ideas ∙ thinkers ∙ practice
the learning organization Just what constitutes a ‘learning organization is a matter of some debate. We explore some of the themes that have emerged in the literature and the cont contrib ribut utio ions ns of key thin thinke kers rs like like Dona Donald ld Scho Schon n and and Pete Peterr Seng Senge. e. Is it anything more than rhetoric? Can it be realized? contents: introduction | the learning society and the knowledge economy | the learning organization | systems theory and the learning organization | dialogue and the learning organization | some problems and issues | conclusion | further reading and references | links associated pages: donald schön and the learning society | peter senge and the learning organization | dialogue | social capital
Many Many cons consul ulta tant nts s and and orga organi niza zati tion ons s have have reco recogn gniz ized ed the the comm commer erci cial al signif significa icance nce of organ organiza izatio tional nal learni learning ng – and the notion notion of the ‘learn ‘learning ing organization’ has been a central orienting point in this. Writers have sought to identify templates, or ideal forms, ‘which real organizations could attempt to emulate’ (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999: 2). In this sense the learning organi organizat zation ion is an ideal, ideal, ‘towar ‘towards ds wh which ich organi organizat zation ions s have have to evolve evolve in order to be able to respond to the various pressures [they face] (Finger and Brand 1999: 136). It is characterized by a recognition that ‘individual and collective learning are key’ ( op. cit.). Two Two important things result from this. First, while there has been a lot of talk about learning organizations it is very difficult to identify real-life examples. This might be because the vision is ‘too ideal’ or because it isn’t relevant to the requi requirem rement ents s and dynam dynamics ics of organi organizat zation ions. s. Secon Second, d, the focus focus on creating a template and upon the need to present it in a form that is comm commer erci cial ally ly attr attrac acti tive ve to the the cons consul ulta tant nts s and and writ writer ers s has has led led to a significant significant under-powe under-powering ring of the theoreti theoretical cal framework framework for the learning learning
orga organ nizat izatio ion. n. Here the there is a dist distin inct ct cont contra ras st with ith the the stud tudy of organizational learning. learning. Although theorists of learning organizations have often drawn on ideas from organizational learning, there has been little traffic in the reverse direction. Moreover, since the central concerns have been somewhat different, the two lite litera ratu ture res s have have deve develo lope ped d alon along g dive diverg rgen entt track tracks. s. The The lite literat ratur ure e on organization organizational al learning learning has concentrated on the detached collection and
analysis of the processes involved in individual and collective learning inside organizations; whereas the learning organizations literature has an action orientation, and is geared toward using specific diagnostic and evaluative methodological tools which can help to identify, promote and evaluate the qualit quality y of learni learning ng proces processes ses inside inside organi organizat zation ions. s. (Easte (Easterby rby-Sm -Smith ith and Araujo 1999: 2; see also Tsang 1997). We could argue that organizational learning is the ‘activity and the process by which ich orga organi niz zatio ations ns event ventua uall lly y reach ach th[ th[e] idea ideall of a lear learni ning ng organization’ (Finger (Finger and Brand 1999: 136). On this page we examine the path-breaking work of Donald Schon on firms as lear learni ning ng syst system ems s and and then then go on to explo xplore re Peter eter Seng Senge’ e’s s deep deeply ly influential treatment of the learning organization (and it’s focus on systemic thinking and dialogue). We finish with a brief exploration of the contribution of social capital to the functioning of organizations.
The learning society and the knowledge economy
The emergence of the idea of the ‘learning organization’ is wrapped up with notions such as ‘the ‘the learning society’. society’. Perhaps the defining contribution here was made by Donald Schon. He provided a theoretical framework linking the experience of living in a situation of an increasing change with the need for learning. The loss of the stable state means that our society and all of its institutions are in continuous processes of transformation. We cannot expect new stable states that will endure for our own lifetimes.
