16th international Conference on HRD Research and Practice across Europe
1
A CONTINGENCY FRAMEWORK MODEL FOR
ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING
Name of Authors: John Koukoutsas, MSc HRD
Membership Development Executive, IITD
Contact:
John Koukoutsas
73a Patrick Street
Dun Laoghaire
Dublin, Ireland
Email: [email protected]
Stream Heading: Organisational Development and Organisational Learning
Submission Type: Fully referenced paper
Word count: 9736
Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A contingency framework model for Organisational Learning ............................................. 1
1.1
The issue ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.2
Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 3
1.3
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 3
1.4
Hypothesis ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.5
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.6
Approach and Limitations ............................................................................................... 5
1.7
Scope ................................................................................................................................ 6
1.8
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 6
The Model ................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1.1 External culture ............................................................................................................ 7
2.1.2 Organisational Culture ................................................................................................ 7
2.1.3 Organisational Learning .............................................................................................. 7
2.1.4 Organisational Setting.................................................................................................. 8
National and Organisational Culture ..................................................................................... 8
3.1
Measuring National Culture - Layers of culture - Schein ............................................... 9
3.2
Measuring National Culture - Cultural Dimensions - Hofstede .................................. 11
3.3
Measuring Organisational culture ................................................................................. 12
3.3.1 Competing Values Framework .................................................................................. 13
3.4
Summary......................................................................................................................... 14
Learning Organisations and Organisational Learning ......................................................... 15
4.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 15
4.2
Theories in organisational learning and learning organisations .................................. 17
4.2.1 Learning Organisations typology ............................................................................... 17
4.2.2 Organisational Learning typology .............................................................................. 18
4.3
The Fifth Discipline ....................................................................................................... 19
4.3.1 Conclusions and a critique of the Fifth Discipline ................................................... 19
4.4
Recent developments ..................................................................................................... 20
4.5
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 24
4.6
Measuring Organisational Learning .............................................................................. 22
4.6.1 Dimensions of Learning Organisation Query (DLOQ)............................................ 23
Organisational Setting ........................................................................................................... 24
5.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 24
5.2
Variable .......................................................................................................................... 24
Overall Conclusions, Implications and Dialogue................................................................. 25
6.1
Measuring complexity .................................................................................................... 26
6.2
Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 27
6.3
The Learning Domain ................................................................................................... 28
References .............................................................................................................................. 30
1.1 THE ISSUE
The field of organisational learning and learning organisations has been researched, developed
and mystified, demystified, validated and invalidated since its inception. It has increasingly
become diversified and fractured, and there is an almost identical situation with Organisational
culture. It is my conviction that in change management projects of learning organisations, the
context, including cultural and other similar organisational aspects are often grossly
underestimated. Either we focus on a vision based on one of the dominant Learning
Organisational models, underestimating the difficulties in implementing such models, or we
give too much focus on procedures, knowledge management systems, organisational
restructuring, and the day to day project management of such a fundamental and
transformational change management endeavour. In other words, we aim too high or too low,
with little understanding of the unique context in each case.
1.2 PURPOSE
This paper proposes a model to clarify the critical factors and forces involved when
benchmarking and developing a Learning Organisation. We will attempt to establish a
framework that helps to contextualise the concept of organisational learning, using three
organisational factors. This contingency approach will enable us to create a map, against which
every aspect of any organisational learning feature can be compared, and help us gain an
understanding of which ones should and should not be implemented.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
An extensive literature review, as well as an initial testing of the model in our business research
project was previously made. Using what Schein (2010) calls a Scholar/Practitioner method,
academic knowledge is interacted with personal experience, allowing knowledge to be created
and validated in a practical circumstance, and then refined, tested and refined, in an
experiential loop.
In essence, this has constituted a work of deductive theory, using a narrative review of the
literature, in which a pattern could be cognitively (and subjectively) discerned and lead to the
proposed model. It has been used in one circumstance, and needs much further testing and
validation, but has so far held up to scrutiny.
1.4 HYPOTHESIS
That the Organisational culture will have a critical impact on both the success of any
organisational learning and its continuous implementation.
That the existing features and assumptions of the concept of organisational learning will have a critical
impact on both the success of any organisational learning and its continuous implementation.
That the Setting, consisting of a third, distinguishing and unique factor will have a critical impact on
both the success of any organisational learning and its continuous implementation.
That the existing external culture will have a critical impact on both the success of any organisational
learning and its continuous implementation.
1.5 INTRODUCTION
In a previous business research project with a public health organisation, we attempted to
identify the critical success factors for the implementation of a learning organisation. It quickly
became apparent that the field of Organisational Learning and more specifically, Learning
Organisations, has become increasingly complex and differentiated since the seminal works
from before the millennium. Thus the field of study has its inception roughly 40 years ago,
with origins earlier than that, and reached some level of maturity 20 years ago.
Take a moment and consider what our world looked like at that time, and compare it to our
current world. Culturally, socially, politically, structurally, in almost every instance we can
imagine there are huge differences. Internet was in its infancy and social media didn’t exist.
Email was becoming established, and starting to replace faxing. Smartphones weren’t invented
for another decade. Can we contend that any organisational behavioural model truly would be
valid today? On an individual level, yes, and to some extent team-levels. Learning and
development theories and models that deal with the individual and their immediate
surrounding will to a large extent still be valid. But from a sociological perspective?
Organisations have changed in innumerable ways since then.
It is clear from a review of the literature on Learning Organisations, and case studies, that the
field has gained considerable complexity since the seminal work of Peter Senge in the Fifth
Discipline (Senge, 1990). It seems that the monumental shift to a learning organisation is a
unique and inadvertently customised experience in most cases. Methods, models and theories
has been introduced and exist as final objectives or elusive visions of a future state, and
measurement tools on how to diagnose a learning organisation has started to mature.
Implementation methods are scarce, and insufficiently substantiated from an academic
perspective. In examining the bewildering array of literature, it becomes clear that agreement
on one dominant model is probably impossible.
Likewise the study of organisational cultures and climates are incredibly differentiated, and
have many specific sub-fields of research.
So we will investigate Organisational Learning, as well as Organisational Culture. Thirdly, we
will look at the Organisational Setting. This we have defined as any unique aspects of the
organisation (as sector, region, type, structure, current life cycle, etc). It can consist of one
variable, for instance “the public sector”, or several.
With this contingency framework, we then have three primary areas of investigation, the
organisational culture, the organisational learning environment and the organisational setting,
against a backdrop of national culture(s).
1.6 APPROACH AND LIMITATIONS
As previously mentioned, my research in this paper based on a Scholar/Practitioner approach, thus
creating a learning loop. Academic knowledge must illuminate and construct a framework of confirmed
understanding, while allowing the researcher to draw conclusions and develop new models and theories
as needed where current academia is insufficient. In the field of organisational culture and learning, we
are still significantly evolving our understanding, somewhat like culture itself, it is continually evolving
and restructuring itself, elusive but omnipresent.
We have completed a series of interviews with leading HRD practitioners in an effort to validate and
trial of the contingency model.
1.7 SCOPE
Outside of the scope of this research paper remains learning processes on the individual level. I have
excluded experiential learning models, psychological factors concerning motivation, learning abilities,
cognitive models, and any other theories based on individual internal processes. They form the
individual foundation without which learning and organisational learning will not occur, but consists of
a complementary and self-contained academic discipline.
Likewise, we will not cover the motivation and justification of a learning organisation or organisational
learning. Some will say they are a mandatory part of our future without which, any organisation will
become obsolete. Others will state that it offers a huge competitive edge, in terms of performance,
innovation or other similar areas. Nor will we look at the actual implementation of any learning
organisations, which comes with its own set of considerations, methods and other areas for study, i.e.
how to affect change within the culture, structures and learning in the organisation, nor the related
field of change management.
We are only looking at the model, which is an attempt at defining the critical factors needed in figuring
out what organisational learning features to implement in any organisation.
1.8 CONCLUSION
So I propose a model that utilises existing benchmarking tools that are selected on the basis of how well
they would suit the context of the organisation being investigated. It is my intention to explore various
models and theories in the literature, question, and dispute or validate them, from a cognitive
standpoint, using deductive reasoning and internal dialogue, tempered by collected data and trials.
To discover and clarify dissonances and issues within the field of Organisational Learning, as it relates
to cultural and organisational context, without which, the undertakings of learning in an organisation
will remain hampered and sub-optimised. With the framework, we would be free from the existing
conceptualised models of Learning Organisations, and have a sounding board against which we would
evaluate all organisational learning features, whether it is an implementation project or current state
analysis. There are three main areas of analysis, with the addition of external culture and climate and we
will investigate the feasibility of such a model.
