place because
one of the employees shares the same information
as the two other employees (in Figure 7). On the
ground of this common information the employee
will better be able to understand what the other
two employees try to articulate (Nonaka, 1991,
p. 102).
This situation is promoted even more if the three
employees are forming a team. In a team the members are part of the same context. If this is not so,
they will not be able to form a team. They will
also, to a great extent, be using the same artifacts,
which in them form a constant dialogue, which
often is the foundation for reflections and creation
of new knowledge.
Through this dialogue the participants can
regard both the information they share, and the
information, which is unique to them, in a new
way and perhaps in this way be able to integrate
their individual perspectives into a new common
perspective (Nonaka, 1991, p. 104). But when the
employees who form a team have developed ideas,
which to them are meaningful, it can be difficult to
communicate the meaning and importance of these
ideas to other individuals and teams in the organization. People are not passive receptors of information and ideas. If information and ideas are to make
sense to them, they have to interpret them so they
fit into their situation and the perspective to which
they subscribe. This is the same as saying that they
must fit into their context. What gives a certain
meaning in a specific context may give a completely different meaning, or perhaps no meaning at
all, in a different context, even though it is the
very same information, which is communicated to
the individuals in the different context.
P. E. Jensen
Knowledge and Process Management
Therefore when information is constantly communicated within an organization, the meaning of
this information changes according to the context it
has to fit into. When this new knowledge has to be
converted into information, because it has to be
used and developed in the whole organization or
in parts of it, the individual who is responsible
for this conversion could use metaphors, analogies,
symbols and concepts to promote this conversion
(Nonaka, 1991, p. 103).
In this way, the use of metaphors could create
inference between two ideas which in the first
instance do not seem to be interconnected.
Although the metaphors at first can provoke discrepancy or even conflicts among individuals
who have different understandings of the ideas
the metaphors represent, these discrepancies and
conflicts can, if treated in the right way, lead to a
process of creativity by the other employees in
the organization. Because these employees will
try to define more exactly in their own minds
what kind of insight the metaphor expresses,
they work to reconcile the conflicting meanings
(Nonaka, 1991, p. 100). But this process can also
end up with ‘wrong’ or irrational inferences. For
this reason, metaphors should be used with care
in a guided process. A way to achieve this is to
use analogies. Analogies in this respect are an
intermediate step between pure imagination created by the metaphors and logical thinking. The
last step is to create an actual model. A model is
far more immediately conceivable than metaphors
or an analogy. In models contradictions get
resolved and concepts become transferable through
consistent and systematic logic (Nonaka, 1991,
p. 101).
If, for example, a company produces nails and
screws, one possibility for the management of
that company to devise new ideas for enlarging
its product portfolio might be to find metaphors
or analogies with which to connect things; and
this could be, for example, ‘connecting people’.
One of the ways people connect is by using networks. Should the company produce (or sell) telephone wire? Or notice-boards for people to post
their messages? Or are there other physical things
that people may use to create a network, for which
the company’s capabilities to produce nails and
screws would be of use?
Because knowledge is created and stored by individuals and not by organizations and so must be
transformed to information through a process as
illustrated above, an important task for management is to coordinate the knowledge the individuals possess and to guide the process of sharing
information among individuals (Grant, 1996). The
A Contextual Theory of Learning
RESEARCH ARTICLE
transformation processes also take place as people
continuously find ways to get around problems
and solve difficulties, when they are working and
communicating while doing their jobs. Through
this process they learn to do their job better (Brown
and Duguid, 1991, p. 43f.).
By sharing their experiences with their colleges
these experiences are spread throughout the organization. This is an important but often overlooked
way to improve performance and to create new
routines, which also changes the context (Ciborra
and Schneider, 1992, p. 271).
ALL ORGANIZATIONS ARE LEARNING
ORGANIZATIONS BUT NOT ALL
ARE LEARNING EQUALLY WELL
A learning organization is an organization that is
organized to scan for information in its environment, by itself creating information, and promoting
individuals to transform information into knowledge and coordinate this knowledge between the
individuals so that new insight is obtained. It also
changes its behaviour in order to use this new
knowledge and insight. This description fits nearly
all organizations and almost all organizations are,
by this token, learning organizations because if
they were not it would be very difficult for them
to survive in a changing environment.
Therefore to make a point in looking for and
describing certain organizations as learning organizations, there must be certain characteristics of
these organizations that makes them better at scanning for, creating and promoting the transformation of information to knowledge and at being
more adaptable to the environments than others.
This poses the question whether real learning
organizations are simply quantatively better at
performing these functions than the other
organizations, or whether a qualitative difference
between the real learning organization and the
other organizations also exists.
The answer to these questions can be found in
the clarification of the difference between the
sums of the individuals’ learning, which does not
constitute genuine organizational learning and
which is qualitatively distinct from this real organizational learning. Real organizational learning also
contains the coordination and cooperation of the
individuals in a close relationship at work in addition to the sum of the learning of the individuals.
Employees in a close working relationship, e.g. in
teams, act as if they were a common active memory
but each with a differentiated responsibility to
remember different parts of critical events and
61
RESEARCH ARTICLE
experiences. Employees remember places and episodes attached to critical events rather than all the
details attached to the events they have shared and
leave it to the others to remember and interpret
those details they themselves have forgotten or
not registered.
