Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Vivienne Collinson, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
736 Bedford
Grosse Pointe Park
Michigan, U.S.A. 48230-1803
[email protected]
Tanya Fedoruk Cook, M.A.
Bethesda, MD, U.S.A.
Sharon Conley, Ph.D.
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA, U.S.A.
Organizational Learning: Theory and Applications
For Schools and School Systems
Organizational learning has enjoyed a recent revival despite little consensus
about its meaning or nature. It has also been “conceived of as a principal means
of achieving the strategic renewal” of organizations, including schools (Crossan
et al., 1999, p. 522). This conceptual paper responds to two questions: What is
organizational learning? and How would we recognize it if we saw it? The
paper is informed by theoretical, conceptual, and empirical work from several
bodies of literature. The first part presents four major theories of organizational
learning, several merging perspectives, and democratic principles that support
organizational learning. The second part describes three interrelated indicators
of organizational learning: learning through inquiry, sharing, and organizational
conditions. Examples from empirical research illustrate and indicate how the
three constructs interact in schools and school systems. The paper closes with a
section on complexities and dilemmas involving organizational learning. The
paper indicates that visible behaviors or indicators in isolation can be misleading
and posits that the beliefs, attitudes, and values associated with the three
indicators both enhance organizational learning and also generate continual
organizational renewal.
1
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Organizational Learning: Theory and Applications
For Schools and School Systems
Vivienne Collinson, Tanya Fedoruk Cook, & Sharon Conley
The concept of organizational learning1 has enjoyed revived interest in both
academia and the business world. Although the term is more than 35 years old
(see Cangelosi & Dill, 1965; March & Simon, 1958), numerous different
definitions of organizational learning exist and “little convergence or consensus
on what is meant by the term, or its basic nature, has emerged” (Crossan, Lane,
& White, 1999, p. 522).2 Because researchers tend to focus on different aspects of
this complex phenomenon, results are generally neither comprehensive nor
cumulative (Huber, 1991).
Much of the empirical research on organizational learning has involved business
and industry, not schools and school systems. However, interest in examining
organizational learning in schools is increasing (Leithwood, Leonard, & Sharratt,
1998; Rait, 1995). Although schools have typically structured learning only as an
individual endeavor, envisioning schools as enterprises where organizational
learning takes place is not difficult. Schools “continue to face a steady stream of
novel problems and ambitious demands.…[that] most certainly will generate
considerable pressure to learn new and more effective ways of doing business”
(Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1995, pp. 3-4). The search to understand
learning processes in schools is particularly important given the growing
conviction that schools cannot simply adopt the actions of successful models but
must develop their own paths of learning and transformation within their
existing organizational cultures.
This jointly-authored paper on organizational learning grew out of our
individual research interests and our personal work experiences. Each of us has
worked in several types of organizations—private and/or public, profit and/or
non-profit, business and/or education. Some of these organizations promoted
learning and inspired our willing commitment and participation. Others had an
established status quo where individual and collective learning and working was
difficult at best. “What is organizational learning,” we wondered, “and how
would we recognize it if we saw it?” This paper explores those questions by
synthesizing theoretical, conceptual, and empirical work from several bodies of
literature. We begin the paper by briefly introducing four major theories of
organizational learning and illustrating them with applications within business
2
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
and general organizational settings. We also discuss several merging
perspectives and frequently cited ideas within organizational learning, followed
by democratic principles that support organizational learning (Gardner,
1963/1981). The second half of the paper describes three interrelated indicators
of organizational learning: learning through inquiry, sharing, and organizational
conditions. Examples from empirical research indicate how the constructs
interact in schools and school systems. The paper closes with a section on
complexities and dilemmas involving organizational learning.
Theories of Organizational Learning
A variety of theoretical perspectives have emerged since the 1960s (Shrivastava,
1983). In this section of the paper, several major concepts embodied in the work
of Argyris and Schon (1978), Daft and Weick (1984), Fiol and Lyles (1985), and
Levitt and March (1988)3 are compared (see Table 1) and briefly described.
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Argyris and Schon
Argyris and Schon have written about organizational learning individually and
in combination for more than 30 years. They tied the concept of organizational
learning to Dewey’s (1933/1960) conception of inquiry in which thought and
action are viewed as intertwined to move from a state of doubt or confusion to a
resolution of doubt. Two of Argyris and Schon’s most influential ideas are those
of theories-of-action/theories-in-use and single- and double-loop learning.
According to Argyris and Schon (1996), theories of action are the routines and
practices that embody knowledge. They are theories about the link between
actions and outcomes, and they include strategies for action, values that
determine the choice among strategies, and the assumptions upon which
strategies are based. The practices of every organization reflect the
organization’s answers to a set of questions; in other words, a set of theories of
action. For example, a university embodies in its practices particular answers to
questions of how to attract, retain, and educate students. The particular set of
both questions and answers (e.g., to retain students by offering financial aid) are
the university’s theories in action.
Theories of action, according to Argyris and Schon, take two distinct forms.
Espoused theories of action are those provided to explain or justify a pattern of
activity or a way of doing things. Theories-in-use are the theories of action that
are implicit in the way things are done. Organizational theories-in-use result
3
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
from sharing assumptions and cognitive maps among organizational members.
The authors define organizational learning as a process of individual and
collective inquiry which constructs and modifies organizational theories-in-use.
Learning involves changes in these theories either by refining them (single-loop
learning) or by questioning underlying assumptions, norms, or strategies so that
new theories-in-use emerge (double-loop learning). Single-loop learning occurs
within the prevailing organizational frames of reference. It is “concerned
primarily with effectiveness—that is, with how best to achieve existing goals and
objectives and how best to keep organizational performance within the range
specified by existing norms” (Argyris & Schon, 1978, p. 21). Double-loop
learning changes organizational frames of reference (Argyris & Schon, 1996). It
resolves “incompatible organizational norms by setting new priorities and weightings of
norms, or by restructuring the norms themselves together with associated strategies and
assumptions” (Argyris & Schon, 1978, p. 24, emphasis in original). “Single-loop
learning is usually related to the routine, immediate task. Double-loop learning
is related to the nonroutine, the long-range outcome” (Argyris, 1983, p. 116). The
difference is like the difference between becoming increasingly proficient in
using a particular software program (single-loop learning) or choosing between
software programs (double-loop learning).
Daft and Weick
The second set of theorists are Daft and Weick whose 1984 article on
organizations as interpretation systems is one of the most widely cited sources
on organizational learning (Crossan & Guatto, 1996). Their view of organizations
as interpretation systems highlights the idea that organizational members try to
interpret what they have done, define what they have learned, and solve the
problem of what to do next. Daft and Weick (1984) maintain that although
“organizations do not have mechanisms separate from individuals to set goals,
process information, or perceive the environment,” the organizational
interpretation process is more than the sum of what occurs individually (p. 285).
A distinctive feature of organizational interpretation is the sharing of data,
perceptions, and puzzling developments that allows groups to “converge on an
approximate interpretation” (p. 285). Reaching convergence among
organizational members, according to Daft and Weick, enables organizations to
interpret as a system. The authors view interpretation as linking data collection
with action, as depicted in Figure 1. The data collected in scanning the
environment are interpreted by the organization in a particular way by building
shared understandings and the organization’s learning is represented through a
new action or response based upon this interpretation. The actions taken in the
learning stage serve as feedback to the earlier stages, providing new data for
4
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
interpretation. Organizational interpretation, “the process through which
information is given meaning and actions are chosen,” precedes learning (p. 294).
INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
Fiol and Lyles
Fiol and Lyles (1985), another set of theorists, brought together major
organizational learning theorists in their 1985 review of the literature. According
to the authors, major theorists (including Daft and Weick) generally agree that
although “individual learning is important to organizations, organizational
learning is not simply the sum of each member’s learning” (p. 804). Fiol and
Lyles suggested that the literature discussed both behavioral and cognitive
changes by an organization as constituting learning. Their review showed that
there is disagreement among theorists as to whether organizational learning
primarily involves behavioral change, cognitive change, or both. Behavioral
change concerns actual responses, structures and/or actions. Cognitive change,
by contrast, concerns new and shared understandings or “conceptual maps” of
organizational members.
Based upon these two types of changes, Fiol and Lyles (1985) proposed a
distinction between organizational adaptation and organizational learning.
Organizational adaptation involves behavioral changes separate from cognitive
changes; that is, “the ability to make incremental adjustments as a result of
environmental, goal, policy, or other changes” (p. 811). This concept is similar to
the concept of single-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Organizational
learning, on the other hand, involves not only behavioral changes but also
cognitive changes—new insights, understandings, cognitive maps, and
associations between past actions, their effectiveness (in terms of desired
outcomes) and future actions. This concept is associated with higher-level
learning and double-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978).
Levitt and March
Finally, theorists Levitt and March (1988), in their analysis of organizational
learning, placed greater emphasis on routinized behavior than on organizational
inquiry and interpretation. They described organizational learning as routinebased, history-dependent, and target-oriented. Routines, broadly defined,
include the rules, practices, procedures, conventions, and strategies through
which organizations operate. They also include the structure of beliefs,
frameworks, paradigms, cultures, and knowledge that bolsters, elaborates, and
contradicts the formal routines. Routines are independent of individual
organizational members and are capable of surviving considerable personnel
5
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
turnover. Over time, routines are transmitted among organizational members
through a variety of means including socialization, education,
professionalization, imitation, and personnel movement. Routines may be based
on the organization’s direct experience (e.g., history) or be imported from other
organizations.
Levitt and March (1988) viewed organizational interpretation as a challenging
task because it involves making difficult judgments about cause and effect on the
basis of limited information within a highly complex system. They thus
downplayed organizational interpretation, cautioning that it can be tainted by
the ambiguity of success and/or by the organization’s frames of reference that
limit how history is seen and interpreted. Success itself can be a barrier to
organizational learning because successful organizations may fall into
“complacency traps” where they rely almost solely on the lessons of past
achievements to guide future action. Fullan (1993) captured this phenomenon in
examining change processes in schools. He observed that in most educational
change processes, there is an “implementation dip” when things get worse
before they get better. Almost anyone who has switched from using a typewriter
to a computer can attest to this. They are likely to maintain that a temporary loss
of competence and/or comfort was, at least initially, a barrier to change.
Finally, Levitt and March (1988) caution that “superstitious learning” can occur
when incorrect interpretations about the connections between actions and
outcomes persist in their association. In education, for example, the student
body of a charter school might have grown substantially ever since the school
started offering an after-school sports program. Therefore, the faculty might
assume that the sports program is vital to the school’s growth and must be
continued or expanded despite its cost and inconvenience. In reality, the sports
program may not have attracted many new students. The growth may result
from marketing conducted in conjunction with the program and/or to word-ofmouth referrals from satisfied parents as the school became more established. To
the students and parents choosing the charter school, the sports program may be
a desirable but nonessential component whereas the faculty superstitiously
connects it with continuing school growth and vitality.
Merging the Perspectives
In considering the different views of organizational learning highlighted
above, several important points of agreement emerged among the different
perspectives. There is considerable agreement among the above-mentioned
theorists that organizational learning involves multilevel learning (individual,
6
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
group, organization), that it requires inquiry, that it results in shared
understandings, and that it implies behavioral and/or cognitive change.
Shrivastava (1983), however, suggests that differences are evident as well. For
example, Argyris and Schon (1996) viewed organizational learning as the sharing
of assumptions developed through individual and collective inquiry, whereas
Levitt and March (1988; also see March & Olsen, 1976) emphasized
organizational learning as adaptation to changes in the environment by adjusting
strategies and structures including procedures and routines. Although there is
considerable debate whether organizational learning is adaptive behavior or
whether lessons learned are embodied in shared cognitive maps that guide
behavior, many theorist agree that there is a difference between learning
involving behavioral and cognitive change.
Multilevel Learning
“Organizational learning is multilevel.…There is a reasonable degree of
consensus that a theory of organizational learning needs to consider the
individual, group, and organizational levels” (Crossan et al., 1999, p. 524).4
Specifically, different theorists (e.g., Argyris & Schon, 1978, 1996; Daft & Weick,
1984; also see Huber, 1991) underscore that although insight and innovative
ideas occur to individuals, not to organizations, sharing individual ideas,
insights, and innovations is a key component of organizational learning.
Moreover, “although individuals are the agents through whom the learning
takes place, the process of learning is influenced by a much broader set of social,
political, and structural variables. It involves sharing of knowledge, beliefs, or
assumptions among individuals” (Shrivastava, 1983, pp. 16-17).
Additionally, Rait (1995) stated that “learning is distinctly organizational when it
relies on the combined experiences, perspectives, and capabilities of a variety of
organization members” (p. 72). Thus, “complex organizations are more than ad
hoc communities or collections of individuals” (Crossan et al., 1999, p. 524);
relationships among individuals are structured and shared understandings are
developed. These shared understandings may then become institutionalized as
formal or informal organizational “systems” (Shrivastava, 1983).
A school that decided to become a technology magnet school provides a useful
example of multilevel learning. First, the faculty focused on individual learning
by providing time for teachers to engage in self-directed learning to master a
series of technology skills. The faculty then created opportunities for group
learning by having teachers share information about instructional strategies and
tutor each other as they gained mastery of new software and hardware. Finally,
the principal focused on extending learning beyond the school by inviting
administrators from other schools to visit the school and observe classes and by
7
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
providing opportunities for teachers to present workshops at conferences and
meetings. In this example, all three levels of learning bolster and extend
individual learning.
One can imagine a similar scenario in a manufacturing business. A line worker
might discover a more efficient way of performing her task through individual
learning. If the particular line became more efficient, the innovation could
spread to other lines performing the same function in the same plant. This might
happen informally through word of mouth, or formally if an inquiry process
were used to discover why one line was outperforming others. Finally, the
innovation could become organizational if it spread to other plants owned by the
same company.