In organisational learning, less is more. Implementing a multitude of organisational learning features
would be counterproductive, if the context has not been considered carefully. Organisational learning is
in my view a strategic consideration. Similar to Porter’s five forces model (Porter, 2008), commonly
used when considering market strategies, this would be a tool to envision and clarify the context, so that
a truly strategic best fit implementation of organisational learning can be achieved in any organisation.
2 THE MODEL
The proposed model consist of three areas of study, which can be approached either from an academic
standpoint, or a business standpoint. In addition we look at the external factor consisting of the
External Culture and Climate.
2.1.1 External culture
In investigating the external (national) culture, we look at two well-known models, Hofstede’s (2010)
dimensions, and Schein’s three layers of culture (Schein, 2010). Using those we can identify the
variables of the external culture, and how it is embedded in the organisation, via its members.
According to Schein, affecting organisational culture is feasible, but national culture is embedded in
our basic assumptions, and therefore incredibly difficult to influence within an organisational scope.
This analysis gives us dimensions and most importantly, basic assumptions, against which any learning
organisational features has to be considered. An important consideration is also when national culture
coincides with the organisational culture, we need to recognise that it is similarly very hard to shift.
2.1.2 Organisational Culture
There are a multitude of organisational culture measuring tools and models. For our purpose it remains
important to gain a sufficient understanding of the cultural artefacts, values and assumptions of the
organisation, and where these align with any learning organisational features, and where they do not.
This in order to better choose our battles, and avoid those that will deplete our ability to manifest
change. It allows us to strategize and choose tactics that best suit our context.
2.1.3 Organisational Learning
Organisational learning consists of organisational memory and development of skills and knowledge.
It’s the cyclical creation process of individuals’ acquisition of knowledge, storing it in the organisation,
and the retrieval and application of it on a daily basis. Even with turnover of employees, the knowledge
remains, and is easily transformed into skills and action. This exists in all organisations, whether we
they would meet the definition of a Learning Organisation, or not. Thus we need to investigate in detail
what learning exists, and how it is functioning, its processes and forces, and whether they are informal
or formal. Only after such a detailed benchmarking of the organisation can we truly understand enough
about the context to properly analyse what organisational learning features are desirable and/or
possible.
2.1.4 Organisational Setting
The organisational setting is the third variable that we need to investigate. This setting consists of any
further predominant feature of the organisation, which needs to be taken into account. It could be a
public sector organisation, or a multi-national corporation, a service organisation, or a manufacturing
company. It could be the organisations life stage, or its structure. It could be a combination of these,
but it remains crucial that the setting considered is paramount in its influence on the organisation, and
its learning.
3 NATIONAL AND ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
It is hard to gain an understanding or overview of organisational culture, let alone establish a conclusive
definition (Schein, 2010). The literature is inundated by various definitions, theories and models,
which seems to fail to give clarity and reliable measurements (Bratton and Gold, 2012; Morley et al.,
1998; Vecchio, 2006). In many cases they are even incompatible both ontologically and
epistemologically. This makes the transfer from fundamental academic reasoning to practical and
engaged research hard. (Bogolyubov and Easterby-Smith, 2013)
Even though Organisational Culture increasingly defies definition, as more research and development
is made in the matter, it is still widely used in management (Vecchio, 2006). To some extent it seems to
me that “organisational culture” has become a catch-all phrase that is used to describe not only culture,
but any behaviour, procedure or activity that is not clearly part of any other academic paradigm.
According to Cameron (2008), in a book by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), they identified over 150
definitions, over 60 years ago.
Schein, coming from a structural approach, defines the culture of a group as “A pattern of shared basic
assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new
members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.” (Schein, 2012)
It is important to consider that culture could be considered a autopoietic system, meaning that it selforganises, and creates itself from its own context, autonomous, self-referring and self-constructing
system (Maturana and Varela, 1980; Pheysey, 1993). As such, it continuously creates and re-creates its
own meaning, whether it was intended and directed or completely left to its own devices. Culture will
take shape, and likewise, learning will transpire, whether we have had any active influence on the
process or not. The culture’s interaction with its environment is considered as part of the system itself,
and not an external resource.
There are some fundamental and useful models and theories that will help us with the contextual
understanding of organisational culture in relation to organisational learning.
3.1 MEASURING NATIONAL CULTURE - LAYERS OF CULTURE - SCHEIN
One of the instrumental researchers into organisational culture, Edgar H Schein has done a lot of work
in the field, both academic and experiential (Schein, in Kolb et al., 2006).
He defines three layers of organisational culture (Schein, 2010):
The surface layer, Artefacts, is easy to observe and identify, but very hard to decode. It includes the visible,
tangible and audible behavioural expressions of the organisation, for example, the environment, style of
language, mannerisms, stories, published values, established rituals, and so on. It is easy enough to
identify “what”, it is much harder to identify “why”, and fraught with the risk of misinterpretation.
One of those risks is of bias when trying to analyse at this level, as the interpretation will often be
skewed by the individual’s feelings and reactions to the artefacts. Artefacts are symbols, and like any
semiotic context they have multiple interpretations. They are coded by the context, and that leads to the
catch twenty-two, that you can really only understand the artefacts, if you already are part of the culture.
In which case, it introduces the bias of subjective perspective.
The middle layer consist of Espoused Values. They are the values the organisation is committed to, but
haven’t achieved, nor necessarily expressed. They are established through social validation, where
actions and perceivable beliefs are assessed by members, and either rejected or transformed into a
shared belief. So successful behaviour will transform and embed themselves into espoused values. In
some cases the espoused values will be aligned with basic assumptions. These values endow more
definition to the culture. In some cases, there will be misalignment, and it remains a challenge to
identify what espoused values are not embedded with a corresponding basic assumption.
When there is a disparity, we can often see that the expressed (and espoused) value do not match the
behaviour. In HR there is a common rhetoric gap, where many identifiable values are not actually
adhered to. An example is where the organisation is committing to training and developing their staff,
but in reality a miniscule amount of training is actually performed. They simply do not walk the talk.
This mismatch remains one of the most common breaches of the psychological contract in an
organisation.
In some cases, we can observe artefacts that seem to have no connection to any identifiable espoused
values, which leaves us with a limited understanding of the culture at hand.
The lowest layer consists of basic assumptions. It is at this level culture grows and matures. Artefacts and
values that work are reinforced, and others are set aside, both by process of social validation. At this
point, the reinforced assumptions will start to be taken for granted, and will usually allow for little, if
any, variation.
It is important to remember that these layers are interconnected and influence each other in both
directions continuously, and also that visibility decreases from artefacts down to basic assumptions. The
model provides an insight in how to cognitively apply a cultural analysis, with awareness of the
complications and interdependencies. In addition, one needs to take into consideration if there are any
sub-groups in the organisation, as gaps and other significant differences may exist between geographic
locations, or departments. An analysis must take all three layers in consideration, to gain an
understanding of the culture. The essence of culture certainly lies at the level of basic assumptions, but
they are expressed via the values and artefacts. They are easy to detect, but difficult to decipher. And
culture can be incredibly hard to change.
Leadership is originally the source of the beliefs and values that get a group
moving in dealing with its internal and external problems. If (it) continues to
work, what once was only the leader’s assumption gradually comes to be a
shared assumption...individuals seek stability and meaning. Once these are
achieved, it is easier to distort new data by denial, projection, rationalization or
various other defence mechanisms, than to change the basic assumption.
(Schein, in Kolb et al., 2006)
3.2 MEASURING NATIONAL CULTURE - CULTURAL DIMENSIONS - HOFSTEDE
Another seminal theory, and a complement to these layers, and their inherent possible contradictions,
is Hofstede’s (2010) dimensions. The study aimed to identify national cultural traits across a
multinational organisation, and examine the impact they might have on management. In that study, he
eventually identified five cultural dimensions, which is defined as the following (Hofstede, 2014a;
Hofstede and de Mooij, 2011, pp. 182–183)
Power Distance (PDI): “the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept and expect that
power is distributed unequally.”
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI): “the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity
and try to avoid these situations.”
Individualism/Collectivism (IDV): “people looking after themselves and their immediate family only versus
people belonging to in-groups that look after them in exchange for loyalty”
Masculinity/Femininity (MAS): “The dominant values in a masculine society are achievement and success;
the dominant values in a feminine society are caring for others and quality of life.”
