Much of the organizational learning literature seems to be following in the tradition of learning theories and taking a psychological or individual perspective on the phenomenon. There is a debate about whether or not organizations can learn and many just take the approach that organizational learning is the sum total of the individual learning occurring in the workplace (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Levitt & March, 1988; Normann, 1985; Weick & Westley, 1996). What would happen if our focus shifted to one that is more anthropological and, therefore, focused on group learning? What if there was a shift from seeing learning as just cognitive to seeing it as occurring when groups try to make sense out of their world? As a result of this new view of organizational learning what would be some of the necessary shifts in attitudes, beliefs and practices? Why would companies want to become learning organizations? This paper will explore these issues.
It seems difficult to shift our view of learning to something groups do and that it is a natural part of our day- to-day activity. Many educators and theorists do not seem able to hear their own contradictions. James E. Russell, dean emeritus, Teachers College, Columbia University states:
It can not be pointed out too often that all education is self-education. Teachers may help define procedure, collect equipment, indicate the most propitious routes, but the climber must use his own head and legs if he would reach the mountaintop. . . . The best method of teaching adults yet hit upon is undoubtedly group discussion (Knowles, 1990, p. 34-35).The group approach to learning is very compatible with humanistic learning but even Carl Rogers in his book "Freedom to Learn" (1996) does not directly address group learning and group tasks. There is a reference to a "jigsaw approach" that assigns each student a piece that becomes part of a total project. This seems to fall short of what might be possible if we explore group learning as something different from the accumulation of individual learning. What will happen if workers move from cooperation, helping someone when asked, to collaboration, doing real work together. This paper will not debate the issue of whether or not there is such a thing as group learning. Instead let us just try to see what can be discovered about organizational learning when we take a different viewpoint of the topic.
The key concepts for developing this different view of organizational learning comes primarily from three sources. In one of the articles the authors see an organization as a culture and the juxtaposition of order and disorder often stimulates learning (Weick & Westley, 1996). The second looks at the social construction of knowledge in groups and how this changes the way we see learning (Bruffee, 1993). The third source uses the Native American medicine wheel to develop a model of organizational learning that is circular, longitudinal and integrative rather than linear, cross- sectional and compartmental. Learning is something that happens all the time (Cowan, 1995). Next these concepts from the three key sources are expanded to see what they indicate for organizational learning. Then some of the necessary shifts organizations may make in order to adopt these concepts are considered.
In an article by Weick and Westley in "Handbook of Organization Studies" (1996) called "Organizational Learning: Affirming an Oxymoron" the authors see organizations as cultures. They explain that organizational learning is an oxymoron because learning involves disorganization and an increase in variety while organizing involves forgetting and a reduction in variety. This sets up a tension that many workers do not use and often ignore in an effort to return to "organization." According to the authors, the juxtaposition of order and disorder is where learning occurs. Kofman and Senge (1993) also believe learning occurs when there is tension between fear of the unknown and having a need to change and between holding on and letting go of beliefs, assumptions and certainties.
Weick and Westley also suggest viewing an organization as a culture is useful because learning is an inherent characteristic of culture. According to anthropologist Larry Naylor (1996), even though culture is conceptualized differently
"anthropologists do agree on some things. Most of them agree that culture . . . must be learned. The fact that culture must be learned also means that it must be taught, making it a group and shared phenomenon. . . . Anthropologists also agree that cultures are always changing, because environments are always changing" (p. 18).Normann (1985) believes the current interest in culture by businesses results from the desire to learn through increasing understanding of assumptions, beliefs and values. Seeing organizations as cultures focuses on their experiential and social nature and views them as repositories for knowledge and as self-designing systems. Weick and Westley highlight three subsystems of culture where knowledge is embedded: language, artifacts, and action routines.