We must must lear learn n to unde unders rsta tand nd,, guid guide, e, infl influe uenc nce e and and mana manage ge thes these e transformations. We must make the capacity for undertaking them integral to ourselves and to our institutions. We must, in other words, become adept at learning. We must become able not only to transform our institutions, in response to changing situations and requirements; we must invent and develop institutions which are ‘learning syst system ems’ s’,, that that is to say, say, syst system ems s capa capabl ble e of brin bringi ging ng abou aboutt thei theirr own own continuing transformation. (Schon 1973: 28) One One of Scho Schon’ n’s s grea greatt inno innova vati tion ons s was was to explo xplore re the the exte extent nt to wh whic ich h companies, social movements and governments were learning systems – and how those systems could be enhanced. He suggests that the movement toward learning systems is, of necessity, ‘a groping and inductive process for which there is no adequate theoretical basis’ ( ibid.: 57). The business firm, Donald Schon argued, was a striking example of a learning system. He charted how firms moved from being organized around products toward integration around ‘business systems’ ( ibid.: 64). He made the case that many many comp compan anie ies s no long longer er have have a stab stable le base base in the the tech techno nolo logi gies es of partic particula ularr produc products ts or the system systems s build build around around them. them. Crucia Crucially lly Donald Donald Schon then went on with Chris Argyris to develop a number of important concepts with regard to organizational learning. learning. Of particular importance for later developments was their interest in feedback and single- and doubleloop learning. Subsequently, we have seen very significant changes in the nature and organi organizat zation ion of produc productio tion n and servic services. es. Compan Companies ies,, organi organizat zation ions s and governments have to operate in a global environment that has altered its character in significant ways. Productivity and competitiveness are, by and large, a function of knowledge generation and information processing: firms and territories
are
organized
in
networks rks
of
production,
management and distribution; the core economic activities are global – that is they have the capacity to work as a unit in real time, or chosen time, on a planetary scale. (Castells 2001: 52) A fail failur ure e to atte attend nd to the the lear learni ning ng of grou groups ps and and indi indivi vidu dual als s in the the organization spells disaster in this context. As Leadbeater (2000: 70) has
argu argued ed,, comp compan anie ies s need need to inve invest st not not just just in new new mach machin iner ery y to mak make production more efficient, but in the flow of know-how that will sustain their busi busine ness ss.. Orga Organi niza zati tion ons s need need to be good good at know knowle ledg dge e gene genera rati tion on,, appropriation and exploitation.
The learning organization
It was in this context that Peter Senge (1990) began to explore ‘The art and Fifth practic practice e of the learni learning ng organi organizat zation ion’. ’. Over Over 750,00 750,000 0 copies copies of The Fifth Discipline (1990) were sold in the decade following its publication – and it is
probably this book that has been the most significant factor in popularising the notion of the learning organization. However, as Sandra Kerka remarked in 1995 1995 ‘the ‘therre is not… not… a cons consen ensu sus s on the the defi defini niti tion on of a lear learni ning ng organization’. Indeed, little has changed since. Garvin (2000: 9) recently observed that a clear definition of the learning organization has proved to be elusive.
Exhibit 1: Three definitions of a learning organization
Learn Learning ing organi organizati zations ons [are] [are] organ organiza izatio tions ns wh wher ere e people people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtur nurtured, ed, wh wher ere e collec collectiv tive e aspirat aspiration ion is set set free free,, and wher wh ere e peop people le are are cont contin inua ually lly lear learni ning ng to see see the the wh whol ole e together. (Senge 1990: 3) The Learning Company is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought about simply by training individuals; it can only happen as a result of learning at the whole organization level. A Learning Company is an organization that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself. (Pedler et. al. 1991: 1) Learning Learning organizat organizations ions are characterized characterized by total employee employee invo involv lvem emen entt in a proc proces ess s of coll collab abora orati tive vely ly condu conduct cted ed,, collec collectiv tively ely accoun accountab table le change change direct directed ed towar towards ds share shared d values or principles. (Watkins and Marsick 1992: 118)
We can see much that is shared in these definitions – and some contrasts. To start with the last first: some writers (such as Pedler et. al.) appear to appr approa oach ch lear learni ning ng orga organi niza zati tion ons s as some someth thin ing g that that are are init initia iate ted d and and developed by senior management – they involve a top-down, managerial imposed, vision (Hughes and Tight 1998: 183). This can be contrasted with more more ‘botto ‘bottom-u m-up’ p’ or democr democrati atic c approa approache ches s such such as that that hinted hinted at by Watkins Watkins and Marsick (1992; 1993). Some writers have looked to the learning company, but most have proceeded on the assumption that any type of organization can be a learning organization. A further crucial distinction has been reproduced from the use of theories from organizational learning. learning. This is the distinction made between technical and social variants (EasterbySmith and Araujo 1999: 8). The technical variant has looked to interventions based on measure measure such as the ‘learning curve’ curve’ (in which historical data on production costs is plotted against the cumulative output of a particular cit.). There is a tendency in such approaches to focus on product) (op. cit.
