Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze learning organization by comparing with other types of organizations. This typology is based on the levels of consciousness and relates each type of organization with a level of learning and an organizational structure.

This is a conceptual paper based on the concept of levels of consciousness.

The paper proposes that learning organization requires the highest level of consciousness.

The paper uses the levels of consciousness to compare learning organization with other types of organizations.

This paper aims to describe and discuss the idea of the learning organisation as a paradox and to explore the implications of this idea for improving the longevity and influence of the learning organisation concept.

The paper presents qualitative data drawn from MBA students’ involvement in learning about leadership. Participants’ written reflections on the “Temporary Learning Organisation (TLO) Exercise” are used to illustrate paradoxical tensions emerging from their attempts to lead the emergence of a learning organisation.

Three inter-connected paradoxical tensions are identified: inhibited freedom, detached engagement and ambivalent enthusiasm. These can help to explain how processes and practices that encourage learning in organisations are inseparable from those that undermine the effort to learn.

The paper presents a novel way of looking at the debate between the learning organisation as a positive ideal, and the learning organisation as negative ideology. A paradox viewpoint is focused on sustaining tensions because they generate possibilities. There is much to be learned from the interplay between the desire to create ongoing learning opportunities and conscious and unconscious efforts to avoid and undermine them.

To convince readers that the time is ripe to start certifying the learning organization and to outline what would be needed to accomplish such a certification.

This is an argumentative piece based on the author’s almost 30 years of experience from researching and authoring the learning organization.

It is argued that the idea of the learning organization is still “fluffy” and that it is not universally applicable as is. It is suggested that a broad, inclusive definition of the learning organization is taken as the starting point for the process of contextualizing the idea to reach a set of “contextualized standards”, which could be used when certifying the learning organization.

Researchers are encouraged – in cooperation with practitioners – to sculpture one “contextualized standard” of the learning organization for each single industry. Such contextualized standards outline what, exactly, that could be demanded from organizations within the particular industry that want to become learning organizations.

There is a need for one – or some – non-profit association/s that could start to certify the learning organization on the basis of a set of contextualized standards. There may also be a need for consultants assisting organizations to transform themselves into learning organizations in accordance with these contextualized standards.

This is the first time (at least in writing) that it is suggested that the learning organization is certified.

An organizational development model is developed to measure the constructs of a learning organization. A descriptive study was conducted investigating the relationships of total quality management, organizational culture and their impact upon a learning organization. The study investigated the attributes of a learning organization and its influence upon employee motivation. A total of 307 executives participated in the survey. The survey revealed that many executives had pursued professional development programs in TQM principles and/or in Senge’s organizational learning principles over the last four years. The executives completed a questionnaire measuring their perceptions involving the principles of a learning organization, TQM attributes, and their organizational culture. The results indicate a corporation implementing TQM principles in a supportive organizational culture has a positive and significant relationship with organizational learning compared to those executives not exposed to these constructs. Also, the findings revealed a positive and significant relationship between a learning organization and the motivational level of its business executives.

To suggest how the idea of the learning organization can be adapted to fit organizations in different contexts.

The paper is based on many years of work on the idea of the learning organization and how it can be made to fit in different contexts.

Any organization that has an interest in becoming (or continuing to be) a learning organization is recommended to critically examine the relevance of each and every element of the idea of the learning organization, and thereafter construct a model of the learning organization that fits the particular organization.

Organizations that aim to become (or continue to be) learning organizations are offered some concrete advice as to how to examine the relevance for their particular organization of the elements that the idea of the learning organization consists of.

In contrast to all those who claim that the idea of the learning organization is relevant as is, without first going through any changes, to all organizations, this paper suggests that not all elements of the idea are relevant to all organizations. In contrast to those who merely suggest that each organization needs to find and adopt its own version of the learning organization, this paper offers concrete insights as to how such a process of customization actually can be conducted.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the development of learning organization concepts from the perspective of Dr Michael Marquardt and presents an interesting evolution of his work spanning three decades in the learning organization field.