Habits of Inquiry
A second area of general agreement involves inquiry as a necessary but
insufficient condition for organizational learning. In terms of collective inquiry,
assumption sharing and feedback become central features of how some theorists
define organizational learning (e.g., Argyris & Schon, 1996; Daft & Weick, 1984).
Whether inquiry is formal or informal, Dewey’s (1933/1960) cyclical process of
questioning, data collection, reflection, and action “may lead to generating
alternative solutions to problems, reflecting on previously unquestioned
assumptions, experimenting, scanning the environment for salient information,
or other activities that enable organization members to restructure their
organizational knowledge base” (Rait, 1995, p. 74; also see Foster, 1989).
An example of collective inquiry in a business context might be the creation of
quality circles where representatives from management, line workers, and
engineering meet to discuss ways to improve product quality. In a school, a
team of reading teachers could intentionally set out to collect information as a
basis to discuss and experiment with ways to improve reading instruction over
the course of a school year. Or, inquiry could proceed more informally when, for
example, an administrator might institute a new policy and then modify the
policy as she receives on-going feedback from other organizational members.
Shared Understanding
Organizational learning involves shared understandings that integrate lessons
about the relationship between actions and outcomes that underlie
organizational practices (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Shared understandings are
generated through various learning processes such as “interpretation” (Daft &
Weick, 1984) or “imitation” (Levitt & March, 1988). Whether shared
understandings are described in terms of theories of action, cognitive maps,
8
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
conceptual maps, or routines (see Table 1), they often appear as tacit rather than
clearly articulated assumptions. All organizations have shared understandings
that guide behavior and decision making whether they are actively learning or,
instead, are relying on lessons from the past. The critical practice for
organizational learning is to uncover these shared understandings and to
articulate and examine the assumptions embodied within them. Because shared
understandings are often tacit, conversation and increasingly precise language
are necessary to make them explicit (Crossan et al., 1999).
Tacit or taken-for-granted assumptions may change through error detection
cycles:
Just as individuals are the agents of organizational action, so they are the agents
for organizational learning. Organizational learning occurs when
individuals, acting from their images and maps, detect a match or
mismatch of outcome to expectation which confirms or disconfirms
organizational theory-in-use. In the case of disconfirmation, individuals
move from error detection to error correction. Error correction takes the
form of inquiry. The learning agents must discover the sources of error—
that is, they must attribute error to strategies and assumptions in existing
theory-in-use. They must invent new strategies, based on new
assumptions, in order to correct error. They must produce those
strategies. And they must evaluate and generalize the results of that new
action. (Argyris & Schon, 1978, p. 19, emphasis in original)
Thus, both individual and collective inquiry help develop the organization’s
theories-in-use.
Examples can be found in schools and in business. In schools, for instance, the
use of letter grades is a common, often taken-for-granted way of operating. A
shared understanding might be that grades increase student motivation. Yet for
some students, grades may be detrimental and decrease motivation. If teachers
assume that students who are considered “C” students are “no good at school”
and then receive disconfirming evidence through inquiry, those teachers may
make new assumptions and develop new teaching and grading strategies. Other
common shared understandings in schools include the ideas that sorting
students by age and organizing the school day into subject-based periods
represents effective school organization. In a business organization, a shared
understanding might involve sales commissions. An assumption might be that
paying sales people largely on commission motivates them to sell more and
work harder, thus increasing sales. The assumption may continue for some time
as an unexamined way of doing business. However, a mismatch of outcomes to
expectations might occur. For some businesses and for some sales people, the
use of sales commissions might lead to a pressured and unpleasant retail
environment and result in decreased sales.
9
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Behavioral/Cognitive Change
According to some theorists (e.g., Fiol & Lyons, 1985), organizational learning
involves behavioral and cognitive changes. However, this assertion is a point of
some debate:
Some scholars (Levitt & March, 1988; March & Olsen, 1976) have
suggested that learning occurs when a new behavioral outcome is
produced, whereas others (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Argyris &
Schon, 1974, 1978) contend that such adaptive behavior may constitute
single-loop learning, which is appropriate only in stable environments
characterized by a high degree of control and a rational system of
organization. Under such conditions, routinized troubleshooting
procedures may be effective mechanisms for correcting organizational
errors. The fundamental operating assumptions or governing values of
the organization or individuals need not be examined or altered to achieve
such change. (Rait, 1995, p. 74) 5
Double-loop learning, by contrast, is particularly appropriate in organizations
facing more turbulent environments and those that have intensive, as opposed to
routine, work technologies (Rait, 1995). Individuals engage in a process of
scrutinizing goals in relation to the environment and from people’s personal and
social environments through critical questioning. For example, critical
questioning may take the form of comments such as:
“That objective isn’t realistic because…”
“Instead of doing this, we should be…”
“What management doesn’t realize is that…”
“This would work much better if…” (Field & Ford, 1995, p. 17).
Finally, some illustrations of single- versus double-loop learning in schools can
be imagined. Teachers in a school that has recently acquired computers and
Internet access might be interested in exploring ways of integrating technology
into instruction. With single-loop learning, teachers might have students locate
information from the computers in place of using encyclopedias or other
classroom resources. The behavior has changed but the underlying way of
teaching and learning has remained the same. With double-loop learning,
teachers could decide to rethink the use of computers, perhaps using them to reexamine and alter instruction. For example, entirely new skills such as problem
definition and problem solving might be emphasized (see Johnson, Schwab, &
Foa, 1999).
The Internet might pose a similar challenge for a business. With single-loop
learning, employees might add a web page that serves the same purpose as a
10
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
written brochure. With double-loop learning, employees might use the Internet
to change the way they sell a product much in the way that Amazon.com has
used the Internet to rethink ways of selling books. In both examples, single-loop
learning might be a first stage in learning if the actions and their consequences
are used as a basis for collective inquiry about the shared cognitive maps guiding
practice.
Taken together, the work of these four pairs of theorists suggests that both
individual learning and habits of inquiry are necessary but not sufficient
conditions for organizational learning. Organizational learning arises through
on-going shared interpretation of data, perceptions, puzzling events (Daft &
Weick, 1984), assumptions, and cognitive maps (Argyris & Schon, 1978) among
organizational members. Organizational adaptation (Fiol & Lyles, 1985) or
single-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978) occurs when an organization’s
existing frames of reference limit interpretation (Levitt & March, 1988) and tends
to result in behavioral change without cognitive change. Organizational learning
(double-loop learning) involves behavioral changes as well as cognitive changes
(Fiol & Lyles, 1985) in the shared understandings and underlying frames of
reference guiding organizational behavior (Argyris & Schon, 1978).
Organizational Learning as the Catalyst for Renewal
The most notable distinction between living and inanimate things is that the
former maintain themselves by renewal.…This renewal takes place by means
of…educational growth.…The educational process is one of continual
reorganizing, reconstructing, transforming.
(Dewey, 1916/1944, pp. 1, 10, 50)
Organizational learning in schools and school systems does not occur in a
vacuum. Their organizational behavior is deeply influenced by the environment,
community, and shifting parade of stakeholders. Learning, inquiry, and the
examination of shared assumptions extend beyond school walls or district
boundaries. According to a natural system perspective on organizations, schools
are “collectivities whose participants are pursuing multiple interests, both
disparate and common, but recognize the value of perpetuating the organization
as an important resource” (Scott, 1998, p. 26). In accordance with Scott (1998),
schools attempt to adapt and survive in a turbulent environment. To survive
and flourish, schools may constantly change or modify their formal goals.
Further, an open-system view of schools as organizations suggests that schools
have “reciprocal ties that bind and relate the organization with those elements
that surround and penetrate it” (p. 100). The open-system view of organizations
suggests, among other things, that schools are not sealed off from their
11
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
environments.6 This environment includes the local community, other
institutions (e.g., higher education), and society at large. “The environment is
perceived to be the ultimate source of materials, energy, and information, all of
which are vital to the continuation of the system” (p. 100). As such, schools are
complex, dynamic organizations vulnerable to public demands, support,
evaluation, and criticisms. Because schools are nested within a larger
environment, they both influence and are influenced by changing
neighborhoods, circumstances, student populations, personnel, and politics.
Because schools and school systems must continually learn to adjust to constant
change, we adopt Crossan et al.’s (1999) conception of organizational learning
“as a principal means of achieving…renewal” of a collectivity or enterprise (p.
522).7 This perspective takes the position that “renewal harmonizes continuity
and change at the level of the enterprise.…Renewal requires that organizations
explore and learn new ways while concurrently exploiting what they have
already learned” (p. 522). Healthy business organizations, for example, conserve
the organization by encouraging enough innovation to stay vibrant and
productive, but seek enough continuity to avoid overwhelming individuals with
constant change and upheaval (Drucker, 1959).
Democratic Principles: Necessary Conditions for Renewal
One of the earliest books that explored principles of individual, organizational,
and societal renewal argued that the system best designed to support continual
learning and renewal is the democratic system. In this book, John Gardner
(1963/1981) reasoned that “there cannot be long-continued renewal without
liberty, pluralism and regard for the worth of the individual” (p. xv). He
emphasized that renewal at the individual, organizational, and societal level is a
set of highly complex and interrelated processes. The emphasis is on process—
the “complex interweaving of continuity and change” (p. 7).8 Gardner’s three
principles—liberty, pluralism, and regard for the worth of the individual—
should be viewed holistically but are briefly presented separately for ease of
discussion.
Liberty
Liberty in a democratic society or organization requires various checks and
balances to limit or discipline power. The dispersion of power is a never-ending
task because abuse or concentration of power is always possible, especially as
organizations grow and age (also see Raelin, 1993). The tendency has been to
create larger, more complex organizations. One risk is that human values and
the individuals in the organization may take second place to other goals. Thus,
12
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
meaningful participation in decision making may move away from the
individuals most closely involved with the issues at hand.
Participation, as a democratic right, carries individual responsibilities; it requires
continual learning so individuals can make informed decisions. However,
…without some grasp of the meaning of their relationship to the whole, it
is not easy for individuals to retain a vivid sense of their own capacity to
act as individuals, a sure sense of their own dignity and an awareness of
their roles and responsibilities. They tend to accept the spectator role and
to sink into passivity. (Gardner, 1963/1981, p. 59)
Pluralism
Gardner’s second principle of renewal, pluralism, is valued as “a social strategy
that encourages the existence of many sources of initiative, many kinds of
institutions, many conflicting beliefs, many competing economic units” (p. xv).
In a democratic organization, citizens can articulate diverse views, propose
alternative solutions, pursue a range of possibilities, and question or test the
validity of ideas or solutions. “A strong tradition of freedom of thought and
inquiry.…[as well as] a tradition of vigorous criticism is essential” to continuous
renewal (pp. 33, xvii). Neither can happen without “motivation, commitment,
conviction, the values [people] live by, the things that give meaning to their
lives…a vision of something worth saving” (pp. xxi, xxii).
Pluralism supports organizational renewal through “many decision-making
points rather than only one” and also through individual “access to multiple
memberships and channels through which they may gain information and
express their views” (p. 67). Pluralism thus requires a tradition of tolerance for
diverse views and positions, as well as a network of sources/resources.
Regard for the worth of individuals
Gardner’s (1963/1981) third principal of renewal involves regard for the worth of
individuals. “Continuous renewal depends on conditions that encourage
fulfillment of the individual” (p. 2). In discussing individual self-fulfillment,
Gardner listed the courage to fail, “mutually fruitful relations” (p. 15) with other
people (healthy social relationships), versatility (curiosity, open-mindedness,
respect for evidence, the capacity to think critically), intrinsic motivation to learn,
flexibility (tolerance for ambiguity and willingness to suspend judgment), and
creativity (desire to innovate).
Individual self-fulfillment requires that organizations nurture their individual
members and pay attention to careful recruitment and hiring of new members.
13
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Not only do individuals need to develop themselves, the organization “must be
continuously refreshed by a stream of new talent from all segments or strata of
society” (p. 12).
Nothing is more vital to the renewal of an organization…than the system
by which able people are nurtured and moved into positions where they
can make their contribution. In an organization this implies effective
recruitment and a concern for the growth of the individual that extends
from the earliest training stages through the later phases of executive
development. (p. 76)
Gardner argued that because human beings are social beings, discussing
individuals without discussing social aspects of the organization is nonsensical.
Thus, as noted earlier, both individual and organizational renewal requires
opportunities for members to build relationships and communicate openly with
each other. Additionally, because human beings strive to find meaning in life,
another important social aspect includes individuals’ commitment to their role in
the larger organization and “allegiance to values beyond their own needs” (p. 92;
also see Senge, 1990). Commitment and fulfillment for human beings “involves
striving toward meaningful goals—goals that relate the individual to the larger
context of purposes” (Gardner, 1963/1981, p. 97). An organization capable of
continuous renewal is future oriented and its members “believe they can have a
hand in shaping that future” (p. 107). They want to “believe in something, care
about something, stand for something” (p. 115).
Gardner also noted that issues that prevent organizational renewal are mostly in
the mind: belief systems, along with “habits and attitudes that permitted the
organization to go to seed in the first place” (p. 43).
As [an organization] matures it develops settled ways of doing things and
becomes more orderly, more efficient, more systematic. But it also
becomes less flexible, less innovative, less willing to look freshly at each
day’s experience. Its increasingly fixed routines are congealed in an
elaborate body of written rules…unwritten rules…customs and
precedent…an accepted way to do everything.” (p. 45)
Once habits are entrenched, changing them can “jeopardize the rights, privileges
or advantages of specific individuals” (p. 53) and so the organization may
maintain the status quo and protects vested interests, even though they may
cause its downfall.
Individual/School/System Indicators of Organizational Learning
Two points…by which to measure the worth of a form of social life are the extent
in which the interests of a group are shared by all its members, and the fullness
14
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
and freedom with which it interacts with other groups. An undesirable society, in
other words, is one which internally and externally sets up barriers to free
intercourse and communication of experience.