Pragmatic/Normative (PRA): “How every society has to maintain some links with its own past while
dealing with the challenges of the present and future.” The change of the dimension name is due to
inclusion of wider data sets from the World Value Survey, and is considered a better construct.
Indulgence/Restraint (IND): “The extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses”
The sixth dimension has been recently added to the previous five, called Indulgence/Restraint. The
dimension indicates a society that either allows and enjoys basic human drives, or suppresses such
“indulgence” by strict social rules and norms.
As an example, when considering Power Distance, we can easily picture an organisation that have
embraced power inequality. An employee who has a very low acceptance of power distance, would meet
considerable resistance or simple disbelief from others, when trying to introduce changes to the
inequality. This resistance and disbelief would emanate and manifest across all layers, from the basic
assumption that the power distance is the correct status, to the (incorrect) awareness that equality exists
in the organisation, and the expression of that awareness at the most visible layer of artefacts. Stories,
interactions, procedures and other behaviours would be representative of the underlying basic
assumptions.
Hofstede’s Dimensions are a pivotal contribution to the field of culture, but is not altogether relevant
when we look at organisational culture, as it primarily concerns macro level cultures. The dimensions
have been validated against other similar data-sets, other studies, and by mining contextually different
datasets, to ensure that the dimensions hold up. In looking at other researchers, some dimensions have
been subdivided, and some are contextually similar, but not the same. Nevertheless the validity for the
existing use of the dimensions is clearly established.
Having stated that, his own research indicates that the power distance and uncertainty avoidance
dimensions have the strongest impact on organisations (Morley et al., 1998). It is important to note that
his initial research was conducted within the same organisation, and consequently illustrated the large
variations that can co-exist within one multi-national corporation. If we consider that, we realise that
corporation-wide initiatives face significant challenges. Trying to culturally homogenize such an
organisation is fruitless (Schermerhorn, 2010; Vecchio, 2006). All organisation wide activities should
take any variations into consideration, and be tailored accordingly, not view and treat every department
and individual as the same.
This also implies that in any organisational culture investigation, we need to identify what
commonalities exist, along with variations in sub-cultures, if any.
According to Hofstede, it is important to remember that National and Organisational culture tends to
anchor in different layers in culture. “Hofstede’s research shows that organisational cultures differ
mainly at the level of practices. These are more superficial and more easily learned and unlearned than
values forming the core of national cultures.” (Hofstede, 2014b)
3.3 MEASURING ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
There are a plethora of ways to define and measure organisational culture. As previously mentioned it is
a field that has grown increasingly disparate and has multiple conflicting definitions
Both Hofstede (Hofstede et al., 1990) and Schein (Schein, 2010) has created models that follow on
their research of national and social cultures.
We can find many instruments, some generic, some contextualised.
In a review of available instruments, Scott et al (2003) identified thirteen that matched their criteria, of
which nine where specific for health care organisations. Among them, in the Survey of Organisational
Culture (Tucker et al., 1990), thirteen dimensions where identified to define culture. It has been used
across several organisations, and is a reliable validated tool.
Another tool would be the Organisational Culture Survey (Glaser et al., 1987), which has six empirical
factors, and includes qualitative aspects as well as quantitative.
In each variable we are investigating using our model, we can find a similar situation, with many generic
instruments, as well as contextualised ones, for specific purposes. One of the most frequently used and
studied one is the Competing Values Framework.
3.3.1 Competing Values Framework
The competing Values Framework is well known as one of the fifty most important models in the
history of business. It emerged in the 1980, as a tool used for measuring effectiveness in organisations.
It consists of a matrix with several dimensions, and has been extended considerably in the last 20 years.
(Cameron and Quinn, 2011). The first dimension in the matrix is related to organisational focus, from
internal to eternal, and the second dimension is related to organisational flexibility to stability.
The four quadrants created correspond to Collaborate, Create, Compete and Control. It is usually
performed with a focus on “now” and “future, giving the tool a temporal dynamic, allowing one to
investigate the gaps between where the organisation is, and where it perceived it should be.
The tool has been validated and developed in large amount of studies, and debates are
still ongoing on how to measure organisational culture. As stated before, Schein
believes it should not be done using quantitative methods.
One of the strengths of the model is that the resulting diagram shows us the
dimensional strength of all variables at the same time. Culture is never one or the
other, which is why the values are competing along the axis.
3.4
SUMMARY
It is my opinion that the difficulty of cultural change is oftentimes underestimated in the
implementation of Learning Organisations. If it is imperative, as Schein recommends, that culture is
investigated by a minimum of focus groups, as surveys, interviews and other methods would be useful
but ultimately insufficient, then it stands to reason that influencing culture can only be accomplished
by similar means, in a similar context (Schein, 2010). Using focus groups, or dialogue, and similar,
highly social and collaborative initiatives, empowers a change in the participant’s values, behaviours and
norms, and eventually enable a change in the basic assumptions (Schein, 1993). Any transformations at
this level will then manifest into values, and ultimately artefacts and creations.
In comparison to national culture, organisational culture is anchored in artefacts and to some extent
values, rather than basic assumptions. This would have the effect that when trying to shift
organisational culture, one primarily focuses on behaviour (Van den Berg and Wilderom, 2004).
I strongly believe that starting at the level of artefacts, or targeting them and to some extent, their
underlying values will have little to no impact. Affecting organisational culture by trying to influence
artefacts could be feasible. However when an organisational cultural trait is aligned with the overall
national or social culture, it would mean that the trait is anchored all the way down to basic
assumptions. Such a trait is almost impossible to shift, and this needs to be taken into account in any
change management. Any implementations that introduces dissonance at the levels of values will meet
much stronger cultural resistance.
Furthermore, there is an overemphasis on leadership in organisational culture. I believe that in
organisational culture, even though that culture is significantly affected by leadership, and national
culture, it is more accurately and prominently created and defined by social validation at the individual
and group levels, rather than from the top (Garvin et al., 2008). However, in a study of the Learning
Organisation, four first order variables were identified, Leadership, Learning, Strategy and Change,
where Leadership was identified as the most important element. Although it is the most important, it
remains immensely dependent on other factors.
4 LEARNING ORGANISATIONS AND ORGANISATIONAL
LEARNING
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The learning organisation is a concept that originated in the sixties, but didn’t gain wider recognition
and implementation until the mid-nineties, with several prominent works published in the field. In
essence this means that the combined research, experience and conclusions made in the field at that
point was formed in the two decades before that, the seventies and eighties.
I would contend that any research into something as temporal as learning behaviours in organisations,
teams and individuals, made 20 years ago would be largely obsolete by now, at least in the field of
organisational learning.
Admittedly, on an individual level, many findings and theories would still be valid as well as some of
the tools. Teams would also to some extent be similar to what they were then. Organisations and many
societies have changed utterly, except from a cultural perspective, where I believe any findings would
still be well-founded, but at a minimum, in need of validation.
So what is the definition of a learning organisation? Two quotes from the early literature:
“Organisations 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 how to learn together” (Senge, 1990, p. 3)
“The Learning Company is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought
about simply by training individuals; it can only happen as a result of learning
at the whole organisation level…. A Learning Company is an organisation that
facilitates the learning of all its members and consciously transforms itself and
its context.” (Pedler et al., 1996, p. 3)
With few exceptions, all the literature since the millennium has been meta-research, in the sense that
they examine, critique, or attempts to refine the original theories. (Andersson and Wen, 2011; Bokeno,
2009; Brown, 1996, 1996; Caldwell, 2012; Crossan et al., 1999; Driver, 2002; Easterby-Smith et al.,
2000; Grieves, 2008; Kerka, 1995; Lu, 2004; Marshall et al., 2009; Milway and Saxton, 2011; Owenby,
2002; Tosey et al., 2012; Zietsma et al., 2002). Some literature has shifted focus from the vision of what
a learning organisation should look like, to implementation models of those same theories, in addition
to how to measure and analyse them. (Bokeno, 2009; Brown, 1996; Caldwell, 2012; Cameron and
Quinn, 2011; de Villiers, 2008; Helfrich et al., 2007; Marsick, 2013; Marsick and Watkins, 2001;
Phillips, 2003; Senge et al., 1999; Song et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2004)
With such proliferation, there is today an array of diverse theories and methods, with few efforts at
converging them or empirical testing and validation. Most remain visions and few implementations
have succeeded. It is my belief that to a large extent, success cases are organisations which have already
achieved a high level of organisational learning, or are in the middle of implementing a learning
organisation, and proponents of the field have attempted, sometimes successfully, to analyse and
contextualise how and why, rather than advance and refine the theories themselves, or come up with
new ones.
