PAPER FOR THE ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING SYMPOSIUM
LANCASTER 1-3 SEPTEMBER 1996
ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING: A MANAGEMENT
TOOL OR PART OF HUMAN INTERACTION?
Bente Elkjaer
Copenhagen Business School
Informatics and Management Accounting
Howitzvej 60
DK-2000 Frederiksberg
Denmark;
Tel.: +45 38 15 24 13 (direct line) or +45 3815 2400;
Fax : +45 3815 2401
e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
In order to develop organisational learning (OL) and learning
organisations (LOs) I believe that researchers and practitioners should
take their point of departure in a genuine social learning theory as
opposed to an individual learning theory. The latter, however, seems to be
more prevalent in theories of OL/LOs. Instead of focusing on mainstream
organisational studies I suggest that we look elsewhere for inspiration to
develop a social learning theory. I have found inspiration in the literature
on so-called situated learning, where learning essentially is viewed from a
social perspective. However, the approach has a rather weak or implicit
conceptualisation of the organisational aspects, and a more elaborated
theory on social learning would be an advantage. In this paper I will
attempt to redress the implicit conceptualisations by explicating an
interactionist perspective on organisations. In addition, I will introduce a
learning theory that centres on the (individual and) collective
reconstruction and reorganisation of experience by means of reflection
and the use of language as an essentially social medium.
1
Introduction
I have followed the development of OL and its counterpart in terms of
outcome, LO, from the time when people gave me a blank look when I
used the terms until today where the concept almost has become the
contemporary (but perhaps very temporary) buzzword. Therefore, I think
it is appropriate to start with a few reflections on OL and LO.1
From my point of view it is possible to distinguish, albeit crudely, two
different approaches within OL. In the first approach OL is viewed as a
management tool for developing the (mostly) hidden, inner cognitive
abilities, i. e. the thinking abilities of individual members in organisations.
The second approach, which does not use the term OL very often, deals
with how learning occurs in social settings, i. e. in so-called communities
of practice. Within the latter learning is viewed as an inherent and
inevitable part of participation in social life/practice, but in addition to
(individual) cognition it also involves membership of a community and
improving the skills of the members.2
In the following I will elaborate on these two approaches to OL. The first
approach, learning as individual cognition, I will place in an
organisational perspective that is committed to view organisations as
systems. In this perspective theory and practice on OL centre on working
with individual members' mental models or maps. The second approach,
the situated learning, is not developed as an OL theory as such. However,
I will try to place it in a domain which we may call an interactionist
perspective on organisations and within a framework of pragmatist theory
of learning.
The purpose of my paper is to suggest that a theory on OL must take its
point of departure in a social learning theory. In other words, it should
acknowledge that learning in organisations is a social - and not solely an
individual - affair as it takes place within the realm of collective human
actions and interactions. Furthermore, I believe it is important that the
organisational perspective of the OL theory tries to understand the
complexities of organisational life, thus admitting the complexities of
developing OL theories - and practices.
OL as a Management Tool
I use the term OL to stress the processual character of learning. I am aware that
sometimes it might be more appropriate to talk of the learning organization (LO), but to
me this noun connotates a reification of OL with which I do not think many would agree.
2 One may say that the link between OL and the work on communities of practice was
coined by Brown & Duguid in their article in the special issue of Organization Science on
OL back in 1991. However, at the time the ideas of OL had not yet come into full bloom,
which made it impossible to make a more comprehensive account of similarities and
differences between Brown & Duguid’s approach and other approaches within OL.
1
2
The market for theories on OL has been growing explosively in the last
few years3. Several writers have provided readers with overviews of the
many books and articles on OL.4 Much of the literature on OL has a
normative character, trying to tell managers how to design a learning
organisation (Schein 1992, Senge 1990). Within the realm of normative
management theory we may even talk about a movement from Total
Quality Management (TQM) via Business Process Reingeneering (BPR) to
the design of LOs (Bjørn-Andersen & Chatfield 1996). We may, therefore,
view the design of a LO as yet another way of linking so-called customer
satisfaction and development of personnel competency, where one of the
abilities involved is continuous learning.5
One version of the pursuit comprises working with members of
organisations in order to develop their capacity for so-called systems
thinking, i. e. thinking of the organisation in wholes instead of in parts
(Roth & Senge 1996, Senge op. cit.). Another version is to develop systems
to "store" outcomes of organisational development, i. e. a so-called
organisational memory (e. g. an information system, and/or
organisational processes and routines). Individual members can then
draw upon such systems when they have to solve problems and make
decisions. The purpose is to reduce the dependency on individual
members in organisations in the performance of tasks (Huber 1991, Levitt
& March 1988, Nevis et al 1995, Shrivastava 1983). One may say that
where the former version focuses on developing the capacities of
individual members by developing their cognitive (i. e. thinking) abilities,
the latter is grounded in a reification process of activities that normally are
very fluid in nature, namely the production and reproduction of
information and knowledge.