(Dewey, 1916/1944, p. 99)
Empirical studies of organizational learning in business and industry are
limited,9 as is empirical research on organizational learning in schools and school
systems (Leithwood & Louis, 1999). However, several studies, along with many
anecdotal articles, provide tantalizing views of values, dispositions, practices,
and conditions that enable or constrain organizational learning in schools. In this
section, we explore three vital indicators of organizational learning and provide
empirical examples from studies of schools and school systems. The three
indicators are learning through inquiry, sharing or disseminating new
knowledge, and organizational conditions (particularly the values and
dispositions of leaders and the values underlying governance models). Each
indicator is complex and related to the other two.
Learning Through Inquiry
The teacher who is an intelligent student both of individual mental operations and
of the effects of school conditions upon those operations can largely be trusted to
select…methods of instruction…best adapted to achieve results.
(Dewey, 1933/1960, p. 57)
Contrary to the way people learn in non-school contexts (life in general), schools
developed a tradition of viewing learning as an individual activity. For students,
high test scores (extrinsic motivation) are often the goal and “sharing”
information is considered cheating. For teachers, learning and teaching alone
has frequently engendered norms of self-reliance and uncertainty (Rosenholtz,
1989). Despite a shift toward constructivist theories of learning with an emphasis
on collaboration and the social construction of knowledge, the recent and
widespread return to prescribed curricula and/or high-stakes testing in several
countries has reinforced a narrow definition of curriculum (student achievement
on tests) and learning as an individual phenomenon.
Behaviorist theories of learning and the related conceptualization of teachers as
technicians dominated the industrialized world for many decades.10 Common
sense dictates that if teachers are to help students learn, teachers too must
continue to learn. “The greater teachers’ opportunities for learning, the more
their students tend to learn” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 7). The reconceptualization of
teachers as learners (Barth, 1990; Collinson, 1994; Darling-Hammond & Sykes,
1999; McLaughlin & Oberman, 1996; National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future, 1996) accelerated following Sarason’s (1990) warning that
15
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
school reforms will predictably fail unless schools become places where both
students and teachers learn.
Rosenholtz’s (1989) classic study of schools and school systems in Tennessee
identified “learning enriched,” “moderately impoverished,” and “learning
impoverished” schools. Teachers in learning enriched schools viewed teaching
as non-routine and their own learning as developmental and lifelong. Students’
learning was the focus of their work; teachers looked for ways to help all
students learn and recognized that teachers need an ever-expanding repertoire to
help their students. On the other hand, teachers in learning impoverished
schools did not attend to their own learning or to individual students’ learning;
rather, their teaching had become routine and often tedious. These teachers
found external sources like parents and society to blame for students’ failures to
learn. In the routine schools, teaching was no longer a “source from which selffulfillment is derived” (p. 143). These schools maintained a downward spiral of
reduced learning: “The more impoverished the school’s opportunities to learn,
the less about teaching there is to learn, and the less time teachers require to
learn it” (p. 83).
Until the last two decades, teacher learning was not generally viewed as a
continuous or job-embedded process. Teachers’ “official” learning (i.e.,
obligatory professional development) traditionally included periodic, external
workshops, invited keynote speakers, and the occasional conference. Their selfinitiated learning generally took place after school, on weekends, or during
summer vacations (Collinson, 1994). Interestingly, “teachers who proved most
consistently enthusiastic about professional development were also those who
worked in schools that made both formal and informal learning an integral part
of teachers’ work” (Little, 1992, p. 180).
In part, multilevel learning in schools and school systems is hindered because
“teachers have few mechanisms for adding to the knowledge base in teaching
and leave no legacy of insights, methods, and materials at the close of a long
career” (Little, 1987, p. 502). Even when individual teachers devise wonderful
teaching tools or gain insights with potentially profound consequences for
teaching and learning, their knowledge lies dormant unless individual learning
is shared with colleagues. “Too often, teachers spend weeks or months
discovering things about their students that other teachers spent an equivalent
amount of time ascertaining the previous” (Conley, Schmidle, & Shedd, 1988, p.
266). Professional friendships, team teaching (Collinson, 1994), teacher networks
(Smith & Wigginton, 1991), and frequent, intellectually lively classroom
observations and analysis (Little, 1987) represent some possibilities to help move
individual learning to group learning. These job-embedded learning
16
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
opportunities capitalize on the repeated finding that teachers prefer to learn
about teaching from other teachers (see Smylie, 1989; Rait, 1995).
“Teacher development programs often result in important individual learning,
but organizational learning demands that learning and change be situated in the
organizational (schoolwide) arena” (Rait, 1995, p. 96). To accomplish this,
organizations draw on a variety of sources of learning. The sources “vary widely
in the degree of explicitness, systematization, formality, sophistication, and their
importance to the organizational decision-making process (Shrivistava, 1983, p.
17). Organizations can learn from inquiry, routines, oral and written information
(e.g., databases, policies, training manuals, stories, e-mails, meetings), external
feedback (e.g., consumer research, consultants, public reactions), and hiring new
employees (Huysman, 2000).
Inquiry and its collateral learning 11
Teaching is increasingly being characterized as a decision-making process
conducted under conditions of unpredictability and uncertainty in highly
interactive settings (Conley et al., 1988; Doyle, 1985). Dewey’s (1933/1960)
careful analysis of reflective thinking emphasized the importance of inquiry,
especially under conditions of uncertainty and when uncovering assumptions.
Although teachers in many countries have engaged in inquiry or “action
research” for a long time, teachers’ learning through inquiry was not emphasized
in the United States and Canada until Schon’s (1983, 1987, 1991) popularization
of Dewey’s work. Recognition of inquiry as a powerful learning tool then spread
quickly (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Fosnot, 1989; Hopkins, 1989;
Osterman & Kottkamp, 1993; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1991; Tikunoff &
Mergandoller, 1983). In 1996, the National Commission Report on Teaching and
America’s Future signaled that teacher inquiry and continuous professional
development are expectations for all teachers.
The inquiry process, by its very nature, requires problem identification, data
collection, analysis/interpretation, and action. The action(s) taken may then
spawn new questions or problems, restarting the inquiry process (Dewey,
1933/1960; also see Argyris & Schon, 1978). At the school level, Goodlad’s (1983)
empirical research indicated that the most satisfying schools exhibited “indices of
self-renewal: continuous evaluation of programs, examination of alternative
procedures, [and] willingness of faculties to try new ideas” (pp. 54-55). For
example, one school’s original data indicated that student attendance fluctuated
sharply. The teachers, worried about the difficulty of teaching well under the
circumstances, conducted further study to seek a solution. As part of the
process, they reasoned that “students would benefit from more intensive and
regular contact with at least one adult, and that adult would be in a good
17
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
position to learn what kinds of assistance individual students needed and know
how to access appropriate resources.” The action the school took was to create
small “family groups” of students who met with an adult two to five times
weekly (Rait, 1995, p. 100).
Also by its very nature, inquiry stems from curiosity and encourages openmindedness, respect for evidence, critical thinking, and a willingness to suspend
judgment (Dewey, 1933/1960). The power of inquiry lies not only in learning
about the issue that prompted the inquiry process, but also in the related
learning it requires and fosters. First and foremost, inquiry by individuals,
groups, or organizations demands pre-requisites such as a hospitable attitude
toward learning (Huysman, 2000), tolerance of new ideas, openness to
improvement, and risk taking in the form of willingness to confront mistakes or
weaknesses in behavior and/or thinking (Dewey, 1933/1960).
Confronting mistakes is an important aspect of learning for everyone, but has
particular significance for teachers. “Without mistakes, there is no learning;
without learning there are fewer psychic rewards; with fewer psychic rewards
there is lower commitment; and with lowered commitment there is far less
student growth” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 216). How mistakes are handled and how
errors are corrected can also be a potent source of new learning (Collinson, 1994;
Edmondson, 1996).
Inquiry-related dispositions and attitudes are reminiscent of the dispositions
necessary for pluralism: “Collective learning experiences increase individuals’
exposure to a variety of ideas and experiences. They also provide access to a
greater variety of referents for feedback and for assessing one’s own ideas,
performance, and needs for learning” (Smylie, 1994, p. 156). In other words,
collective inquiry may potentially lead to double-loop learning; that is, a
restructuring of organizational norms, changing prevailing theories-in-use
(Shrivastava, 1983).
The benefits are clear; people who learn from inquiry get better at problem
finding and problem solving and they can make more informed decisions. As
Shrivastava (1983) noted, “organizational learning is closely linked with
experience that the organization possesses. Through previous experience in a
decision area or activity, the organization learns to adapt its goals, selectively
attend to its goals, selectively attend to its environment, and search for solutions
to organize problems” (p. 17). When teachers challenge themselves to engage in
inquiry or try innovative practices, they seem to set in motion a cycle of renewal:
If teachers see successful student learning as a result of their efforts, their efficacy
increases. This generates greater teacher certainty and intrinsic (psychic)
rewards, encouraging the teachers to learn and innovate again (Rosenholtz,
18
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
1989). However, as earlier arguments indicated, individual inquiry does not
guarantee organizational learning. “Though individual learning is important to
organizations, organizational learning is not simply the sum of each member’s
learning” (Fiol & Lyles, 1985, p. 804). The key to organizational learning is
dissemination or sharing of what has been learned. “Without exchange, insights
gained from action and reflection are not fully realized at the organizational
level” (Shaw & Perkins, 1992, p. 178).
Sharing What Is Learned
The distinctive feature of organization level information activity is sharing.
(Daft & Weick, 1984, p. 285)
A second indicator of organizational learning involves dissemination or sharing
of knowledge within the organization. Dissemination is achieved when there is a
“collaborative exchange of ideas in which differing perspectives are aired and
understanding is shared” (Shaw & Perkins, 1992, p. 178). Despite its crucial role
as the linchpin for flows of multilevel learning, dissemination of learning with
and from colleagues remains a poorly understood aspect of organizational
learning (Cook, 1999). Without the capacity for dissemination, insights are
unlikely to reach the organizational level and mistakes are likely to be repeated.
Whereas dissemination of teachers’ individual learning does not guarantee that
organizational learning will ensue, organizational learning is seriously hindered
in the absence of “social processing” of information (Louis, 1994, p. 9).
Information is not the only thing that needs to be shared. “The hallmark of any
successful organization is a shared sense among its members about what they are
trying to accomplish” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 13). Such goals and values must be
re-thought and re-evaluated by every new generation (Gardner, 1963/1981).
A note of caution is necessary. We use the term “shared understandings” in its
positive sense; however, shared understandings can also “support shared
delusions about the merit or function of instructional orthodoxies or entrenched
routines. This collective agreement can generate rigidity about practice and a
‘one best way’ mentality that resists change or serious reflection” (McLaughlin,
1993, p. 95). For example, teachers in low consensus schools “stressed students’
failings instead of their triumphs” and “new entrants were cut adrift to discover
and define their own ways” (p. 39; also see examples in Scribner, Cockrell,
Cockrell, & Valentine, 1999). On the positive side, teachers in high consensus
schools held a shared understanding “that placed teaching issues and children’s
interests in the forefront, and that bound them, including newcomers, to pursue
that same vision” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 39).
19
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
At least two norms of practice appear necessary for social processing or sharing:
a norm of collaboration or collegiality (Little, 1982, 1987) and a norm of
purposeful conversation12 with an aim to improve teaching and learning (Little,
1987). The remainder of this section focuses on the effects of these norms for
sharing knowledge, and on factors that enable and constrain sharing.
A norm of collaboration/collegiality
Studies of shared understandings, along with the attendant practices of
discussion, questioning, seeking advice, and teamwork are increasingly endemic
to the fields of medicine, law, science, and business. They are rare in education.
However, in schools with habits of learning and sharing, studies “have all
identified certain inescapable and consequential relations among teachers and
between teachers and administrators that spell the difference between success
and disappointment” (Little, 1987, p. 491). In the literature, these relations are
referred to as collaborative or collegial interactions, or more recently, as
professional community. They do not appear to be affected by demographics
(urban, suburban, rural), socio-economic status, or academic level (primary,
secondary). But wherever empirical studies identify schools as successful in
terms of student learning, teacher learning and sharing are a given (e.g., Bryk,
Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Day, Harris, Hadfield, Tolley, & Beresford, 2000;
Goodlad, 1983; Killion, 1999; Rosenholtz, 1989).
Even before sharing was widely recognized as fundamental to group and
organizational learning (e.g., Argyris & Schon, 1978; Daft & Weick, 1984), many
authors decried the individualistic traditions among teachers that resulted from
working in isolation. “The classroom cells in which teachers spend much of their
time appear…to be symbolic and predictive of their relative isolation from one
another and from the sources of ideas beyond their own background of
experience” (Goodlad, 1984, p. 186; also see Lortie, 1975). Yet “at the teacher
level the degree of change [is] strongly related to the extent to which teachers
interact with each other.…There is no getting around the primacy of personal
contact.…Purposeful interaction is essential for continuous improvement”
(Fullan, 2001, pp. 123-124, emphasis in original). Personal contact and
interactions also influence employee retention; early research in business and
education indicated that the greater the social ties of employees, the more likely
they are to remain in their job or profession (Chapman & Hutcheson, 1982;
Quinn & Staines, 1979).
Nevertheless, teacher interactions have not been organized “to promote inquiry
or to add to the intellectual capital of the profession” (Lortie, 1975, p. 56). Both
structural and normative factors promote isolation (Conley et al., 1988).
Structurally, the solitary nature of most teaching assignments, the physical
20
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
layout of school facilities and restrictive time schedules usually preclude such
interaction. So do organizational norms that discourage advice-seeking and
advice-giving (see Little, 1990) and that treat teachers’ “work” as something
necessarily individual and exclusively limited to classroom instruction.
The implications for individual, group, and organizational learning in schools
are numerous. Perhaps most damaging is that teachers and principals/heads
who work in isolation have to rely largely on learning through trial and error.
