From situated practice to informed theory

Learning cycles and enabling structures

The Authors

Randal Ford, Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System, Spartanburg, South Carolina, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine organizational practice to investigate what insights could be gained to support and extend existing theory.

Design/methodology/approach – Adopts a clinical approach, e.g. not a priori or an academic one where data are mangled to fit a theoretical stance.

Findings – Data analysis reveals four interconnected learning cycles and the enabling structures put in place to facilitate them. The practice-based themes support many organization learning theories; in addition, the findings augment the systems perspective.

Research limitations/implications – Challenges traditional logical-deductive (theory driven) stances. Findings do not pretend to be generalizable or definitive, but more evocative.

Practical implications – The paper discusses practical implications in how firms might implement enabling structures for organizational learning; and what accompanying changes in management practices and leadership would be required in implementing these facilitative structures.

Originality/value – This paper provides value to all organizations, in that it outlined how personnel at all organization levels can think, plan, innovate, process information and coordinate in working together. In adopting the perspective of praxis within an unconventional organizational context, the empirical findings support and reinforce some theories of organizational learning, extend or refute others and add new insights.

Article Type:

Research paper

Keyword(s):

Workplace learning; Knowledge management; Learning cycles; Working practices; Productivity rate; Theatre.

Journal:

The Learning Organization

Volume:

Number:

Year:

2008

pp:

126-148

Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

ISSN:

0969-6474

The post-industrial economy represents a shift from industrial capitalism to a knowledge-based economy (Drucker, 1993; Gues, 1997). Creating knowledge has consequently become the basis for firm competition in the twenty-first century and an important managerial concern (Ghoshal and Barlett, 1997; Galbraith and Lawler, 1993; Hagel and Brown, 2005; Mohrman et al., 1998) – in short, how to execute faster and more effective organizational learning in order to maximize knowledge-worker productivity (Drucker, 1991, 1999). Adapting to these socioeconomic challenges (Ogilvy, 1990; Parker, 1992; Soeters, 1986), coupled with an emphasis on organizational learning, has compelled corporations to redesign and transform from the bureaucratic toward flatter, more nimble post-industrial organizational forms: decentralized, lateral, team-based and mission centered. Both instances surface a dilemma for management. The first centers on process; the second, putting into practice enabling structures.

A process perspective places a premium on an organization's ability to create, implement and share knowledge efficiently and effectively; thus, for organizations seeking to become knowledge-based it is essential to promote learning at the individual, team and organization levels (Dixon, 1994) – creating a network of working relationships that cut across all corporate functions (Senge, 1990). From a structural perspective, leaders are advised to develop and align their organizational goals with all their simultaneous initiatives, projects and other activities (Kotter, 1995).

Organization development and learning, therefore, are inextricably linked: simply put, every development initiative requires new employee learning to take place to succeed (Argyris, 1982). However, after Argyris and Schön (1978) introduced the idea over 25 years ago, companies are experiencing a difficult time integrating the “learning vision” into management practice (Senge, 2003). Part of the problem is that to date, most organizational learning schemes are heavily theory-driven, with a priori abstract thinking shaping much of the research conducted, rendering findings that are divorced from concrete reality. As a result, implications for management practice are often unclear, inappropriate or simply impractical (Scarborough and Swan, 2003). However, on the other hand, what if the researcher started with organizational practice first? What insights could be gained to support and extend existing theory?

A regional theatre company provided the research site for this study. The company produces 12 productions a season, year in and year out. These 12-yearly productions require the constant creation of knowledge, learning and a coordinated organization-wide effort. That is, at the beginning of the season, the final product of each production is yet to be realized, between inception and opening night, an enormous amount of development must by necessity occur. To accomplish this end, the theatre company put in place enabling structures and learning practices that manifest – from a traditional management perspective – an unconventional organization design. Understanding this so-called unconventional design can further inform learning and knowledge creation practices in more traditional organization settings as well as ground current theory.

The central questions guiding this study, therefore, are as follows:

RQ1. What are these enabling structures and learning practices?

RQ2. How do they work, e.g. their underlying logics?

RQ3. How do they inform current theory?

The findings from this study reveal four cyclical learning practices and enabling structures, designed into the organization from the onset, that facilitate knowledge creation on a continual basis. The following sections set forth an orientation; describe the research site and method; present the empirical findings, and end with a discussion of the implications for theory and practice.

A hybrid praxis: organizational learning and knowledge creation

An explanation is in order as a way of orientation for what follows. Using the term “hybrid praxis” is a conscious choice. Praxis means: “exercise or practice of an art, science, or skill … a customary practice of conduct” (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, 1997, p. 915); conversely, theory commonly refers to: “abstract thought: speculation … an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances” (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, 1997, p. 1223). The distinction is important. The hybrid praxis presented here is the “customary practice of conduct” discovered among the company personnel's interactions and not “speculation or an idealization of the facts” on the researcher's part. Its principles emanated from the data analysis and were not foisted on a priori to prove or disprove any theory.

The organizational learning attributes of this hybrid praxis that emerged from the data analysis consist of four interconnected cycles:

action learning;
direct, structured learning;
extended, participatory reflection; and
synthesis across disciplines and wider dissemination.

The levels of these learning cycles are not mutually exclusive and tend to blur in practice.