I find that this approach to OL implies, on the one hand, a regulation of
organisational members by developing their way of thinking with the
express purpose of modifying their behaviour and aligning it with the
organisation, i.e. the vision of management. On the other hand, the
emphasis on organisational structures and processes at the expense of
individual members may also be viewed as an instrument to control
organisational processes. In other words, OL may be viewed as a tool for
aligning the behaviour of organisational members and the organisation as
a whole.
The notion of OL as a tool to regulate and control organisational members
and processes may imply developing a "learning culture" (Schein op. cit.)
To mention a few, see e.g. Argyris 1992, Argyris & Schön 1974, 1978, Elkjaer 1995a,
1995b, Mabey & Iles (red.) 1994, Organization Science 1991, Schein 1992, Schön 1983a,
1983b, Senge 1990.
4 The following articles are overview articles: Dodgson 1993, Elkjaer 1994, Huber 1991,
Levitt & March 1988, Miner & Mezias 1996, Shrivastava 1983.
5 See Legge 1995 for an elaborated discussion of this theme.
3
3
and so-called "shared visions" (Senge op. cit.) initiated and kept alive by
management. Evidently, there is a strong belief that learning can be
"managed".6 In order to nourish this belief in organisations managers must
have the tools to design LOs and create intrinsic motivation - or rather
aspiration - in "their" organisational members. The specific interventionist
actions within this approach to OL are more or less an attempt to change
people's minds, thinking, attitudes and, thus, actions.
Organisations as Systems
What I have now termed the approach to OL as a management tool to
regulate and modify so-called inappropriate behaviour of organisational
members entertains a systems perspective on organisation. Senge (op. cit.)
admits to a systems perspective on OL, or rather, that his studies on OL
are based on the need to make members of organisations develop systems
thinking.7 Here, the role of management is crucial, maybe the most crucial.
The manager (who more often is a he than a she) should act as a model for
the employees, a star learner and developer of the organisational vision,
the mental model to be shared by all. According to Senge, a systems
perspective on organisations offers a new way of seeing and thinking, a
way in which it is possible to perceive underlying structures and wholes.
And it offers a language in which to communicate.
"Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a
framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for
seeing patterns of change rather than static "snapshots". (...)
And systems thinking is a sensibility - for the subtle
interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique
character. (...) Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing the
"structures" that underlie complex situations, and for
discerning high from low leverage change."
(Senge op. cit.: 68-69).
In the further development of his ideas Senge coins the organisation in a
"four by four" model that explains organisational complexity. On the one
hand, it comprises the dynamic complexity referring to how the relations
"between cause and resulting effects are distant in time and space" (Roth &
Senge 1996: 94), i. e. the so-called technical issues of organisational life. On
the other hand, there is behavioural complexity referring to the "diversity
in the organisations, mental models, and values of decision makers" (op.
cit.: 93). The model is supposed to help detect the type of problems that
have to be solved in organisations and to anticipate potential difficulties in
solving them.
6Mabey
& Iles 1994 even titled their reader on organizational learning "Managing
Learning".
7Senge (1990) is inspired by the work of Forrester, see e. g. Forrester & Senge (1980), and
later also by the work of Richardson (1991). See also Roth & Senge 1996.
4
This model is supposed to represent a "holistic" view on the organisation
as a system. But in fact, it turns into a partial view as specific systems
elements are pointed out, e. g. the dynamic and behavioural complexities,
to the effect that they become the structural and processual elements in
focus.8 Consequently, it is these elements that members in organisations
must learn to work with, so to speak. What I find most distressing,
however, is that the actual work with members in organisations is based
on a notion of learning that focuses on individual cognition.