Even if they continue to learn by conducting inquiry alone, they are limited by
their ability to recognize problems and personal biases, find pertinent data,
reason their way through the issues, and weigh the consequences of various
choices of action (see Dewey, 1933/1960; also Cyert & March, 1963). Not only is
their learning and their students’ learning curtailed, they do not develop the
dispositions that collaborative inquiry fosters.
By contrast, in collaborative settings with “norms of continuous school- and selfrenewal…it is assumed that improvement in teaching is a collective rather than
an individual enterprise, and that analysis, evaluation, and experimentation in
concert with colleagues are conditions under which teachers improve
instructionally” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 73; also see Little, 1982). Little (1982) noted
that “continuous improvement is a shared undertaking in these schools, and
these schools are the most adaptable and successful of the schools…studied” (p.
338). Fullan (1991) asserted that virtually all studies on the subject have found
that teacher collegiality (a visible behavior of pluralism) is a strong indicator of
successful implementation of educational improvement efforts. Once such
norms are established, “teachers are more likely to trust, value, and legitimize
sharing expertise, seeking advice, and giving help both inside and outside of the
school. They are more likely to become better and better teachers on the job”
(Fullan, 2001, p. 126). Additionally, “shared goals confer legitimacy, support,
and pressure not to deviate from norms of school renewal…[and] norms of
collaboration enable if not compel teachers to request and offer advice and
assistance in helping their colleagues improve” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 7).
As noted earlier, mistakes are integrally linked to inquiry and they are also
closely tied to innovation and risk taking. Both are vital to organizational
learning. Sharing beliefs, ideas, knowledge, and mistakes requires enormous
risk taking and involves high levels of vulnerability. Lee (2001) observed that
although companies look for innovations, employees might not divulge
innovative ideas if they are afraid to test them. For example, in a large healthcare
organization, employees were willing to experiment if managers “explicitly
stated that making mistakes would be okay, and refrained from punishing
employees for errors” (p. 29). Experimentation was rarer when managers’
espoused theories (encouraging experiments and expecting some experiments to
21
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
fail) did not match their theories-in-use (a reward system that punished failures
or compromised career moves). In addition to engendering fear and mistrust,
“the effects of an inconsistent message were particularly strong among lowerstatus individuals [e.g., medical students], who tended to have the greatest fear
of failure” (p. 29-30). If, like the medical students, novice teachers have the
greatest fear of failure, not only would innovation and experimentation in
schools suffer, but fear of failure would continuously reinforce isolation instead of
collaboration, repetition instead of innovation.
A norm of purposeful conversation
The acquisition of a precise, technical vocabulary cannot be underestimated in
both the learning and sharing process. Human beings learn to communicate and
think with words and metaphors, and both are important for organizational
learning (see Crossan et al., 1999 for a discussion of language). Extended
conversations about teaching and learning can help teachers clarify beliefs, name
phenomena, identify assumptions, move beyond the superficial, and discuss
issues with increasing thoughtfulness and ease (see Yonemura, 1982).
Teachers are not accustomed to extended, purposeful conversations that focus on
teaching and learning, beliefs and practices. They tend to communicate through
stories (Elbaz, 1992). McLean (1999) suggests that “given that so much of what
teachers know is held tacitly, personal particularistic stories provide teachers
with a way to communicate their practical knowledge, and build shared
understandings of practice” (p. 79; also see Clandinin, 1992 and Kelchtermans &
Vandenberghe, 1994). Nevertheless, Little’s (1987) work indicated that on a
continuum of independence to interdependence, storytelling was only the first
step toward sharing and joint work. She posited that teachers might “use stories
to gain information indirectly when they are confronted with powerful
occupational norms that suppress more instrumental forms of help-seeking”
(Little, 1990, p. 514).
However, Little (1990) suggested that if stories comprise “no more than a litany
of complaint,” they may inhibit analysis and inventiveness, support independent
work, and sustain a conservative perspective (p. 514).
Discussion about practices of teaching, under such circumstances, becomes
difficult to separate from judgments of the competence of teachers.
Understandably, teachers may show little inclination to engage with peers
around matters of curriculum and instruction if doing so can only be
managed in ways that may jeopardize self-esteem and professional
standing. (p. 516, emphasis in original)
For example, in “learning impoverished” schools where teacher certainty or
confidence was low and personal competence fragile, “conversations focused on
22
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
experience-swapping about student misbehavior or on poor working conditions”
(Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 42).
Having opportunities to interact with other teachers is fundamental to
establishing norms of purposeful conversation. Yet most studies confirm that
teachers have few opportunities to engage in substantive or purposeful
conversations, although their pedagogical knowledge, skills and information
about students are one of a school system’s most valuable resources (Conley et
al., 1988). Opportunities for teachers to talk and work together have arguably
decreased as governments have increased prescriptive curricula and
standardized testing of students (Malen & Muncey, 2000).
However, having opportunities for purposeful conversation is merely the first
step toward shared understandings and collaborative interactions to improve
teaching and learning. In one empirical study, when teachers had opportunities
to move away from typical conversations (procedural issues like yard duty and
scheduling) to discussions of teaching and learning, they realized that they
needed a new, common vocabulary and a different way of thinking and speaking
(Collinson, 2000; also see Scribner et al., 1999).
At first, the teachers realized with discomfort that they did not know the
professional side of the colleagues they thought they knew well. They also
realized the benefits of “hearing alternative or multiple perspectives…[that]
helped them clarify and refine” their own beliefs (Collinson, 2000, p. 131).
Goldenberg and Gallimore (1991) referred to these kinds of conversation as
“instructional conversations.…Participants’ minds are engaged in extended
verbal exchanges with one another, which allow them to reach new levels of
understanding” (p. 70). A related skill that instructional conversations demand
is attentive and open-minded listening. Teachers in two studies needed time and
practice to learn how to listen to as well as converse with colleagues (Collinson,
2000; Yonemura, 1982).
Purposeful conversation is essential to organizational learning. It is also a
cornerstone of collaboration. In education, Little (1982) was one of the first
scholars to try to operationally define collaboration, identifying four “critical
practices of adaptability” that appear central to continuous professional
improvement:
- frequent concrete and precise discussions about teaching and learning;
- frequent observation coupled with useful feedback;
- collaborative development and evaluation of teaching materials; and
- teachers teaching and learning from one another. (p. 332)
All four practices demand teacher interaction as well as purposeful conversation
about teaching and learning.
23
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Additionally, knowledge through conversation also establishes social norms—
positive or negative norms (Rosenholtz, 1989; also see Elbaz, 1992). Teachers in
high consensus schools valued discussions about teaching and learning whereas
“teachers in low consensus schools tended to devalue work-related talk”
(Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 42). In schools where teachers worked in isolation,
experience swapping was “sympathy and support instead of helpful
assistance.…Consoling conversation becomes the one secure thread that binds
these otherwise divided faculties” (p. 53).
Finally, conversations appear to be “one of the most patterned and therefore
revealing forms of school culture, disclosing teachers’ uniformity of goals,
beliefs, and values” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 39). As such, they contribute
powerfully to establishing shared understandings. “The amount and type of
information teachers gather in schools, the degree to which that information is
consistent, and the ease with which teachers can interpret and integrate that
information will affect their consensus about school goals.” (p. 15). In one study,
a school was able to achieve “norms and values consistent with professional
community…through dialogue that, although often intense, addressed core
issues of student learning, classroom practices, and school leadership” (Scribner
et al., 1999, p. 143). Yet despite the theoretical value of purposeful teacher
conversations and their obvious connection to sharing, little empirical research
has been conducted on teacher conversations.
Factors that enable and constrain sharing
In addition to contributing little to our knowledge about the phenomenon of
teacher conversations and how teachers share individual learning with
colleagues, the literature does not identify many factors that specifically enable
or constrain sharing (an exception is Shaw & Perkins, 1992). Building an
understanding of these factors and how they interact is important if schools and
school systems are to move toward enhancing organizational learning. This
section barely scratches the surface and is intended only to provide examples
and stimulate deeper consideration of a largely unexplored aspect of
organizational learning.
In a small empirical study that explored what teachers share, as well as how and
when they share their learning with colleagues, Cook (1999) specifically asked
participants which factors enable and constrain their dissemination of learning.
The teachers identified 43 enabling factors and 36 constraining factors. Not only
is the sheer number of responses surprising, but also the complexity of
interactions among the factors may have been underestimated. The study
24
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
suggests that whether and when teachers share may hinge on the priority or
weight they accord a given factor at a particular time.
By way of illustration, Cook (1999) used force-field analysis of the factors
because it “emphasizes the importance of the fact that any event is a resultant of
a multitude of factors” (Lewin, 1951, p. 44) and because it presents the factors in
a dynamic system so they can be understood together. Force-field analysis
indicated that the factors became a set of competing priorities influencing
individual decisions at any given time. Of particular interest is that enabling
forces were generally internal and, for the most part, related to teachers’
professional judgment and personal dispositions (e.g., the belief that students
could benefit, personal interest and curiosity, desire to help others). Conversely,
the constraining factors were generally external and related to structural
decisions (e.g., schedules, working conditions). But above all, many of the
factors involved time.
In almost any review of the literature, time is consistently mentioned as a
constraining factor for learning and sharing. Just as students need “time on task”
to learn, so do adults. However, Barth (1990) noticed that when principals
weighed their own learning against the pressing immediacies endemic to
schools, the principals put off their own learning. Barth hypothesized that in the
short term, delaying learning seemed to carry fewer negative consequences. In
the long term, it has negative consequences for both individual development and
dissemination of knowledge to the organization.
The same hypothesis and consequences may hold for sharing. Time is usually
presented in the literature as a linear, uniform concept, yet one group of teachers
identified nine complex, overlapping aspects of time that constrain learning and
sharing (Collinson & Cook, 2001).13 Time may also be both an enabling and
constraining factor to teachers. In Cook’s (1999) study, a teacher indicated that
she had plenty of planning time for herself, but that her sharing was limited
because of lack of scheduled common time with colleagues. Cook (1999) argued
that creating an expectation or norm of learning and sharing may be more
important than structuring time for them to occur. The rarity of U.S. schools
engaged in meaningful, collaborative work around teaching and learning
(Goodlad, 1983; Fullan, 2001; Little, 1987; Rosenholtz, 1989) suggests that the
many attempts to structurally manipulate time for teachers to work collectively
may result in “contrived collegiality” (Hargreaves & Dawe, 1990). “Particularly
within bureaucratically driven systems, contrived collegiality may be little more
than a quick, slick administrative surrogate for more genuinely collaborative
teacher cultures, cultures which take much more time, care, and sensitivity to
build than do speedily implemented changes of an administratively superficial
nature” (p. 238).
25
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
A growing number of empirical studies indicate that the sharing required for
organizational learning is a slow and difficult process influenced by complex
factors. Collinson (2000) and Scribner et al. (1999) indicated that two years is
inadequate for some schools to change habits (also see Barth, 1990; Killion, 1999).
Enabling factors seem to include having a purposeful goal for working together
(e.g., Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1991; Scribner et al., 1999) and having integrated
external and internal facilitation (Allen & Calhoun, 1998; Collinson, 2000).
Constraining factors tend to cluster around old traditions and habits, norms of
privacy and isolation, norms of individualism, 14 and the theory-practice gap in
schools (e.g., Allen & Calhoun, 1998; Collinson, 2000; Goldenberg & Gallimore,
1991; Hargreaves, 1984). Groups may also feel vulnerable because roles related
to power, knowledge, and leadership that have been taken for granted may shift
(Collinson, 2000).
Learning and sharing clearly demand time and energy, so presumably they must
carry strong rewards for teachers and schools that enjoy collaborative cultures.
At the individual and group level, principals and teachers who have seen growth
in themselves and in students do not want to give up these psychic rewards
(Barth, 1990; Collinson, 1994). Teachers highly valued working on district-level
curriculum development teams because they offered learning, stimulation, a
collegial network, and a means to influence instruction in classrooms. Those
who wanted to learn and to help students learn found ways around learning
hurdles such as unhelpful principals and negative colleagues, though often at
high personal cost. If they did not have enough likeminded colleagues as
support, they left the school (Collinson, 1994).
At the school level, Little (1987) identified three benefits. First, collegial
interactions allow teachers and students (and, by extension, parents and the
community) to gain confidence about their knowledge. Their confidence allows
them to better “support one another’s strengths and accommodate weaknesses”
(p. 502). Second, schools that promote collegial learning and sharing are
“adaptable and self-reliant in the face of new demands; they have the necessary
organization to attempt school or classroom innovations that would exhaust the
energy, skill, or resources of an individual teacher” (p. 502). Third, schools that
foster learning and sharing are “plausibly organized to ease the strain of staff
turnover, both by providing systematic assistance to beginning teachers and by
explicitly socializing all newcomers to staff values, traditions, and resources” (p.
502).
Empirical studies in education also indicate the collaboration can be a two-edged
sword. “Collaboration is powerful, which means it can be powerfully bad as
well as powerfully good” (Fullan, 2001, p. 132). Because its outcomes are
26
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
predicated on shared values and beliefs within groups or organizations,
collaboration can reinforce bad or ineffective practices or support increasingly
well-informed decisions and practices (also see Little, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1989).
Collaboration can also be administrator-imposed, a “contrived collegiality”
(Hargreaves & Dawe, 1990) that can subvert good practice:
[Inappropriate collegial behaviors] underscore the limitations of
theoretical and empirical work devoted primarily to collegial forms and
processes that give comparatively superficial attention to the content
expressed: the beliefs that teachers hold singly and collectively about
children and learning and the professional expertise that teachers admire
(or do not admire) in their own and others’ teaching. (Little &
McLaughlin, 1993, p. 5)
Shared understandings are unlikely when teachers operate independently
(privately) instead of interdependently (publicly). Independence allows teachers
to exercise personal preference and prerogative without scrutiny or challenge,
and encourages individualism (see Little, 1990). It may lead to feelings of
uncertainty about practices (Rosenholtz, 1989) and competition (Beck, 1994).
