Organizational Changes - Essay Example

While learning is the process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding, organizational learning has been defined as the ‘detection and correction of error’ (12Manage, 2009). It is the practice of enhancing the use of organizational knowledge through sound practices of information management. A learning organization is one that can purposefully construct structures and strategies thereby enhancing organizational learning. Organizational learning gained importance as firms wanted to remain competitive which required that they be adaptable to change because only those that are flexible, adaptive and productive will excel (Smith, 2001). Hence organizational change became an opportunity for organizational learning. Technology has brought about changes in the way organizations work but this requires training the people at all levels. A firm may invest in technology but implementation of technology has to be achieved and innovation opened up. This implementation is the organizational learning process because an organization struggles to get the system to function (Fleck, 1993). Through the process of ‘learning by trying’ an organization learns to implement the technology effectively. This differs from ‘learning by doing’ and ‘learning by using’. These suggest that there is progressive modification at each stage and learning curve or innovation is not linear. Innovation is followed by diffusion of same technology in the same form across the whole economy or the sector. Innovation and diffusion collapse into one another and is known as ‘innofusion’. This can be overcome through methods suggested by other authors and researchers. For a learning organization adaptive learning (single-loop) must be supported by generative learning (double-loop) which enhances the capacity to create (Smith, 2001). Even though according to Senge, learning from experiences is the best method but we never directly experience the consequences of most of our decisions. This happens because when changes become necessary and people take decisions, they respond to the change in an ad hoc manner. They just do whatever is necessary to implement change without any planning (Orlikowaski & Hofman, 1997). This is a discrepancy about how people think about technological change and how they do it. Traditionally technological changes were introduced through the three-stage process of unfreezing, change and refreezing. Such a process treats change as an event to be managed but such a model is not practical in today’s uncertain and turbulent environments but Akgün, Byrne, Lynn & Keskin (2007) argue that unlearning is important for change to take place. Organizations have to first unlearn the established beliefs and methods that have created rules and traps, so that they can be receptive to new market and technology information. Changes associated with technology implementation should be an ongoing process rather than having an end point. Besides, the technological and organizational changes during the ongoing process cannot be anticipated ahead of time. This improvised model has three types of change – emergent, anticipated and opportunity-based (Orlikowaski & Hofman, 1997). This suggests that changes can evolve out of being proactive with technology and hence at each stage the people in the organization learn something new. They keep innovating and learning as they need to change or become adaptable. According to Manaikkamäkl (2007), a new technology development process is a learning process in which new knowledge is created. The process is divided into four main processes - anticipation, development, evaluation, and commercialization. Different competence backgrounds for needed different phases, for instance, strong basic technological knowledge is needed in the development phase whereas economic understanding is required for the commercialization phase. The transition from one phase to another is itself a learning process for an organization. People in an organization need to have personal technology orientation, they must be motivated to go deeper into the technology and only then can some creativity and innovation take place (Manaikkamäkl, 2007). This can transform the single-loop learning to double-loop leaning as in the case of Sony Corporation. Whether single-loop or double-loop, learning can take place only when the organization realizes that learning must occur. Single-loop or adaptive learning focuses on incremental improvements based on past experience. Sony Corporation wanted to produce a small portable recorder for use by reporters for recoding interviews (Chaston, Badger & Sadler-Smith, 1999). The design had flaws and the unit could not record. The design engineers did not find any potential commercial value in the product. This was single-loop learning in which change was accepted without questioning the underlying assumptions and beliefs (12Manage). The engineers never questioned that a recorder must be able to record. Whenever the development team confronted any problem, they focused on applying the past experience and knowledge and ended up finding no solution. The founder demonstrated double-loop or generative approach to learning when he suggested that since the product produced an excellent sound, it could be used a portable device for listening to music. Double-loop learning implies that whenever a problem emerges, during the analysis new knowledge is sought which can be applied in the situation. Information technology (IT) has the potential to change the nature or work processes. His does not apply only for manual processes but also for intellectual, creative and decision-making processes (Masino, 1999). Hence there are bound to be significant changes in the learning process at both the individual and the organizational level. Technology is one of the elements that create the conditions which call for a change. A technological change can create, delete or transform the possibilities of change for a certain organization. Thus technology has a dual nature – both as a product and as a process. Technology can be effectively implemented if learning is not seen as separate from the organizational process since it is inherently embedded in it. There should be coordination in the decision-making process as this can significantly affect the direction of the learning process. Thus organizational change is an oppurtunity for learning but certain models of change have to be followed to make the learning effective. People should have an inclination to change; unlearning has to take place before the organization and the people are receptive to new technology. In fact flexibility to adapt technology should be an ongoing process so that learning is not something that an organization needs to review or consider at every stage. This would avoid the innofusion stage and make the learning and the change process effective. References 12Manage, Organzational Learning, retrieved online 25 May, 2009 from http://www.12manage.com/methods_organizational_learning.html Akgün, AE Byrne, JC Lynn, GS & Keskin, H 2007, Organizational unlearning as changes in beliefs and routines in organizations, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 794-812 Chaston, I Badger, B & Sadler-Smith, E 1999, The Organizational learning system within UK small firms, International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 3, no. 4. Fleck, J 1993, Learning by trying: the implementation of configurational technology, Manaikkamäkl, P 2007, Personal technology orientation in R&D: a tool to intensify organizational learning, DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 18-20. Masino, G 1999, Information technology and dilemmas in organizational learning, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 360-376. Orlikowaski, WJ & Hofman, JD 1997, An Improvisational Model of Change Management: The Case of Groupware Technologies, retrieved online 25 May, 2009 from http://ftp.ida.liu.se/~TDEI30/CCSWP191.html Smith, KM 2001, peter senge and the learning organization, retrieved online 25 May, 2009 from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm Read More