It may seem as a contradiction in terms that the systems thinking on OL,
which is based on the idea of seeing wholes and not parts, is based on a
theory of learning such as individual cognition. It is as if a systems
perspective through its reification of organisational structures and
processes becomes blind to the importance of collective human actions
and interactions and, thus, to a social theory of learning. The
organisational perspective in this approach to OL becomes the perspective
of individuals who - separately - meet organisational structures and
processes. In other words, the perspective implies that specific
behavioural complexities meet specific dynamic complexities, and based
on a characterisation of the "meeting" the work with organisational
members can proceed.9
Learning as Individual Cognition
Learning as individual cognition is the most prevailing educational theory
of a psychological nature in the Western world. It takes its departure in
the idea that all human beings need to acquire the culture they are born
into, i. e. they have to become socialised to live in society. The purpose of
learning may be seen as the transmission of a cultural heritage and the
transfer of cultural knowledge. Socialisation is necessary in order for
societies to function the way they do. The individual (biological) person
meets a cultural world which s/he has to be socialised into, i. e. learn to
adapt to and internalise.10
I argue that learning as individual cognition has inspired the approach to
OL as a management tool. Here, learning is considered a part of our
8The
AGIL scheme of Talcott Parsons is a prime example of this, see Burrell & Morgan
1988/79: 54-55.
9I am aware that this description may not include all the subtleties in this organizational
perspective, and that I may be doing a great injustice to this approach to OL. But
sometimes such action is necessary in order to further an understanding of the more
basic, underlying values and assumptions in theoretical positions.
10There are many references on these processes under many different names and titles,
but mainly they are disguised under themes such as developmental or educational
psychology. See e. g. Jensen 1980, Lave 1988, Nielsen & Webb 1991. The work of Jean
Piaget (e. g. 1967) and his emphasis on adaptation as a sort of process of equilibrium
between the individual and its environment has had a great influence on the cognitivists,
see e. g. Prawat 1995.
5
biological heritage, of our genes, so to speak. But, apparently, the heritage
has been lost, and it is necessary to dig it out anew. To quote Senge:
"Learning organisations are possible because, deep down, we
are all learners. (...) Learning organisations are possible
because not only is it our nature to learn but we love to learn."
(Senge 1990: 4, my underlining).
It is quotations like these and the prevalent use of individual, mental
models that can be "worked with", changed and aligned to organisational
visions, etc. in addition to the absence of a social learning theory which
make me suggest that this approach to OL is based on a learning theory
which may be called learning as individual cognition.
The purpose of the learning process is to develop the capacity for systems
thinking which demands "a change of mind" in order to "see the world
anew" (Senge 1990: 68. In other words, the process aims at creating a new
way of thinking and new attitudes by focusing on capacities that we
already have as (individual) human beings, but which are latent.
Something must be done to let out our "inner" (intrinsic) desire to learn.
The desire to learn must be aroused in all the organisational members to
further the development of a LO. In order to do this it is necessary to
expand the intelligence(s), capacities and abilities of each individual
organisational member. The members’ abilities must be developed and
their attitudes (subsequent actions) must be "shaped" to fit organisational
purposes. This is the major reason for designing an organisational vision
in accordance with top management which will be transferred and
eventually internalised by organisational members into their own mental
models.11
As mentioned in the beginning of my paper, I find learning as individual
cognition very distressing in the approach to OL as a management tool.
The reason is that in this way individuals are viewed as walking entities
with a(n) (un)consciousness that can be "worked upon" to arouse hidden
creativity for the benefit of the organisation - and to satisfy the
individuals’ so-called learning aspirations. The organisation becomes the
sum of all the individuals tied together in an organisational (reified)
system. I wish to argue that such an approach does not conceptualise
11Argyris
& Schön’s work (1974, 1978, see also Argyris 1992, 1996) on OL, which they
themselves term a theory of action, is based on working with mental maps and models of
individuals' (and organizations') actions. They distinguish between the unconscious
mental maps of action, the so-called theory-in-use, and the conscious mental maps of
actions, the espoused (verbalized) theory in action. We can say that organizations have
both forms of mental maps. Argyris & Schön’s interventionist work takes its point of
departure in an organizational development tradition (OD) (see e. g. Hollway’s work
(1991) on the OD tradition) and focuses especially on improving communication in
organizations, i. e. raising the consciousness and awareness of organizational members
about their actual theories-in-use to find out whether they ought to be changed.
6
learning and organisational life as social. In the following I will elaborate
on the implications.