Action learning

This basic learning cycle occurs whenever an individual or group pauses to observe his/her (their) interaction and then change or modify that interactive behavior or thinking as a result. Action learning requires feedback that is prompt and connected to performance. Action learning embraces the following generic phases:

act;
observe;
reflect;
adjust; and
repeat.

Humans engage this basic learning process experientially on a daily basis, e.g. trial-and-error learning (Revans, 1966, 1980, 1982).

Direct, structured learning

The action learning cycle becomes more structured and directed. Usually, a question is poised that directs energy and focus on a given project, issue or problem. Information is gathered that leads to reflection in analyzing or using the information to answer the question. Most readers, for example, are familiar with total quality management plan-do-check-act cycle (Deming, 1986). The plan phase: what have members learned so far to complete the next task?; the do phase: complete the next task; the check phase: reflect on what is working well? What is not working well? And what will improve what is not working well?; and the act phase: discuss ways to implement improvements and adjust working together. Then repeat the cycle. The processes inherent in basic action learning and directed, structured learning often reinforce each other.

Extended, participatory reflection

A deepening of the reflection process by including more diverse views and participants characterize this cycle, e.g. on single or across multiple projects. Increasing information while nurturing a shared orientation toward phenomena encountered enriches the reflection process, in addition to increasing the diversity of views and experience not only produces more textured, multilayered learning for all involved but accelerates knowledge sharing and the ability to solve problems in a more innovative, creative manner (Leonard, 1998).

Synthesis across disciplines and wider dissemination

In order for new knowledge and learning to be applied through a more appropriate means that benefits the entire organization, the project(s) must be connected to the larger system in which it (they) exist. There are two avenues to accomplish this end:

the knowledge and learning gained from collective reflection is immediately applied to improve performance, e.g. a product or service; and
the knowledge and learning is disseminated as a reference for wider, future use.

In presenting the empirical findings these four interconnect processes will be employed as an analytical lens in framing the themes emerging from the data. However, before proceeding to the findings, I turn now to describing the research site and methods.

Research site and methods

The Center Theatre Company (CTC) is located in the mid-west of the USA. The theatre company houses six rehearsal studios and produces 12 main productions during the theatrical season, which runs from mid September to May. The venue for CTC's productions is the Center for Performing Arts (CPA), a 24-million dollar state-of-the-art facility that accommodates four stages: a proscenium, a small in-the-round, a main three-quarter thrust and large black-box. CTC is a non-profit, with a healthy corporate and private endowment. In 1998, the CTC received a coveted Tony Award for “outstanding regional theatre”.

The CTC is an appropriate research site for the following reasons:

the artistic and producing directors designed into practice an organizational structure to facilitate active knowledge creation and organizational learning;
company personnel are constantly having to adapt to unexpected contingencies on a daily basis, e.g. within the rehearsal studios, the design-tech shops and the administrative support systems; thus
each production unfolds and embraces the four integrated cycles outlined above as a regular diet; and finally
taken in toto, theatre personnel interactions exhibit quite well how to manage the gap between an envisioned future state and current reality, year in and year out, from season to season, from production to production, day-to-day.

Participant observation and structured and unstructured interviewing were employed as data gathering methods. Observations were jotted down in field notes, then further expanded descriptively once immediately outside the setting, and reflexively examined for emerging themes and relationships for follow-up investigation and later analytic coding and interpretive memoing (Lofland and Lofland, 1995). Once trust and rapport developed with theatre personnel, informal interviewing was mixed with observation. Observing the technical and design staff entering and exiting the rehearsal studio, the theoretical sampling (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) was expanded to include emergent groupings that eventually spanned across the administrative, production, design and technical support levels within the company. Observation included administrative, design, production meetings and an entire rehearsal process from day one to closing night. The members themselves offered archival data – production/rehearsal schedules, organizational charts, mission statements, documentary video-tapings, production notes, programs – they thought might prove helpful.

The formal interviews were a mix between structured (Converse and Schuman, 1974) and unstructured (Denzin, 1989) interviewing methods. Overall, 35 company members were interviewed and represented three concentrated areas: administrative/production, rehearsal studio, and design/technical support. Content analysis – a qualitative method employed through grounded theory (“analytic induction”) (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Berg, 1989) – using the constant comparative method (Lofland and Lofland, 1995), generated the themes from field notes, archival and interview data.

In presenting the empirical findings, the intent was not merely to report but provide “thick descriptions”, that is, to explore deeper meaning structures members of the social group engage (see Geertz, 1973). For as Pettigrew (1990) points out in comprehending change (and learning) over time:

What is critical is not just events, but the underlying logics that give events meaning and significance … logics which may explain how and why these patterns occur (Pettigrew, 1990, p. 273).

I now present the empirical findings.

Empirical findings

The following themes emerged from the data that constitute the organizational learning processes and underlying logics. In short, the themes illustrate what they are and how they work. These learning cycles are interconnected, and while analysis presents them as distinct categories, in practice they are more fluid and blur. This section sets forth these cyclical processes (e.g. action learning; directed, structured learning; extended, participatory reflection; and synthesis and wider dissemination) and the enabling structures put in place to facilitate them.

Action learning: the foundation

Theatre is an integrative practice that combines the talents, expertise and skills of many artisans: directors, designers, actors, stage managers, technicians, administrators, etc. It is expected that company personnel will take responsibility to learn on their own, as one member makes clear: “You have to be disciplined. Do your job and always be on time and prepared to work.” This shared orientation ensures certain behavioral norms in service to organizational learning.