outcomes rather than the processes of learning. The social view of the lear learni ning ng orga organi niza zati tion on look looks s to inte interac racti tion on and and proc proces ess s – and and it is this this orientation that has come to dominate the popular lit erature. According to Sandra Kerka (1995) most conceptualizations of the learning organizations seem to work on the assumption that ‘learning is valuable, continuous, and most effective when shared and that every experience is an opportunity to learn’ (Kerka 1995). The following characteristics appear in some form in the more popular conceptions. Learning organizations: Provide continuous learning opportunities. Use learning to reach their goals. Link individual performance with organizational performance. Foster inquiry and dialogue, making it safe for people to share openly and take risks. Embrace creative tension as a source of energy and renewal. Are continuously aware of and interact with their environment. (Kerka (Kerka 1995) As Kerka Kerka (1995) goes onto comment, comment, the five disciplines disciplines that Peter Peter Senge goes on to identify (personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team lear learni ning ng and and syst system ems s thin thinki king ng)) are are the the keys eys to achi achiev evin ing g this this sort sort of
organization. Here, rather than focus too strongly on the five disciplines (the (these se can can be foll follow owed ed up in our our revie eview w of Se Seng nge e an and d th the e le lear arni ning ng organization)) we want to comment briefly on his use of systemic thinking organization and and his his inte intere rest st in ‘dia ‘dialo logu gue’ e’ (and (and the the virt virtue ues s it exhib xhibit its) s).. Thes These e two two elements in many respects mark out his contribution.
Systems theory and the learning organization
Systemic thinking is the conceptual cornerstone (‘The Fifth Discipline’) of Peter Senge’s approach. It is the discipline that integrates the others, fusing them them into into a coher coheren entt body body of theory theory and practi practice ce (1990: (1990: 12). 12). System Systems s theory’s ability to comprehend and address the whole, and to examine the inter interre relat lation ionshi ship p betwee between n the parts parts provid provides, es, for Peter eter Senge, Senge, both both the incentive and the means to integrate the disciplines. Three things need noting here. First, systems theory looks to connections and to the whole. In this respect it allows people to look beyond the immediate context and to appreciate the impact of their actions upon others (and vice versa). To this extent it holds the possibility of achieving a more holistic understanding. Second, while the building blocks of systems theory are relatively simple, they can build into a rather more sophisticated model than are current in many organizations. Senge argues that one of the key problems with much that is written written about, and done in the name of managemen management, t, is that rather simplistic frameworks are applied to what are complex systems. When we add these two points together it is possible to move beyond a focus on the part parts, s, to begi begin n to see see the the wh whol ole, e, and and to appr apprec ecia iate te orga organi niza zati tion on as a dynamic process. Thus, the argument runs, a better appreciation of systems will lead to more appropriate appropriate action. Third, systemic systemic thinking, thinking, according according to Senge, Senge, allows allows us to reali realize ze the signif significa icance nce of feedb feedback ack mechan mechanism isms s in organizations. He concludes: The systems viewpoint is generally oriented toward the longterm term view view.. That That’s ’s wh why y dela delays ys and and feed feedba back ck loop loops s are are so impo import rtan ant. t. In the the shor shortt term term,, you you can can ofte often n igno ignore re them them;; they’re inconsequential. They only come back to haunt you in the long term. (Senge1990: 92)
While other writers may lay stress on systems theory, in Senge's hands it sharpens the model - and does provide some integration of the 'disciplines' he identifies.
