Why learning organisations do not transform

Abstract

Purpose

In this paper it is held that a transformational learning organisation could be clearly distinguished from non‐learning organisations. This paper seeks to establish whether or not this is actually the case.

Design/methodology/approach

Case studies were developed for two organisations considering themselves to be learning organisations (Company 2 and Company 4) and two that did not (Company 1 and Company 3). To establish the balance of the learning behaviours within the firms according to Shivistrava's typology, a questionnaire was used to elicit information about learning behaviours and activities, and general understanding about what such terms as knowledge, information and learning meant to individuals within the firms.

Findings

The results of applying the Shrivastava model showed that most knowledge is action‐oriented and incrementally developed, in that it is developed in order to achieve a certain goal. Certain events will lead to a perceived need for certain behaviours and the organisational procedures and policies will encourage actions.

Originality/value

Shrivastava's typology outlines four perspectives of organisational learning: adaptation, developing knowledge of action‐outcome relationships, assumption sharing, and institutionalised experience. These definitions imply that they will reflect different knowledge bases.

Citation

Blackman, D. and Henderson, S. (2005), "Why learning organisations do not transform", The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 42-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470510574250