Action learning functions on two levels. First, each artisan prepares outside the rehearsal studio or shop. For example, the director works to develop a vision for the play, converting tacit intuition, e.g. “feelings about what the play is trying to say, what it is about” into explicit concepts, e.g. “breaking the script down into its staging, lighting, costume needs.” The actors do a character analysis. The stage manager works to figure out the logistics: “Reading the design notes, learning the director's approach and preparing the rehearsal room to expedite the production.”

Second, they bring in what they learn to share and incorporate with the others' contributions. They engage; they observe; they reflect; they make adjustments and engage the process again. Feedback is prompt and connected to the collective creative work unfolding between them. An actress explains: “I always work outside the rehearsal and bring stuff and bits in to try out and see how they work. I look for a director to clarify my own thoughts and action.” This basic learning cycle produces the material, the building blocks that become more structured as the production progresses.

Direct, structured learning: a framework for learning

The directed, structured learning and knowledge creation cycle reinforces and builds upon what was previously learned, on an individual as well as collective level. The structuring process the director and cast participate in is incremental, iterative and developmental. It creates the framework within which they will innovate and learn – cultivating new knowledge used to shape the production. Their energy is focused. They learn in real time (Ford, 2000). The overriding, driving question is “what works and what does not?”. Testing new ideas provides immediate data in answering this question. From the first reading, where the director establishes the vision and themes the cast will explore, through blocking and scene work, they follow the same structured pattern: Bring in new ideas to try, run the whole (scene, act, play), break the whole down into its constituent parts, work on developing the parts, then run the whole again to re-synthesize the parts and new learning. Afterwards, the director gives the actors notes to guide them in what is working and what is not. The director points out the significance of this process: “A run-through lets you know what you know and what you don't. It tells you what you need to learn.” Each iterative turn, therefore, facilitates insight and learning that is instantly integrated, modifying behavior and thinking.

Deliberate acts of improvisation are the means the director and cast use to create knowledge (Crossan, 1998; Crossan et al., 1996; Crossan and Sorenti, 1997). The theatrical goal of improvisation is to “solve the problem” put forward in rehearsing the script (Spolin, 1983). The director and cast are mutually responsive in supporting each other to take risks and experiment. Sometimes the actors improvise with the other actors in situ; that is, suggesting and trying new ideas while rehearsing the play. Other times, however, the actors get better insights by running a parallel learning cycle. That is, they structure a similar situation, act out the implications and different assumptions embedded in that simulation, and afterwards discuss what they learned and immediately apply that new knowledge and insight back into their unfolding creative work. In this manner, the knowledge creation and learning processes the director and cast engage in are not dissimilar to the rapid, “enlightened experimentation” processes described as imperative for technological innovation (Thomke, 2001, 2003). This directed, structured learning and knowledge creation process becomes the epicenter that gets extended throughout the company to include more participatory reflection.

Extended, participatory reflection: informal and formal practices

Extended participatory reflection and learning becomes manifest in several ways within and throughout the company, on an informal and formal basis. The stage manager and production supervisor assume informal roles in getting more company members to reflect on the work evolving in the studios. For example, the creative work in the design-tech shops and the rehearsal studio need to co-evolve in a timely manner in order for the production to be fully integrated into a seamless whole, and the stage manager proves decisive in accomplishing that end. He explains:

I have to inform everyone not in rehearsal [scene, costume, props] what's going on so there are no surprises. I make rounds each day to each of the shops to see what's going on, to relate, to talk, to get input, to make certain everything jives.

He both discloses and gathers input then applies what he learns in real time to make the necessary adjustments. In this way, he encourages participatory reflection that links together the desperate theatre elements into a unified effort. The production supervisor performs a similar role but from a broader organizational level.

The production supervisor actively encourages the participatory interdependence between the production office and the company at large. “We have to work together”, she points out:

[…] or the work doesn't get done. If you don't get or give the people who need the information when they need it, theatre won't happen on time. If I go through the reporting system, it would take too long. That doesn't help build a sense of community.

In other words, she assists the flow of “knowledge embedded in relationships” to help everyone reflect and assimilate information to increase learning capacity and thus creates a context that allows members to devise innovative solutions to emerging problems.

Both the stage manager and production supervisor enable the informal communication practices that facilitate wider reflection and organizational learning through the exchange of information and ideas. Scholars recognize these so-called boundary-spanning roles not only to improve team performance (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992) but enable innovation throughout the organization (Tushman, 1977). The director and design team and production meetings, in addition to the artistic and producing directors' daily meetings, are more formal, extended practices of participatory reflection.

The director and design team meet regularly while the show is in rehearsal. These meetings run in sync with the rehearsal yet extend beyond it. Their reflective discussions revolve around unresolved design questions. The scene designer describes the meeting's significance:

I learn what the set ups are and see what needs to be done as the show evolves. Whatever evolves, I have to come up with solutions to facilitate.

These meetings create the opportunity for the director and designers to reflect on the creative work emerging in the studio, learn and anticipate potential issues and devise solutions in order to adapt and keep the project moving forward. As Senge (1999) points out, these extended meetings highlight the gap between “what is” and “what needs to be” that initiates the application of new learning that drives the creation of knowledge. The director and design team continue to meet and improvise solutions in support of the play until opening night. The weekly production meetings and the artistic and producing directors' daily meeting extend participatory reflection to embrace an organization-wide perspective.