Situated Learning
Simultaneously with the growing interest in OL there has also been an
increasing interest in describing learning as situated in social practice. This
approach has developed in opposition to the psychological, cognitive
view on learning as practised in formal and institutional settings.12
Primarily, writers on situated learning theories come from educational
research, i. e. they are trying to rewrite educational theory along lines that
differ from individual cognition. Their work is based on theories of
everyday life and social culture.13
When learning is viewed as situated learning processes, i. e. as part of a
social practice, we are in an epistemological world that differs from the
approach viewing OL as a (management) tool, i. e. as a variable that can be
used to design organisations. We are now in the metaphorical world of
interpretation. Here, the perspective on learning is not based on the
individual, but on the social practice of organisational life. The bare
thought of reifying social structures and processes within this approach to
learning is impossible as they are continuously being produced and
reproduced.14 In other words, the perception is focused on change rather
than order and regulation.
Viewing learning as an inherent part of social practice, as something
interpreted from the world we live in, may also be called a social
constructivist approach to learning - and organisations. The concepts
developed within this approach are e.g. "learning-in-working", where
learning is an inevitable part of working (together) in social settings. Work
practices are viewed as social constructions, i. e. as constructed through
narration and story-telling (Orr 1990). From this perspective the
organisation may be viewed as several communities of practice (Lave &
Wenger 1991).
The "rationale" behind this perspective argues that learning is more than
information-processing and the "transfer" of "right" attitudes and cultures.
It is based on a tradition of everyday life and includes a non-dualist
perception of concepts such as body-mind, real-ideal, value-fact, emotion12First
and foremost, I think of the work of Lave & Wenger 1991, but also of Brown &
Duguid 1991, Orr 1990 as well as other writers who in one way or another are connected
with the work on situated learning processes. One may also refer to the work on
distributed cognition, see e. g. Salomon (ed.) 1993.
13Actually, this work has a Danish counterpart based upon critical theory, see e. g.
Nielsen & Webb 1991, Olesen 1985.
14In my interpretation of different epistemological positions within theories on OL I am
indepted to the work of Smircich (1983) on organizational culture.
7
cognition.15 And, as mentioned earlier, the academic tradition originates in
an attempt to find an alternative to learning based on individual
cognition.
As an alternative to individual cognition Lave & Wenger (1991) have
developed an analytical concept, legitimate peripheral participation, LPP,
for the understanding of learning as a basically social affair. The concept,
LPP, derives from several interpretations of apprenticeship learning
situations, i. e. situations where learning as participation in practice plays
an important, if not an essential, part. However, developing the concept of
LPP serves a wider purpose than understanding apprenticeship learning
situations. Lave & Wenger argue that the concept can be used to
understand all forms of learning.
The concept, LPP, was developed in an effort to find a term that could be
used to understand learning in situations where there were no teaching
activities. The concept, LPP, does not differentiate between practice and
learning, but participation in any practice implies that learning in some
form or other has occurred. This is one of the reasons for introducing the
concept, LPP, in a paper on OL.
The concept, LPP, calls attention to the fact that learners inevitably are
participating in so-called communities of practice.16 To acquire mastery of
knowledge and skills in an organisational setting a newcomer must
participate fully in the so-called socio-cultural practices of a community, e.
g. a professional community. When we view learning as an integral and
inseparable part of social practice, it implies that learning a skill comes
from actually engaging in the process of performance. The concepts of
meaning, understanding and learning are all defined relatively to the
actional contexts, not to self-contained structures.
The concept, LPP, consequently changes the locus of learning. Learning
takes place in a participation framework, not in the individual mind. This
means that it is mediated by the differences of perspective (multiple
perspectives) among the co-participants. According to this definition it is
the community who "learns". However, such a learning process does not
imply that the individual has been overlooked, it implies a perception of
the individual as part of a community. The learning process involves both
learning an identity and a profession or skill in addition to a sense of
belonging to the organisation.
15See
Lave (1988) for a critique of the psychological cognitivist tradition within
educational research.
16I think there may also be a term "communities of practitioners", but then the focus is on
the actual learners/persons, whereas the concept "communities of practice” focuses on
the context of the situation. See also Lave 1993.
8
Within the framework of LPP both the distinction between learning and
practice and the distinction between the individual and the organisation
appear to have dissolved conceptually. This is the background for my
attempt to theorise about the underlying concept of organisation as well
as for elaborating on the concept of learning. In the following I will view
organisations from an interactionist perspective and learning as implying
reconstruction and reorganisation of experience that essentially is
individual - but from a perspective of individuals as socially shaped and
vice versa.
An Interactionist Perspective on Organisations
As theories on situated learning take their point of departure in viewing
organisations as communities of practice, I will focus on organisations
from an interactionist perspective. And the concept of organisations as
communities of practice corresponds indeed to an interactionist
perspective on organisational life. Star (1992) makes a parallel between
Lave & Wenger's concept of communities of practice and Strauss' (1993)
interactionist concept of organisations as social worlds: "This (concept of
social worlds) is the same concept as that of "community of practice" - a
unit of analysis based on common activities and their attendant symbols."
