Search results

Introduces diversity management as managing the increased diversity of issues that confront humankind in contemporary organizational and societal affairs. Defines triple loop learning as being about the increase in the fullness and deepness of learning about the diversity of issues and dilemmas faced. Presents the contours of diversity management and triple loop learning. Sees the latter as the dénouement of single loop learning and of double loop learning. Provides a “quickmap” of the contours of diversity management and triple loop learning.

Considering personality as changeable through a bottom-up process of altering states, habits and traits, constitutes a shift in the predominant paradigm within personality psychology. The purpose of this paper is to reconsider Bateson’s theory of learning and organizational triple-loop learning in light of this recent empirical evidence.

This paper uses a multi-disciplinary conceptual approach. Based on an integrative analysis of literature from recent work in personality psychology, four dimensions (process, content, time and context) are identified that allow linking personality change and triple-loop learning.

Identifying a bottom-up process of changing states, habits and traits as being central to change personality, allows for reconsidering Bateson’s theory of learning as a theory of personality development (Learning II) and personality change (Learning III). Functionally equivalent, organizational triple-loop learning is conceptualized as a change in an organization’s identity over time that may be facilitated through a change in responding to events and a change in the organization’s routines.

Interventions that change how organizations respond to events and that change the routines within an organization may be suitable to facilitate triple-loop learning in terms of changing organizational identity over time.

This paper contributes to the discussion on Bateson’s theory of learning and organizational triple-loop learning. As interest in personality change grows in organization studies, this paper aims to transfer these findings to organizational learning.

The organizational learning literature distinguishes different levels of learning (zero learning and single, double and triple loop learning) in order to understand the complexity and dynamics of changes in policies, objectives, mental maps, and structures and strategies for learning. This article explores the case of an emerging new organizational design, the circular organization, in order to understand the role of triple loop learning. The circular model was developed on the basis of ideas about the relationship between organizational structure and behavior taken from theories of dynamic systems. Circular design precepts appear to provide a structural facilitation of single and double loop learning. In this respect, the circular design tends to act as a facilitating infrastructure for triple loop learning, that is, exploring the structural opportunities and key competences people need to participate in making well‐informed choices about policies, objectives and other issues.

This paper aims to build on notions of a higher level of organizational learning to suggest another dimension: interorganizational learning that emerges in a cross‐sector partnership.

A case study was conducted with the DC Central Kitchen (DCCK) partnership with for‐profit and governmental entities. Research methods included interviews with the founder, CEO, and manager responsible for the relationship with partners; direct observation during volunteer work at DCCK; and review of archival data and physical artifacts.

At the organizational level, DCCK was a learning organization because the principal variables – culture, strategy, shared vision, and knowledge management – were focused on learning. At the interorganizational level, the network was like a constellation of organizations. DCCK had many dyadic relationships with its partners, but the partners were not always interconnected with one another. Triple‐loop learning occurred in DCCK but was not yet developed among partners. DCCK benefited the community both tangibly, as seen in its education projects, and culturally, by giving a more central role to the nonprofit organization in the economic system.

The paper illustrates the value of interorganizational learning across two or more sectors of organizations.

This paper aims to encourage greater clarity and stimulate further interest in thorough empirical research in the area of learning levels. The broader motivation here is to urge researchers to not only theorize but also undertake elaborate and much needed empirical work.

Part I of the study rests on a reflection and review of the literature concerned with “N-loop learning”, that is, the different hierarchical levels and stages of organizational learning.

The study provides some views and classification schemes on how to reconcile and think about different levels of learning. Some learning archetypes are identified that guide further reflection and elaboration on learning stages and hierarchies.

“N-loop learning” is introduced to encapsulate and systematize a vast array of views, models and levels of organizational learning. From zero learning and single-loop learning to quadruple-loop learning, a series of learning archetypes are presented. The case for a proper and clear nomenclature of learning levels is singled out. Finally, a strong case for empirical testing in this area is advocated.

This research examines the effects of the context on the relationship between work design, learning mechanism and total quality management (TQM). The exploratory study examines the differential effects in context on how human resources and their activities are strategically managed for achieving TQM. Two theoretical frameworks – activity theory and contextual learning theory – are concurrently used for analysis. Specifically, the manufacturing companies, the authors examine are (1) technology-intensive company which has bought technology from a global foreign establishment (MU1), (2) technology-intensive companies having their own technology (MU2) and (3) labor-intensive units (MU3) of varying organizational sizes.

This case study-based research consists of 27 in-depth interviews with managers and employees of different hierarchies in each manufacturing unit. The authors interviewed them using semi-structured questions that were pre-validated by five senior HR experts from the manufacturing industry. Document analysis, multiple site visits and website content helped triangulation. The data are coded and analyzed using Dedoose software for qualitative research.