All department directors, designers and stage managers attend production meetings once a week. These meetings organize two aspects of production, the build during rehearsal and the run, when a particular show is in performance. The scene shop foreman articulates the importance these meetings play in organizational learning:

[The weekly meetings] put everyone in the same room at one time. To see that the world of producing a show is bigger than just your narrow focus. An opportunity to hear the pressures put on the other people in the production process in other shops. It's important each person knows what the other is working on. It's a time to look the other in the face and see your impact on them. A time to help each other come up with solutions.

Research shows creating the space for reflective, participatory interaction must be established in to order to encourage new behavior and thinking in participants (Ford and Angermeier, 2004). Weekly production meetings create such a space. Through the open sharing of information and the discussion of options in solving problems, the weekly meetings help the production staff collectively reflect from a larger perspective. This extended meeting allows company members to determine where and how their work fits into the ongoing production process and that allows them to effectively coordinate and cooperate, to think together collectively in inventing solutions and make better decisions. These meetings facilitate organizational learning by creating another context for acts of improvisation to occur across all departments and levels in the company – so too does the artistic and producing directors daily meetings.

The artistic and producing directors meet on a daily basis; these meetings serve to work out any emerging issues between the other departments and the various design teams in rehearsal and the technical-design shops, from a strategic-operations perspective. This daily dialogue is where the artistic and producing directors actively improvise trade-offs between strategic vision considerations and practical production dilemmas. These daily meetings keep the company on track; much like the dialogue between the CEO and COO does in any corporation.

The various venues and processes that extend the basic action and structured learning cycles beyond the rehearsal studios and design-tech shops not only provides support and increased learning capacity through including more reflective minds to participate but these processes help synthesize and encourage knowledge sharing across disciplines throughout the organization as well. However, the most evident synthesis of new knowledge and organizational learning across disciplines becomes manifest during tech rehearsal and the stage manager's posting of daily production reports.

Knowledge synthesis: across disciplines and wider dissemination

When a production moves from the rehearsal studio onto a stage space at the CPA, it enters into a new phase – known as tech rehearsal – where all the artistic-technical-scenic components co-evolving and worked on inter-independently during the build (e.g. costumes, lighting and sound design, props, stage construction, directing and acting) come together interdependently for the run. Without the preparatory blending of disciplinary perspectives and applied learning prior to tech rehearsal, the company's coordinated effort would prove cumbersome, if not impossible. Here, learning across the entire organization becomes axiomatic. Literally everyone who has worked on the production turns out during tech rehearsal for the final push toward integrating all the theatrical elements. The stage manager sutures together all these elements, cue by cue, for the cast, lighting and soundboard operators, the running crew and grips. Space does not allow for an exhaustive analysis; however, the following excerpt from the field notes evidence how company members learn together to work out the glitches in order to manage the performance of the production:

[…] A glitch is any element of the production that doesn't work. The blocking worked out in the rehearsal studio needs to be adjusted; the lights and sound effects need to be fine-tuned and synchronized with the play; the scene designer and properties director are working on last minute touches to the set. Whenever the production crew and cast hit a glitch, ideas for solutions come flying from every quarter. They work through the ideas until they come to a solution, establish its cue, and then it's onto the next glitch. The stage manager plots the cues in his prompt book for the entire production staff […]

During the tech rehearsal, the stage manager couples together what was learned in the rehearsal studio, with the design shops' efforts, and with the larger administrative and production processes involved in mounting the production. The production as a product delivered to an audience (the customer) represents the synthesis of expertise and embedding of new knowledge. The story, however, would not be complete without noting the role production notes play in actively managing knowledge during the entire process.

Production notes facilitate learning between the artistic and producing directors, weekly production meetings at the department level, and the director/designer meetings during the rehearsal process, which, in turn, loosely couples the necessary integration for creative interaction across the organization. After every rehearsal and every performance, the stage manager writes a production report, and then posts this report to the web site and on the bulletin board next to all personnel mailboxes. The production notes serve learning in two important ways. First, the notes inform the director, designers, and cast on the particular upcoming issues they will face in rehearsal in order to focus and prepare their minds; and second, the daily-production notes provide comprehensive, up-to-date information on each show in production in relation to every other show. The production supervisor explains:

Production notes informs everyone what's going on at the interface between the rehearsal studios and tech shops to get a sense of the work involved. So they can work together and solve production and rehearsal problems at the same time.

In other words, collectively reflect, improvise and synthesis knowledge simultaneously and in parallel.

In summary, cycles of action learning, directed and structured learning, extended participatory reflection and synthesis and dissemination aid acts of improvization and creative thinking, knowledge sharing and innovation, learning and performance improvement, in maximizing productivity and knowledge work in relation to the company's core competency (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990), which is producing theatre. However, these integrated learning cycles are not haphazard but held in place by enabling organizing structures consciously designed.

Putting in place an enabling structure for learning

The artistic director in envisioning how to organize work processes most productively put in place three substantive structures that subsequently enable organization learning and knowledge sharing at the theatre company: naming the season; organizational reporting relationships; and the architectural floor plan.