When employees exchange information with
varying details about the same critical event, they
will often discover the foundation for the information in form of themes, generalizations or ideas
which can be transformed to (real) new knowledge
(Weick, 2001, p. 260). Thus this phenomenon,
which is an important aspect of organizational
learning, is not the same as when a number of individual employees have learned something different, which can then be summarized. When real
organizational learning is different from the sums
of the individuals’ learning it is because when the
single individual has learned, and thus created new
knowledge, he sends information about this new
knowledge out in the network to somebody with
relations to this kind of knowledge and that person
communicates back again. And cybernetics tells us
that feedback in a network is larger and different
from the sums of the information forwards and
backwards—exactly because of the feedback.
The real learning organization is also a new way
to organize the company so that the work is challenging and the employees have more control
over how the work should be done. In the real
learning organization work is organized in such a
way that learning takes place as a natural and
necessary activity; where development takes place
in a spiral; where innovations of both working processes and products leads to the formation of new
competences and insights, which again have a
spill-over towards the way work is organized
(Nyhan, 1993, p. 8).
This spiral form of development is almost always
created when the individual employee is looking
for better ways to do his job; that is, when the individual looks deeper than merely at the symptoms,
conventional experience and myths in a situation
where he has to understand and interpret critical
events.
Another qualitative difference between the real
learning organization and the other is that learning
takes place through incremental changes and not
through abrupt jumps. Yet another difference is
that, as opposed to the unreal learning organization, the employees possess ‘know-how’, whereas
in the real learning organization they ‘know why’.
‘Know-how’ is founded upon partial knowledge,
norms and routines and the equipment at hand.
‘Know-why’ is more fundamental because it is
rooted in fundamental relations and can be used
62
Knowledge and Process Management
to tackle exceptions, adaptations and unforeseen
events (Garvin, 1993).
As a test of when organizational learning has
occurred, three steps could be observed. The first
step is a phase of cognition. The members of the
organization are faced with new ideas, expand
their knowledge and begin to think differently.
The next step is a phase of changed behaviour.
The employees begin to take this new way of thinking into consideration when moderating their behaviour. The third step is a phase where these
changes in behaviour lead to measurable changes
in the form of improvements of results (output)
(Garvin, 1993).
These three steps could be observed in a company (a company which I visited twice). The company was faced with a situation where the
technological development had made their main
product obsolete. Technology had developed the
company’s product from a module consisting of
several components and materials to one single
component, an integrated circuit. This situation
left the company in a position where their production capability and the existing workforce did not
comply with production needs, since the resources
needed for manufacturing integrated circuits were
considerably far from those needed for the earlier
production. The company’s management was
given permission by the corporate management to
consider manufacturing a new product, so this was
the first step—cognition—to be observed.
The considerations resulted in the takeover of a
small company that manufactured cellular telephones and in a transfer of skilled workers and
the product to the company in question. The new
product is in line with the products that the company will continue to produce, which means that
it will be possible to use parts of the work function
module that already exist in the company. Thus,
the company has reflected on its capability and,
based on that reflection, decided to utilize the existing capability for manufacturing a product that is
completely new to the company. Subsequently,
development has taken place as its capability and
workforce knowledge are expanded, and the workforce begin to think differently as a result of having
to innovate and develop a new type of product. So,
a second step—a phase of changed behaviour—can
be observed.
These changes were observed over a 10-year period.
When the changes had become routine, i.e. before
my last visit, the company in this case was judged
to be one showing measurable changes in the
form of improved results based on its capabilities
and competence. Thus the third step had also been
taken.
P. E. Jensen
Knowledge and Process Management
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING:
ACHIEVEMENTS AND SHORTCOMINGS
When reading the text above one could reach the
conclusion that organizational learning is a process
that can be designed and implemented without
contradictions. This is not the case. As was seen
in the description of triple-loop learning, under
this kind of learning drastic changes in an individual’s perspective of the world takes place. An
individual cannot go through these changes without psychological pain as well as resistance
towards the changes. This resistance will also be
reflected at the organizational level. Another aspect
that should be taken into consideration is that
triple-loop learning is not a process following a
specific roadmap, which can be charted out in
advance. It is so inconsistent that no one can predict the results.
There thus seem to be two distinct qualitative
kinds of organizational learning:
(1) single- and double-loop learning; and
(2) triple-loop learning.
Single- and double-loop learning can be calculated and designed in advance, but triple-loop
learning cannot. It is double-loop learning and tripleloop learning which are of the greatest interest
because single-loop learning is simply improving
what the organization is doing already. The request
for permanent changes in organizational performance, which often is put forward when processes
of organizational learning are started, involves a
break with existing norms and routines and, because of this, can lead to conflicts. Here one must
distinguish between two kinds of conflicts: those
which can be controlled, and those which cannot.