“Despite the explosive growth in publications on organisational learning and
learning organisations (Crossan and Guatto, 1996), this literature has yet to add
up to a coherent body of knowledge (Crossan et al., 1997); (Gherardi, 1999);
(Miller, 1996). Huber’s (1991) earlier critique of the organisational learning
literature was echoed by Prange’s (1998) more recent observations that the
concept is used in a metaphorical and/or analogous sense, that it lacks
theoretical integration, that research is being done in a noncumulative way, and
that the literature does not provide “useful” knowledge for practitioners.
Considering the diversity of disciplines and perspectives from which
organisational learning is being studied (Easterby-Smith, 1997), the
construction of an overarching theory probably is impossible.” (Lipshitz et al.,
2002)
This quote was written over ten years ago, and unfortunately the situation seems to persist. In a paper,
Easterby-Smith et al. (1997) argued that a single framework for organisational learning should not be
attempted. They examined the existing literature from six academic research perspectives, which came
to illustrate how disparate the resulting descriptions and theories can become. They were, psychology &
OD, management science, strategy, production management, sociology, and cultural anthropology.
They identified “a distinctive set of contributions and problems in each case, to the extent that there is
often minimal overlap between perspectives” (Easterby-Smith, 1997, p. 1086)
In the structure of the Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, (Dierkes et al., 2001) there are
separate chapters for psychology, management science, economics, anthropology, political science and
history, extending the list from the paper mentioned above.
“These observers point to three main features of the field: (a) the lack of a clear,
agreed-on definition, (b) a persistent problem of conceptual divergence, and (c)
and difficulty in translating the concept into a researchable construct. In other
words, the more organizational learning is studied, the more obscure it seems to
become.”
(Friedman et al., 2005)
However many theories we look at, this seems to be the case.
4.2 THEORIES IN ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING AND LEARNING ORGANISATIONS
Organisational learning concerns the study of how learning occurs in an organisation, whereas a
learning organisation consist of a vision of an idealised situation, and the study of such an entity. But
even there opinions and debate exists.
In creating an empirical model of the learning organisation (Johnson et al., 2011) derived a taxonomy
that clearly defines the field, divided into the different schools of “Learning Organisations” and
“Organisational Learning”. It gives a useful representation of many publications, and how they are
proponents of different viewpoints.
4.2.1
Learning Organisations typology
Cynical:
believes that a learning organisation is not possible
Threshold:
believes that there is a distinct difference between non-learning and learning
organisations
Universal:
believes that all organisations can be learning organisations
Collectivist:
believes that a learning organisation provides appropriate training and development to
its staff.
Cynical
Threshold
(Tosey, 2005; Tosey et al., 2012)
(DiBella, 1995); (Gardiner and Whiting, 1997);
(Cavaleri, 2008)(Grieves, 2008)
(Argyris, 1999)Beck 1989;
(Garvin, 2000); (Mahoney, 2000)
(West and Burnes, 2000); (Jones, 2001); (Goh,
2001); (Lennon and Wollin, 2001)
Universal
Collectivist
This is the default position (Burgoyne et al.,
(Keep, 2000); (Keep and Rainbird, 2001)
1994; Garvin, 2000; Pedler et al., 1996; Senge,
1990)
Taxonomy of Learning Organisations Manifestations Table 1. Adapted from (Johnson et al., 2011)
4.2.2 Organisational Learning typology
Cynical:
doubts that organisational learning is possible
Threshold:
considers when/if organisational learning has occurred
Universal:
believes that all organisations learn
Ideal:
believes that both organisational learning and learning organisations are useful ideals
that can be benchmarked against.
Cynical
Threshold
(Weick & Quinn, 1999; )(Argyris and Schön,
(Levitt and March, 1988);
1996);
(Cook and Yanow, 1993);
(Baumard and Starbuck, 2006)
(Dodgson, 1993);
(Lähteenmäki et al., 2001)
Questioning: (Popper and Lipshitz, 1998)
Universal
Ideal
(Klimecki and Lassleben, 1998); (Levitt and
(Easterby-Smith et al., 1998; Senge, 1990);
March, 1988); (Lähteenmäki et al., 2001);
(Williams, 2001)
Taxonomy of Organisational Learning Manifestations Table 2. Adapted from (Johnson et al., 2011)
Obviously several of these works are interrelated, and sometimes span more than one type. Again we
note that most of the identified literature is between 1990 and 2001, except for some in the cynical
quadrant.
4.3 THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE
One of the most famous works on the learning organisation is Peter Senge’s Fifth Discipline. It was
published in 1990 and has been followed up continuously with works by Senge, and other authors. It
has become one of the strongest Ideal visions of a learning organisation, and re-examined and critiqued
continuously since then.
In it, Senge describes the learning organisation as being constituted of five separate disciplines, without
which the organisational learning will be limited. Each discipline are also subdivided into three distinct
layers that consist of: Practices - what you do; Principles – guiding ideas and insight; Essences – the state
of being of those with high level of mastery in the discipline. (Senge, 1990) The disciplines are; Personal
Mastery, Mental Models, Building Shared Vision, Team Learning and Systems Thinking.
The fifth discipline (Systems thinking) help us to better understand the intricate connections between
all forces and activities in a macro-level system, and what consequences arise out of every action. It has
grown from a larger field of research which looks at the behaviour of feedback systems, loops and their
complexity in connection to each other part of the system. (Brown, 1996; Lu, 2004; Senge, 1994, 1990)
4.3.1 Conclusions and a critique of the Fifth Discipline
It seems to me that Peter Senge’s vision for a learning organisation is mostly about culture and
behaviour. It is about affecting change in each individual and facilitating that change by engaging the
organisation in a shift of focus, a metanoia of individuals as well as of the organisation. It is an engaging
vision of how a learning organisation might come to be. Senge himself states that his disciplines are the
conditions and methods by which a learning organisation might be fulfilled, and not what the actual
learning organisation is. (Senge, 1990, p. 363) From that perspective “The Fifth Discipline” is
decontextualized, as you might very well have almost any Learning Organisation model implemented
while still be devoted to the five disciplines.
The Fifth Discipline mainly focuses on individual and collective learning, and how to maximise them,
but there is very little alignment and correlation between the disciplines and organisational strategy or
purpose. Practical considerations of how to implement the disciplines, or how to tie them into the
framework of the existing organisation are lacking.
However, the level of personal and personnel development is hard to accomplish and support under
any circumstance. In parts of the book, Senge describes his vision in almost utopian imaginings.
"They [the disciplines] provide a framework for focusing the effort to develop
the capacity to lead. Systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models,
building shared vision, and team learning—these might just as well be called the
leadership disciplines as the learning disciplines. Those who excel in these areas
will be the natural leaders of learning organisations." (Senge, 1990, p. 334)
"Learning organisations can be built only by individuals who put their life spirit
into the task. It is our choices that focus that spirit." (Senge, 1990, p. 335)
With the turnover we have in modern western societies, it seems unlikely to achieve the levels of selffulfilment and master, which Senge himself states is essential for the Fifth Discipline.
The American Bureau of Labour has two National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth, NLSY79 and
NLSY97. In the latest update they share findings on how often we change jobs.
Among jobs started by 40 to 46 year olds, 33 percent ended in less than a year,
and 69 percent ended in less than 5 years. … On average, men held 11.5 jobs,
and women held 11.1 jobs from age 18 to age 46…. (BLS, 2012)
Individuals born from 1980 to 1984 held an average of 6.2 jobs from ages 18 to
26….(BLS, 2014)
If we assume that achieving satisfactory Fifth Discipline competence would take three years, with an
annual turnover of 30% among persons 40-46 years of age, how would we fulfil Senge’s Vision in any
organisation, without incurring extreme costs? I believe it remains a seminal vision, and the Disciplines
are very useful on an individual basis, or as a specific leadership skill, but not for implementation across
an organisation.
4.4 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The recent research in the field of learning organisations seems to have two directions, and both involve
contextualising.
One involves research into learning organisations in non-western societies, and looks at whether they
should be implemented, and if so, how they should be modified to fit a different cultural context. I
have found a significant amount of research made in the last 4-5 years in Arabic countries as well as
China and South-East Asia. Some examples are (Abu-Tineh, 2011; Al-jawazneh and Al -Awawdeh,
2011; Al-Qutop et al., 2011; Khasawneh, 2011)
The other direction is looking into contextualising the learning organisation in a different direction.