The artistic director names 12 shows in the spring to launch the theatrical season for the following fall. In selecting and naming the season's projects, the organizing logic for the next theatrical season is established and put into motion. Every decision has been made in selecting those projects: for example, the production schedule and the financial resources; the directing, acting and design talent hired. That is, when the artistic director announces the titles; the producing director says:

Yes, but in the following ways. We can't do the Miser and the Winter's Tale simultaneously. That would kill the costume shop. It would create a time and budget crunch that would bring the company to its knees.

In this way, strategy and operations are weaved together and fused. Every aspect of the production thus takes it cue from the artistic director's naming of the season. The company's organizational chart and reporting relationships reflect this same dynamic logic.

The company's organizational chart and reporting relationships mirror an administrative structure dedicated to enable knowledge creation and learning processes on several levels simultaneously (see Figures 1 and 2). The artistic work assumes top priority; all company personnel and resources are expected to provide maximum support. The artistic director sets forth the strategic vision for the company, e.g. what 12 shows to produce each season. The producing director manages operations. The five executive director's responsibilities (APACE) – the artistic and production supervisors; the administrative, communication and education directors – revolve around these two primary drivers, fused together as one structuring process: strategy-operations.

This formal organizational structure builds in redundancy between this strategy-operations core and the executive management team. For example, the artistic director and artistic supervisor are one in the same; accordingly, so are the producing director and production supervisor roles (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Notice two attributes of the Center Theatre Company's (CTC) organizational chart and reporting relationships; first, APACE represents an organizational structure built around this strategy-operations core (e.g. artistic and producing directors) that not only manages but sustains the artistic work; and second, the company's administration is flat, without multiple bureaucratic layers; thus boundaries remain loose and the hierarchy, minimal, which makes possible more frequent communication, knowledge sharing and thus learning to occur between departments. This same underlying logic is mirrored in the architectural layout and floor plan.

The architectural floor plan of the theatre company allows for maximum creative interplay between the work accomplished in each design-tech shop with that in the rehearsal studio, thus facilitating learning across organizational disciplines. CTC occupies two floors. The first floor houses the business office, the production and marketing offices; large and small conference rooms; the lighting, drafting and scene design offices; the costume, wig, special projects and crafts shops; the mechanical/electrical room; and sundry storage rooms.

The second floor, the design logic becomes most evident in aiding all the learning processes in mounting a production. The artistic director explains:

The current floor plan brings together all parts of the collaborative team. I collected staff input and worked personally with the architect to determine the most effective way to get the best creative energy from the company.

There are six rehearsal rooms (green, blue, purple, red, yellow and orange; see Figure 3). The scene, paint, properties and furniture shops occupy two-thirds of the remainder of the second floor. The floor plan enables the production processes within the design-tech shops to run parallel and in sync with those processes unfolding in the rehearsal studios (see Figure 3). Because these processes are loosely linked, they are able to remain flexible enough in adjusting to whatever, unexpected contingency may arise (Weick, 1982) – thus facilitating knowledge sharing and learning in service to and centered on the company's core competency.

To summarize, the themes that emerged from the data define the knowledge-creation-learning practices and enabling structures within the company, and how they work. In specific, action learning assumes the foundation upon which directed, structured learning and extended, participatory reflection is reinforced, and synthesis and wider dissemination are built. Moreover, these learning cycles and knowledge sharing are supported by enabling structures the artistic director consciously put in place: naming the season; organizational reporting relationships; and designing the architectural floor plan. These four integrated learning cycles, in addition to the enabling structures allow the theatre company to create and apply new knowledge to modify and adapt behavior and thinking on an ongoing basis. Therefore, the company can readily combine resources in new and different ways to create a continuous stream of products (e.g. productions) as sources of revenue (Schumpeter, 1942). The learning and knowledge creating processes and organizational design presented here have implications for theory as well as practices in other organization settings, which we now discuss.

Discussion: implications for theory and practice

In adopting the perspective of praxis within an unconventional organizational context, the empirical findings support and reinforce some theories in organizational learning, extend or refute others and add new insights. The following section presents the most germane theory in organizational learning, and discusses points of connection and support, extension, refutation and addition.

Organizational learning: situated practice informing theory

To review all the wide-ranging definitions of organizational learning is beyond the scope of this article (for review, see Miller, 1996). In general, scholars view organizational learning as a process unfolding over time and link it with gaining new knowledge to improve performance. Three representative variations on this theme will be discussed:

organizational learning as a means to improve performance;
organizational learning as the leveraging of what the organization already knows; and
organizational learning as a relational network and/or systemic entity.

Many scholars theorize organizational learning improves performance through using new knowledge and insight as a means to change or modify thinking or behavior. Fiol and Lyles (1985), for example, see organizational learning as the process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding. Huber (1991) claims organizations learn if, through its processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors is changed. Last, Garvin (1993, p. 80) claims an organization “skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights” exhibits learning.

The findings support these claims. The four learning cycles suggest not only action learning as a foundational process in generating knowledge but the underlying logics in how that learning gets structured and more enriched through increasing participatory reflection. The four learning cycles characterize the creating, acquiring and transferring of knowledge on an individual and collective level and how, in the process, individual and organization-wide behavior and thinking is changed and modified on an ongoing basis in an effort to continually improve performance.