(Star, op. cit.: 401).
Strauss' (op. cit.) theory of organisations as social worlds is based on a socalled theory of action17 that has been inspired by American pragmatism,
especially the work of John Dewey and George Herbert Mead in addition
to the academic tradition of the so-called Chicago-trained sociologists. The
theory emphasises how to conceptualise action, or rather acting as action
is viewed as an ongoing process. Action/interaction is viewed as a
continuous process as well as the (individual and collective) experience
that is an integral part of action. Normally, action/interaction consists of
routine activities, but they may be interrupted and lead to reorganisation.
It is an important assumption that the world of social phenomena is
highly complex, and that it is impossible to separate social stability and
social change. Therefore, process and structure should be viewed as
constituting each other, so to speak.
The individual is not an isolated entity meeting society, but a social being,
shaped by and shaping society. Both individual and collective activity are
grounded in history, the present and the future. Actions and interactions
take place between and among group members and should not merely be
conceived as the actions and interactions of individuals. Therefore, the
same actions result in multiple meanings due to the multiple perspectives
of the interactants. Furthermore, individuals engage in self-reflection
(thinking) before, during and after any overt actions. These multiple
17See
also excellent accounts of this approach to perceiving organizations in Clarke 1991.
9
perspectives are further complicated by the multiple memberships in
social worlds. We all recognise a self "in" our actions and in those of
others, i. e. we can reflect on ourselves and others.18
Strauss has developed the concept of "trajectory", which he regards as the
central concept in his "sociological, interactionist theory of action". He uses
the concept trajectory in two ways:
"(1) The course of any experienced phenomenon as it evolves
over time (an engineering project, a chronic illness, dying, a
social revolution, or national problems attending mass or
"uncontrollable" immigration) and (2) the actions and
interactions contributing to its evolution. That is, phenomena
do not just automatically unfold nor are they straightforwardly
determined by social, economic, cultural, or other
circumstances; rather, they are in part shaped by the
interactions of the concerned actors."
(Strauss 1993: 53-54, his underlining).
Moreover, Strauss has developed several so-called subconcepts, but to go
into these will take me outside the theme of OL. However, he has also
developed what he calls a conditional matrix, which should be used as an
instrument for understanding the conditions of actors' interaction and the
results derived from actors’ memberships in social worlds and subworlds.
To quote:
"Other conditions bearing on interactions can be thought of in
terms of a conditional matrix, ranging from broader, more
indirect conditions to narrower and more directly impacting
ones. The specific relevance of conditions can be analyzed by
means of tracking conditional paths."
(Strauss op. cit.: 42).
A methodological procedure for tracing the conditional paths in order to
lay out the conditional matrix for trajectory unfolding has been developed
by Strauss and his colleagues. It is a method for tracking events through
different levels of conditions from the international level to the level of
interaction and action.
In accordance with the Chicago tradition Strauss uses the concept social
worlds. It is a term which points to the necessity of going beyond thinking
in terms of social structure, i. e. thinking in terms of e. g. social classes,
ethnic groups and institutions as determining and all-significant variables.
Strauss does not dismiss that these variables are relevant, but they do not
encompass all human actions and interactions. Instead, he suggests that
we study social worlds which he defines as:
18See
also Strauss 1959.
10
"groups with shared commitments to certain activities, sharing
resources of many kinds to achieve their goals, and building
shared ideologies about how to go about their business."
(Clarke 1991: 131, cited in Strauss op. cit.: 212, my
underlining).
The social worlds do not represent social units or "social structures", but a
recognisable form of collective action. They are formed by individual
commitments. When using the term situated learning in communities of
practice I think that Strauss' theory of action and his development of the
concepts trajectory, conditional matrix, social worlds and commitment
may increase our understanding of the term communities of practice by
including individual (yet, socially shaped) and institutional activities. In
the following I will elaborate on the studies of Lave & Wenger that deal
with learning, i. e. their perspective on situated learning.
Learning as Reorganisation and Reconstruction of Experience
Previously, I have claimed that the systems theory on OL is unable to
theorise on learning as a social phenomenon, but retreats from it as being
an individual affair. Individuals are seen as part of a system and as
constituting the system through their behaviour and the work they
perform which depend on the technical aspects of organisational life. I
also claimed that something is missing in the conceptualisation of
learning, i. e. the learning process in the situated learning theories. I have
shown that the social worlds perspective on organisations and the point of
departure in human action and interaction as a collective phenomenon
have potential to develop OL based on a social theory of learning.