Dialogue and the learning organization
Peter eter Seng Senge e also also plac places es an emph emphasi asis s on dialogue in orga organi niza zati tion ons s – especi especially ally with with regar regard d to the discip disciplin line e of team team learni learning. ng. Dialog Dialogue ue (or conv conver ersa sati tion on)) as Gada Gadame merr has has argu argued ed is is a proc proces ess s of two two peop people le unde unders rsta tand ndin ing g each each othe otherr. As such such it is inhe inhere rent ntly ly risk risky y and and invo involv lves es questioning our beliefs and assumptions. as sumptions. Thus it is a characteristic of every true conversation that each opens himself to the the oth other pers erson, on, trul truly y acce accept pts s his his poin pointt of view iew as worth orthy y of cons consid ider erat atio ion n and and gets gets insi inside de the the othe otherr to such such an exten xtentt that that he understands not a particular individual, but what he says. The thing that has to be grasped is the objective rightness or otherwise of his opinion, so that they can agree with each other on a subject. (Gadamer 1979: 34 7) The concern is not to 'win the argument', but to advance understanding and human well being. Agreement cannot be imposed, but rests on common convic convictio tion n (Haber (Habermas mas 1984: 1984: 285-28 285-287). 7). As a social social relat relation ionshi ship p it entails entails certain virtues and emotions. It is easy to see why proponents of the learning organization would place a strong emphasis upon dialogue. As Peter Senge has argued, for example, team team lear learni ning ng enta entail ils s the the capa capaci city ty of memb member ers s of a team team to susp suspen end d assump assumptio tions ns and enter enter into into a genuin genuine e “think “thinking ing togeth together”’ er”’ (1990: (1990: 10). 10). Dialogue is also necessary to other disciplines e.g. building a shared vision and develo developin ping g mental mental models models.. Howeve However, r, there there are are signif significa icant nt risks risks in dialogue to the organization. One factor in the appeal of Senge's view of dialogue (which was based upon the work of David Bohm and associates) was the promise that it could increase and enrich corporate activity. It could do this this,, in part part,, thro throug ugh h the the expl explora orati tion on and and ques questi tion oning ing of ‘inh ‘inher eren ent, t, predetermined purposes and goals’ (Bohm et. al. 1991). There is a clear parallel here with Argyris and Schön’s work on double-loop learning, learning, but interesti interestingly ngly one of Bohm's Bohm's associates associates has subsequen subsequently tly suggeste suggested d that their view was too optimistic: ‘dialogue is very subversive’ (Factor 1994).
Some problems and issues
In our discussion of Senge and the learning organization we point to some particular problems associated with his conceptualization. These include a failur failure e to fully fully appre apprecia ciate te and incorpo incorporat rate e the imperat imperative ives s that that animat animate e modern organizations; the relative sophistication of the thinking he requires of managers (and whether many in practice they are up to it); and questions around his treatment of organizational politics. It is certainly difficult to find real-life examples of learning organizations (Kerka 1995). There has also been a lack of critical analysis of the theoretical framework. Base Based d on thei theirr stud study y of atte attemp mpts ts to refo reform rm the the Sw Swis iss s Posta ostall Serv Servic ice, e, Matthias Finger and Silvia Bűrgin Brand (1999) provide us with a useful listing of more important shortcomings of the learning organization concept. Th They conc onclud lude that that it is not not pos possible ible to tran trans sfor form a bure ureaucr aucrat atic ic organization by learning initiatives alone. They believe that by referring to the notion of the learning organization it was possible to make change less threatening and more acceptable to participants. ‘However, individual and collective learning which has undoubtedly taken place has not really been connected to organizational change and transformation’ (ibid.: 146). Part of the the iss issue, ue, they they sugg sugge est, st, is to do with ith the conce oncept pt of the the lear learn ning ing organi organizat zation ion itself itself.. They They argue argue the follow following ing points points.. The concep conceptt of the learning organization: Focuses mainly on the cultural dimension , and does not adequately
