Organisational Learning and Effectiveness

Citation

Denton, J. (1999), "Organisational Learning and Effectiveness", Education + Training, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. i-ii. https://doi.org/10.1108/et.1999.41.5.i.1

This book is based on John Denton′s PhD research. His key research question was the extent to which organisational learning is a source of competitive advantage and this also becomes the focus for this book. Tentative conclusions in the affirmative are made. However, the value of this book lies less in the conclusions reached and more in the efforts the author makes to fill some of the gaps in our understanding of what organisations, who claim (or aspire) to be learning organisations, actually look like. For all the wealth of material on organisational learning there are still very few empirical data in the public domain.

Five case studies are pursued:

1. 1

   Coca Cola Schweppes;

2. 2

   3M;

3. 3

   Siebe;

4. 4

   Mayflower; and

5. 5

   Morgan Crucible.

Denton is successful in drawing a detailed picture of each company in terms of three levels, or dimensions:

1. 1

   strategy;

2. 2

   structure; and

3. 3

   culture.

The material, in the main, is based on interviews with managers and employees in the case study companies. I feel we hear rather too much of the “chief executive′s” voice and not enough of the “middle manager” but nevertheless the value of these data is that they are far more than just a summary of each company pulled from published information.

At some risk of oversimplification the approach Denton adopts is to develop a relatively simple model of “key characteristics” and then to evaluate each company′s approach to organisational learning using the nine characteristics which make up his frameÑwork. Two distinct groups emerge:

1. 1

   Group one companies are centralised, focused, bureaucratic, dominant in their markets, produce products using related technologies and are US owned.

2. 2

   Group two companies are relatively de‐centralised, unfocused, entrepreneurial, sometimes not dominant in their markets, sometimes produce products using unrelated technologies and are UK owned.

Interestingly, it is group one companies who Denton concludes are closest to the “ideal of the learning organisation”.

Herein, though, lies a problem with the text. At the outset Denton argues strongly in defense of his intention to regard organisational learning and the learning organisation as essentially synonymous. Flying in the face of academia he sides with the practicing manager who, Denton argues, is often “the best judge of whether a term has any meaning”. Yet, as we see when conclusions are drawn about the five case studies, all are identified as practicing organisational learning but some are viewed as closer to being a learning organisation. This is reflective of a somewhat bigger problem. Denton is critical himself of overly prescriptive texts on the issue. He avoids this trap and purports to integrate theory and practice. The book does engage with both the academic literature and practicing management but the residual probÑlem is that he fails to utilise the theoretÑical ideas more overtly and rigorously to challenge and question the practice he describes.

Overall, though, this is a useful addition to the literature on organisational learning. Its strength is the empirical data on which it is based and the clear and coherent way in which the author seeks to address the research questions established at the outset. It is clearly written and very well signposted. Indeed, some readers might find the regular pauses to check what has been covered and look ahead to the next theme a little frustrating and repetitive. However, given my brain′s increasing tendency to complain of overload I wish more authors would employ such a technique.