Independence is supported by well-known school “norms of noninterference and
equal status” and a desire to avoid conflict (Little, 1990, p. 523). Teachers have a
long tradition of working independently and thus require strong reasons for
moving toward interdependence and sharing, both of which expose their beliefs
and practices and require risk taking and conflict resolution mechanisms. In
short, shared or joint work is hard work and teachers almost have to see
collaboration at work to understand how it can benefit both teachers and
students.
At least two constraining factors may hinder teachers from observing each other
in schools with norms of collaboration. Teachers do not generally observe other
teachers in their own school, let alone in neighboring schools. Some mentioned
that they do not have time to work with or observe teachers in other schools
although the idea appealed to most of them (Cook, 1999). On the other hand, a
teacher in a successful school expressed frustration that other schools in the same
city were not interested in “learning from…successes” (Killion, 1999, p. 71). If
this barrier can be breached, “the appeal of unthreatening sharing with
colleagues…may gradually spread from a small hybrid group to a wider
audience, diminishing teachers’ uncertainty, augmenting their psychic rewards,
increasing student learning, and finally inducing teachers to end their long
silence” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 220). If sharing is to induce teachers to end their
silence, and “if collaboration is to become one of the standard accoutrements of
schools, it needs facilitative hands reaching out to help—hands from districts,
school principals, and teacher leaders” (p. 220).
27
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Organizational Conditions
If we look only at the outputs of schools and not at the structures and processes
influencing them, we will never learn why organizations such as schools work
and how positive outcomes are brought about.
(Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 2)
A third indicator of organizational learning involves organizational conditions,
or more correctly, the values and dispositions that shape those conditions.
Dispositions and opportunities to learn and to share are clearly important to
organizational learning and to students’ learning. We know that actively
committed teachers seek learning, as do teachers whose workplace conditions
generate satisfying intrinsic rewards (Yee, 1990), but we need more empirical
research that specifically investigates links between organizational conditions
and organizational learning. If Gardner (1963/1981) is correct that “continuous
renewal depends on conditions that encourage fulfillment of the individual” (p.
2) and that renewal has its best chance within a democratic system, then a logical
place to begin is by looking at leaders15 and at the governance models of schools
and school systems.
Leaders as teachers, leaders as learners
Leithwood et al. (1998) associate the following conditions with enabling or
constraining organizational learning: the “school’s mission and vision, culture,
decision-making structures, strategies used for change, and the nature of policies
along with the availability and distribution of resources” (p. 248). Many
structural conditions in schools, as well as cultural conditions, fall under the
purview of school leaders, notably principals/headteachers. This may explain
why “leadership is often invoked as the solution to any and all problems”
(Johnson, 1996, p. xi).
Senge (1990) envisions leaders as stewards, designers, and teachers (also see
Bhindi & Duignan, 1997; Johnson, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1992). Leaders do teach;
“teaching and leading are distinguishable occupations, but every great leader is
clearly teaching—and every great teacher is leading” (Gardner, 1990, p. 18). The
combination is evident in great teacher leaders like Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi, and
Martin Luther King. In education, effective leaders appear to be effective
teachers. Johnson’s (1996) study of 12 superintendents indicated that the
“teaching role…was apparent in the work of those superintendents regarded as
effective leaders by their constituents. As teachers…they were illuminating,
cooperative, and energizing” (p. 275). Conversely, effective teachers can also be
leaders. A national study of U.S. teachers deemed exemplary by their peers
28
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
revealed that these teachers pursued additional teaching opportunities through
extensive leadership roles in tertiary institutions, schools, school systems, state
organizations, the military, churches and synagogues, and the community
(Collinson, 1999). Because the teacher/leader construct is indistinct, Foster
(1989) and Barth (1990) prefer to think of schools as “communities of leaders” (p.
52 and p. 122 respectively). Thus, in schools, we should be able to see in
leaders—formal or informal leaders—the same dispositions and skills that “great
teachers” try to develop.
We could expect then that like “good” teachers, good leaders are continuous
learners. Like good teachers, they would place heavy emphasis on the value of
learning, have a network of reach and influence beyond their immediate
boundaries, and practice continuous renewal (Campbell, 1988; Collinson, 1994;
Gardner, 1990; Killion, 1999; Stevenson, 1986; Wigginton, 1985). A recent, multiperspective, empirical study of 12 effective headteachers in England (Day et al.,
2000; Day et al., 2001) indicated that these heads sought internal and external
data, had a range of sources for help in solving problems, and were
“networkers” both inside and outside the school (also see LaRocque & Coleman,
1989). Indeed, Barth (1990) argued that leaders have a crucial role as “head
learner, engaging in the most important enterprise of the schoolhouse—
experiencing, displaying, modeling, and celebrating what it is hoped and
expected that teachers and pupils will do” (p. 46, emphasis in original). Barth
observed in schools and at the Principals’ Center at Harvard that learning
precedes leadership; “principals can become learners and thereby leaders in their
schools” (p. 84, emphasis in original).
Good teachers and leaders are also other-centered and compassionate. They
know a lot about their students or colleagues, are able to identify strengths and
weaknesses in others, and use their knowledge to find ways to encourage and
assist (Collinson, Killeavy, & Stephenson, 1999; Gardner, 1990; Hamachek, 1999;
Ramsay & Oliver, 1995; Senge, 1990; Sernak, 1998). They are future oriented and
optimistic, with high expectations for self and others supported with assistance
to reach those expectations (Barth, 1990; Collinson, Killeavy, & Stephenson, 2000;
Gardner, 1990; Senge, 1990). Valuing people means that such teachers and
leaders secure satisfaction and psychic rewards from successful associations with
others (Lortie, 1975; Day et al., 2000). Because school leaders work mostly with
adults and across organizations, we can also expect good leaders to communicate
well with colleagues and the public, demonstrate political judgment, and be
willing to deal with both conflict and community building (Gardner, 1990). To
build community, effective teachers and leaders practice and encourage open
communication because it seems to encourage examination of beliefs and
assumptions that “in turn, promote critical reflection, creativity and innovation,
and self-directed, proactive thinking and learning” (Smylie, 1994, p. 156; also
29
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Foster, 1989; Hamachek, 1999). Additionally, they are “flexible, democratic, and
capable of setting reasonable goals” (Hamachek, 1999; also see Gardner, 1990).16
To build communities and uncover beliefs, school leaders help colleagues find
and articulate shared values and goals about the primary task of schools:
teaching and learning. This task involves “gathering and interpreting
information… through which teachers gain a sense of their work…The ease with
which teachers can interpret and integrate that information will affect their
consensus about school goals” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 15). For example, in two
schools where organizational learning appeared to be occurring, one principal
was reported to be “actively involved in building consensus about
goals…[while] the principal in another school was perceived to foster [learning]
by encouraging staff to systematically reflect on the activities of the past year”
(Leithwood et al., 1998, p. 264). Principals perceived by teachers as conveying
high expectations for excellence, quality, and/or high performance “demanded
high professionalism, and held high expectations for professional
growth.…These principals set an example by…modeling openness, having good
people skills, and showing evidence of learning by growing and changing
themselves” (pp. 264-265). Most also provided resources and/or funding for
teachers’ professional learning, as well as moral support which was defined as
“eagerness to listen and be accessible, fair, open, and sympathetic” (p. 265). Not
only did teachers appreciate these values and practices, they also enjoyed
considerable autonomy and admired principals who found “opportunities for all
stakeholder groups to participate effectively in school decision making” (p. 267).
The study of effective English heads (Day et al., 2000; Day et al., 2001) seems to
confirm the values, dispositions, and skills of leaders described earlier. These
“people-centred” school leaders communicated “clear sets of personal and
educational values which represent their moral purposes for the school” (Day et
al., 2000, p. 165). They demonstrated their regard for the worth of individuals
(Gardner, 1963/1981) by being “centrally concerned with developing their
organization through developing others” (Day et al., 2000, p. 166; also see
Johnson, 1996).
The vision and practices of these heads were organized around a number
of core personal values concerning the modelling and promotion of
respect (for individuals), fairness and equality, caring for the well-being
and whole development of students and staff, integrity and honesty. (Day
et al., 2000, p. 39; also see Bhindi & Duignan, 1997)
The headteachers communicated their values through their daily interactions:
They focused on the betterment of the students, conveying optimism, empathy,
and genuine concern for their well being and achievement. They challenged
students and teachers to do their best, held high expectations for themselves and
30
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
others, took risks and provided support to achieve expectations, acknowledged
failures and learned from them. Additionally, they held personal knowledge of
others, used it to provide support, encouraged teacher collegiality and teaching
improvement, fostered a climate of openness, and encouraged staff participation
in decision-making processes (Day et al., 2001).
Another empirical study of eight U.S. schools that received a national award for
model professional development emphasized similar values, dispositions,
qualities, and practices (Killion, 1999). In sum, good leaders appear not only to
be good teachers and learners, they also seem to prefer a democratic model in
which to exercise leadership.
Governance models
Two governance models are often compared when schools and school systems
are discussed: the bureaucratic model and the professional model (e.g.,
Bacharach & Conley, 1989).17 The professional model is rooted in democratic
principles. Numerous scholars lend credence to Gardner’s argument that
renewal is best supported by a democratic system (e.g., Apple & Beane, 1995;
Dewey, 1916/1944; Glickman, 1993; Goodlad, 1994; Goodlad, 2001; Rosenholtz,
1989). Additionally, organizational learning and school renewal theorists argue
for a more participatory model of school leadership and a more organic
integration of technical (teaching) and managerial decisions throughout a school
system (Conley, Schmidle, & Shedd, 1988; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990). Theoretical
and empirical work in school leadership also supports the premise that the
democratic model is preferable and, although difficult, more effective than the
bureaucratic model (Day et al., 2001; Grace, 1995; Sergiovanni, 1992).
Although neither model is appropriate for all situations, the democratic model is
often viewed as preferable to the bureaucratic model. This may occur because
bureaucratic hierarchies focus on efficient modes of production, whereas
democratic systems focus on the welfare and capacity of human beings—“a
capacity to cherish individuality and inspire communality” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p.
221). The differences also lie in the values, assumptions, and subsequent
definitions of terms that are foundational to each model. For example,
democratic governance can take many forms, but the basic values do not change.
Thus, “a democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of
associated living, of conjoint communicated experience” Dewey, 1916/1944, p.
87). As such, a democratic society “must have a type of education which gives
individuals a personal interest in social relationships and control, and the habits
of mind which secure social changes without introducing disorder” (p. 99).
Definitions of four key terms are particularly germane to this discussion: they
include beliefs about power, communication, commitment, and administrator.
31
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
In an organization that functions as a bureaucratic hierarchy, an administrator is
someone who manages, maintains clearly separated roles, and monitors
subordinates. Power is defined as control over others, communication is
unidirectional (from the top down), and commitment to the organization means
loyalty or obedience to superiors who make the rules.18
Bureaucratic control…differs from the simple forms of control in that it
grows out of the formal structure of the firm, rather than simply
emanating from the personal relationships between workers and bosses.…
Bureaucratic control is embedded in the social and organizational
structure of the firm and is built into job categories, work rules, promotion
procedures, discipline, wage scales, definitions of responsibilities, and the
like. Bureaucratic control establishes the impersonal force of “company
rules” or “company policy” as the basis for control. (Edwards, 1979 p.
131)
These definitions are different in organizations that embrace a democratic or
professional model. The term “administrator” refers to its original meaning—to
“minister” or “serve” (see Huebner, 1987, p. 27). In a democratic model, power
comes from freedom to learn and informed task autonomy.19 Communication is
multidirectional, open, and informal as well as formal. Commitment is
voluntarily given in return for satisfying and meaningful work that is respected
and recognized (Bacharach & Conley, 1989; Bolman & Deal, 1984; Conley, 1988;
Firestone & Bader, 1992; Grace, 1995).
In education, Firestone and Bader (1988) drew several distinctions between
bureaucratic and professional models of organization. In a bureaucratic model,
strategic decision making (geared to broad organizational goals) is “centralized.”
In a professional or democratic model, teachers’ input into those decisions is
achieved through enhanced participation. In addition, a bureaucratic model
standardizes and/or pre-specifies operational decision making whereas in a
professional model, those decisions are assured by standardizing the training
that professionals receive instead of specifying their work activities (also see
Bacharach & Conley, 1989).
The quality of relationships in each model is also important. Congeniality,
described as camaraderie or “friendly human relations” (Sergiovanni, 1990, p.
117), is generally associated with the bureaucratic model. Congeniality should
not be confused with collegiality which is associated with the democratic model
and is typical of “learning enriched” schools (Rosenholtz, 1989). “Collegiality
refers to the existence of high levels of collaboration of teachers and is
characterized by mutual respect, shared work values, cooperation, and specific
conversations about teaching and learning” (Sergiovanni, 1990, pp. 117-118).
32
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Burns (1978) warned that although all leadership involves power relationships
that can be used positively or negatively, the negative use is “power wielding.”
He argued that power wielding is not leadership because the relationships are
self-centered and administrators use people as a means to an end, or do not
enhance communal benefit.
Rather, leadership in general must maintain an ethical focus which is
oriented toward democratic values within a community…a search for the
good life of the community; an attempt to come to some understanding
regarding the various options available for living that life. Ethics here
refers to a more comprehensive construct than just individual behavior;
rather, it implicates us and how we as a moral community live our
communal lives. (Foster, 1989, p. 55)
Democratic values are as important to teachers as they are for leaders. Yee (1990)
found that teachers committed to a teaching career valued professional growth
opportunities (learning) and challenges that include “collegial exchange,
opportunities to take on additional roles and to participate in decisions…They
want to exercise some control over what matters most to them—student
learning” (pp. 114-115). Reciprocally, “effective principals share—in fact,
develop—leadership among teachers” (Fullan, 2001, p. 138). Teachers admired
principals who value open, honest communication and who allow them
considerable autonomy while finding “opportunities for all stakeholder groups
to participate effectively in school decision making” (Leithwood et al., 1998, p.