Other key concepts are found in a book called "Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge" by Kenneth Bruffee (1993). The basis of the whole book is the premise that knowledge is socially constructed. He calls this nonfoundational knowledge. Elias and Merriam (1995) do an excellent job explaining foundational knowledge,
Historically, the purpose of education has been the transmission of cultural heritage and the perpetuation of existing society. This concept is based upon the assumptions that society will remain pretty much the same from generation to generation and that society's elders know what knowledge and skills are necessary for maintaining the cultural status quo. This view also assumes that there is an identifiable body of knowledge that can be packaged and passed on to new learners (p. 121-122).Nonfoundational knowledge, since based on the social construction of knowledge, has the assumption there are no absolute or universal answers. The answers and knowledge belong to the specific communities which they develop based on their particular language, history and situation. Members of a community use language, symbols and artifacts to construct and reconstruct their knowledge over time. Several other authors (Brown & Gray, 1997; Kofman & Senge, 1993) see the value in taking a community building approach to organizational learning. Brown and Gray call them "communities of practice."
With regard to the social construction of knowledge, Bruffee says university education needs to change and, therefore, so will organizations. When a student enters a university he or she enters a new community which requires a process of what Bruffee calls reacculturation. In anthropology enculturation is the process of learning one's own culture while acculturation is the assimilation of one group to another culture's ways. Bruffee may be trying to emphasize the fact that students enter a university as members of many different cultures already but they still need to learn those of academia and a discipline. So Bruffee uses the term reacculturation to indicate the act of moving into a new subculture that is part of the individual's larger culture. His term is used here.
Peer groups that construct and reconstruct knowledge socially are the best environments for reacculturation. In a university setting, authority for knowledge first has to shift from the teacher to the peer group. Members of the group have to both grant authority to their peers and accept authority to help the group become reacculturated. The teacher's job becomes setting up the environment for this to happen. In many ways Bruffee's model is similar to humanistic learning as Elias and Merriam's comment demonstrates: "The role of the teacher in a humanistic setting is that of facilitator, helper, and partner in the learning process. The teacher does not simply provide information; it is the teacher's role to create the conditions within which learning can take place" (1995, p. 125).
Teachers have to learn to trust students to be responsible for their learning. This "necessitates abdicating the authority generally ascribed to the teacher role" (p. 125). In order for reacculturation to be successful Bruffee suggests students need to learn the "craft of interdependence" which might include such things as social, negotiation and conversational skills. Kofman and Senge (1993) talk about workers giving up their own certainty and recognizing their "interdependence within the larger community of practice" (p. 21).
Another significant article called "Rhythms of Learning: Patterns That Bridge Individuals and Organizations" by David Cowan (1995), develops a model for organizational learning based on concepts from the Native American medicine wheel. First, it is worth briefly describing the medicine wheel symbolized by a circle showing the four directions on a compass. The direction of movement is clockwise with learning beginning in the East that involves anticipation, direction, vision, and an expanded perspective. As you move around the circle from East to South, learners examine their new visionary ideas with attention to issues of action and implementation. The South is the place for curiosity and innocence where the learner closely examines details. The movement from the South to the West is the time to find the personal and social resolve to implement the vision. It is the time to accept the responsibility for the plan and figure out how it will fit with our lives, conviction and self-assurance. So in the West reflection is important along with letting go of any attachments formed earlier in the process. Moving from West to North is a making way for the new as old ideas die. It is a time for leadership and empathy for those who may need help as they journey along the medicine wheel path. The North is a time for integration and wisdom and sharing oneself with others so they may grow. Lastly, the movement from North to East involves an inner process of renewal and an awareness for the need to continue cycling around the wheel.
When incorporating the medicine wheel concepts into organizational learning, Cowan advocates four new premises for learning. First, learning needs to be seen as part of every performance and every relationship within an organization. Organizational learning, therefore, becomes an everyday occurrence with everyone taking responsibility for keeping the organization learning. Second, he also believes we need to move from a linear view of learning to one that is circular or a spiral. This is vital due to our continually changing contexts. We also need to learn more about the process of learning. With this view relearning, reexamining, rethinking, play, exploration, alternative paths and areas become very important.