They attempt to specify subsets and variants for existing theories and advocating how they should be
modified to suit a specific context, whether they be non-profits, public sector, small/medium
businesses, health care sector, higher education, etc.
A Handbook of Research on the Learning Organisation (Örtenblad, 2013) is a collection of essays, and
proposes a typology of the Learning Organisation, The book looks at the history of the field, presents
some current research using the presented typology, and defines a useful framework for further
research. The typology has four types, which between them represents all the possible areas of
Organisational Learning; Learning at work, Organisational learning, Climate for learning, and Learning
Structure.
These four inclusive typologies are interrelated, and when considering certain aspects of organisational
learning, they can be overlapping.
The only organisation that does not have organisational learning would be one that does not have a
single learning feature from any of the four typologies. I propose that organisational learning will
happen regardless of if it is intentional or not, and aligned with the organisational needs and vision or
not. Whether the organisation is a fully functional, or non-learning organisation, basic assumptions,
values, norms and artefacts, will take shape, and readjust themselves to the circumstances.
In the same spirit, there is always an L&D structure, whether implicit or explicit, working as a positive
or negative force, and is proactive or reactive. These two mechanisms will advance by their own
momentum, irrespective if the organisation is handling them or remain in ignorance. It is seen as a
common occurrence that organisational change fails because it relies too heavily on action, activities
and project structures (Prochaska et al., 2001). Therefore we need to ensure that the organisation is well
prepared and aligned for learning and change. They also explore a contingency model, but leaves it for
further development.
In a recent review of the publications made regarding contextualising learning organisations, Örtenblad
(2013) identified a total of 332 works between 1988 and 2012. It shows that there are still significant
work done in the field.
Number of works
30
25
23 23
23
25
24 24
22
21
19
20
17
17
16
17
14
15
11
11
9
10
5
5
1
6
2 2
0 0 0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0
4.5 MEASURING ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING
Pedler composed a diagnostic tool, called The Learning Company Questionnaire. (Pedler et al., 1996).
It consist of 11 characteristics, each described by five statements, and graded on a 1-10 scale. This is
done both on “current state” and desired “future state” (Kotter, 1996). In paper, the tool was validated
as being uni-dimensional, and “The results indicate that the instrument can adequately distinguish
between respondents from different economic sectors and organisations as well as differentiate
respondents in terms of some other variables.” (de Villiers, 2008, p. 2). It does have predictive ability as
regards to differences in organisations, economic sectors, respondents with different understanding of
the subject, but still need validation regarding whether it actually predicts the contents, i.e. does it
properly measure a learning organisation? This survey is simple to complete, but lacks full validation.
Mayo and Lank (1994) created one which is comprehensive, with 187 questions and 9 dimensions.
“The emphasis is on diagnosing the actions which should be taken to achieve maximum impact on the
development process of a learning organisation. The emphasis is also on organisational factors, as well
as on individual and team-based learning and managing and leading.” (Moilanen, 2001, p. 6).
Obviously, a huge drawback would be the size of the survey, which would be unfeasible in most
organisations, especially as it is intended for the whole workforce.
Tannenbaum (1997) created a tool using scientific methods and research, mainly investigating the
Climate for Learning and the Learning Structure.
Pearn et al (1995) developed a comprehensive tool, “The Learning Audit”, whose emphasis is on
Learning Climate but to some extent lacks consideration for the other types, and especially on the
Learning Organisation on a macro level. No validation of the tool could be found.
There are numerous other tools that we have not reviewed for the purpose of this paper. Additionally, it
has become clear that most of the works use their own constructed survey methods, without specifying
exactly what it looked like, or in other cases, not specifying which tool it used. (Milway and Saxton,
2011)
4.5.1 Dimensions of Learning Organisation Query (DLOQ)
The DLOQ (Marsick, 2013; Watkins and O’Neil, 2013; Yang et al., 2004) was created in the 1990’s,
and has since then become one of the most used and researched diagnostic tools for learning
organisations. It has been translated into numerous languages, and spawned many variants; one 21-item
short form, one 7-item single-construct measure, and one 16-item 2-dimensional OLCS, as well as
versions for government organisations, public health, churches, educational institutes, and others.
(Marsick, 2013). It is a good example of tool with a more operational characteristic regarding how it
measures a learning organisation.
It measures seven dimensions, using 6-point Likert scale. They are:

Continuous learning

Inquiry and dialogue

Team learning

Embedded systems

Empowerment

System connection

Provide leadership
Multiple validations in various contexts has been performed, and the instrument has been refined in its
usage across many areas, of which some are; Organisational performance, Organisational impact,
Innovation, Employee impact, and Career development. (Watkins and O’Neil, 2013; Yang et al., 2004).
Similarly, the DLOQ has been studies of the validation in numerous cultural context. United States,
Colombia, China, and Taiwan (Ellinger et al., 2002; Lien et al., 2006; Ugurluoglu et al., 2013; Yang et
al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2004)
It has in my view two disadvantages. One is the size and complexity of the instrument itself, as it consist
of 43 questions, which can be vulnerable to perception bias. Secondly, it has a focus which reveals more
about the organisation itself, rather than organisational learning.
4.6 CONCLUSION
The only organisation that does not have organisational learning would be one that does not have a
single learning feature from any of Örtenblads typologies. I propose that organisational learning will
happen regardless of if it is intentional or not, and aligned with the organisational needs and vision or
not. Whether the organisation is a fully functional, or non-learning organisation, basic assumptions,
values, norms and artefacts, will take shape, and readjust themselves to the circumstances.
In the same spirit, there is always an L&D structure, whether implicit or explicit, working as a positive
or negative force, and is proactive or reactive. These two mechanisms will advance by their own
momentum, irrespective if the organisation is handling them or remain in ignorance. It is seen as a
common occurrence that organisational change fails because it relies too heavily on action, activities
and project structures. (Prochaska et al., 2001). Therefore we need to ensure that the organisation is
well prepared and aligned for learning and change.
5 ORGANISATIONAL SETTING
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The organisational setting is the third variable factor that we will deal with. I have named it
organisational setting, as it can encapsulate any aspect within any context. As stated before, it can be
almost any variable that is important enough, integral enough, and in such a position that it should not
be modified lightly.
This setting consists of any further predominant feature of the organisation, that is important enough,
integral enough, and in such a position that it should or could not be revised lightly.
5.2 VARIABLE
The important factor here is that the setting has to be constituted of dominant trait(s), which
significantly adds to the contextual analysis. The variable has to be directly relevant for our
understanding of which organisational learning aspects would be the best fit in the specific
situation. Some examples of an organisational setting would be a multi-national corporation, a
public sector organisation, a health services organisation, or a retail corporation. The
Organisational Setting could consist of the maturity level of the company, or the structure. The
famous organisational configurations created by Mintzberg (2003) could constitute a valuable
Organisational Setting. For instance, in certain organisational structures, like a machine
organisation, there would be significant resistance to the flat, open, flexible and transparent
learning organisation feature that some advocate. In other cases the organisational structure
would already be optimal for the same feature, and require little change and virtually no
resistance.
Life cycles are another possibility. There are several lifecycle models, and in a comparative
paper (Withane, 1991) investigates how the strategy in public sector organisations can be
shaped and influenced by the four stages, infant, adolescent, adult, and old/revival stage. The
framework proposes in a clear manner how the strategy should shift, and be dynamic, based on
the lifecycle.
It could be a combination of these, but it remains crucial that the setting considered is
paramount in its influence on the organisation, and its learning.
6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND DIALOGUE
The learning organisation theories and models were instituted and gained significant recognition in the
1990s. Since then, the field has developed and matured somewhat, but we are still debating the pros
and cons of models that quintessentially were created about 25 years ago. The more I have delved into
the subject, the more variations, mystifications and debate I have found, as the field has gained
complexity and heterogeneity. Most of the different models are fundamentally different. In one book
(Argyris, 1992) the chapters are divided by separate academic disciplines: organisational strategy,
production, economic development, systems dynamics, human resources, organisational culture, and
socio-technical systems. With such diversity, how can we ever hope to develop an informed and
consolidated view of what constitutes the learning organisation? With debates on learning organisations
versus organisational learning, differential arguments on what is “a” learning organisation vs “the”
learning organisation, metaphors comparing a learning organisation to humans, to machines and to
networks, most are struggling to make sense of the whole, and are busy studying the pieces.