Through a conversation with a thought-leading scholar, Dr Michael Marquardt, this paper discusses several topics pertaining to the evolution of the learning organization debate and provides his perspective on the development of his theories.

The learning organization debate may have differing perspectives. However, the theories foundational to Dr Marquardt’s research originated from those in the field during the 1980s and 1990s. He built upon the foundation through his consultancy work to develop his current perspective.

The discussion with Dr Marquardt reveals his perspective on the evolution of the learning organization debate. He began with similarities to others and over time built his definition based upon those areas of that he saw most impactful in practice.

This paper argues that to talk about organisations learning is to reify and anthropomorphise organisations. Instead of thinking of an organisation as if it were a thing or a person it is closer to experience to think of an organisation as the patterning of peoples' interactions with each other. This paper explores the assumptions that are being made when we talk about organisations or groups that learn, or about individuals learning in groups or organisations. It suggests an alternative to thinking in these ways, namely, that learning is an activity of interdependent people. If one takes the view an organisation is the organising activities of interdependent people, it leads to a particular perspective on learning. Much of the communicative and power relating activities of interdependent people take the form of continually iterated patterns of repetition in which meaning and power figurations have the quality of stability which we call identity. But because of the nonlinear iterative nature of human interaction there is always the potential for small differences to be amplified into transformative shifts in identity. Learning is then understood as the emerging shifts in the patterning of human communicative interaction and power relating. Learning is the activity of interdependent people and can only be understood in terms of self‐organising communicative interaction and power relating in which identities are potentially transformed. Individuals cannot learn in isolation and organisations can never learn.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the Organization Learning and Learning Organization concepts obtaining the perspectives of Professor Mary M. Crossan and presents an evolution of her immense contribution to the field over the past two decades.

A conversation with thought-leader, Professor Mary M. Crossan.

How different “character configurations” and “processes” enhance organization learning across levels in the organization.

The discussion with Professor Mary M. Crossan reveals her take on the evolution of the organizational learning framework and the significant role of the “Leader’s Character” in shaping organizational learning. Exploring this evolution provides the context and impetus to researchers and practice leaders to verify.

This paper outlines the results of research currently being carried out at Victoria University, Australia, into what is a learning organization, how organizations learn, and how to develop a learning organization. The objective of the present study was to identify the components that underpin the development and operation of a learning organization, i.e. the foundations, or organizational learning mechanisms, that support the development and maintenance of a learning organization. The study identified four facilitating mechanisms: the learning environment, identifying learning and development needs, meeting learning and development needs and applying learning in the workplace. Factor analysis of the learning environment questionnaire identified 12 scales that supported the structural hypotheses, 11 of which had minimum reliability coefficients of 0.70 and above. This research provides an instrument for systematically measuring and monitoring progress towards achieving a learning organization.

As contemporary organizations’ focus shifts from knowledge orientation to learning orientation, this paper aims to articulate the need for models that describe the learning process in organizations. Simply assuming that organizations learn without any support of tangible framework or models highlights this need. The paper presents limitations of two prevalent themes of organizational learning, i.e. learning by adapting to environmental disturbances and learning from organizational members.

Based on the literature review on organizational learning, studies that depict the mechanism of organizational learning were selected. These were grouped into two categories: one that focuses on how organizations learn from its environment and other on how organization learn from its members.

This paper suggests the need for developing models and frameworks that eloquently describe the learning process in organizations. The literature focuses on organizational learning from individuals and adapting to the environment. Organizations tend to attribute the cause of failure to environmental shocks. Then, instead of the environment being a source of learning, it becomes a cause of failure. If individuals are agents of organization through which the latter learns, how this tacit knowledge becomes institutionalized in organizational memory is unknown.

This paper is a retrospective view on organizational learning. It attempts to question the black box of organizational learning, i.e. how the learning of individuals is transferred to organizational memory, or simply put, how the organizational learning mechanism works. There is a dearth of studies that address this question, and it has been simply assumed that somehow organizations do learn, but how?