267; also see Collinson, 1994).
In the study of 12 school leaders in England, some heads “deliberately managed
the aspirations of their teachers to get more involved in the running of the school
by using professional development opportunities as a way of keeping staff ‘on
board’ ” (Day et al., 2000, p. 152).
The heads did not use exchange or rewards as a means of motivating and
controlling others but adhered to a ‘person-centred’ philosophy that
placed emphasis upon improving teaching and learning via high
expectations of others. For them, the primary task of leadership
concerned building and monitoring the conditions for professional,
institutional and broader community growth. (p. 162)
They were able to balance managerial and leadership tasks and to use
relationships and political skills to get others to align with their values and
principles (Day et al., 2001).
A norm of continuous learning, along with the idea that everyone can always
learn and improve, has far-reaching consequences. Rosenholtz (1989) found that
in learning enriched schools, not only were teacher evaluations used as a source
of learning instead of a threat or surveillance, but learning encouraged teacher
33
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
certainty and provided freedom from failure to improve their teaching. Teachers
in “stuck” schools “seemed interested in freedom from” in a different sense (p.
210, emphasis in original). States of “unfreedom” included boredom,
punitiveness, self-defensiveness, feelings of helplessness, and inability to cope.
“When stuck in a state of unfreedom, they frequently contrived their own covert
liberty,” often with one-day absenteeism (p. 210).
Liberty, one of Gardner’s (1963/1981) democratic principles, implies
participation. At the school level, principals who lead appeared to identify
teachers’ strengths and weaknesses and then support their growth and
participation. Some principals encouraged teachers to share their learning by
giving workshops, leading staff meetings, or accepting other leadership
opportunities. They also encouraged and assisted faculty in “creating a widely
shared set of norms, values, and beliefs consistent with continuous improvement
of services for students” (Leithwood et al., 1998, p. 266). In another study,
principals were able to find “participatory ways to mobilize teachers in
addressing critical school problems, and then supply the appropriate resources
that respond[ed] directly to those problems” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 203).
At the school system level, an empirical study of 10 school systems in British
Columbia, Canada indicated that strong systems held high expectations for
principals, used performance data, involved direct personal contact, set up
procedures for evaluative discussions, and encouraged school autonomy in
making and implementing school improvement plans (LaRocque & Coleman,
1989).
The district administrators acknowledged good performance. They
helped the principals interpret the data and identify strengths and
weaknesses, and they offered advice and support when necessary.
Ultimately, however, plans for improvement were left up to the principal
and staff of each school…although their progress…was monitored. The
features of collaboration and relative school autonomy probably
reinforced the perception of respect for the role of the principal and
recognition of the importance of treating each school as a unique entity.
(p. 181)
In a study of eight Tennessee school systems, district administrators in
“moving” districts deliberately decentralized learning opportunities so teachers
could “diagnose their own learning needs and design school inservice programs
to directly address those needs” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 194). In moving districts,
superintendents and principals worked together closely and frequently “in
setting district goals or policy, in determining their school’s technical needs, and
in specific problem-solving” (p. 173; also see Johnson, 1996). Principals and
superintendents alike sought and engaged in professional development as well.
34
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
They appeared to believe that “norms of continuous academic improvement
across all levels of the district are essential preconditions for strengthening
teachers’ commitment and school quality” (p. 175).
In stark contrast to these democratic practices, “stuck” districts focused on
cosmetic changes, particularly their external or public image. In these districts,
superintendents provided little assistance to less effective principals, thus
reinforcing the norm of professional isolation that was then passed down to
teachers and ultimately, to students. A similar contrast involved a lower
resource allocation for principal and teacher learning, less teacher and principal
participation in their evaluations, and less personalized follow-up assistance.
Superintendents embraced a deficit view of learning (sometimes with a punitive
side), insisted on control, and saw task autonomy and professionalism in their
district as a threat to loss of control (Rosenholtz, 1989; also Sernak, 1998).
A major distinction between democratic and bureaucratic districts involves their
regard for the worth of individual as exemplified in their hiring and nurturing of
employees. “Schools that are clear about recruitment criteria underscore how
teachers and principals collectively view their present school goals—what they
stand for, what they care about, and what they ultimately aspire to become”
(Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 16). Careful selection can insure continuous quality or lack
of quality of instruction, ease of teacher socialization, and continuation of shared
values and understandings (including group think). One principal who tries to
bring out the best in each individual teacher intentionally promotes “democratic
hiring” by having a varied group of people interview prospective teachers for the
school. He also deliberately seeks people with diverse perspectives (Blase, Blase,
Anderson, & Dungan, 1995). He appears to grasp Gardner’s (1963/1981) point
that organizations need “new talent from all segments or strata of society” (p. 12)
and also need “many decision-making points rather than only one” (p. 67). What
does not seem negotiable, however, is teachers’ commitment to learning and to
helping students learn.
Crossan et al. (1999) pointed out that as organizations grow and age, investment
in and acknowledgment of individual learning or group innovations may
change, resulting in individual frustration, disenchantment, or exit from the
organization. Committed teachers who have enjoyed working in schools that
value learning for students and teachers tend to stay in those schools. When
these teachers find themselves in “stuck” schools with “unsupportive”
colleagues who are not excited about teaching and learning, uncaring toward
students, and unwilling to carry their share of work at school, they tend to
transfer out of the school (Collinson, 1994). Other reasons for transferring
include “the need to renew themselves, the belief that they are not able to do
their best job teaching in a given school, the belief that their services are not
35
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
being utilized, an overly directive and restrictive principal, a job that runs
counter to their philosophy, one or more [close] colleagues leaving [the gradelevel team or] the school, and a school climate they perceive to be unhealthy and
distracting” (p. 13).
At the system level, Rosenholtz (1989) noted that “moving” districts pay careful
attention to hiring practices and the nurturing of their new principals. Their
hiring criteria include demonstrated excellence and experience in teaching,
successful school leadership, good human relations skills, and the ability to
conduct research (inquiry). Superintendents insist on new principals being
continuous learners and expect them to encourage teachers to be learners as well.
These districts tend to hire from within and then place principal interns with a
successful principal. Hiring from within assures “prior instructional leadership
among colleagues, teaching excellence in their former schools, and a steady pool
of tested candidates to fill any new opening” (p. 185). Similarly, in Johnson’s
(1996) empirical study, three effective superintendents had been hired from
within. “They were deemed good educators largely because they had taught
successfully in their district’s classrooms or been respected principals in its
schools” (p. 136).
One “stuck” district’s espoused criteria were very similar, but their theory-in-use
meant that the district chose candidates who were compliant, yet autocratic—
principals “who will be able to control teachers and what they do in their
classrooms” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 186). Stuck superintendents reinforced
uncertainty because they “frequently threatened the freedom and commitment of
teachers and principals with transfer.…[or appealed] to coercive political power
whenever their adamant convictions were in any way challenged” (p. 210). At
best, it appears as though school systems with bureaucratic values have little
possibility of retaining teachers who are learners, even if they accidentally hire
them.
Further Complexities and Dilemmas
Education is…characterised by a series of dilemmas which are endemic, though
they may surface in different forms at different times and places.
(Clark, Dyson, Millward, & Robson, 1999, p. 170)
Increasingly, state policies to improve education have tended to focus on
improving individual teachers’ learning or adopting “quick fix” structural
solutions in order to increase student achievement. Of all the separate reforms
touted as panaceas to improve schools, “none of them, either alone or in
36
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
combination, offers a sure remedy” for improving student learning because
learning ultimately relies on human and social dimensions more than on
“specific techniques, practices or structures” (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995, p. 1).
Complex issues create dilemmas; that is, situations that can have a variety of
analysis, resolutions, and consequences. Dilemmas, especially those involving
human relationships and interactions, cannot be “solved” with simple solutions.
If we have learned one thing about dilemmas in education, it is that they indicate
far greater complexity than appears evident at first glance (see Berlak & Berlak,
1981; Barth, 1990; Clark, Dyson, Millward, & Robson, 1999; Malen & Muncey,
2000 for discussions of dilemmas of teachers, principals, schools, and school
systems respectively. Also see Ogawa, Crowson, & Goldring, 1999.).
Throughout this paper, we have tried to point out that there is no simple process
or “silver bullet” for sustained organizational learning. The term generally
enjoys a positive connotation. However, all organizations learn, whether it’s
“positive” or “negative” learning. So although organizational learning has been
“conceived of as a principal means of achieving the strategic renewal” of
organizations, including schools (Crosson et al., 1999, p. 522), the organizational
learning process can also be manipulated to maintain the status quo in the face of
criticism or imposed change.
Not only is renewal through organizational learning a continuous process, it is a
highly complex tapestry of many interwoven threads that create an active scene
of learning and sharing new information and knowledge. Learning and sharing
are enabled or constrained by organizational conditions, and sometimes the same
factors both enable and constrain. Each construct and each condition embodies a
host of values, beliefs, and assumptions. Thus, meaningful and sustained
organizational learning (not merely adaptive behavior) involves cognitive
change. Its chances for success seem greater if new changes are consistent with
its existing foundational values.
Lest we lose sight of the complex nature of organizational learning, we point out
three dilemmas, knowing that they represent only a small fraction of the
challenges inherent in organizational learning. First, there is a cost for practicing
democratic principles that reflect the value of individuals, participation in
decision making, freedom of thought and inquiry, a tradition of vigorous
criticism, and healthy human relationships (Gardner, 1963/1981). One of the
costs is inevitable conflict (Fullan, 1991; Little, 1990):
Collegial endeavors in education cannot easily occur without all the
various constituencies in direct and open communication…This may
mean that teachers must be able to speak honestly to each other as well as
to principals, superintendents, and board members without fear of
reprisal. It may mean that principals and superintendents must be able to
37
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
share power and learn to operate within new parameters with teachers,
parents, students, and community members.…But with increased
participation also comes the probability of genuine differences and
disagreements. (Cohn, 1992, p. 134)
It may seem counterintuitive to think of conflict as a source of learning, but “in a
vital community, conflict is inevitable and often healthy. The goal is not to
eliminate conflict but to prevent it from escalating in destructive ways.…There
must be institutionalized arrangements for conflict resolution” (Gardner, 1990, p.
xi; also see Little, 1990). Leaders and teachers need to be taught how to approach
and deal with the inevitable conflicts resulting from discussions involving
assumptions, beliefs, and practices of individuals or groups. The less learning
individuals engage in, the less informed their beliefs and practices are, and the
more difficult it is for them to discuss unexamined beliefs. The more difficult a
task is and the more conflict it generates, the less likely it is that people will want
to engage in it, thus cutting off an important source of learning that can
contribute to student learning.
Second, the importance of multilevel learning and governance models may be
underestimated, as indicated in an empirical study that focused on
organizational learning as the detection and correction of human error,
specifically in administering drugs to patients in hospitals (Edmondson, 1996).
As in many organizations, such work involves the execution of “loosely coupled
tasks” by several organizational members (here, multiple handoffs from the
physician’s decision to the patient’s receipt of the medication). Edmondson
(1996) argued that errors in drug administration are rarely attributed to a single
hospital employee. Rather, the error results from a pattern or sequence of actions
among several individuals (Gersick & Hackman, 1990). Edmondson (1996)
found that higher error rates were associated with higher scores on desirable team
characteristics, a finding opposite to the one expected. In explaining these results
(and using additional qualitative data), she suggested that leaders and work
groups in some units with high error rates encouraged a climate of openness that
facilitated discussion and reporting of errors and mistakes. Thus, desirable team
characteristics that promoted learning were associated with greater reporting of
errors by the team and team supervisor.
Edmondson’s (1996) study raises issues of authoritarian and group suppression
of error in work groups as a major impediment to organizational learning.
Although errors in education may not seem to be on the same scale as faulty
drug administration, mistakes such as the misdiagnosis of student problems and
those leading to student dropouts have major social implications. However, the
issue of error suppression in schools may contribute to much deeper and broader
future problems. In any school that does not model learning and sharing,
38
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
students have fewer opportunities for learning desirable dispositions and skills
associated with organizational learning—including learning from mistakes and
resolving conflicts in appropriate ways. Most students later become employees,
raising the possibility that as far as organizational learning is concerned, they
may be a drain on “learning enriched” organizations or they may seek “learning
impoverished” organizations that at least feel familiar but maintain the status
quo.
Finally, common sense suggests that in schools where norms of isolation and
self-reliance prevail, teachers and leaders have little reason to change if they have
not experienced or cannot envision the difference that learning can have at every
level. They may presume that time spent away from students is time wasted.
“In those circumstances where organizational members are socialized into the
beliefs of the organization before they have had the opportunity to influence
those beliefs, the effect is to further reduce exploration” (Hayes & Allinson, 1998,
p. 861)—in short, innovation and learning through inquiry. One small study
indicates that experienced teachers who love to learn and share with likeminded
colleagues leave schools where these dispositions are stifled (Collinson, 1994). If
further empirical research supports this observation, schools could face the
organizational learning parallel of “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”—
the antithesis of democratic principles.
A related but larger dilemma may be looming. Governments in several western
countries have applied external control to manage changes they desire in schools.
By reducing teacher autonomy, limiting teacher creativity and innovation, and
imposing bureaucratic values and practices, these governments appear to have
lost sight of several democratic values and aims of education. They also seem to
ignore Drucker’s (1959) dictum that in our current complex world, the only way
to conserve or save what we value is to innovate. Examples throughout the
paper have clearly indicated that prescribed, bureaucratic goals and values are
antithetic to both individual and organizational learning. Learning, in the form
of self-renewal or organizational renewal, “depends in some measure on
motivation, commitment, conviction, the values [people] live by, the things that
give meaning to their lives.…a vision of something worth saving” (Gardner,
1963/1981, pp.xxi-xxii). If business results are any indication, short-term gains
may occur but the long-term effects on employees’ morale can be “ruinous”
(Goleman, 2000, p. 83).