Activity diagrams for each manufacturing unit provides task and interaction analysis. Within and cross-case analysis address complexity and challenges of contextual reality, influences on work design and learning mechanism. HRD executives must recognize that there may be well-differentiated learning behaviors that align with organizational strategy. The learning behaviors may not be well-differentiated and become very dynamic. This dynamism may be characterized by double loop and single-loop learning feeding into each other.

This study provides substantial practical implications for HRD and other managers in the manufacturing sector.

The new theoretical framework adds to organizational behavior studies through multi-level and cross-contextual approach. It informs strategic combinations and interactions between internal and external context, and learning needs implicating work design and TQM.

The purpose of the paper is to introduce a systemic approach to organizational learning “triple loop learning” (TLL) that addresses processes of power. Three equally important foci in our TLL are processes of design, processes of debate and processes of power. The focus on power aims to shift “power over” (power as domination) to “power to” enact empowering designs, “power to” co-develop responsible decision-making and “power to” transform our relations with each other and with life on Earth.

The organizational learning literature is reviewed in the context of power dynamics and its shortcomings are highlighted. The authors introduce their understanding of TLL, and how it engages with power dynamics in organizations.

Peter Senge’s conceptualization of systems thinking is unable to recognize processes of power in organizations and offers limited support to transformative learning. Conceptualizations of TLL aim to enhance learning in organizations but none satisfactorily address the processes of power. The learning organization literature as a whole does not satisfactorily address processes of power or reflect our way of envisaging “looping between loops of learning” in TLL to better design, better debate and better develop relationality in the social fabric of organizations.

The authors introduce an original approach to TLL that directly addresses the processes of power in organizations. It offers researchers, learning facilitators and practitioners of the learning organization a way to engage with the processes of power without neglecting other important organizational and environmental issues.

This paper distils practical perspectives from experienced consultants on an integrative framework on organisational learning and performance. The foundation of this framework is governed by behavioural and cognitive learning theories. Convergent interviewing was the methodology used to verify the practicality of the framework and provide insight for further development. Data derived from four organisational development consultants confirmed the framework’s feasibility, but suggested additional issues to examine organisational learning further. The conclusion drawn is that there are distinct stages of learning but the relationship between them is robust and dynamic. Further, the notion of “triple‐loop learning” is often misconstrued in practical contexts due to its level of abstraction. Effective leadership is regarded as the leitmotif in driving strategic organisational learning initiatives. However, leaders must consider the time factor involved, as such initiatives can only take effect after a period of time rather than immediately.

The purpose of this research is to analyze the relationship between the organizational learning capacity of manufacturing companies in the Spanish Basque Region and their management systems.

To this end, an ad hoc questionnaire was devised and addressed to the Chief Executive Officers of a representative sample of 200 companies from all manufacturing sectors of the Basque Country.

The results obtained show that the characteristics of the management system of a company (the strategy formulation process and organizational design) do not condition the learning level that can be attained as a result of an experience of concrete change. However, it is true that companies which have experienced changes in which a high level of learning has been achieved have adapted their management systems more according to what theorists deem appropriate to help future learning.

The research carried out allows a better practical knowledge of the existing relationship between management systems, change processes, and levels of organizational learning.

Three levels of learning developed by Gregory Bateson in the tradition of second-order cybernetics have in-part been translated in terms of double-loop and triple-loop learning (TLL), particularly in the tradition of systems thinking. Learning III and TLL have gained less popularity since they deal with less tangible issues regarding virtues of wisdom and justice, respectively. The purpose of this paper is to provide a learning device – the systems thinking in practice (STiP) heuristic – which helps to retrieve the cybernetic concern for wisdom in association with an often forgotten systems concern for real-world power relations.

Using “conversation” as a metaphor the heuristic is introduced based on three orders of conversation. Drawing on ideas of systemic triangulation, another heuristic device – the systemic triangulator – is used to surface issues of power in the three orders of conversation. Some manifestations in using the STiP heuristic for supporting postgraduate systems learning are demonstrated.

Some key complementarities between conventionally opaque cybernetic issues of wisdom and systems issues of power are revealed, and used proactively to explore more effective coaching of STiP.

Cybernetics and systems thinking may benefit from being grounded more in understanding, engaging with, and transforming social realities. The heuristics provide practical experiential and meaningful learning through conversation, and more social premium for the study of cybernetics and systems thinking.

The heuristics – STiP, and the systemic triangulator – provides an innovative cyber-systemic space for learning and action.