take into account the other dimensions of an organization. To transform an organization it is necessary to attend to structures and the organization of work as well as the culture and processes. ‘Focussing exclusively exclusively on training activities in order to foster learning… favours this purely cultural bias’ ( ibid.: 146). Favours individual and collective learning processes at all levels of
the organization, but does not connect them properly to the organization’s strate strategic gic object objective ives. s. Popul Popular ar models models of organi organizat zation ional al learni learning ng (such (such as Dixon 1994) assume such a link. It is, therefore, imperative, ‘that the link between individual and collective learning and the organization’s strategic objectives is made’ ( ibid.: 147). This shortcoming, Finger and Brand argue, makes a case for some form of measurement of organizational learning – so
that it is possible to assess the extent to which such learning contributes or not towards strategic objectives. Remains Remains rather rather vague vague. The exact exact funct function ions s of organi organizat zation ional al learn learning ing
need to be more clearly defined. In our view, organizational learning is just a means in order to achieve strategic objectives. But creating a learning organization is also a goal, since the ability permanently and collectively to learn is a necessary precondition for thriving in the new context. Therefore, the capacity of an organization to learn, that is, to function like a learning organization, needs to be made more more concr concrete ete and instit instituti utiona onaliz lized, ed, so that that the manage manageme ment nt of such such learning can be made more effective. ( ibid.: 147) Finally, Finger and Brand conclude, that there is a need to develop ‘a true management system of an organization’s evolving learning capacity’ (op. cit.). This, This, they they sugges suggest, t, can be achiev achieved ed throug through h defini defining ng indica indicators tors of
lear learni ning ng (ind (indiv ivid idua uall and and coll collec ecti tive ve)) and and by conn connec ecti ting ng them them to othe otherr indicators.
Conclusion
It could be argued that the notion of the learning organization provides mana manage gers rs and and othe others rs with with a pict pictur ure e of how how thin things gs coul could d be with within in an organization. Along the way, writers like Peter Senge introduce a number of interesti interesting ng dimension dimensions s that could be personally personally developmental developmental,, and that could increase organizational effectiveness – especially where the enterprise is firmly rooted in the ‘knowledge economy. However, as we have seen, ther there e are are a numb number er of short shortco comi ming ngs s to the the mode modell – it is theo theore reti tica call lly y underpowered and there is some question as to whether the vision can be reali realize zed d with within in the the sort sorts s of dyna dynami mics cs that that exis existt with within in and and betw betwee een n organizations in a globalized capitalist economy. It might well be that ‘the concept is being oversold as a near-universal remedy for a wide variety of organizational problems’ (Kuchinke (Kuchinke 1995 quoted in Kerka Kerka 1995). There have been various attempts by writers to move ‘beyond’ the learning organization. (The cynics among us might conclude that there is a great deal of money in it for the writers who can popularise the next ‘big thing’ in management and organizational development). Thus, we find guides and
texts on ‘the developing organization’ (Gilley and Maybunich 2000), ‘the accelerati accelerating ng organizati organization on (Maira and Scott-Morg Scott-Morgan an 1996), and ‘the evereverchanging organization’ (Pieters and Young 1999). Peter Senge, with various associ associate ates, s, has contin continued ued to produc produce e workbo workbooks oks and exten extensio sions ns of his analysis to particular fields such as schooling (1994; 1999; 2000). In one of the more interesting developments there has been an attempt to take the already substantial literature on trust in organizations (Edmondson and Moingeon 1999: 173) and to link it to developments in thinking around social capita capitall (espe (especia cially lly via the work work of politi political cal theor theorist ists s like like Robert Putnam)) (see Putnam (see Cohe Cohen n and and Prusa rusak k 2001 2001). ). We coul could d also also link link this this with with discussions within informal education and lifelong learning concerning the educ educat ativ ive e powe powerr of organ organiz izat atio ions ns and and grou groups ps (and (and henc hence e the the link link to organizational learning) (see the material on association elsewhere on these pages). Here the argument is that social capital makes an organization more than a collection of individuals. (Social capital can be seen as consisting of ‘the ‘the stoc stock k of acti active ve conn connec ecti tion ons s amon among g peop people le:: the the trus trust, t, mutu mutual al understanding, and shared values and behaviours that bind the members of human networks and communities and make cooperative action possible’, Cohen and Prusak 2001: 4). Social capital draws dr aws people into groups. This kind of connection supports collaboration, commitment, ready access to know knowle ledg dge e