The visionary origins of the past, has gone through a circle of trying to confirm, validate, justify, explain,
simplify and implement the concept into practical terms and circumstances. Oftentimes the
manifestations and implementations have failed, or the outcome has been significantly different from
the intended goal. Not necessarily worse, but different from the expected outcome.
The developments the last ten years seem to be contextualising the Learning Organisation, whether we
include culture (organisational or national), sector (non-profit, public sector, health services, law
enforcement, military, or organisational types (Small-Medium Businesses, International Corporations,
Networks). And that could mean even more diversity, as each context spawns its own models and
theories, multiple measuring tools or subset of tools for each and every context. Something good has
come out of the last decades though. We no longer try to implement the idea of a learning organisation
without taking the context into consideration, whichever theory or method we are adhering to.
“What we need is clarity, not consensus” (Örtenblad, 2002, p. 214)
In some cases, specific parts of some of the Learning Organisation models can be quite detrimental to
the organisation if implemented at all. Experimentation does not suit everywhere, nor does continuous
introspection and evaluation of all individuals in the organisation. The flat adhocracy would be harmful
in some organisations. And the list goes on.
Corporate culture and corporate learning culture are very similar in its situation, with an abundance of
variations and differing definitions and studies.
So we are full circle, in one direction we are learning how to contextualise and customise the concept
even more. In the other, researchers are trying to enable measurement and implementations that are
more generic, as to suit any context. And in trying to achieve both lies the challenge.
6.1 MEASURING COMPLEXITY
There are some instruments that measure factors that overlap our own variables. A very good example
of this would be the assessment tool from (Garvin et al., 2008), which has three building blocks of the
learning organisation; a Supportive Learning Environment, Concrete Learning Processes and Practices,
and Leadership that Reinforces Learning. When looking at the queries, and the benchmark scores we
can easily identify that some relate to Culture, some to Learning and some to the Setting. In another
tool by Bersin (2008), they identified 18 high-impact learning dimensions. When we look at them, again
we can identify several that are in the areas of Culture, Learning or Setting.
These are purposeful tools, but in my opinion, they are overly focused. Their strength and weakness are
that they measure aspects that are directly related and correlated to the performance and agility of
organisational learning, and to some extent trying to establish a Learning Organisation. It is my belief,
confirmed by my interviews, that we need to measure a larger target area than specifically and exactly
what is related to Organisational Learning. We measure all learning we can identify in the organisation,
we measure all of the culture, not just culture relating to learning. We examine the setting, as to better
understand the context in which the culture, learning and external culture exerts their forces.
In addition to this, we can investigate the overlapping areas of Organisational Culture, Learning and
the Setting. As an example, in the chapter on public service culture, Edwards (Rose and Lawton, 1999)
investigates the organisational cultures in the context of the public sector. In another empirical study,
Fard, et al. (2009) investigates how organisational cultures contribute in shaping learning organisations
in the public sector. In it he combined Senge’s Fifth Disciplines with a cultural matrix specifying a
Bureaucratic, Participative, Learning and Competitive Culture. They are a fair match to the
Competitive Values model mentioned above. He found that most public sector organisations were of
the bureaucratic type, but significantly, that there is a very strong relationship between organisational
culture and the shaping of a learning organisation in the public sector.
Finger and Brand (1999) investigated “the concept of the learning organisation applied to the
transformation of the public sector”. In it they found that a pragmatic approach was best suited to the
public sector, but that attention must be given to multiple strategic objectives and considerations.
Ford et al (2009) looks at how different organisational cultures directly contributes to shaping learning
organisations. In a business environment we can do the same, and examine how culture affects learning,
or our setting affects our culture, and so on.
6.2 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
In our semi-structured interviews, we have tried to assess and validate the model, and its practicality in a
business context. The model can be used both for academic research, and business research and
application. Our findings from our interviews and academic review, is that the model is solid, however
the findings are not solid, so we need to perform further research. The External Culture variable could
be extended to include Climate, or even any external factors. However the usefulness of this change
would have to be further examined. The allegory of the Learning Domain is useful to explain the
holistic approach and our intent to reflect the organic and highly contextual nature of Organisational
Learning. There is still some work to be done to properly explain the variables, and how they are
applied in each contingency, as well as further research on why we need to scope the variables to a larger
extent than what is directly applicable and has an impact on organisational learning. All models I have
been able to find are basically creating strongly related KPI’s to organisational learning, and then
implement measuring tools to track them. I believe that it to some extent misses the point.
Organisational learning is a hugely complex multi-dimensional system, and I am convinced that
expanding the measurement to include factors that are not directly correlated to a concept has great
merit. An intimate and well-founded understanding of the company culture, its setting, and what
learning exists will enable management to fully understand both the current state as well as the desirable
and possible future state of the organisations learning.
It remains to further investigate how the model would work in different circumstances, both academic
and business
6.3 THE LEARNING DOMAIN
Imagine a domain, a nature reserve of an unspecified size. It could be a meticulously cared and catered
for garden, where every plant, every tree, every animal and lawn, every square inch is documented,
planned, supervised and ordered, in rows and areas. Herb garden over there, and a rose garden over
there. Where perennials are cared for in one area and seasonal plants are grown in another. A vegetable
patch, maybe for educational purposes or for self-sufficiency.
Or it could be a forested country estate, with brooks and a dammed lake, glades, hills and meadows,
with plenty of flowers, and stately trees grown for centuries. Foxes and wild birds, boars and deer.
Hidden pathways and fallen trees, overgrown with climbing vines and moss.
Let your imagination run wild with the idea that we have one domain, with specific boundaries, a
purpose and a vision. Take a moment, and then ask yourself these questions. Who are the people
involved in the keeping of this domain? The owner, the gamekeeper, the farmer, the forest warden, the
grounds keeper, the gardener, the stable master, etc. They are all responsible for their part.
There are more and different roles you can imagine, overlapping ones and separate ones. And there are
things you can and need to do to have a well-kept domain. Measuring the soil for ph-levels and
humidity, adding fertiliser or not. Adding bee-hives, not because you want bees, but because they
pollinate the flowers you keep. You could harvest herbs or flowers, for various purposes. To make food
or oils, to make perfumes, to sell as decoration, for medicinal purposes. Each purpose demands specific
choices in your policies, processes and procedures. Who does what, how often, and when do we start.
Some of the learning organisation seems to advocate that we all develop the skills and knowledge to do
most jobs in an organisation. That all of us develop insights and the capability to develop ourselves,
design and innovate improvements, and test them. Senge speaks of the discipline Personal Mastery, but
even within each discipline he speaks of reaching the level of “essences”. A point where all details and
specificity melts into a coherent whole.
Mastery is not achieved when you have learned everything you need to know and understand, mastery is
achieved when you have consciously forgotten those same skills and knowledge, and act from a place of
being in the now. That is a life-long pursuit and practice that we cannot and should not quantify nor
embrace in any structural model or expectation of organisational learning.
The biologist does take the zoologist into account when changing or improving something within their
sphere of influence and responsibility, and vice versa. But they are not interchangeable, and not all
areas within a domain are of equal importance. When introducing changes in the domain, there are
factors outside of your control, or factors that are too expensive to change. Consider acid rain,
permanent changes in humidity or heat, longer summers, changes in soil quality, change in the wildlife,
PH values in the manmade lake or the streams. When you redesign your domain, you don’t move the
largest trees, an undertaking possible but immensely costly. You can’t affect the acid rain itself, unless
you successfully influence your own and surrounding countries to change its laws. You wouldn’t plant
seeds in the middle of winter, but would wait until spring.
You figure out and implement the best possible solutions that suit your organisation. If you introduce a
new feature in your domain, you need new employees from that field, whether they are agriculturists or
horticulturists. Sometimes the changes we want or need to implement are monumental, sometimes they
are incremental, but they are made within the context and the current state taken into careful
consideration.
So consider the context, carefully. Examine your purpose, and your internal and external stakeholders.
Examine your organisational shape and structure and maturity. Examine the organisational culture and
its factors. Examine your sector and its factors. Examine your external as well as internal environment
using different perspectives. Consider which phase your company is in. If you ask the farmer or the
environmentalist to report on your vegetable garden, you will get completely different reports. Consider
those reports carefully.
Where and how, should and could they fit in your Domain? If the need is there for a specific feature,
and it doesn’t fit the current state of the context? Is it feasible to change the current state, or should you
abandon that feature, and move on to the next consideration? Examine each part framed against your
current state.