Other scholars claim an organization learns by leveraging or exploiting what it knows. Levitt and March (1988) argue that organizations learn by encoding inferences from history into routines that guide behavior. Stata (1989) maintains that organizational learning occurs through shared insights, knowledge and mental models, building on organizational memory – past knowledge and experience. Argyris (1977) proposes that organizational learning works on two levels:

detecting and correcting errors in established routines – single-loop; and
questioning embedded assumptions and norms – double-loop.

The findings reinforce these general claims but each in a different way. The four learning cycles support Levitt and March's claim by showing how company members draw upon historically embedded routines and use that knowledge to guide behavior and thinking in generating new learning; that is, production and rehearsal processes are more or less the same; yet, the final result and learning of each and every production is always new and different. The findings broaden Stata's claim by illustrating not only how members orientate themselves to production work through a sharing of insights and knowledge, but how in mounting a specific production, shared insight, knowledge and mental models are created, adjusted and modified in accommodating and overcoming unexpected contingencies that arise within and between the studio, the design-tech shops and administrative support.

The findings substantiate Argyris's notion of single- and double-loop learning. The four learning cycles operate in an integrated way to shift through those creative ideas that work and those that do not, thus evidence the immediacy of single-loop learning. Double-loop learning is exhibited, for example, in the studio when the director and cast set-up a parallel situation to the script and improvise according to different assumptions as a means to gain new insight. The weekly production meetings also suggest double-loop learning; that is, the participants adopt a wider perspective than the assumptions or norms established in the studio and design-tech shops, thus better enable them to see around production problems and devise innovative solutions. However, in no circumstance, did company personnel exercise double-loop learning in questioning the embedded assumptions and working norms of the organization as a whole.

Finally, the four learning cycles evidence the linking of departments and levels as a relational network across the organization constituting a systemic whole. Implicit in organizational learning is an emphasis on connecting relationships. That is, the expertise within most organizations takes the form of “embedded knowledge” that “resides primarily in specialized relationships among individuals and groups” (Badaracco, 1991, p. 79; see also Swan et al., 1999). Without established or establishing a network of relationships between people, no learning or knowledge sharing will occur. O'Dell and Grayson (1998) identify three barriers why learning and knowledge sharing does not take place within an organization:

ignorance – neither the source nor recipient knew someone had the knowledge they required or were interested in the knowledge they had;
recipient's absorptive capacity – not prepared for nor could recognize (even if shared) appropriate knowledge to his or her situation; and
lack of a relationship – between the source and recipient.

Each level in the four learning cycles reveal a widening network of relations that criss-cross and integrate the whole organization. Personnel throughout the theatre company participate in mounting a production and thus overcome the three barriers to knowledge creation, learning and transfer. In other words, the findings support that organization learning and knowledge sharing is achieved through establishing synergistic relationships and a network of social-communicative practices.

Recognizing the need for individuals and teams within an organization to learn as an integrated, unified entity has prompted some scholars to advocate a system thinking perspective (Dixon, 1994; Pedler et al., 1997). Senge (1990), for example, stresses systems thinking –, e.g. understanding the interconnectedness of individuals, teams, structures and processes – as one of five disciplines of organizational learning.

The four learning cycles reinforce the general contention in advocating the systemic thinking perspective, e.g. the integrative roles of the stage manager and production supervisor, in addition to the formal production meetings that encouraged group learning and organization-wide participatory reflection. The findings, however, calls into question the systemic view of organizational learning in two significant ways.

The organizational intent, from a systems thinking perspective, is to maintain homeostasis through the balancing of positive and negative feedback loops (Senge, 1990; Weick, 1969, 1979; Von Bertalanffy, 1968). This underlying logic is decidedly not the same as that working in the four learning cycles that emerged from the data analysis, and thus situated practice in this context augments and informs theory.

The four learning cycles are systemic in that each level interacts interdependently with the other cycles forming a unified whole, yet the underlying logics are not based upon balancing the tension between positive or negative feedback loops. Rather, the four learning cycles imply a dynamic structuring logic, known in self-organization theory as an epigenetic process (Jantsch, 1980) – that is, complex systemic interactions result from (build upon, subsume, combine) more simple interactions. For example, the synthesis across disciplines and wider dissemination of new knowledge within the organization builds upon and subsumes extended, participatory reflection that builds upon and subsumes direct, structured learning coevolving in the studios and design-tech shops that builds upon and subsumes foundational knowledge created through engaging a basic action learning cycle within each studio, shop and department. Positive and negative feedback loops do not predominate in these instances, thus maintaining homeostasis is not the objective. Rather through the four learning cycles the sharing of new knowledge and learning is a way to constantly overreach the status quo (homeostasis) established by any prior application of learning, e.g. the director's initial vision for the production, etc. This contention brings us to my second point.

The organization-wide enabling structures function as a holding environment or surround that stabilizes as well as facilitates the four learning cycles to freely operate as an epigenetic process; thus the object is decidedly not to maintain homeostasis (status quo) – here situated practice informs theory. The enabling structures –, e.g. naming of the season, the organizational reporting relations and architectural floor plan – together constitute a communicatively open, minimal scaffolding structure. This minimal scaffolding structure permits organizational flexibility – freedom of choice and variation – while establishing (just enough) structural stability and routine (constraint). In this way these enabling structures create an environment or surround that support the four integrated learning cycles by allowing for resources, expertise and capabilities to freely combine on-the-fly as circumstances dictate. From within the context these enabling structures create, therefore, learning and new knowledge in the form of creative and innovative outcomes and solutions can and do emerge. As Leonard (1998) points out:

Managing knowledge requires designing an environment that encourages creative enactments” (emphasis in original) (Leonard, 1998, p. xv).