In schools, one early outcome appears to be a rush of early retirements of
principals/heads and teachers, as well as shortages of teachers and
principals/heads in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Ontario,
Canada. Not only does such a widespread exodus of experienced teachers
suggest that teachers do not share the imposed values, the concurrent decrease in
39
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
the number of new recruits may indicate that the conditions for teaching,
learning, and sharing are equally unattractive. Additionally, as Huber (1991)
elaborated, “personnel turnover creates great loss for the human components of
an organization’s memory” (p. 105; also see Louis, 1989). He noted that attrition
has an especially deleterious impact on tacit knowledge (e.g., solutions to
problems, sources of information). This is particularly dangerous in teaching
“given that so much of what teachers know is held tacitly” (McLean, 1999, p. 79).
Over time, continued high turnover and low recruitment has the potential to
seriously diminish organizational learning and therefore, student learning.
Conclusion
Nothing is possible without [individuals]: nothing is lasting without institutions.
(Jean Monnet, 1978, p. 304-305)20
At the outset of this paper, we posed two questions: “What is organizational
learning?” and “How would we recognize it if we saw it?” We have argued that
organizational learning is a continuous process that involves multilevel learning,
inquiry, and shared understanding. We have taken the perspective that
organizational learning is necessary for sustained renewal and argued that
organizational learning demands cognitive changes as well as behavioral
changes in order to support sustained renewal.
This process requires a disposition and norm of continuous learning as well as
conditions that allow flows of learning among individuals, groups, and the
organization as a whole. We agree with Shrivastava’s (1983) observation that
there are “few well accepted and sharply defined sets of concepts which describe
the means by which organizations learn” (p. 7). However, like Gardner, we have
argued that learning flourishes best in organizations that practice democratic
principles of liberty, pluralism, and regard for the worth of individuals.
Schools currently appear to engage mostly in adaptive behavior (single-loop
learning) rather than changing both beliefs and practices (double-loop learning)
(see Leithwood et al., 1998). As policies with dissonant assumptions and values
pile up, teachers and schools are left to cope with the inherent tensions between
beliefs and theories-in-use.
Sustained organizational learning clearly does not happen by chance. Although
much more research is required to understand the interwoven nature of
conditions that enable and constrain sustained organizational learning, we can
look at indicators that suggest whether it might be occurring in schools and
school systems. At the individual and group level, we can look for dispositions
40
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
toward learning, teacher opportunities to learn and to share their learning, the
nature and quality of teachers’ conversations about teaching and learning, and
teacher absenteeism and transfer patterns. At the school and system level, we
can look for priorities on learning for both students and adults, leaders modeling
learning and assisting teachers to learn, resources allocated to learning, and
members’ opportunities for criticism and participatory decision making. We can
also look at the school system’s process for nurturing and hiring
principals/heads, its capacity to confront errors and improve weaknesses, and its
methods for dealing with conflict. Additionally, we can look for multilevel
learning from mistakes and for mechanisms used to ensure that values/goals are
systematically re-examined and articulated.
However, as this paper indicates, visible behaviors or indicators in isolation can
be misleading and incomplete. We posit that individuals, schools, and school
systems that display some of the visible behaviors without the underlying
cognitive frameworks that support them are unable to sustain meaningful
organizational learning. We further suggest that the beliefs, attitudes, and values
associated with the practice of learning through inquiry, sharing (especially
through collaboration and purposeful conversation about teaching and learning),
and democratic principles both enhance organizational learning and also
generate continual organizational renewal.
Endnotes
1. The distinction between “organizational learning” and “learning
organization” may seem unimportant given that all organizations learn,
whether the learning is positive or negative. Yet Tsang (1997) noted that a
large and growing dichotomy seems to exist between the two streams in the
business literature. The organizational learning stream, which is
descriptive, deals with the question, “How does an organization learn?”
The learning organization stream, which is prescriptive, deals with the
question, “How should an organization learn?” Another “divergency” in
the organizational learning literature occurs “between the practitioner
literature which is primarily engaged in creating learning organizations and
the academic literature which is engaged in the study of learning processes
in organizations” (Easterby-Smith, Snell, & Gherardi, 1998, p. 259).
Huysman’s (2000) article, “An Organizational Learning Approach to the
Learning Organization,” tries to provide “a conceptual framework to
analyze and improve learning processes as ways to foster learning
organizations” (p. 133). We argue against external, prescribed behaviors or
mere replication of structural conditions as guarantors of improvement.
Instead, we argue for (and support with empirical examples) a highly
41
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
complex intrinsic process (e.g., underlying values that drive behaviors,
intersubjectivity, and cultural conditions that support and sustain learning).
The organizational learning literature is vast. Because of this, researchers
have deemed it necessary to select a perspective (e.g., error detection,
organization design). On one hand, studies conducted from different
perspectives or disciplinary points of view suggest that the field is noncumulative; each study “digs a fresh hole” (Tsang, 1997, p. 82). On the other
hand, as Easterby-Smith et al. (1998) suggested, conceptual diversity could
well be appropriate; work rooted in different disciplines might be adversely
affected by forced attempts at early integration. From the perspective of this
paper, multiple perspectives appear useful in revealing aspects of
organizational learning in schools that might otherwise escape attention,
thus providing fruitful avenues for research.
The theories of the four pairs of authors were selected because their ideas
are some of the most influential ideas in the literature. Their articles are the
most commonly cited articles from the organizational learning literature as
reported in the Social Science Citations Index (Crossan & Guatto, 1996).
Argyris and Schon’s (1978) first book was used in place of Argyris’s (1967,
1976, 1977a, 1977b) four most commonly cited articles identified by Crossan
and Guatto because it summarizes their theoretical framework. The choice
for the three other pairs of authors (Daft & Weick, 1984; Fiol & Lyles, 1985;
Levitt & March, 1988) relied on the other three most influential articles
identified by Crossan and Guatto.
Crossan et al. (1999) also note that the individual, group, and organizational
levels are linked by four social and psychological processes (4I’s): intuiting,
interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing.
An early theorist, Shrivastava (1983), also highlighted different perspectives
adopted by organizational learning theorists. These different perspectives
were: (a) organizational learning as adaptation; (b) organizational learning
as assumption sharing; (c) organizational learning as developing knowledge
of action-outcome relationships; and (d) organizational learning as
institutionalized experience.
Among the other assumptions is the idea that relationships among
organizational parts, both individual participants and sub-groups, are
problematic and cannot be taken for granted (Weick, 1969). “Parts are
viewed as capable of semiautonomous action; many parts are viewed as, at
best, loosely coupled to other parts.…Many heads are present to receive
information, make decisions, direct action. Individuals and sub-groups
form and leave coalitions. Coordination and control become problematic”
(Scott, 1998, p. 99).
Bolin (1987) defined renewal as “making new again,” “growing afresh,” or
“becoming new through growth” (pp. 13-14). We view renewal as intrinsic
and continual as opposed to “reform” which is generally perceived as an
42
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
external and one-shot change. Renewal and self-renewal are virtually
interchangeable in the literature. In an early study of 18 schools, Goodlad
(1983) found three “indices of self-renewal: continuous evaluation of
programs, examination of alternative procedures, willingness of faculties to
try new ideas” (pp. 54-55). Because indices or conditions for renewal
involve inquiry, critical thinking, and consideration of alternative solutions
(action), we argue that renewal inherently implies cognitive change.
8. Gardner (1963/1981) used the metaphor of a balanced ecological system to
describe a self-renewing society: “Some things are being born, other things
are flourishing, still other things are dying—but the system lives on” (p. 5).
Goodlad (1987) used the same metaphor in The Ecology of School Renewal.
9. Many writers in business and industry have discussed the balance of
conceptual and empirical literature on organizational learning. Tsang (1997)
characterized the handful of empirical studies in his review as
“noncumulative in the sense that current studies seldom build on past
research results. Each tries to dig a fresh hole in the field” (p. 82).
Consistent with this perspective, others (e.g., Harvey & Denton, 1999)
suggested that “most published works are theoretically rather than
empirically grounded. Anecdotes abound but little consideration is given to
real-world experience in the round” (p. 898). Additionally, Miner and
Mezias (as cited in Harvey & Denton, 1999) asserted that the “ratio of
systematic, empirical learning research to learning theories is far too low”
(p. 899). In the same vein, Easterby-Smith, Snell, and Gherardi (1998) stated
that among the “divergencies” in the organizational learning literature is
one “between the practitioner literature which is primarily engaged in
creating learning organizations and the academic literature which is
engaged in the study of learning processes in organizations” (p. 259).
10. For a discussion of behaviorist and other theories of learning within the
context of organizational learning, see Shrivastava (1983).
11. Dewey (1938) coined the term “collateral learning” and referred to it as
“learning in the way of formation of enduring attitudes, of likes and
dislikes.” He argued that “the most important attitude that can be formed is
that of desire to go on learning” (p. 48).
12. Little (1987) used the term “productive talk” and viewed it as distinctly
different from shop talk, “war stories,” or “experience swapping.” She
argued that productive talk “requires familiarity with and high regard for
principles and conclusions derived not only from immediate classroom
experience…but also from the thinking, experience, and observations of
others” (pp. 503-504).
13. The nine aspects of time affecting sharing were: feeling overwhelmed, lack
of discretionary time to learn, lack of discretionary time to share with
colleagues, lack of common time, lack of designated time for sharing, lack of
43
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
uninterrupted time, lack of unpressured time, lack of renewal time, and
habitual time (Collinson & Cook, 2001).
14. Associated with teacher isolation and autonomy, individualism is a difficult
construct with many meanings (see Hargreaves, 1993). It is quite different
from individuality, associated with creativity and innovation. In one study,
teachers mistook the two terms, believing that collaboration meant they
would have to give up their own creativity and all teach in the same way
(Collinson, 2000).
15. Gardner (1990) makes three carefully argued distinctions concerning
leadership: Leadership should not be confused with status, power, or
official authority. In Smylie’s (1994) discussion of distribution of power and
authority in the workplace, he too points out that “acknowledged expertise
and position of formal status are not necessarily equivalent” (p. 156).
16. Foster (1989) argued that leaders must be educative. By educative, he meant
capable of analysis, self-reflection, and envisioning alternative possibilities.
Leaders who are educative are able to “show new social arrangements,
while still demonstrating a continuity with the past; to show how new social
structures continue, in a sense, the basic mission, goals, and objectives of
traditional human intercourse, while still maintaining a vision of the future
and what it offers” (p. 54). The reader will recall that Gardner (1963/1981)
also incorporated continuity, alternative solutions, a range of possibilities, a
“vision of something worth saving,” and “things that give meaning to
[people’s] lives” into his discussion of pluralism (p. xxii). Foster’s
explanation of leadership as educative is similar to Dewey’s (1938)
argument that continuity is a “criterion by which to discriminate between
experiences which are educative and those which are mis-educative” (p. 37).
Dewey linked “educative” and “continuity” to the idea of “experiences that
are worth while” (p. 33). Mis-educative, as applied to leadership, occurs
when persuasion “is not transparent, …is accompanied by vague or illicit
pressure… [and] the manipulated individual is treated as an object to be
changed in the most efficient manner” (Holmes, 1989, p.14).
17. Also see Burns and Stalker’s (1961) discussion of mechanistic and organic
organizational systems.
18. Gardner (1963/1981) observed that organizations have a tendency to
expand and become more complex, increasing the possibility for leaders’
abuse of power as well as for members’ passivity instead of active
participation. Scott (1998) noted that as organizations grow in size and
complexity, they also tend to move from simple hierarchical to bureaucratic
control systems. In school systems, Louis (1989) suggested that a bloated
central office that increases control may decrease teacher and principal
participation and induce compliance or “passive rule evasion” (p. 160).
19. “Of course teachers are more satisfied if they have the autonomy in the
classroom they desire, but that simply gives them freedom to do as they
44
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
please. It does not assure better teaching” (Goodlad, 1983, p. 52). As Smylie
(1994) noted, it is unlikely that meaningful learning will take place unless
teachers’ routine practices or taken-for-granted knowledge, beliefs, and
assumptions are questioned or critically examined. Given that freedom
implies obligation, the term “autonomy” should be viewed throughout as
informed autonomy, not the exercise of mere preference and personal
prerogative.
20. Jean Monnet (1978), visionary and architect of the European Community,
used the phrase “Nothing is possible without men” (trans.). We found
“men” old-fashioned and out of place in a feminized profession like
teaching, so we replaced it with Gardner’s (1990) term, “individuals” (p. 15).
Table 1
Organizational Learning: Definitions and Concepts of the Most Cited Theorists
Theorists
Definition
1. Argyris
& Schon
(1978)
Organizational
learning is the
process of
individual and
collective inquiry
by which
organizational
theories-in-use are
constructed and
modified
Individual vs.
Organizational
Learning
Individual
learning becomes
organizational
when it becomes
encoded in
organizational
theories-in-use.
Key Concepts
1. Extends Dewey's
concept of inquiry
to organizations
2. Theories of
Action
3. Single-loop vs.
double-loop
learning
45
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
2. Daft &
Weick
(1984)
Organizational
Interpretation is
“the process of
translating events
and developing
shared
understanding and
conceptual maps
among members of
upper
management” (p.
286).
“Individuals
come and go, but
organizations
preserve
knowledge,
behaviors, mental
maps, norms, and
values over time”
(p. 285).
1. Organizations as
interpretation
systems
“Organizations,
unlike
individuals,
develop and
maintain learning
systems that not
only influence
their immediate
members, but are
then translated to
others by way of
organization
histories and
norms” (p. 804).
1. Behavioral vs.
cognitive change
2. The distinctive
feature of
organizational
interpretation is the
sharing of data,
perceptions, and
puzzling
developments.
Organizational
interpretation
precedes learning
3. Fiol &
Lyles
(1985)
Organizational
learning is “the
development of
insights,
knowledge, and
associations
between past
actions, the
effectiveness of
those actions, and
future actions” (p.
811).