Thirdly, Cowan calls for a movement from cross- sectional to longitudinal thinking. This position acknowledges the flows of learning where learning can occur on many levels and in different directions. For example, some employees can explore new ideas while others sustain the core identity of the company by maintaining consistency. Since learning occurs in relationships, flow helps us see them as continually changing so organizational structures need to change too. This leads to a growing emphasis on the value of diversity. Longitudinal thinking helps groups focus on harmony, balance, maturity and survival rather than immediate gratification.
Lastly, our view of learning also needs to change from one that is compartmental to one that is integrative. To Cowan this means valuing wisdom rather than expertise. Expertise always operates within a narrow scope and is only useful when one knows the context. Wisdom becomes more important when operating in uncertain contexts. Wisdom extends knowledge so we choose the game that is played as well as the means, ends and values more intelligently. Kofman and Senge (1993) say we need action but only when it comes from reflection that combines cognition, the body, emotions and spirit.
From the above referenced literature we now have many concepts with which to further examine a group perspective on organizational learning. For a summarization of the key concepts just covered contrasted with a more traditional view on learning see the table below. The ideas just highlighted will now be the basis for looking at shifts organizations will make when they use a group or holistic paradigm (Kofman & Senge, 1993).
| Group Paradigm | Individual Paradigm |
|---|---|
| Nonfoundational knowledge | Foundational knowledge |
| Knowledge continually constructed and reconstructed in groups | Knowledge is a body of knowledge given to learners by teachers |
| Need for tension between order - disorder | Need more organization and control |
| Learning inherent in culture, therefore inherent in organizations | Learning must be imposed, barriers to learning must be removed |
| Organizational knowledge embedded in language, artifacts, action routines | Organizational knowledge is the sum total of all individual knowledge |
| Learning in every interaction, relationship | Learning occurs by removing barriers |
| Authority needs to be given and accepted | Authority resides in managers and teachers |
| Managers help set up environment for workers to construct/reconstruct knowledge | Managers need to send employees to classes |
| Everyone is responsible for organizational learning | Managers are responsible for implementing organizational learning |
| Relearning, reexamining, rethinking, play, exploration are important | Setting goals, quality improvement, reduction of variance are important |
| Learning how to learn is important | Content learning is important |
| Harmony, balance, maturity, survival | Immediate gratification |
| Action + cognition + reflection + body + emotions + spirit | Action + cognition |
| Wisdom | Expertise |
One of the key shifts is the importance of nonfoundational knowledge and learning. From the viewpoint of knowledge as socially constructed and nonfoundational, knowledge is different for every organization and it is continually being constructed and reconstructed by its members. Depending upon the size of the organization there may also be subgroups within the organization that will have different knowledge. The group has constructed their current knowledge based upon their particular situation, the language they use and where they are historically. This dynamic quality to knowledge also reaffirms the need for a shift to accepting there are no right or absolute answers. With this outlook a greater sensitivity to differences between groups within the same company will develop. When members of different groups come together to work it will become important to first think about reacculturation or how they can understand each other and value the diverse knowledge within the group. (Bruffee, 1993; Brown & Gray, 1997; Cowan, 1995)
Viewing knowledge as socially constructed corresponds with viewing an organization as a culture. Learning is an inherent part of culture and organizations are, therefore, repositories for knowledge. So learning becomes a natural part of the organization as workers acquire, maintain and change the organizational culture embedded in such things as the organization's language, artifacts, and action routines. This highlights certain aspects of an organization that work groups can examine to stimulate their learning. Some of the elements anthropologists focus on when they want to understand a culture include myths or stories, metaphors, rituals, roles, structures, procedures, language, and symbols. (Cowan, 1995; Weick & Westley, 1996)
What members of organizations need to do is develop ways to examine their own culture. Thomas Kuhn, in the PostScript to the second edition of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," (1970) provides a model for developing a "disciplinary matrix" that can be used to understand individual scientific communities. An organizational community can use these ideas to study itself. The highlights of Kuhn's matrix include: 1. What symbolic generalizations and taken for granted assumptions do we have in this community; 2. What models do we believe in, what are the acceptable problems, solutions, and explanations and how important are the various problems, what analogies and metaphors do we use; 3. What are the shared values of the community even though there will be individual and group differences; 4. What are our exemplars for explaining how we work here, what are the stories we tell, and where is knowledge embedded in this community. Self-examination models will help organizations make the invisible visible. When groups of workers look at their own culture then rethinking, relearning, and reexamining become important for those things they believe they already know. (Cowan, 1995; Knowles, 1990; Weick & Westley, 1996)
Why do we find it difficult to view learning as part of every groups' day-to-day activity? As quoted in Knowles (1990), Maria Rogers, volunteer worker, New York City Adult Education Council said: "The educator who uses the group method of education takes ordinary, gregarious human beings for what they are, searches out the groups in which they move and have their being, and then helps them to make their group life yield educational values" (p. 35). This corresponds with Cowan's (1995) view that learning occurs in every interaction and relationship.