The findings from this study evidence this enabling structured environment on an organization-wide scale, which ought not be confused with the creative work via the learning processes (i.e. four learning cycles) that emerges from within that structured context.

Situated practice informing theory: implications for practice

For any practicing manager, the implications of these findings still leave two questions begging for an answer:

how might firms implement enabling structures; and
what accompanying changes in management practices and leadership would be required in implementing these facilitative structures?

Actions emanating from both questions are interdependent, and should occur simultaneously. Some basic assumptions before we proceed: first, organization change and learning are inextricably linked; thus when talking about change I infer learning as well. Second, the four learning cycles revealed in the findings represent a “living” heuristic model; no firm can implement these enabling structures as exactly depicted here and must work within the design and contingent forces of their own organizations. And third, the discussion that follows because of space limits will be cursory and more suggestive than definitive.

The presupposition underlying both questions is one of entry, that is, where does one start? In most cases, the place to begin will be with the bureaucracy and its structurally embedded logics. Fundamentally different logics are at work in a bureaucratic than a post- bureaucratic organization, which the theatre company clearly depicts. In a bureaucracy, management is a process of planning, command, coordination and control (Taylor, 1911). Hierarchical unity of command (span of supervision) in terms of job responsibilities (fixed division of tasks) privileges the right to give orders and exact obedience (Fayol, 1949). The subordinate is expected to follow procedures and regulations and do what s/he is told, which reinforces conformity in producing a disciplined and ordered organization, rigid and inflexible. The logic underlying the post-bureaucratic organization – decentralized, team-based and mission centered – differs considerably from and is in opposition to the bureaucratic. The dilemma is this: The beginning or current state (bureaucratic) and the desired state (decentralized facilitative structures) create oppositional tensions in-between that the leader-manager must negotiate. Therefore, a combination of rational-intentional (planned) and open-processional change methods need to be employed to overcome this primary obstacle, which will become manifest in myriad of ways: employee resistance, cynicism, threats to status quo power dynamics, etc.

The roots of rational-intentional models stem from Lewin's (1947, 1951) three stages of change – unfreeze, move and refreeze. This approach rationally plans out prescribed steps, is goal-driven and initiated from top management down; the focus is strategic, employing tactical maneuvers in getting structural changes implemented. (These methods are well established in the literature and need not occupy our attention here.) However, when change becomes internalized by the employees in guiding their own daily actions, how to maintain the initiative's momentum on an ongoing basis gains significance. The challenge is not one of “unfreezing” but of “redirecting” what is already underway (Weick and Quinn, 1999). That is, to make a work practice visible and to reveal patterns in what is transpiring; to reinterpret and re-sequence work patterns so that they unfold with a minimum of blockage; and finally, to improvise and learn in ways that are more mindful of the changes and differing views that have surfaced. This shift in perspective calls for a different orientation toward how change unfolds within an organization (see Ford, 2007).

Orlikowski and Hofman (1997, p. 13) define three different facets of change in such circumstances:

anticipated changes are “planned ahead of time and occur as intended”;
emergent changes “arise spontaneously from local innovation” but are not “originally anticipated or intended”; and
opportunity-based changes are not “anticipated ahead of time but are introduced purposefully and intentionally during the change process in response to an unexpected opportunity, event, or breakdown”.

Anticipated change correlates well with a rational-intentional model; emergent and opportunity-based changes best describe an open-processional one.

Note, I have not yet answered the two initial questions but more or less set out the conceptual landscape. This discussion naturally leads to:

what principles do leader-managers follow to put in place facilitative structures through rational-intentional (planned) change methods; and
what changes in practice and mental outlook must a leader-manager adopt in transitioning between rational-intentional to open-processional methods?

In previous research (for review, see Ford, 2006) executive managers concur three principles proved crucial in creating an environment conducive for organizational learning in transforming a large bureaucratic healthcare system. These core principles are:

creating the space for new communicative interaction;
safeguarding a credible and open process; and
reclaiming diverse views.

Practice-principle one. If leader-managers want subordinates to think and act in qualitatively different ways, then the environment in which they currently interact must be changed. For example, if the vice presidents are ensconced in their respective siloed divisions and do not currently meet in a daily collaborative group, then that new communicative space must be implemented to facilitate collective learning. Likewise, the same goes for the department heads or middle management, as well as for directors within divisions, department managers within divisions, work-unit supervisors and staff within departments. In short, leader-managers must deliberately create the space for participation in order to facilitate learning at the interfaces within, across and between divisions and departments throughout the organization. Rational-intentional change methods work well to implement the facilitative structure this first practice principle makes reference to, whereas practice-principles two and three are supported more through open-processional change methods – hence the shift in focus.

