Organizational learning - Essay Example

Organizational learning is a popular in today’s global corporate environment and in many different industries. Trainers and organizational designers often attempt to apply various organizational learning theories, when developing training or learning activities to meet the organization’s goals. Unmet needs, less than expected performance and overall inability to achieve corporate goals are the usual driving forces of organizational learning. Therefore, it can be described as the process of acquiring knowledge and skills and applying them more effectively to help the organization meet its goals. In doing so, there is often a change in behavior that occurs or is expected. The investigation of literature about organizational learning involves many different theories, through different approaches. For the purpose of this critique, theories presented in the literature will be divided into process orientation and behavior orientation. One article focuses on stages or levels in organizational learning process. Three pieces of literature focus on organizational behavior and how it relates to learning. It is necessary to organize theory in this manner, to more fully understand the extent of application and limitations of each theory. George Huber focuses on five different processes, as they relate to organizational learning theory. The four processes or constructs are labeled “knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation and organizational memory” (Huber, 1991, p. 90). The four constructs provide an excellent understanding of how knowledge within an Organization is acquired and utilized. Breaking down the process of acquiring knowledge is important because it can provide a foundation for consideration of various types of learning activities. Instructional design should take into account the way in which members of the organization acquire and process information. The first construct, knowledge acquisition, focuses on the various types of learning that an individual can experience in various contexts. There is a major focus on experimental learning in organizations that are involved in change. It is suggested that “organizations should operate themselves as experimenting or self-designing and should maintain themselves in a state of frequent, nearly continuous change in structures, processes, domains, goals, etc., even in the face of apparent optimal adaptation. This view takes into account how learning is achieved, but does not consider the individual learner. Some organizations go through major changes more frequently than others, particularly when they are new entrants into an industry and in the so called learning stage. This is perfectly acceptable and even expected. However, there comes a time when new organizations settle into processes and procedures that have been perfected or improved over time. After having gone through numerous changes, there are individuals who may not be able to withstand or go through many more changes. They may believe that the current procedures are highly effective and do not need to be changed. They might become restless, irritable or most importantly, resistant to further change. For some learners, there is a limit to how much learning and behavioral change that can be processed within a certain time frame. Much of this depends upon the individual learning style and specific characteristics of the learner. Huber’s assertion rests on the assumption that for an organization to behave as though it is in a constant state of change, all those within the organization who must attain some type of learning will always be open to new information or ideas. While the constructs are realistic, they fail to take into account the individual preferences and attitudes of learners. Some organizations that go through many changes may also experience high employee turnover, higher levels of job dissatisfaction or many other symptoms of unhappy workers. Huber does a good job in explaining the downfalls of acquiring knowledge through second hand sources or by what he terms ‘imitation.’ He indicates that there are many circumstances where learning by imitation is not as beneficial to an organization as learning by firsthand experience. ‘Imitation is often not viable, as it implies both waiting and jumping into an occupied niche’ (Huber, 1991, p. 96). It may be far better for an organization to find its own niche by gathering information about potential clients, rather than focusing on what competitors are doing. It may also be easier to adapt learning activities when an organization has determined it s own destiny, rather than allowing markets or competition to make such determinations. When an organization has determined that it must mimic others, learning is forces and there is less opportunity for learner input. On the other hand, when learning is provided based on unique ideas or goals, there is a greater likelihood that learning occurs at all levels, from executives downward. David Cayla (2008) focuses on the behavioral and cognitive steps in organizational, rather than on the steps of knowledge acquisition and application. He describes the notion of ‘dynamic equilibrium’, which has limitations and keeps all learning within the same boundaries. “A system that is in dynamic equilibrium can tend toward a state or a set of states, or it may only follow a trajectory or a logic” (Cayla, 2008, p. 555). What Cayla is saying is that all learning takes a certain path in cognitive processes and that process must be present for new behavior to take shape. If certain cognitive behaviors are not followed, change cannot occur. Initially, this assertion makes sense. However, there can be great variations in the cognitive pathways of different individuals. This goes well beyond changing attitudes or views, prior to changing behavior. Different individuals process information differently. There are visual, tactile and auditory learners. They way they acquire and process information is quite different. There are even differences in which parts of the brain are utilized to process and interpret information in different individuals. Instructional designers who keep up with current research know this and attempt to design learning that taps into the different ways that learners process information. Otherwise, behaviors may change for some and not for others. Yeung et al (2006, p. 2461) believe that ‘two persons with the same objectives, in the same environment, and with the same cognitive limitations may act differently, if their perceptions are different and if they do not interpret identically cause and effect relationship.’ It may have little to do with willingness and more to do with the specific cognitive abilities. The differences in attitude among learners may very well be a result of not being able to make sense of the specific learning process that is presented. Though both authors focus on cognitive or behavioral dimensions and their effects on organizational learning, Cayla stresses the importance of boundaries for organizational learning, whereas Yeung et al stress the importance of individual though, with few barriers, as providing a more cohesive organizational learning environment. The latter tends to recognize that cognitive differences do exist in how information is processed and interpreted. In a case study of a chemical production company “organizational learning was regarded as a knowledge acquiring activity that took place during employees’ free time” (Yeung et al, 2006, p.2467). The researchers maintain that for individuals to benefit from organizational learning, the company must fully support such learning and allow employees some opportunity to provide input. As differences in how individuals learn lead to different interpretations, the assumption is that those varying interpretations may lead to new or innovative ideas that are beneficial to the organization. In another case studies presented by Yeung et al (2006), the organization similarly did not see the value in organizational learning that valued the input of employees. Yet, in the final case study presented, the organization held an entirely different belief about organizational learning. ‘Innovativeness was regarded as creative ways to improve work processes, minimize steps, as well as to improve existing products’ (Yeung et al, 2006, p. 2470). It is also explained that this case study involved a firm that embraces organizational learning on many levels. The underlying assumption then, is that individual interpretations or understandings may lead to new innovations. This adds weight to Huber’s (1991) assertion about experimental learning leading to an organization’s success, if the type of change an organization experiences is lead by innovation and creativity. Anit Somech and Anat Drach-Sahavy (2004) explore a concept known as ‘organizational citizenship behavior.’ In summary the concept involves behaviors that are considered helping actions and go beyond the organization’s expectations. Somech and Drach-Sahavy (2004, p. 283) further assert that ‘some organizations may value collaboration, whereas others may value competition; helping co-workers will be encouraged in the former and constrained in the latter. The concept of citizenship behavior relates to organizational learning in that workers can and often do learn from each other. Where competition may be perceived as too intense or too great, this type of learning is less likely to happen. Those who do not feel pressure or are free to extend themselves may be more likely to express ideas and to encourage ideas of others. This is where innovation can occur, through workers bouncing ideas off each other and through cooperative brainstorming. The ability to collaborate and share ideas is the basis for Huber’s assertion that experimental learning is productive and beneficial to the organization. Though individuals within the organization may not transfer knowledge in the same manner, they are exposed to different interpretations or outcomes of the transfer of knowledge. ‘Organizational learning demands the adoption of new cultural values and structural mechanisms, which eventually change the viewpoint and the role of the individual in the organization’ (Somech & Drach-Sahavy, 2006, p. 285). Sharing ideas and thoughts help individuals understand co-workers and gives them new ideas or concepts to think about. Though Somech and Drach-Sahavy embrace the benefits of organizational citizenship behavior, there are few considerations for firms that do not promote this behavior. There are recommendations as to how firms can encourage citizenship behavior, most of which make sense, in terms of promoting collaboration and individual contribution. One of the benefits that Somech and Drach-Sahavy fail to address, is the concept that informal learning through collaboration may help workers when more formal organizational learning is necessary. The attitudes may be much more positive toward the firm, when individuals are encouraged to contribute and have a voice. The citizenship behavior may extend beyond work tasks and into the formal learning environment, where those who are struggling are more likely to receive help from others. Organizational learning can be both formal and informal. There are many theories and about how learning occurs and the types of environments that are most conducive to learning, within the organization. The authors reviewed share a common principle in that organizations that promote and support learning can survive and even thrive during periods of change. They also indicate organizations that support learning are more willing to make changes based on needs and opportunities of the firm, rather than as a reaction to industry trends or what the competition is doing. This leads to the conclusion that promoting and supporting organizational learning is advantageous to most firms. Though there are different approaches in explaining the acquisition and transfer of knowledge, Huber (1991), Yeung et al (2006) and Somech & Drach-Sahavy (2004) consider creativity and innovation a result of successful organizational learning, though Huber focuses more on the process and less on the learning environment. On the other hand, Cayla (2008) focuses on the structures or confines that must be present, for organizational learning to occur. It focuses less on organizational environment, as an influence on learning. The organizational environment is a critical consideration in the success of both formal and information learning, based on the majority of literature reviewed. Some organizational cultures encourage learning and make it easier for workers to acquire, share and apply knowledge. Other cultures appear to inhibit organizational learning. The examples indicate that in order for successful organizational learning to occur, on a formal and informal basis, the organizational culture must be conducive to the various forms of learning and the various contexts in which learning takes place. The organization must also consider the various methods in which individual learners acquire and transfer knowledge. Reference List Cayla, D., 2008. Organizational learning: A Process between equilibrium and evolution. Journal of Economic Issues, 42, (2), pp.553-558. Huber, G., 1991. Organizational learning: The Contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science. 2(1), pp. 88-115. Somech, A. & Drach-Sahavy, A., 2004. Exploring organizational citizenship behaviour from an organizational perspective: The relationship between organizational learning and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, (77), pp.281-298. Yeung, A. et al, 2006. Organizational learning, innovativeness, and organizational performance: a qualitative investigation. International Journal of Production Research. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Read More