This would mean that you are focused on enabling organisational learning uniquely fit for purpose for
your organisation. You are not trying to build a pre-defined learning organisation, based on an ideal of
one of the many models that proliferate the marketplace, nor are you measuring your learning based on
a specific model, all specifically related to organisational learning.
7 REFERENCES
Abu-Tineh, A.M., 2011. Exploring the relationship between organizational learning and career
resilience among faculty members at Qatar University. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 25, 635–650.
doi:10.1108/09513541111159095
Al-jawazneh Bahjat Eid, Al -Awawdeh, W.M., 2011. Measuring the Degree of the Presence of Learning
Organization Dimensions at the Branches of Commercial Banks in the Governorate of
Almafraq - Jordan. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 6. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n11p27
Al-Qutop, M.-A.Y., Futa, S.M., Ma’ani, A.I., 2011. The Relationship between Learning Facilitators and
Transforming into a Learning Organization: An Empirical Study of the Insurance Sector in
Jordan. Int. Bus. Res. 4. doi:10.5539/ibr.v4n3p211
Andersson, L., Wen, P., 2011. Barriers to organizational learning: a case study of a change project.
Argyris, C., 1999. Flawed Advice and the Management Trap: How Managers Can Know When They’re
Getting Good Advice and When They’re Not. Oxford University Press.
Argyris, C., 1992. On organizational learning, 2nd ed. ed. Blackwell Business, Oxford ; Malden, Mass.
Argyris, C., Schön, D.A., 1996. Organizational learning II: theory, method, and practice. AddisonWesley.
Baumard, P., Starbuck, W.H., 2006. Is Organisational Learning a Myth? AIM Research.
Bersin, J., 2008. Today’s High-Impact Learning Organization. Chief Learn. Off. 7, 54–57.
BLS, 2014. The NLSY97. Bureau of Labor Statistics, USA.
BLS, 2012. The NLSY79. Bureau of Labor Statistics, USA.
Bogolyubov, P., Easterby-Smith, M., 2013. National Culture and the learning organization: an
integrative framework, in: Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation
and Context.
Bokeno, R.M., 2009. Marcuse on Senge: personal mastery, the child’s mind, and individual
transformation. J. Organ. Change Manag. 22, 307–320. doi:10.1108/09534810910951087
Bratton, J., Gold, J., 2012. Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice, Fifth Edition, New
Edition, 5th Edition. ed. Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, D., 1996. The “essences” of the fifth discipline: Or where does senge stand to view the world?
Syst. Res. 13, 91–107. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199606)13:2<91::AID-SRES72>3.0.CO;2N
Burgoyne, J., Pedler, M., Boydell, T., 1994. Towards the learning company: concepts and practices.
McGraw-Hill, London.
Caldwell, R., 2012. Systems Thinking, Organizational Change and Agency: A Practice Theory Critique
of Senge’s Learning Organization. J. Change Manag. 12, 145–164.
doi:10.1080/14697017.2011.647923
Cameron, K., 2008. A process for changing organization culture. Handb. Organ. Dev. 14, 2–18.
Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E., 2011. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the
Competing Values Framework. Wiley.
Cavaleri, S.A., 2008. Are learning organizations pragmatic? Learn. Organ. 15, 474–485.
doi:10.1108/09696470810907383
Cook, S.D.N., Yanow, D., 1993. Culture and Organizational Learning. J. Manag. Inq. 2, 373–390.
doi:10.1177/105649269324010
Crossan, M., Guatto, T., 1996. Organizational learning research profile. J. Organ. Change Manag. 9,
107–112.
Crossan, M., Lane, H., White, R.E., 1997. Organizational learning: Toward a theory, in: Working Paper
No. 98-05. Presented at the The Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western
Ontario, London, Canada.
Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W., White, R.E., 1999. An Organizational Learning Framework: From
Intuition to Institution. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24, 522–537. doi:10.2307/259140
De Villiers, W.A., 2008. The Learning Organisation: Validating A Measuring Instrument. J. Appl. Bus.
Res. 24, 11–22.
DiBella, A.J., 1995. Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of Perspective, in: Academy of
Management Best Papers Proceedings. Presented at the Academy of Management Best Papers
Proceedings, Academy of Management, pp. 287–290. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1995.17536560
Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J., Nonaka, I. (Eds.), 2001. Handbook of Organizational Learning and
Knowledge. Also available as: Paperback.
Dodgson, M., 1993. Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures. Organ. Stud. Walter
Gruyter GmbH Co KG 14, 375–394.
Driver, M., 2002. The learning organization: Foucauldian gloom or Utopian sunshine? Hum. Relat. 55,
33–53.
Easterby-Smith, M., 1997. Disciplines of Organizational Learning: Contributions and Critiques. Hum.
Relat. 50, 1085–1113.
Easterby-Smith, M., Araujo, L., Burgoyne, J., 1998. Organizational Learning and the Learning
Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice, 1st ed. SAGE, London.
Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., Nicolini, D., 2000. Organizational Learning: Debates Past, Present
And Future. J. Manag. Stud. 37, 783–796. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00203
Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E., Yang, B., Howton, S.W., 2002. The relationship between the learning
organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment. Hum. Resour.
Dev. Q. 13, 5–22. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1010
Fard, H.D., Rostamy, A.A.A., Taghiloo, H., 2009. How Types of Organisational Cultures Contribute in
Shaping Learning Organisations. Singap. Manag. Rev. 31, 49–61.
Finger, M., Brand, S., 1999. The Concept of the Learning Organization Applied to the Transformation
of the Public Sector: Conceptual Contributions for Theory Development, in: Organizational
Learning and the Learning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice. SAGE
Publications Ltd. (UK), London.
Friedman, V.J., Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., 2005. The Mystification of Organizational Learning. J. Manag.
Inq. 14, 19–30. doi:10.1177/1056492604273758
Gardiner, P., Whiting, P., 1997. Success factors in learning organizations: an empirical study. Ind.
Commer. Train. 29, 41–48.
Garvin, D.A., 2000. Learning in action: a guide to putting the learning organization to work. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston.
Garvin, D.A., Edmondson, A.C., Gino, F., 2008. Is Yours a Learning Organization? Harv. Bus. Rev. 86,
109–116.
Gherardi, S., 1999. Learning as Problem-Driven or Learning in the Face of Mystery? Organ. Stud. 20,
101–123. doi:10.1177/0170840699201005
Glaser, S.R., Zamanou, S., Hacker, K., 1987. Measuring and Interpreting Organizational Culture.
Manag. Commun. Q. 1, 173–198. doi:10.1177/0893318987001002003
Goh, S.C., 2001. THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION: AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF A NORMATIVE
PERSPECTIVE. Int. J. Organ. Theory Behav. 4. Nos. 3&amp;4, 329–355. doi:10.1081/OTB100105408
Grieves, J., 2008. Why we should abandon the idea of the learning organization. Learn. Organ. 15,
463–473. doi:10.1108/09696470810907374
Helfrich, C.D., Li, Y.-F., Mohr, D.C., Meterko, M., Sales, A.E., 2007. Assessing an organizational
culture instrument based on the Competing Values Framework: Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses. Implement. Sci. 2, 13. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-2-13
Hofstede, G., 2014a. Dimensions - Geert Hofstede [WWW Document]. URL http://geerthofstede.com/dimensions.html (accessed 7.29.14).
Hofstede, G., 2014b. Organisational Culture - Geert Hofstede [WWW Document]. URL http://geerthofstede.com/organisational-culture.html (accessed 7.29.14).
Hofstede, G., de Mooij, M., 2011. Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior: A Review of Research Findings.
J. Int. Consum. Mark. 23, 181–192.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,
Third Edition. McGraw Hill Professional.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D., 1990. Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and
quantitative study across twenty cases. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 286–316. doi:10.2307/2393392
Huber, G.P., 1991. Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Organ.
Sci. 2, 88–115. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88
Johnson, C., Spicer, D., Wallace, J., 2011. An empirical model of the learning organisation.
Jones, M.L., 2001. Sustainable organizational capacity building: is organizational learning a key? Int. J.
Hum. Resour. Manag. 12, 91–98. doi:10.1080/713769590
Keep, E., 2000. Learning Organisations, Lifelong Learning and the Mystery of the Vanishing
Employers. Econ. Outlook 24, 18–26. doi:10.1111/1468-0319.00246
Keep, E., Rainbird, H., 2001. Towards the learning organization?, in: Supporting Lifelong Learning:
Volume II: Organising Learning. Routledge.