In my analysis of this approach I will return to the tradition of pragmatist
philosophy and especially to the part focusing on education and learning
presented by the work of John Dewey.19 The most interesting concept in
his study on learning is his notion of experience. Dewey’s theory on
learning is not as such in opposition to the situated learning approach.
Rather, the two theories belong to the same field of enterprise.20 However,
I wish to call attention to Dewey's perspective on learning as I feel that the
interactional aspects of actions and learning in the situated learning
approach are disappearing together with the intentionality of individuals
in the learning processes, i. e. the purposeful and meaningful individual
learning processes.
Dewey defines education and learning in general as a continuous
reorganisation and reconstruction of experience. Learning takes place all
the time and in all situations where people act and interact - reflect and
19Primarily,
I refer to Dewey's work on learning and education: see Dewey, 1916/1966;
1933 (ed.)/1910; 1938/1963.
20See Garrison 1995 for an excellent discussion on this.
11
think. Dewey's notion of learning, or rather reflective experience, grows
out of a situation where a person is confused or in doubt, i. e. confronted
with a problem that makes her/him stop and think. His learning theory
can be described as the following stream: practice-> problem-> inquiry->
reflection-> new practice. Dewey's notion of learning implies a non-dualist
understanding of doing and knowing, action and thinking. The dualist
separation is replaced by a continuity of acting and knowing.
Dewey regards education as growth, or rather a growing process, i. e. a
continuous process as part of the development of life. Although learning
takes place in social situations, it is the individual learner who learns, and
learns through reorganising and reconstructing her/his experience. This
leads us to the definition of his concept of experience and what it means to
learn from experience:
"To "learn from experience" is to make a backward and
forward connection between what we do to things and what
we enjoy or suffer from things in consequence. Under such
conditions, doing becomes a trying; an experiment with the
world to find out what it is like; the undergoing becomes
instruction - discovery of the connection of things. (...) (1)
Experience is primarily an active-passive affair; it is not
primarily cognitive. But (2) the measure of the value of an
experience lies in the perception of relationships or continuities
to which it leads up. It includes cognition in the degree in
which it is cumulative or amounts to something, or has
meaning."
(Dewey, 1916(1966): 140, his underlining).
Thus, experience is not mere activity, mere doing, and it is not only
change, but change which implies reflection on former actions in order to
anticipate further consequences. The mere participation in practice, in
action, does not create learning. A person is only learning if she/he is able
to reflect upon her/his actions and reorganise as well as reconstruct
experience by continuously employing reflection - thinking - as a means of
action. The idea of learning as reorganisation and reconstruction of
experience is not a matter of pursuing an argument for or against
cognition. Learning theory, according to Dewey, involves both actions and
cognition, and actions without cognition are of little value in terms of
learning.
Reflecting and thinking are intentional efforts aiming at discovering
specific connections between our actions and the resulting consequences
to the effect that the two elements become continuous. This will allow a
person to act with an end in view, i. e. in a purposeful manner. We may
also say that learning begins by thinking (by having an end in view, a
purpose) and results in further thinking enabling the learner to come up
with new aims, etc. Thus, action is a necessary condition for thinking, but
not a sufficient one. Thinking, however, requires a language. The learner
12
needs a language to reorganise and reconstruct her/his experience. A
language will enable the learner to generalise e.g. about specific actions
and communicate them through words and concepts to her/himself and
others.
We may also call the learning theory involved problem-oriented, as its
point of departure is our encounter with a problem that will make us stop
and think and by means of purposeful inquiry lead us to reflect, think, and
change our practice. In other words, we discover a problem, make
inquiries, reflect on the problem and solve it for the time being. However,
the whole process is embedded in a social practice, which means that
learning involves changes in both social practice and individuals who are
engaged in a continuous reorganisation and reconstruction of their
experience - and expertise. They are engaged in personal growth processes
as well as in social changes, e. g. organisational changes.
The embeddedness of the learning process, i. e. reorganisation and
reconstruction of experience in social practice makes mediational means
important. In Dewey’s study mediation is done by way of language both
as "internal" thought processes and "external" communication processes.
The nature of language is essentially social, something that people share
as a (sub-) culture. It is the tool we use for thinking and (self-) reflection.