Learning should not just be seen as only occurring in special classes and workshops. Learning then shifts from mastery of discrete topics to learning about self, others, the organization, and how to learn. Wisdom not expertise becomes the goal. Learning that is ongoing does not depend upon a qualified teacher or expert because learning occurs in groups of peers as they construct and reconstruct existing knowledge. Real organizational genius occurs when workers solve difficult problems that the formal system does not address. Transfer of training, the lack of classroom knowledge being used back on the job, will no longer be a problem since learning happens during work interactions. This view of learning achieves a holistic perspective and allows workers to become aware of the self-organizing nature of organizational learning. (Brown & Gray, 1997; Bruffee, 1993; Cowan, 1995; Kofman & Senge, 1993)
According to the Native American medicine wheel, learning consists of multiple flows as many levels of learning go on simultaneously. For example, everyone on a project may not be in the same place as they move through different stages and areas of learning and become reacculturated into the project. If everyone has this new view of organizational learning then there will be greater acknowledgment of the diversity of learners in the group. There will be no search for "truth" or right answers. We can only create knowledge using our current language and produce something that works for this time in history, in this particular company, and for this particular situation. Before a group passes on knowledge to another group or to customers they may begin to consider how those groups will construct and reconstruct their knowledge to accept what they are given. (Bruffee, 1993; Cowan, 1995)
Relationships and interactions become very important and, therefore, so do skills that help individuals improve them. Bruffee (1993) believes members of groups need to develop the craft of interdependence. Specific skills are not listed but they fall under the categories of conversation and social skills, giving and accepting feedback, group process fundamentals, and achieving principled negotiation.
The craft of interdependence might also include learning more about learning and developing everyone's learning skills (Cowan, 1995). Weick and Westley (1996) point out that learning refers to both process and outcome and this serves to hide the dynamics of the process and the exact nature of the outcome. Rather than deal with this problem many organizational learning theorists choose to focus on individual learning in an organizational context rather than figuring out group learning.
Learning occurs in the tension created when organizing and learning are combined and not ignored in the need to maintain a state of organization. It becomes important for organizations to find the optimal juxtaposition between order and disorder. A good example of this is the idea of combining various organizational structures. The opposite extremes go from self-designing systems that explore and play to bureaucracies that exploit and achieve, ideally there should be a creative tension found when both exist within the same organization. (Weick & Westley, 1996)
Bruffee (1993) believes authority needs to shift, in a classroom situation, from the teacher to the peer group members. In an organization, authority needs to shift from the managers to the workers. Kofman and Senge suggest "our attachment to individualistic notions of leadership may actually block the emergence of the leadership of teams, and ultimately, organizations" (p. 27). This can also bring about a shift in power as everyone's voice becomes important and accepted by others. Each individual will have to grant authority to their peers that they will help them in their learning process. Workers will also need to accept authority for helping others and providing useful, constructive, and honest feedback.