Conflicts that can be controlled are the kind that
are grounded in the structural and procedural
design of the learning organization. An example
is the competition between product development
teams—a competition (and as a consequence of
this competition a conflict) that follows ‘the principle of internal competition’. An example of this
could be a product development department being
divided into competing teams that develop different approaches to the same project and then argue
over the advantages and disadvantages of their
proposals (Nonaka, 1991, p. 102). Another example
could be conflicts which stem from a demand for
close cooperation between two teams, each with
its own ‘language’ and perspective of the world
and, as a consequence, disagreements about the
right way to get things done.
Conflicts that cannot be controlled often escalate
unpredictably, e.g. on the grounds of diminishing
A Contextual Theory of Learning
RESEARCH ARTICLE
sales or changed demands from the stakeholders.
Because of this unpredictability neither their escalation nor their solution can be designed in
advance. But organizations can be better or poorer
at reacting to the expansion of these uncontrollable conflicts, e.g. by being aware that they are a
natural and necessary part of being a learning
organization.
For both types of conflict it pertains that the
organization can end up facing either a constructive or a destructive situation. A constructive conflict will lead to development and progress for
the organization as the result of the cooperation
and coalition of the earlier disagreements about
understandings and working routines, which are
better suited to future demands. A destructive
conflict involves disappointed expectations, hurt
feelings and broken (working) relations, which
are hard to re-establish. Conflicts are risky affairs,
but affairs the learning organization has to confront
and resolve if it wants to be, or become, a learning
organization.
CONCLUSION
All production, including production of services,
maintains a transformation from input to output.
In the knowledge-based theory of the firm, the fundamental point is that the critical input in the production process is knowledge because knowledge
is the basic source for the creation of values. If
one input should be chosen as the most important
it must be knowledge (and not information)
because all attained growth in productivity is based
on knowledge, including that productivity that
stems from machinery, because this machinery
can be treated as imbedded knowledge (Grant,
1996, p. 112).
All knowledge is achieved and possessed by individuals. On the contrary, the use of (productive)
knowledge to create values is a collective process.
So the primary focus of the learning organization
has to be the transformation of individual knowledge into information, which could be used by other
members of the organization in order to be more
productive than they otherwise could be alone.
A learning organization is one that is organized
to scan for information in its environment, by itself
creating information, and promoting individuals to
transform information into knowledge and coordinate this knowledge between the individuals so
that new insight is obtained. It also changes its
behaviour in order to use this new knowledge
and insight. Consequently, the organization must
be organized in such a way that it scans for
63
RESEARCH ARTICLE
information in its environment, by itself creating
information, and encouraging individuals to transform information into knowledge and coordinate
this knowledge between the individuals in teams.
This scanning, transformation and coordination
must be guided by the organizational and incentive
structure and by the vision and mission of the firm
that is guided by the strategic leadership of the
organization.
REFERENCES
Argyris C, Schön DA. 1974. Theory in Practice: Increasing
Professional Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Argyris C, Schön DA. 1996. Organizational Learning II:
Theory, Method and Practice. Addison Wesley: Reading,
MA.
Bateson G. 1979. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity.
Ballantine: New York.
Bateson G. 1987. Steps to an Ecology of Mind (2nd edn).
Macmillan: New York.
Bloor D. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. University of
Chicago Press: Chicago.
Boisot M. 1998. Knowledge Assets. Oxford University
Press: Oxford.
Brown JS, Duguid P. 1991. Organizational learning and
communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of
working, learning and innovation. Organization Science
2(1): 40–57.
Ciborra CU, Schneider LS. 1992. Transforming the routines and context of management, work and technology. In Technology and the Future of Work, Adler PS
(ed.). Oxford University Press: New York.
64
Knowledge and Process Management
Engeström Y. 1987. Learning by Expanding: An ActivityTheoretical Approach to Developmental Research. OrientaKonsultit: Helsinki.
Garvin DA. 1993. Building a learning organisation. Harvard Business Review July–August: 78–91.
Grant RM. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of
the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special
Issue 17: 109–122.
Heene A, Sanchez R (ed.). 1997. Strategic Learning and
Knowledge Management. Wiley: Chichester.
Lave J. 1988. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and
Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK.
Leont’ev AN. 1978. Activity, Consciousness and Personality.
Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Luhmann N. 1996. On the scientific context of the concept of communication. Collected papers on Niklas
Luhmann. Social Science Information 35(2): 257–267.
Nardi BA. 1996. Context and Consciousness. MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA.
Nelson RR, Winter SG. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of
Economic Change. Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA.
Nonaka I. 1991. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review November–December: 96–104.
Nyhan B. 1993. The learning organisation. Paper to the
conference on The Learning Organisation and New Learning Materials. Taastrup, Denmark, 11 November.
Sanchez R. 1997. Managing articulated knowledge in
competence-based competition. In Strategic Learning
and Knowledge Management, Heene A, Sanchez R
(eds). Wiley: Chichester; 163–187.
von Krogh G, Roos J (ed.). 1996. Managing Knowledge: Perspectives on Cooperation and Competition. Sage: London.
Vygotsky S. 1982. Taenkning og sprog I [Thinking and
Language]. Hans Reizel: Copenhagen.
Weick KE. 2001. Making Sense of the Organization. Oxford
University Press: Oxford.
P. E. Jensen