and and tale talent nt,, and and
cohe cohere rent nt orga organi niza zati tion onal al beha behavi viou ourr. This This
description of social capital suggests appropriate organizational investments – namely, giving people space and time to connect, demonstrating trust, effe effect ctiv ivel ely y comm commun unic icat atin ing g aims aims and and beli belief efs, s, and and offe offeri ring ng equi equita tabl ble e opport opportuni unitie ties s and rewar rewards ds that that invite invite genui genuine ne partic participa ipatio tion, n, not mere mere presence. (Cohen and Prusak 2001: 4) In this formulation we can see many of the themes that run through the approach to the learning organization that writers like Watkins and Marsick (1993) (1993) take. take. The signific significant ant thing about about the use of the notion notion of social social capital is the extent to which it then becomes possible to tap into some inte interresti esting ng
rese resear arch ch
meth method odol olog ogie ies s
and and
some some
help helpfu full
theo theore reti tica call
frameworks. Quite where we go from here is a matter for some debate. It could be that the notion notion of the ‘lear ‘learnin ning g organi organizat zation ion’’ has had its ‘fif ‘fiftee teen n minute minutes s of
fame’. However, there does seem to be life in the notion yet. It offers an alternative to a more technicist framework, and holds within it a number of important important possibiliti possibilities es for organizati organizations ons seeking seeking to sustain sustain themselv themselves es and to grow.
Further reading and references
East Easter erby by-S -Smi mith th,, M., M., Bu Burg rgoy oyne ne,, J. and and Arau Araujo jo,, L. (eds (eds.) .) (199 (1999) 9) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage.
247 + viii pages. A collection with a good overview and some very helpful individual papers. The opening section provides reviews and critiques, the second, a series of evaluations of practice. learni ng in a Schön, D. A. (1973) Beyond the Stable State. Public and private learning changing society , Harmondsworth: Penguin. 236 pages. A very influential Lectures) arguing that ‘change’ is a book (following Schön’s 1970 Reith Lectures
fundamental feature of modern life and that it is necessary to develop social systems that can learn and adapt. Schön develops many of the themes that were to be such a significant part of his collaboration with Chris Argyris and his exploration of reflective practice. Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization, Londo ondon: n: Rand Random om Hous House. e. 424 424 + viii viii page pages. s. A semi semina nall and and
high highly ly reada eadabl ble e book book in wh whic ich h Seng Senge e sets sets out out the the five five ‘com ‘compe pete tent nt technologies’ that build and sustain learning organizations. His emphasis on system systems s thinki thinking ng as the fifth, fifth, and corner cornersto stone ne discip disciplin line e allows allows him to develop a more holistic appreciation of organization (and the lives of people associated with them).
References
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1996) Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Bohm, D., Factor, D. and Garrett, P. (1991) ‘Dialogue – a proposal’, the informal education archives.
Reframing Organizati Organizations. ons. Artistry Artistry,, Bolm Bolman an,, L. G. and and Deal Deal,, T. E. (199 (1997) 7) Reframing choice and leadership 2e, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jossey-Bass. 450 pages.
Castel Castells, ls, M. (2001) (2001) ‘Infor ‘Informat mation ion techno technolog logy y and global global capita capitalis lism’ m’ in W. Hutton and A. Giddens (eds.) On the Edge. Living with global capitalism , London: Vintage. Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001) In Good Company. How social capital makes organizations work , Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Press. Organizat zation ional al Learni Learning ng Cycle. Cycle. How we can learn learn Dixon, Dixon, N. (1994) (1994) The Organi collectively , London: McGraw-Hill.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. ‘Current debates and opportunities’ in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage.
