What more do we need to know about the learning organization?

Citation

Ortenblad, A. (2007), "What more do we need to know about the learning organization?", The Learning Organization, Vol. 14 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo.2007.11914daa.001

What more do we need to know about the learning organization?

Let’s say I were to advise anybody who was interested in the idea of the learning organization how to go on with her or his interest. It might be anyone who just wants to know more about the idea, managers with an ambition to implement the idea in their organizations, union representatives who have got the chance to have a say, or consultants who giving advice regarding whether any specific organization should become a learning organization.

First of all, I would advise those interested in the idea to decide whether the idea was going to be used in substance or symbolically (cf. Pelz, 1978). This is often thought of as an unconscious difference, and especially the symbolic use of a management idea is often described as unconscious for the users, who actually think that they implement it in practice. But I want the overview of different perspectives that I am about to present here to be an analytical instrument, and thus make people aware of what hitherto might have been unconscious for them.

Second, I would recommend the interested parties to consider some different definitions of the learning organization. This is to make them articulate for themselves what they mean, and to give them options, which originate from how others have articulated the idea (see Örtenblad, 2002; 2004a; see also Development and Learning in Organizations, 2005). “Learning at work” means that a learning organization is an organization where the employees learn during work and with less formal methods, instead of sending people away to formal courses for learning. Further, a learning organization could mean a “climate for learning”, where learning is facilitated – both mentally, such as encouragement from managers that employees are allowed to experiment and make mistakes, as long as you learn from them; and physically, such as how the office landscape is structured. Another way of articulating the learning organization is to see it as “organizational learning”, i.e. that the individuals learn, programmed on behalf of their organization, that what they have learned thereafter is stored in the organizational memory (such as routines, documents, etc.), and finally that this knowledge is used for the sake of solving old tasks better or facing new problems. Finally, a learning organization can also be articulated as a flexible, almost organic organization – a “learning structure” – which needs its work force to be continually learning from their work tasks and from one another as well as from the customers and the environment at large, in order for the organization to stay flexible. In addition, the organization is organized in teams, and everyone in a team can do the other team members’ work moderately, so they can fill in for each other, in order to create maximum flexibility. The same goes for the teams as such – they can also fill in for each other, since they have learned how to perform the tasks of the other teams decently. A fifth way to articulate the idea does normally not go under the label of “learning organization”, and differs from the other four understandings in that it is rather a perspective, not a normative ideal that organizations can struggle to become, as the other four understandings of the learning organization. Since “new organizational learning”, as some call it, is becoming more and more popular, I will include it here all the same, and try to describe it as if it was a way of understanding the learning organization, and not a philosophical perspective. Thus, a learning organization according to the “new organizational learning” perspective would be an organization where the organization learns as a collective (or a “community of practice”) and where all knowledge is situated and cannot be stored – knowledge is a process that happens and should rather be called “knowing”, which possibly partly can be recreated (see, for example, Brown and Duguid, 1991; Cook and Yanow, 1993; Blackler, 1995; Gherardi et al., 1998; Cook and Brown, 1999; Orlikowski, 2002).

Third, I think it is important to differentiate between some different stakeholders who also come with a specific perspective. We have the employer perspective, which can be assumed to be an efficiency perspective, narrowed to the organization’s well-being – especially its finances. There is the employee perspective, which is assumed to see to the best of the single individuals in the organization (I am not going into the discussion here as to whether managers are to be seen as employers or employees), and accordingly also their private lives, including, of course, their families (i.e. a humanistic perspective). We have the societal perspective, which confronts us with ideas that the implementation of a certain perspective of the learning organization is not only a good thing from the employers and the employees’ point of view, but also for the whole society. It might, for instance, be beneficial for both employers and employees in a single organization to implement a learning structure, but it might be a disaster for society if all organizations were to take that path. For instance, the introduction of the learning organization in a specific organization may both increase effectiveness and make it a better place to work for the employees when the environment is turbulent and organizations need to be flexible, and the employees like flexibility. But it would be a disaster for society if all organizations were to implement a flexible organization – for example mass-producing organizations with stable environments, and with employees who are more comfortable with a formal structure. Society needs to have some organizations that mass-produce what the creative, innovative and flexible organizations come up with.

It should finally be said that these three perspectives can correlate, but are not required to – they might sometimes be impossible to combine and sometimes they all seem to go in the same direction and harmonize well. For example, the employer perspective may cause trouble for the employees, but their interests might also go hand in hand. This discussion could go on for a long, long time.

When combining these three dimensions – substance or symbolic use, type of learning organization and stakeholder that gains – there are in total 30 boxes, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 seems complex, but it should make it easier for any practitioner interested in the learning organization to define what she or he is interested in, and which aspects to take into consideration. However, the boxes in Figure 1 are all empty. Anyone might be able to reason about implications for their own organization, but there is also a need for research so that the boxes can be filled with information. It would be impossible to fill in just “yes” or “no” in any of these boxes – that is, a certain use of a specific type of the idea is hardly only good or only bad for any specific stakeholder. Elsewhere (Örtenblad, 2004b) I have introduced and suggested the development of a contingency model of the learning organization, but what I suggest now is much more complex. There are pros and cons in every box and thorough discussions are needed for every box in order to complete the analysis of the idea of the learning organization. For instance, some organizations would fit as flexible, organic organizations, while others would not. Some individuals would thrive when working in a flexible organization, while others would not. This kind of reasoning can be made for every box in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Dimensions of learning organizations

Consequently, Figure 1 could work as a preliminary base for decisions being made regarding if and how to use the learning organization, but it would work better if it could be complemented with:

• •

  an analysis of each and every box, including an inventory of existing knowledge (i.e. literature reviews); and

• •

  an analysis of the organization that is to be transformed into a learning organization and how it relates to the general findings.

The second of these must always be done with or in cooperation with people in the organization involved, perhaps with some help from broad-sighted consultants. It would take too much space to elaborate analyses of each of the boxes here – or in any single article for that matter – but there is still a knowledge gap here and a need for future research. Therefore, I encourage readers to perform the necessary research and publish their findings on the contents of the 30 boxes. Thus, I would like to see theoretical inventories of existing knowledge, discussions and critical speculations, as well as empirical based research, such as case studies, and experiences told by practitioners to formalize the learning organization decision matrix.

Finally, I feel that I must sound a cautionary note to managers thinking of engaging their organizations in one or more of the 30 boxes (by this I also want to warn all employees and society at large): unscrupulous fashion exploiters and idea zealots may well propose change for your organization that is unnecessary or even counterproductive. Through the use of the 30 boxes in Figure 1, you will better be able to understand your organization’s needs and the best learning organization requirements for your organization, without being pressured into rapidly adopting a strategy that may not suit your specific organization’s change requirements.

Anders ÖrtenbladSchool of Business Engineering, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden