Organizational Learning In Workplace

Part 1

Origin and Key Debates About Organizational Learningand How It Is Understood in Different Ways

Organizational learning refers to the organization’s ability to gaining understanding from experiment through observation, analysis, experimentation as well as the willingness to examining both successes and failures. Therefore, organizational Learning is a diverse and expansive field with influences which can be felt from philosophy, sociology, business management, psychology as well as many other disciplines. Although there is no one definition to the concept, the organizational learning theory is commonly described as a process of retaining, developing and transferring knowledge in an organization. From such perspective organizational learning happens as a result of experience where an organization is said to have learned from practice if there is a change in behavior or performance(Easterby, 1997, p1091).Learning refers to the process of gaining new knowledge and the ability to learn the skill in improving performance. In the context of organizations learning helps businesses in becoming more competitive and innovative. Consequently, in the light of the ever rapid and continuously changing environment businesses have to learn on adapting and evolving to survive.

One of the significant concepts in the organizational learning theory is the idea that we learn from our own mistakes. The idea was advanced by Donald Schon and Chris Argyris, who proposed that learning happens through detection and correction of errors. For instance, when an individual performs a task and it happens that the actual result is not what was expected there is the likelihood of investigating what happened and correcting the mistake as needed. According to the notion, interaction with colleagues leads to learning occurring within an organization.

Besides, organizational interaction is always dependent on two behavior sets.  The first set of behavior is related to the organization’s formal policies, rules, and procedures. The behavioral set represents the organizations espoused theory which include the values as well as assumptions on how things are imagined to be done. An example is when someone is having an issue with a computer program where he/she might read the manual and restart the computer.

The second set of behavior is associated with how things are done meaning that it is what a person does in solving a problem which is called a theory in use. An example is fixing an issue with the computer program one will probably brainstorm or Google some solutions with peers and colleagues(Weick&Roberts,1993, p376). Nevertheless, the two behavioral sets do not mesh well with one another. While still following formal procedures, policies and rules may appear like the most appropriate way in solving a problem and may also be too specific as well as restricting. Therefore, organizations needing to foster a creative and productive learning environment have to encourage more theory in use.

Organizational Learning Theory: The Three Types of Learning

consequences
Action Strategy
Governing variable

Argyris and Schon identified three levels of learning which might be present in an organization. The three levels of education include Governing Variable, Action Strategy, and consequences.

 

 

 

From the chart, the connection between the consequences and action strategy is referred to as single-loop learning. The single-loop learning comprises of one feedback loop especially when the policy is altered in responding to an unexpected result. An example is when sales are down leading to marketing managers inquiring into the cause and tweaking of the strategy in trying to bring sales back to the track. On another hand, linking of the consequences to the governing variable is termed as double loop learning which refers to education resulting in a change in theory-in-use. For instance, the strategies, assumption, and values governing actions are transformed in creating a more active environment. From the above-given example, managers may rethink the whole sales or marketing process such that there cannot be future fluctuations. Else, deuterolearning is all about improving the learning itself which is composed of behavioral and structural components that determine how learning takes place. Therefore, deuterolearning can be termed as learning how to learn. The system can be closely associated with Senge’s concept of the learning organization, especially in regards to enhancing learning processes as well as understanding or modifying mental models. Thus, active learning should include all three which continuously improve every organizational level. Nevertheless, as an organization shall employ single loop learning, single loop and especially are far much a more significant challenge.

Part 2

How Organizational Learning Has Influenced Innovation

Innovation is much essential for any organization. For instance, without a well-planned and systematic effort organizations would not be able to survive in the long term. The higher the innovation which is achieved by any organization, the higher also the learning and the change needed by the system. For instance, the organizational knowledge foundation through which new skills are gained from existing one stimulates corporate innovation(Brown& Duguid, 1991, p.46). A high change requires maximum and useful organizational learning capability meaning that a learning organization remains to be innovative. Thus, organizational learning capability shows a significant and positive influence on a company’s innovation.

Innovation is related to organizational learning ability. According to various scholars, organizational learning can be described to be among the factors preceding change where there are emphasizes that corporate education, innovation as well as performance are interrelated factors. For instance, innovation implies novelty and use and might trigger direct outcomes in organizational performance or working with innovative performance.

How Organizational Learning Influences Strategy

The interrelationship between organizational learning and a firm’s strategy performance have exceptional little careful attention. For instance, organizational learning not only contributes to strategy design as a critical organizational capability but also competitive learning strategies. The reason for this is becausethe ability to furnish an effective and rapid response to a highly progressive and competitive changing business environment involves strategy performing. Besides, an organizational learning strategy is always proposed to be a fundamental strategic process and the only future sustainable competitive advantage. For instance, strategic leaders are the guiding force behind organizational learning. Moreover, effective designing and implementation of organizations strategy deliver the capabilities, skills, and competencies which are required in supporting sustainable business success. Strategizing for a learning organization is not a quick nor a natural process(Jarzabkowski et al., 2007, p22). For instance, many underlying assumptions should be made by managers for adapting the organization. Issues including advancement in personalized career growth, computer technology, data sourcing, and great competition enable managers in working on organizational learning. Organizational learning strategizing develops managerial decision making in achieving effectiveness as well as productivity. Besides, organizational learning allows choices for managers in exploring different areas for administrative capabilities which support administrators in making crucial decisions. Lastly, strategizing enhances an organization in achieving successful growth in the market. Nevertheless, strategizing is a positive sign which many organizations are establishing and creating space for adapting to both the learning and innovation concepts leading to the success of the firm.

Organizational learning Influences To Change

Learning is always linked to change. For instance, knowledge can be termed to be a permanent change in behavior which is a result of experience. Therefore, organizational learning can be defined as the change in action, the transformation of the decision-making process or even changes in member’s routines which results in an individual or improved organizational performance. For instance, individual level change is connected to own learning whereas organizational change is linked to organizational learning. Radical change is extensive and always induced by the top management and influences the majority of the whole organization. According to Dobak and Antal, organizational change is a learning process which is an iterative process. For instance, change managers have to accomplish the learning process including their education and knowledge of the organizational members and the whole association. According to Senge et al. (2014) from the book, they used the term profound for radical change. The authors argued that there is learning in profound change and described it to be an incorporation of internal shifts in people’s aspirations, values, behaviors as well as external changes in the fundamental thinking patterns of organization which underlie choices of strategy systems and structures. They declared that it is not enough for changing structures, policies and strategies unless the thinking which produced such changes. Therefore, the type of change involves learning process with similar characteristics as double-loop learning.

Else, single-loop learning is a general learning method for organizations at the process level which can be characterized as behavioral learning type in the usual creation level. For instance, organizational change is only a second looping learning source wherein literature it means changing in cognition or cognitive maps(Argyris,1977, p.118). Managing of change as well as learning is a challenge to many organizations. For instance, the understanding learning role in organizational adaptation and change helps practitioners in recognition of regulatory learning process as well as the results inside the organization. Consequently, managing of change supports managers to enhance the organizational abilityfor changing and replying to internal organizational challenges which are induced by growth and external problems in the transforming environment.

How Organizational Learning Influences Knowledge

Knowledge is a significant component of organizational learning. For instance, regulatory learning processes appear to be more concerned with changes and growth to expertise. According to Huber (1991), there are four knowledge constructs which are integrally linked to organizational learning and include knowledge acquisition, corporate memory, information interpretation, and distribution. Knowledge adopting and contributing have been selected as core regulatory learning process. In sharing of expertise, decisions which add to the skills seem to be related to the problem complexity on which knowledge is sought and linked to this are the difficulties in information articulation(Lyles &Schwenk, 1992, p157). Besides, Goodman and Darr nominated factors which inhibited importing of discretional knowledge introducing inclusive of time and effort involved as well as the willingness to admitting the need for help. For instance, knowledge entering as well as sharing are essential features of one contemporary organizational form which is the knowledge-creating company. The main characteristics of knowledge creating companies include dependence on significant incidences of problem-solving with the application of non-standardized knowledge. Additionally, in knowledge creating company’s expertise is mainly related to individuals instead of building to organizational work practices, technologies, routines, and machines.

Furthermore,the creation of knowledge for organizations depends on ongoing and collaborative learning which involve integrating differentiated and multiple expertise forms. For instance, in contrast to Goodman and Darr elaborated discretionary exchanges knowledge sharing and importing are defining features for skill creating companies(Dermol&Čater, 2013, p332). Therefore, factors influencing sharing and introducing of knowledge emerges to be of significant interest to organizational learning researchers.

Besides, when knowledge is shared among organizational members, it can be incorporated into the system such that other members can access the expertise even if the individual leaves the organization. Therefore, shared knowledge remains to be embedded in the organizational structures, culture and the systems of the organization. Organizational learning can be considered to be a transformational change process that involves various levels through which the utilization, institutionalization, and creation of knowledge are taking place. Therefore, learning in any organization collectively operates because it encompasses behavioral, cognitive as well as cognitive aspects.