Edmo Edmond ndso son, n, A. and and Moin Moinge geon on,, B. (199 (1999) 9) ‘Lea ‘Learn rnin ing, g, trus trustt and and orga organi niza zati tion onal al chan change ge’’ in M. East Easter erby by-S -Smi mith th,, L. Arau Araujo jo and and J. Burg Bu rgoy oyne ne
(eds (eds.) .)
Orga Organ nizat izatio iona nall
Learn earniing
and and
the the
Learn earnin ing g
Organization, London: Sage.
Factor,
D.
(1994)
On
Facilitation
and
Purpose,
http://www.muc.de/~heuve http://www .muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/facilitation_purpose.html l/dialogue/facilitation_purpose.html Finger, inger, M. and Brand, Brand, S. B. (1999) (1999) ‘The concep conceptt of the “learnin “learning g organization” applied to the transformation of the public sector’ in M. East Easter erby by-S -Smi mith th,, L. Arau Araujo jo and and J. Bu Burg rgoy oyne ne (eds (eds.) .) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage.
Gadamer, H-G. (1979) Truth and Method , London: Sheed and Ward. Learni ning ng in Ac Acti tion on.. A guid guide e to putt puttin ing g the the Garv Garvin in,, D. A. (200 (2000) 0) Lear learning organization to work , Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School
Press. Beyond nd the the Learn Learnin ing g Gill Gille ey, J. W. and and May Maybuni bunic ch, A. (200 (2000) 0) Beyo Org Organiz anizat atio ion. n.
Crea Creatting ing
a
cultu ulture re
of
cont contin inuo uous us
grow growtth
and and
develo developme pment nt throug through h statestate-of of-th -the-a e-art rt human human resour resource ce practic practices es,
Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Books.
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1, Cambridge: Polity Press. Hayes,
R.
H.,
Wheelwrig right,
S.
and
Clark, rk,
K.
B.
(1988)
Dynamic
Manufacturing: Creating the learning organization, New York: Free Press. 429
pages. Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (1998) The myth of the learning society’ in S. Ranson (ed.) Inside the Learning Society , London: Cassell. Kerka, Kerka, S. (1995) ‘The learning organization: myths myths and realities’ Eric Clearinghouse,
http://www.cete.org/acve http://www .cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=archive /docgen.asp?tbl=archive&ID=A028 &ID=A028.. Leadbeater, C, (2000) Living on Thin Air , London: Penguin. Malh Malhot otra ra,,
Y.
(1996 1996))
’Orga Organ nizat izatio iona nall
Learn arning ing
and and
Lear earning ning
Organizations: An Overview’ http://www http://www.brint.com/papers/orglrng. .brint.com/papers/orglrng.htm htm Accelerating Organizatio Organization: n: Maira, Maira, A. and ScottScott-Mor Morgan gan,, P. B. (1996) (1996) The Accelerating Embracing the human face of change , McGraw-Hill.
Marquandt, M. and Reynolds, A. (1993) The Global Learning Organization, Irwin Professional Publishing. Building ng the Learni Learning ng Organi Organizat zation ion, New Marqua Marquardt rdt,, M. J. (1996) (1996) Buildi New York: ork:
McGraw-Hill. Van Maurik, J. (2001) Writers on Leadership, London: Penguin. Company. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. T. (1991, 1996) The Learning Company. A strategy for sustainable development , London: McGraw-Hill. Ever-Changing ing Organizati Organization: on: Pieters, G. W. and Young, D. W. (1999) The Ever-Chang Creating the capacity for continuous change, learning and improvement , St
Lucie. Senge, P. et. al. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and Smith, B. (1999) The Dance Dance of Change Change:: The Challen Challenges ges of Sustai Sustainin ning g Moment Momentum um in Learni Learning ng Organizations, New York: Doubleday/Currency).