Organizations also need to examine why they believe it is important to become a learning organization and what the repercussions will be. They need to believe it is important to transition to self-designing and self-diagnosing systems with everyone in the organization involved in this process. New organizational structures and new action routines are also necessary. The change takes work and should not be undertaken just because other organizations are doing so. (Cowan, 1995; Normann, 1985; Kofman & Senge, 1993; Weick & Westley, 1996)
Managers, like Bruffee's university teachers, will need to prepare to experience shifts in their authority. They need to see their function become one of setting up opportunities for groups to socially construct and reconstruct the organization's knowledge. Modeling of techniques from the craft of interdependence may also become a manager's obligation as they become a learning organization. This will also mean managers need to be able to handle a more chaotic environment as everyone takes responsibility for and becomes part of creating learning communities. Since everyone's voice should become more valued managers may also have to confront their own fear as power shifts within the organization. (Brown & Gray, 1997; Bruffee, 1993; Kofman & Senge, 1993) Carl Rogers (1994) recommended self-actualized facilitators for humanistic learning and managers of learning organizations may need to become so too.
Seeing the entire organization as learning and encouraging variety and exploration of alternative paths, makes it possible for some groups to explore while others maintain consistency. Those concentrating on consistency maintain the core identity of the organization while the rest look at new opportunities. This is one of the concepts from self-organizing systems -- these systems play and explore and yet continue to maintain the system's core nature. Learning becomes important for everyone within the organization. Each individual has to accept their responsibility for their own learning as well as helping others to learn. (Cowan, 1995)
Cowan (1995) believes organizations must shift from their linear and compartmental view of learning to one that is circular, longitudinal and integrative. Our current view of learning is a linear progression from novice to expert. Cowan points out that expertise is only useful when we know the context and consult the right expert. Today we cannot know the context because the environment is continually changing. This situation calls for wisdom rather than expertise. The scope of expertise is becoming too narrow to operate effectively in a rapidly changing world. Brown and Gray (1997) put the need another way, "The difference, increasingly, pivots not on information but on interpretation -- the ability to make meaning out of still- emerging patterns" (On-line) Wisdom extends knowledge and helps us to choose both the means and the ends as well as the values and the game we want to play.
We have explored a group viewpoint here in order to develop a more holistic approach to organizational learning. The work of changing our focus can begin with such concepts as organizational culture, juxtaposition of order and disorder, the Native American medicine wheel and the social construction of knowledge in peer groups. Organizations need to make some shifts in order to operate from this new perspective and some are discussed above. What is being called for here is an expanded focus to that of groups and the development of wisdom in individuals and the development of the capacity for self-designing and self-diagnosing by the whole organization. Many organizational learning theorists need to explore beyond their outlook of just individual learning to find ways to integrate and juxtapose individual and group learning for the expansion of organizational possibilities into unknown realms.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational
Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Brown, J. S., & Gray, E. S. (1997). The People Are the
Company. Fast Company, [On-line], Available:
http://www.fastcompany.com/t1/inprint/01/people.htm
Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative Learning: Higher
Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cowan, D. A. (1995). Rhythms of Learning: Patterns
That Bridge Individuals and Organizations. Journal of
management Inquiry, 4(3), 222-246.
Elias, J. L., & Merriam, S. (1995). Philosophical
Foundations of Adult Education, 2nd ed.. Malabar, FL:
Krieger Publishing Company.
Knowles, M. (1990). The Adult Learner: A Neglected
Species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993, Autumn). Communities
of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations.
Organizational Dynamics, pp. 5-23.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, 2nd ed.. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational
learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-40.
Naylor, L. L. (1996). Culture and Change: An
Introduction. Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey.
Normann, R. (1985). Developing capabilities for
organizational learning. In J. M. Pennings (Ed.),
Organizational Strategy and Change (pp. 217-48). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to
Learn, 3rd ed.. NY: Macmillan College Publishing Company.
Weick, K. E., & Westley, F. (1996). Organizational
learning: Affirming an Oxymoron. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy &
W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 440-
458). London: Sage.
|