46
2. Organizational
adaptation vs.
organizational
learning
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
4. Levitt &
March
(1988)
“Organizations are
seen as learning by
encoding
inferences from
history into
routines that guide
behavior” (p. 320).
Individual
learning becomes
organizational
when it modifies,
creates or replaces
organizational
routines.
1. Organizational
learning is:
- routine-based
- historydependent
- target-oriented
2. Interpretation is
difficult because of:
- complacency
traps
- limits of org.
paradigms
- ambiguity of
success
- superstitious
learning
Figure 1
Daft and Weick's Model of Organizational Interpretation
Scanning
Interpretation
Learning
(Data Collection)
(Data Given
Meaning)
(Action Taken)
(Feedback Loops)
47
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
References
Allen, L., & Calhoun, E.F. (1998). Schoolwide action research: Findings from six
years of study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(9), 706-710.
Apple, M.W., & Beane, J.A. (Eds.). (1995). Democratic schools. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Argyris, C. (1967). Today’s problems with tomorrow’s organizations. Journal of
Management Studies, 4(1), 31-55.
Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision
making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363-377.
Argyris, C. (1977a). Organizational learning and management information
systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2(2), 113-123.
Argyris, C. (1977b). Double-loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business
Review, 55(5), 115-125.
Argyris, C. (1983). Action science and intervention. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 19(2), 115-140.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D.A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and
practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bacharach, S.B., & Conley, S.C. (1989). Uncertainty and decision making in
teaching: Implications for managing line professionals. In T.J. Sergiovanni & J.H.
Moore (Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count (pp. 311329). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Barth, R.S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can
make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beck, L.G. (1994). Reclaiming educational administration as a caring profession. New
York: Teachers College Press.
48
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Berlak, A., & Berlak, H. (1981). Dilemmas of schooling: Teaching and social change.
London: Methuen.
Bhindi, N., & Duignan, P. (1997). Leadership for a new century: Authenticity,
intentionality, spirituality and sensibility. Educational Management &
Administration, 25(2), 117-132.
Blase, J., Blase, J., Anderson, G.L., & Dungan, S. (1995). Democratic principals in
action: Eight pioneers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bolin, F. S. (1987). Reassessment and renewal in teaching. In F.S. Bolin & J.M.
Falk (Eds.), Teacher renewal: Professional issues, personal choices (pp. 6-16). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K.S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago
elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (Supplement-December), 751-781.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Rowe.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. London:
Tavistock.
Campbell, K. (1988). Adaptive strategies of experienced expert teachers: A grounded
theory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Cangelosi, V.E., & Dill, W.R. (1965). Organizational learning: Observations
toward a theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 175-203.
Chapman, D.W., & Hutcheson, S. (1982). Attrition from teaching careers: A
discriminant analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 19 (1), 93-105.
Clandinin, D.J. (1992). Narrative and story in teacher education. In T. Russell &
H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 124-137).
London: Falmer.
Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A., & Robson, S. (1999). Theories on inclusion,
theories of schools: Deconstructing and reconstructing the ‘inclusive school.’
British Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 157-177.
49
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1993). Inside/outside teacher research and
knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohn, M. (1992). How teachers perceive teaching: Change over two decades,
1964-1984. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The changing contexts of teaching: The ninety-first
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 110-137). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Collinson, V. (1994). Teachers as learners: Exemplary teachers’ perceptions of personal
and professional renewal. San Francisco: Austin andWinfield.
Collinson, V. (1999). Redefining teacher excellence. Theory Into Practice, 38(1), 411.
Collinson, V. (2000). Staff development by any other name: Changing words or
changing practices? The Educational Forum, 64(2), 124-132.
**Collinson, V., & Cook, T.F. (2001). “I don’t have enough time”: Teachers’
interpretations of time as a key to learning and school change. Journal of
Educational Administration, 39(3), .
Collinson, V., Killeavy, M., & Stephenson, H.J. (2000). Hope as a factor in
teachers’ thinking and classroom paractice. In C. Day & D. van Veen (Eds.),
Educational research in Europe (pp. 21-35). Leuven-Apeldoorn, The Netherlands:
Garant.
Conley, S.C., Schmidle, T., & Shedd, J.B. (1988). Teacher participation in the
management of school systems. Teachers College Record, 90(2), 259-280.
Cook, T.F. (1999). Opening the doors of communication: Teachers’ dissemination of
their learning in a middle school instructional technology project. Unpublished thesis,
University of Maryland, College Park.
Crossan, M., & Guatto, T. (1996). Organizational learning research profile. Journal
of Organizational Change and Management, 9(1), 107-112.
Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W., & White, R.E. (1999). An organizational learning
framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3),
522-537.
Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
50
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Daft, R., & Weick, K. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation
systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds.). (1999). Teaching as the learning
profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools
in times of change. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Day, C., Harris, A., & Hadfield, M. (2001). Grounding knowledge of schools in
stakeholder realities: A multi-perspective study of effective school leaders. School
Leadership & Management, 21(1), 19-42.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Macmillan.
Dewey, J (1944). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. (Original work
published 1916)
Dewey, J. (1960). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to
the educative process. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. (Original work published 1933)
Doyle, W. (1985). Recent research on classroom management: Implications for
teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 31-35.
Drucker, P. (1959). Landmarks of tomorrow. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Easterby-Smith, M., Snell, R., & Gherardi, S. (1998). Organizational learning:
Diverging communities of practice? Management Learning, 29(3), 259-272.
Edmondson, A.C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group
and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(1), 5-28.
Edwards, R. (1979). Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the
twentieth century. New York: Basic Books.
Elbaz, F. (1992). Hope, attentiveness, and caring for difference: The moral voice
in teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8(5/6), 421-432.
Field, L., & Ford, B. (1995). Managing organisational learning: From rhetoric to
reality. Melbourne, Australia: Longman.
51
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Fiol, C.M., & Lyles, M.A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management
Review, 10(4), 803-813.
Firestone, W.A., & Bader, B.D. (1992). Redesigning teaching: Professionalism or
bureaucracy? Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Fosnot, C.T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach
for teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Foster, W. (1989). Toward a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.),
Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 39-62). London: Falmer.
Fullan, M., with Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd
ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA:
Falmer.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gardner, J.W. (1981). Self-Renewal: The individual and the innovative society. New
York: W.W. Norton. (Original work published 1963)
Gardner, J.W. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Gersick, C.J.G., & Hackman, J.R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing
groups. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 65-97.
Glickman, C.D. (1993). Renewing America’s schools: A guide for school-based action.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Changing teaching takes more than a
one-shot workshop. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 69-72.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2)
78-90.
Goodlad, J.I. (1983). The school as workplace. In G. Griffin (Ed.), Staff
development: The eighty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education (pp. 36-61). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York:
52
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
McGraw-Hill.
Goodlad, J.I. (Ed.). (1987). The ecology of school renewal: The eighty-sixth yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Goodlad, J.I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, S.J. (Ed.). (2001). The last best hope: A democracy reader. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Grace, G. (1995). School leadership: Beyond education management. London: Falmer.
Hamachek, D. (1999). Effective teachers: What they do, how they do it, and the
importance of self-knowledge. In R.P. Lipke & T.M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), The role of
self in teacher development. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1984). Experience counts, theory doesn’t: How teachers talk
about their work. Sociology of Education, 57(4), 244-254.
Hargreaves, A. (1993). Individualism and individuality: Reinterpreting the
teacher culture. In J.W. Little & M.W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work:
Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 51-76). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived
collegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching &
Teacher Education, 6(3), 227-241.
Harvey, C., & Denton, J. (1999). To come of age: The antecedents of
organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies, 36(7), 897-918.
Hayes, J., & Allinson, C.W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of
individual and collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51(7), 847871.
Holmes, M. (1989). School effectiveness: From research to implementation to
improvement. In M. Holmes, K.A. Leithwood, & D.F. Musella (Eds.), Educational
policy for effective schools (pp. 3-30). Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.
Hopkins, D. (1987). Teacher research as a basis for staff development. In M.F.
Wideen & I. Andrews (Eds.), Staff development for school improvement (pp. 111128). Philadelphia: Falmer.
53
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
Huebner, D. (1987). The vocation of teaching. In F.S. Bolin & J.M. Falk (Eds.),
Teacher renewal: Professional issues, personal choices (pp. 17-29). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Huysman, M. (2000). An organizational learning approach to the learning
organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 133-145.
Johnson, S.M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, M.J., Schwab, R.L., & Foa, L. (1999). Technology as a change agent for
the teaching process. Theory Into Practice, 38(1), 24-30.
Kelchtermans, G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1994). Teachers’ professional
development: A biographical perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 45-62.
Killion, J. (1999). Islands of hope in a sea of dreams: A research report on the eight
schools that received the National Award for Model Professional Development.
Available: http://www.wested.org/wested/pubs/online/PDawards/
welcome.shtml.
LaRocque, L., & Coleman, P. (1989). Quality control: School accountability and
district ethos. In M. Holmes, K.A. Leithwood, & D.F. Musella (Eds.), Educational
policy for effective schools (pp. 168-191). Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.
Lee, F. (2001). The fear factor. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 29-30.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals
can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(4),
249-280.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1995, April). An organizational learning
perspective on school responses to central policy initiatives. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco.
Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. (1998). Conditions fostering
organizational learning in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2),
243-276.
54
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Leithwood, K., & Louis, K.S. (Eds.). (1999). The learning school and school
improvement: Linkages and Strategies. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Levitt, B., & March, J.G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of
Sociology, 14, 319-340.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Edited by
D. Cartwright. New York: Harper and Row.
Little, J.W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace
conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.
Little, J.W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.),
Educators’ handbook: A research perspective (pp. 491-518). New York: Longman.
Little, J.W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in
teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
Little, J.W. (1992). Teacher development and educational policy. In M. Fullan &
A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change (pp. 170-193).
London: Falmer.
Little, J.W., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1993). Perspectives on cultures and contexts of
teaching. In J.W. Little & M.W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals,
colleagues, and contexts (pp. 1-8). New York: Teachers College Press.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Louis, K.S. (1989). The role of the school district in school improvement. In M.
Holmes, K.A. Leithwood, & D.F. Musella (Eds.), Educational policy for effective
schools (pp. 145-167). Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.
Louis, K.S. (1994). Beyond managed change: Rethinking how schools change.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(1), 2-24.
Malen, B., & Muncey, D. (2000). Creating “a new set of givens”? The impact of
state activism on school autonomy. In N. D. Theobald & B. Malen (Eds.),
Balancing local control and state responsibility for K-12 education (pp. 199-244).
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
55
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen,
Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1993). What matters most in teachers’ workplace context? In
J.W. Little & M.W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and
contexts (pp. 79-103). New York: Teachers College Press.
McLaughlin, M.W., & Oberman, I. (Eds.). (1996). Teacher learning: New policies,
new practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
McLean, S.V. (1999). Becoming a teacher: The person in the process. In R.P. Lipka
& T.M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), The role of self in teacher development (pp. 55-91). Albany,
NY: State University of New York.
Monnet, J. (1978). Memoirs (R. Mayne, Trans.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. 91996). What matters
most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.
Newmann, F.M., & Wehlage, G.G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and Restructuring of
Schools.
Ogawa, R.T., Crowson, R.L., & Goldring, E.B. (1999). Enduring dilemmas of
school organization. In J. Murphy & K.S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational administration (pp. 277-295). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Osterman, K.F., & Kottkamp, R.B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators: Improving
schooling through professional development. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Quinn, R., & Staines, G. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor,
MI: Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan.
Raelin, J.A. (1993). The Persean ethic: Consistency of belief and action in
managerial practice. Human Relations, 46(5), 575-621.
Rait, E. (1995). Against the current: Organizational learning in schools. In S.B.
Bacharach & B. Mundell (Eds.), Images of schools: Structures and roles in
organizational behavior (pp. 71-107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
56
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Ramsay, P., & Oliver, D. (1995). Capacities and behaviour of quality classroom
teachers. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(4), 332-366.
Rosenholtz. S.J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New
York: Longman.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professional think in action. New
York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Scott, W.R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Scribner, J.P., Cockrell, K.S., Cockrell, D.H., & Valentine, J.W. (1999). Creating
professional communities in schools through organizational learning: An
evaluation of a school improvement process. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35(1), 130-160.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinary performance
in schools. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sernak, K. (1998). School leadership: Balancing power with caring. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Shaw, R., & Perkins, D. (1992). Teaching organizations to learn: The power of
productive failures. In D. Nadler, M. Gerstein, & R. Shaw (Eds.), Organizational
architecture (pp. 175-192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of
Management Studies, 20(1), 7-28.
57
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Smith, H., & Wigginton, E. (1991). Foxfire teacher networks. In A. Lieberman &
L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the ‘90s: New demands, new
realities, new perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 193-220). New York: Teachers College Press.
Smylie, M.A. (1989). Teachers’ views of the effectiveness of sources of learning to
teach. Elementary School Journal, 93, 543-558.
Smylie, M.A. (1994). Redesigning teachers’ work: Connections to the classroom.
In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (vol. 20, pp.129-177).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Stevenson, C.M. (1986). An investigation into the rewards in teaching for highperforming elementary school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Colorado, Boulder.
Tabachnich, B.R., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (1991). Issues and practices in inquiryoriented teacher education. Philadelphia: Falmer.
Tikunoff, W., & Mergandoller, J. (1983). Inquiry as a means to professional
growth: The teacher as researcher. In G. Griffin (Ed.), Staff development: The eightysecond yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 210-227).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tsang, E.W.K. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A
dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1),
73-89.
Weick, K.E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Wigginton, B.E. (1985). Sometimes a shining moment: The Foxfire experience. Garden
City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Yee, S.M. (1990). Careers in the classroom: When teaching is more than a job. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Yonemura, M. (1982). Teacher conversations: A potential source of their own
professional growth. Curriculum Inquiry, 12(3), 239-256.
58
Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
59