Kerka, S., 1995. The Learning Organization. Myths and Realities.
Khasawneh, S., 2011. Learning Organization Disciplines in Higher Education Institutions: An
Approach to Human Resource Development in Jordan. Innov. High. Educ. 36, 273–285.
doi:10.1007/s10755-010-9170-8
Klimecki, R., Lassleben, H., 1998. Modes of Organizational Learning Indications from an Empirical
Study. Manag. Learn. 29, 405–430. doi:10.1177/1350507698294002
Kolb, D.A., Osland, J.S., Rubin, I.M., Turner, M.E., 2006. Organizational Behavior: An Experiential
Approach, 8th ed. Prentice Hall.
Kotter, J.P., 1996. Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
Kroeber, A.L., Kluckhohn, C., 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Papers of
the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, Mass.
Lähteenmäki, S., Toivonen, J., Mattila, M., 2001. Critical Aspects of Organizational Learning Research
and Proposals for Its Measurement. Br. J. Manag. 12, 113.
Lennon, A., Wollin, A., 2001. Learning organisations: empirically investigating metaphors. J. Intellect.
Cap. 2, 410–422. doi:10.1108/14691930110409697
Levitt, B., March, J.G., 1988. Organizational learning. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 319–340.
Lien, B.Y.-H., Hung, R.Y.-Y., Yang, B., Li, M., 2006. Is the learning organization a valid concept in the
Taiwanese context? Int. J. Manpow. 27, 189–203. doi:10.1108/01437720610666209
Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., Friedman, V.J., 2002. A Multifacet Model of Organizational Learning. J. Appl.
Behav. Sci. 38, 78–98. doi:10.1177/0021886302381005
Lu, X.-A., 2004. Surveying the Concept of the Learning Organization-weleadinlearning.org. E-J. Organ.
Learn. Leadersh. 3.
Mahoney, R., 2000. Leadership and learning organisations. Learn. Organ. 7, 241–244.
doi:10.1108/09696470010378325
Marshall, J., Smith, S., Buxton, S., 2009. Learning organisations and organisational learning: What
have we learned? Part 1. Manag. Serv. 53, 36–44.
Marsick, V.J., 2013. The Dimensions of a Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) Introduction
to the Special Issue Examining DLOQ Use Over a Decade. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 15, 127–
132. doi:10.1177/1523422313475984
Marsick, V.J., Watkins, K.E., 2001. Informal and incidental learning. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ.
2001, 25–34.
Maturana, H.R., Varela, F.J., 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, 1st
edition. ed. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland ; Boston.
Miller, D., 1996. A Preliminary Typology of Organizational Learning: Synthesizing the Literature. J.
Manag. 22, 485.
Milway, K.S., Saxton, A., 2011. The Challenge of Organizational Learning. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 9,
44–49.
Mintzberg, H., 2003. The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases. Pearson Education.
Moilanen, R., 2001. Diagnostic tools for learning organizations. Learn. Organ. 8, 6–20.
doi:10.1108/09696470110366507
Morley, M., Moore, S., Heraty, N., Gunnigle, P., 1998. Principles of organisational behaviour: an Irish
text. Gill & Macmillan, Dublin.
Örtenblad, A., 2013. Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context,
1st ed. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham, UK ; Northamption, MA.
Örtenblad, A., 2002. A Typology of the Idea of Learning Organization. Manag. Learn. 33, 213–230.
doi:10.1177/1350507602332004
Owenby, P.H., 2002. Organizational learning communities and the dark side of the learning
organization. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 2002, 51–60.
Pearn, M., Roderick, C., Mulrooney, C., 1995. Learning Organizations in Practice. McGraw-Hill.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T., 1996. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable
Development, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Pheysey, D.C., 1993. Organizational Cultures: Types and Transformations. Routledge.
Phillips, B.T., 2003. A four-level learning organisation benchmark implementation model. Learn.
Organ. 10, 98–105.
Popper, M., Lipshitz, R., 1998. Organizational Learning Mechanisms A Structural and Cultural
Approach to Organizational Learning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 34, 161–179.
doi:10.1177/0021886398342003
Porter, M.E., 2008. The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 86, 78–93.
Prange, C., 1998. Organizational Learning - Desperately Seeking Theory?, in: Easterby-Smith, M.,
Burgoyne, J., Araujo, L. (Eds.), Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization:
Developments in Theory and Practice. SAGE, London, p. 23.
Prochaska, J.M., Prochaska, J.O., Levesque, D.A., 2001. A Transtheoretical Approach to Changing
Organizations. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 28, 247–261.
doi:10.1023/A:1011155212811
Rose, A., Lawton, A., 1999. Public Services Management, 1 edition. ed. Financial Times/ Prentice Hall,
Harlow, England ; New York.
Schein, E.H., 2012. Uncovering the Levels of Culture, in: Organizational Behavior: An Experiential
Approach. Pearson Education, Limited, London, p. 738.
Schein, E.H., 2010. Organizational culture and leadership, fourth edition, 4th ed. Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E.H., 1993. On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organ. Dyn. 22, 40–51.
doi:10.1016/0090-2616(93)90052-3
Schermerhorn, J.R., 2010. Organizational behavior, 11th ed. ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., Marshall, M., 2003. The Quantitative Measurement of
Organizational Culture in Health Care: A Review of the Available Instruments. Health Serv.
Res. 38, 923–945. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.00154
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., Smith, B., Guman, E.C., 1999. The dance of
change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. Perform. Improv.
38, 55–58. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140380511
Senge, P.M., 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Crown Publishing Group.
Senge, P.M., 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Crown
Publishing Group.
Song, J.H., Joo, B.-K., Chermack, T.J., 2009. The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire
(DLOQ): A Validation Study in a Korean Context. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 20, 43–64.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.20007
Tannenbaum, S.I., 1997. Enhancing continuous learning: Diagnostic findings from multiple
companies. Hum. Resour. Manage. 36, 437–452. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099050X(199724)36:4<437::AID-HRM7>3.0.CO;2-W
Tosey, P., 2005. The Hunting of the Learning Organization A Paradoxical Journey. Manag. Learn. 36,
335–352. doi:10.1177/1350507605055350
Tosey, P., Visser, M., Saunders, M.N., 2012. The origins and conceptualizations of “triple-loop”
learning: A critical review. Manag. Learn. 43, 291–307. doi:10.1177/1350507611426239
Tucker, R.W., McCoy, W.J., Evans, L.C., 1990. Can Questionnaires Objectively Assess Organisational
Culture? J. Manag. Psychol. 5, 4–11. doi:10.1108/02683949010000602
Ugurluoglu, O., Ugurluoglu Aldogan, E., Dilmac, E., 2013. The impact of managers’ perceptions of
learning organizations on innovation in healthcare: sample of Turkey. Int. J. Health Plann.
Manage. 28, e158–e168. doi:10.1002/hpm.2143
Van den Berg, P.T., Wilderom, C.P., 2004. Defining, measuring, and comparing organisational
cultures. Appl. Psychol. 53, 570–582.
Vecchio, R.P., 2006. Organizational behavior: core concepts. Thomson/South Western, Australia,
United Kingdom.
Watkins, K.E., O’Neil, J., 2013. The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (the
DLOQ) A Nontechnical Manual. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 15, 133–147.
doi:10.1177/1523422313475854
Weick, K.E., Quinn, R.E., 1999. Organizational Change and Development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50,
361–386. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361
West, P., Burnes, B., 2000. Applying organizational learning: lessons from the automotive industry. Int.
J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 20, 1236–1252. doi:10.1108/01443570010343762
Williams, A.P.O., 2001. A Belief-focused Process Model of Organizational Learning*. J. Manag. Stud.
38, 67–85. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00228
Withane, S., 1991. Life Cycle Stages and Process of Strategy Making in Public Sector Organizations: An
Exploratory Study. Can. J. Adm. Sci. Rev. Can. Sci. Adm. 8, 209–219. doi:10.1111/j.19364490.1991.tb00562.x
Yang, B., Watkins, K.E., Marsick, V.J., 2004. The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 15, 31–55.
Zhang, D., Zhang, Z., Yang, B., 2004. Learning Organization in Mainland China: Empirical Research
on its Application to Chinese State-owned Enterprises (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 614147).
Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.
Zietsma, C., Winn, M., Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., 2002. The War of the Woods: Facilitators and
Impediments of Organizational Learning Processes. Br. J. Manag. 13, S61.