And for Dewey, language is the tool of tools. Other artefacts, such as
technology, are also perceived as embedded in the social world and play a
crucial role in developing (social) learning. The reason is that language is a
means to turn thinking into a social medium, i. e. a way of sharing the
world with others.
"The invention and use of tools have played a large part in
consolidating meanings, because a tool is a thing used as
means to consequences, instead of being taken directly and
physically. It is intrinsically relational, anticipatory, predictive.
Without reference to the absent, or "transcendence", nothing is
a tool. (...) As to be a tool, or to be used as means for consequences, is to have and to endow with meaning, language,
being the tool of tools, is the cherishing mother of all
significance."
(Dewey 1925/1958: 185-186).
When we view language as a tool of communication we establish a cooperation between partners. It is not a mere "expression" of something
antecedent or of antecedent reasoning. Language is a tool for generating
meaning in co-operation with others - and in communication with oneself.
As such, it may be viewed as a form of action.
From OL to Learning Communities?
13
The time has come for me to tie up all the loose ends in my paper. It is not
an easy task as I should have preferred to come up with solutions that
would have practical, i. e. interventionist, implications for the world of
practice. However, as I have not yet concluded my empirical research on
these issues, I am afraid it is going to be more loose ends and ideas.
In my argument for developing a social learning theory within the
academic and practical pursuit of developing OL I am opposed to the lack
of difference between the interventionist practice in the development of
OL and the traditional OD practices. In essence, it is the same practice, but
disguised under yet another name. In other words, it involves working
with individuals (as well as groups), different exercises for improving
communication (talking and listening), so-called team-building exercises,
etc., etc.. And, although I acknowledge the work with individuals and - if
you like - their psychological development, this type of work does not
acknowledge the multiplicity of identities, the complexities of social action
and interaction, the tough and painful work of reorganising and
reconstructing experience (i. e. learning), etc. It does not recognise how
difficult it actually is to learn, i.e. to achieve actual changes in action and
interaction.
It is not enough trying to persuade members of organisations about the
benefits of following and aligning themselves to one master vision of a LO
as a continuously developing and changing process. When organisational
members enter and leave organisations, they have more than an employee
identity. They carry with them their past, present and future life, which
intervenes with organisational life, sometimes in a committed way and
sometimes in a less committed form. The commitment of the
organisational members depends on and is shaped by the members’ whole
life (past, present, future) and by what may be called the (present)
organisational processes and structures.
I am concerned by the simplicity with which OL as a management tool
treats the notion of social life and learning in organisations. There is no
such thing as a pedagogical or learning "fix" in the design of LOs.
Learning and social development is an inherent part of human action and
interaction, in fact of human life, and I find it unconvincing trying to
manage and control human life.
14
References
Argyris, Chris & Schön, Donald A. (1974) Theory in Practice. Increasing
Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Argyris, Chris & Schön, Donald A. (1978) Organisational Learning: A Theory
of Action Perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Argyris, Chris (1992) On Organisational Learning. Cambridge: Blackwell
Publishers.
Argyris, Chris (1996) Unrecognized Defenses of Scholars: Impact on
Theory and Research. In: Organization Science, 7(1): 79-87.
Bjørn-Andersen, Niels & Chatfield, Akemi (1996) Driving Organizational
Transformation through the Use of Inter-Organizational Systems (IOS). Invited
plenary presentation. Ninth International Conference on EDI-IOS, Bled,
Slovenia, June 1996.
Brown, John Seely & Duguid, Paul (1991) Organizational Learning and
Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning,
and Innovation. In: Organization Science, 2(1): 40-57.
Burrell, Gibson & Morgan, Gareth (1988/1979) Sociological Paradigms and
Organisational Analysis. Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Aldershot:
Gower.
Clarke, Adele E. (1991) Social Worlds/Arenas Theory as Organizational
Theory. In: Maines, David R. (ed.) Social Organization and Social Process.
Essays in the Honor of Anselm Strauss. New York: Aldine de Gruyter: 119158.
Dewey, John (1916/1966) Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the
Philosophy of Education. New York: The Free Press.
Dewey, John (1925/1958) Experience and Nature. New York: Dover
Publications.
Dewey, John (1933 (rev.)/1910) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation
of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: D. C. Heath and
Company.
Dewey, John (1938/1963) Experience and Education. New York: Collier
Books.
Dodgson, Mark (1993) Organizational Learning: A Review of Some
Literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3): 375-394.