Practice-principle two. Within the parameters of this new communicative space, leader-managers need to safeguard a credible and open process. Simply put, if employees see the communication process as not dominated by a particular person or stakeholder group, if the information is accurate and willingly shared, and if they have the chance to provide input to influence decisions, then these practices tend to support a context for learning through increasing individual agency and inclusion. If employees, moreover, can freely participate as they deem necessary and without fear of retribution, then openness and risk-taking are encouraged that leads to responsibility and commitment. If the final decisions are the result of broad-base involvement, then the context will come to reflect learning practices that are shared and participative. Safeguarding a credible and open process, then, proves essential in managing the context and enabling practices of organizational learning to take root.

Practice-principle three. Within the framework of open and credible communication, the leader-manager actively needs to reclaim diverse views. Reclaiming diverse views is not friction free, especially when it is allowed to become emotionally charged, polarizing people into an intractable controversy. Discussing specific conflict resolution skills obviously is beyond the scope of this article. The focus here, rather, is on this principle as foundational to nurture shared learning practices in the workplace. Weick (1995) explains:

People in organizations are in different locations and familiar with different domains, which means they have different interpretations of common events (Weick, 1995, p. 53).

These employees possess deep “tacit” knowledge of and workplace experience in these different departments and locations. Each employee viewpoint carries with it expertise and skills that can be used effectively to solve organizational, workplace problems, but only if these viewpoints are (re)claimed continuously as an established norm within a space that safeguards a credible and open process.

The shift between practice-principle one to two and three require a concomitant shift in the leader-manager's mental outlook and management practices, particularly in how power becomes manifest and employed. Put simply, a transition between positional and authoritative power conferred and maintained by the bureaucratic hierarchy must become manifest as reciprocal-relational forms of power necessitated in safeguarding a credible process and reclaiming suppressed views (see Ford, 2006). For example, positional power as a destabilizing force plays a key role in rational-intentional change (Greiner and Schein, 1989; Kanter, 1983, 2003). That is, the leader-manager as change agent, with the visible and unquestioned support of the CEO (Boss and Golembiewski, 1995), plans the change strategy and implements tactics (Nutt, 1986, 1987) in accordance to the steps initially outlined – the change effort is thus pushed.

Whereas, in open-processional change (e.g. principles two and three), power works on the logic of reciprocation and egalitarian alliances. Legitimacy assumes a different character than simply to employ positional bureaucratic power. Rather, legitimacy is gained in meeting one's obligations and contribution to the group. Power situates itself in the work relationships and the discipline of its daily practices (Barker and Cheney, 1994). Power is conceived, in short, as reciprocal forces within a network of relations (Foucault, 1995). The change (and learning) assumes a participative pull rather than an autocratic push through the mechanisms of open communication, collective self-reflection and collaboration in engaging and representing as many relevant stakeholders as possible in the decision-making. This shift in how power is employed becomes sine qua non if leader-managers seek to navigate the oppositional tensions in implementing facilitative structures through practice-principle one toward actualizing practice principles two and three in integrating learning cycles across their organization.

In summary, then, the findings from this study hold general import for organizational learning on two levels. First, the administration needs to put into practice facilitative structures that better manage the environment or surround and not the individuals within that environment. These enabling structures must embrace a minimal hierarchy and open communicative boundaries that allow for flexibility and yet maintain some degree of structural stability and routine. Second, the context within this environment, the organizing practices employed must emanate from the inside-out (epigenetic) design or perspective by permitting work units to reconfigure, merge and realign according to internal contingencies and needs. That is, to allow employees to determine work tasks through participation with others; and patterns of authority – informal, relational and constantly changing – established by those with appropriate skills and abilities. In other words, the emphasis is not on managing the individual but the context through enabling structures that provide enough constraint to facilitate stability and support but not too much to stifle innovative thinking.

In conclusion

The findings do reinforce and empirically ground much of the theory in organizational learning. For example, the foundational action, directed and extended, participatory learning cycles evidence how organizational learning and the use of new knowledge not only change and modify thinking and behavior to improve performance but depends on historically embedded routines, past experience and memory. Moreover, the four integrate cycles embody single-loop learning in the rehearsal studio and double-loop learning across the organization, in addition to how learning and knowledge sharing occurs through synergistic relationships at the individual, team and organizational levels. Specifically, the findings show:

how creative thinking is bolstered within specific work contexts (i.e. the studios and design-tech shops) as well as across the entire organization as a unified entity;
how processes and structure impinge and enable each other; and
an underlying epigenetic logic that maintains organizational learning and knowledge creation on an ongoing basis.

The findings point out how enabling structures create an environment or surround that allows for the four learning cycles to self-organize according to an epigenetic logic and thus call into question the systemic thinking view of organizational learning and predominant emphasis on maintaining homeostasis. In outlining how the theatre company was able to sustain knowledge worker productivity in getting personnel at all organization levels to think, plan, innovate, process information and coordinate in working together, the implications for managerial practice was discussed

This study's findings are suggestive; however, they also are tentative and incomplete. Employing the hybrid praxis as an analytical lens, future studies can investigate how or if it applies to other traditional, but similar organizations embracing an inside-out design (e.g. epigenetic, experiential, experimental) approach. Nonetheless, the theatre company's situated practice does inform theory in opening up another avenue to better apprehend the dynamic epigenetic logics at play in one decentralized, delayed, team-based, learning and knowledge-based organization.

Figure 1Center theatre company organization chart

Figure 2Center theatre company organization chart – top view

Figure 3Tramway building: second floor

References

Ancona, D.G., Caldwell, D.F. (1992), "Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 pp.634-65.