How an organization deals with activities is subject to multiple interpretations defining the individual actions and how they seek in making learning meaningful. Hence, learning comprises connecting of various schemes and meanings between actors and environment which provide a purpose of interacting and exploring the organizational knowledge interdependencies.

To understand how organizational learning process happens it is vital to analyze knowledge construction as a historical, cultural and material process in the wholeorganization. Therefore, the learning process involves knowledge creation and sharing occurring through interactions between individuals and the environment (Senge,1992, p30).  Organizational learning is considered collective if it is perceived at social interaction level and the process cannot happen in the context of individual cognition but also depends on the inserted context.

Part 3

In today’s society, knowledge-based organizations should be updated on the new technologies incompetence and learning development.  Therefore, various organizations find it difficult in creating the right way to adjust to the competence and learning development. For instance, if an organization has the capability of growing and developing it is necessary for the organization employees to have the possibility of learning. Discussions on informal and formal education have resulted in the teaching to be prioritized in organizations.

Broader Social Contexts of Organizational Learning

Regarding the social interactions in constructing organizational knowledge one of the key factors which is a subject to recent discussions is the importance of context where learning is taking place. For instance, the setting is one of the essential learning factors since it contributes to the understanding of experiences, interactions and actions between actors in constructing of organizational knowledge. In being part of the institutional environment, any organization needs to outline own strategies as well as the definition of the necessary actions established on a learning process where both policies are, and the values fed back in the interaction(Lave, 1991, p75). For instance, strategic significance knowledge is embedded and sustained by the culture of the organization. Nevertheless, the meaning of experience can be distorted and the usefulness diminished if actors who are inserted in a different context cannot perceive what the organization is aiming to achieve through sharing specific knowledge.

New and Developing Theories on Organizational Learning

Organizations learn regardless of whether there is an application of systematic learning approaches. Within the organizational discipline, there exists both a practical and theoretical path. For instance, the actual path conceptualizes organizational learning competencies which include single and double loop learning. Nevertheless, there is no ideal learning organization realized and which can be attributed to lacking concrete prescriptions on how to implement suggested literature competences. Organizational learning theory states that being competitive in a transforming environment organization must change their objectives and actions in reaching such goals. Therefore, for learning to occur a firm must make a conscious decision of changing actions in responding to a different circumstance, link action to the outcome and must remember the consequences.

The first learning process part is data acquisition. For instance, a firm acquires a memory of valid outcome links together with environmental situations in which they are accurate, outcome probabilities as well as the uncertainty around such likelihood. The links require continuously updated overtime maybe through additions and rejections based on different evidence or expanding confirmatory connections.

The second part of the organizational learning process is interpretation. For instance, organizations actual to expected results for updating or adding to their memory. Unexpected results need to be assessed for causation, adapted actions or new-outcome specified links and increased learning(Krogstie et al., 2013, p158). Therefore, the second stage does not imply taking of work which is a critical debate in organizational learning theory. For instance, various theorists insist that action is not essential for learning to take place while others claim that unless there is action change learning cannot be present.

The third stage of developing organizational theory concept is the adaptation or action. The step involves taking the interpreted knowledge and using it in selecting new-action outcome links which are appropriate to the environmental conditions. The critical point in the stage is that it is a continuous adaptation to environmental conditions and will be affected to a greater extent by the dynamism and complexity of the organization. Once adjustment occurs the organization knowledge base is updated for the inclusion of new action-outcome link, uncertainty, probabilities as well as applicable conditions.

 

List of References

Argyris, C., 1977. Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard business review, 55(5), pp.115-125.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P., 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), pp.40-57.

Dermol, V. and Čater, T., 2013. The influence of training and training transfer factors on organizational learning and performance. Personnel Review, 42(3), pp.324-348.

Easterby-Smith, M., 1997. Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques. Human relations, 50(9), pp.1085-1113.

Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. and Seidl, D., 2007. Strategizing: The challenges of a practice perspective. Human relations, 60(1), pp.5-27.

Krogstie, B.R., Prilla, M. and Pammer, V., 2013, September. Understanding and supporting reflective learning processes in the workplace: The csrl model. In European conference on technology enhanced learning (pp. 151-164). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Lave, J., 1991. Situating learning in communities of practice. Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 2, pp.63-82.

Lyles, M.A., and Schwenk, C.R., 1992. Top management, strategy, and organizational knowledge structures. Journal of management studies, 29(2), pp.155-174.

Senge, P., 1992. Building learning organizations. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 15(2), p.30.

Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H., 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative science quarterly, pp.357-381.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?

Custom Essay writing Service