15
Elkjaer, Bente (1994) Arbejde som kontinuerlig læreproces? (Work as a
continuous learning process?) In: LOKE. Om arbejdsmiljø, teknologi,
samfund, uddannelse, 12: 3-5.
Elkjaer, Bente (1995a) Learning is an Active and Personal Process. In:
Cristina Zucchermaglio, Sebastiano Bagnara, Susan Stucky (eds.):
Organizational learning and technological change. Berlin, Springer: 75-95.
Elkjaer, Bente (1995b) Learning as the New Form of Labor. Paper presented at
the AERA (American Educational Research Association) Conference in
San Francisco (24 pp). Department of Informatics and Management
Accounting Working Paper.
Forrester, Jay W. & Senge, Peter M. (1980) Tests for Building Confidence in
System Dynamics Models. In: TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, 14:
209-228.
Garrison, Jim (1995) Deweyan Pragmatism and the Epistemology of
Contemporary Social Constructivism. In: American Educational Research
Journal, 32(4): 716-740.
Hollway, Wendy (1991) Work Psychology and Organizational Behavior.
Managing the Individual at Work. London: Sage Publications.
Huber, George P. (1991) Organizational Learning: the contributing
processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1): 88-115.
Jensen, Jørgen Pauli (1980) Udvikling og Livsvilkår. (Development and
Conditions of Life). Copenhagen: Gyldendals pædagogiske bibliotek.
Lave, Jean & Wenger, Etienne (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral
Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, Jean (1988) Cognition in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lave, Jean (1993) The Practice of Learning. In: Chaiklin, Seth & Lave, Jean
(eds.) Understanding practice. Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Legge, Karen (1995) Human Resource Management. Rhetorics and Realities.
Houndmills: Macmillan Business.
Levitt, Barbara og March, James G. (1988) Organizational Learning.
Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319-340.
16
Mabey, Christopher & Iles, Paul (eds.) (1994) Managing Learning. London:
Routledge.
Miner, Anne S. & Mezias, Stephen J. (1996) Ugly Duckling No More: Pasts
and Futures of Organizational Learning Research. In: Organization Science,
7(1): 88-99.
Nevis, Edwin C., DiBella, Anthony J. & Gould, Janet M. (1995)
Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems. In: Sloan Management
Review, Winter: 73-85.
Nielsen, Jørgen Lerche & Webb, Thomas W. (1991) An Emerging Critical
Pedagogy. Rethinking Danish Educational Philosophy in the Light of
Changing Concepts of Culture. In: Humanistisk Årbog, no. 4, Roskilde
Universitetscenter: 157-208.
Olesen, Henning Salling (1985) Voksenundervisning - hverdagsliv og erfaring.
(Adult teaching - everyday life and experience). Copenhagen: Unge
Pædagoger.
Organization Science. A Journal of The Institute of Management Sciences.
(1991) Special Issue Organizational Learning: Papers in Honor of (and by)
James G. March. 2(1).
Orr, Julian (1990) Sharing Knowledge, Celebrating Identity: Community
Memory in a Service Culture. In: Middleton, David & Edwards Derek
(eds.) Collective Remembering. London: Sage Publications: 169-189.
Piaget, Jean (1967) Intelligensens psykologi. ( The Psychology of
Intelligence). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.
Prawat, Richard S. (1995) Misreading Dewey: Reform, Projects, and the
Language Game. In: Educational Researcher, 24(7): 13-22.
Richardson, George P. (1991) Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems
Theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Roth, George L. & Senge, Peter M. (1996) From Theory to Practice:
research territory, processes and structure at an organizational learning
centre. In: Journal of Organizational Change, (9)1: 92-106.
Salomon, Gavriel (ed.) (1993) Distributed Cognitions. Psychological and
educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schein, Edgar H. (2nd. ed. 1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17
Schön, Donald A. (1983a) The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think
in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, Donald A. (1983b) Organizational Learning. In: Morgan, G. (ed.)
Beyond Method. Strategies for Social Research. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.
Senge, Peter M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The Art & Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Shrivastava, Paul (1983) A Typology of Organizational Learning Systems.
Journal of Management Studies, 20(1): 7-28.
Smircich, Linda (1983) Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis.
In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3): 339-58.
Star, Susan Leigh (1992) The Trojan Door: Organizations, Work, and the
"Open Black Box". In: Systems Practice, 5(4): 395-410.
Strauss, Anselm L. (1959) Mirrors and Masks. The Search for Identity. Illinois:
The Free Press of Glencoe.
Strauss, Anselm L. (1993) Continual Permutations of Action. New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
18