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N. Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. and Kleiner, A. School ols s That That Lear Learn. n. A Fift Fifth h Disc Discip iplin line e Field Fieldbo book ok for for Educ Educato ators rs,, (2000) Scho Par Parents,
an d
Everyone
Who
Cares res
About
Education,
New
York:
Doubleday/Currency Sugarm Sugarman, an, B. (1996) (1996) ‘Lear ‘Learnin ning, g, Working orking,, Managi Managing, ng, Sharin Sharing: g: The New New Paradigm
of
the
"Learning
Organization"’,
Lesley
Colleg lege,
http://www.lesley.edu/journals/jppp/2/sugarman.html Sugarman, B. (1996) ‘The learning organization and organizational learning: New Roles for Workers, Managers, Trainers and Consultants’, Lesley College, http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/sugarman/loandtd.htm Tsang, E. (1997) ‘Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dich dichoto otomy my
betw betwee een n
desc descrip ripti tive ve
and and
pres prescr crip ipti tive ve
rese resear arch ch’, ’,
Human
Relations, 50(1): 57-70.
Watk atkins ins,
K.
and and
Mars Marsic ick, k, V.
(eds eds.)
Sculpt ptin ing g (199 (1993) 3) Scul
the the
Learn Learnin ing g
Organi Organizat zation ion.. Lesson Lessons s in the the art and scienc science e of syste systemat matic ic change change, San
Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Watkins, Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. V. (1992) ‘Building the learning organization: a new role for human resource developers’, Studies in Continuing Education 14(2): 115-29.
Links
Analyze an organization’s learning climate – set of tools concerning cultural aspects of organizational development. The Business Researcher's Interests: Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management - Lots of links. Index Ind ex of lin links ks to lea learn rning ing or organ ganiza izatio tion n we websi bsites tes:: some ideas for getting started in learning about learning organizations. Learning Org -- A Discussion of Learning Organizations. Contains current messages and archives of the Learning-org mailing list. Learning Lea rning organ organizatio ization n prof profile ile – chec checkl klis istt prod produc uced ed by AS ASTD TD (Ame (Ameri rica can n Society For Training and Development)
The Learning Organizations Homepage: Homepage : articles on the nature of the learning organization plus articles and links. The Learning Organization: Organization: journal. The Learning Organization: Transformational Change: Change: article Organizational fitness Website Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations: An Overview Excellent collec collectio tion n of links links and papers papers @ Brint. Brint.com comAn An overvi overview ew of key concep concepts ts relat related ed to Organ Organiza izatio tional nal Learn Learning ing and Lear Learnin ning g Organi Organizat zation ions s coveri covering ng questions such as: What is Organizational Learning? What is a Learning Organization? What is Adaptive Learning vs. Generative Learning? What's the Managers' Role in the Learning Organization? What's the Relationship betw betwee een n Stra Strate tegy gy and and Orga Organi niza zati tion onal al Learni earning ng? ? Wh What at is the the Role ole of Info Inform rmat atio ion n Syst System ems s in the the Lear Learni ning ng Orga Organi niza zati tion on? ? Does Does Info Inform rmat atio ion n Technology Technology Impose Any Constraints on Organizational Learning? QuaSyLaTic Model / Thinking - Learning Organizations inspired homepage The Society for Organizational Learning Stan St anfo ford rd Le Lear arni ning ng Or Orga gani niza zati tion on Web (S (SL LOW OW)): The The Stan Stanfo forrd Learn earnin ing g Organization Web (SLOW) is an informal network of Stanford researchers, staff, and students along with colleagues and friends from the corporate world interested in the nature and development of learning organizations. To cite this page: Smith, M. K. (2001) 'The learning organization', the encycl encyclope opedia dia of inform informal al educat education ion, http://www http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning.infed.org/biblio/learning-
organization.htm.. Last update: organization.htm © Mark K. Smith 2001.
infed is an open, independent and not-for-profit site put together by a small group of educators [ about us]]. Give us your feedback us feedback;; write for us. Check our copyright notice when copying.
