PROGRAMME OF LEARNING UNITS

 

The Organisational Learning & Development Module (OL&D) is an essential component of the core studies for the BA (Hons) Management and Business programme. 

The Module has been designed to encourage students, already becoming conversant with modern organisational reforms and change, to develop an open, questing, creative approach towards their own and others’ personal development at work, in response to these changing, fluid, modern business environments. They will do this by moving their mental models away from the idea of the rigid and mechanistic ‘training’ approaches at work, and towards their appreciating and developing forms of coping strategies for change - both personal and strategic - which are grounded in organisational learning theory. In so doing, they embrace the fundamental issue that people are - and should be acknowledged by all as - key within any organisational structure, and that if companies are to change, ie to learn, then a focus on individuals learning within these organisations is fundamental to that changing/learning process. 

The Module, therefore, sets out to broaden students’ understanding of the main organisational learning tenets, viewed from both theoretical and practical (applied) perspectives, having firstly laid the groundwork on the fast changing business world. This groundwork involves exploring current images of organisations, in order to develop sufficient understanding of the need for strategies for change, including organisational learning. Authors who may prove invaluable for students’ background reading on all aspects of the Module content - and on whose work much of the content here has been based and (hereby) acknowledged and referenced - include: 

Argyris & Schon (1996);  Dewey (1933);  Mabey & Iles (ed) (1997);  Morgan (1997);  Mumford (1997);  Pearn et al (1995);  Pedler et al (1997);  and Senge (1994).

[see, also, the comprehensive Module reading list] 

Thus, as wide a range as possible of key organisational learning tenets has been drawn from those who have, of recent date, provided excellent food for thought on the subject of organisational change and organisational learning. For this reason, the Mabey and Iles text above – Managing Learning – is offered as a background reading text, covering as it does, 23 different, but complementary, contributions towards the concept of organisational learning. 

The Module learning programme also involves an element of direct liaison with professionals who are actively pursuing current approaches to change by endeavouring to inculcate organisational learning techniques and strategies into the culture of their own organisations. During the second half of the learning programme, therefore, students will be directed to pursue investigative research involving liaison with companies chosen by them and/or by the Module Leader, and incorporating appropriate organisational learning interventions. In addition, reviews of appropriate case studies will be promoted. 

The Module is assessed via two pieces of individual coursework, namely two essays, weighted 40% & 60% respectively, each around 2,000 words in length. The first essay should be completed and presented at around Learning Week 12. The second essay should be completed and presented at around Learning Week 24. The investigative research work pursued by the students throughout the second-half of the Module programme will play a key part in their development of the second, heavier-weighted essay.  Your module tutors will confirm the exact date of assignment deadlines.

Essay-writing techniques are included at the close of the Module learning programme, and should be reviewed by the student as appropriate.

Module title           Organisational Learning and Development 

Module code           PD3S02 

Pre-requisites                          Co-requisites

Awards for which module is a core requirement 

Aims of the module 

To build on a growing knowledge of organisational structure and behaviour by :- 

~ encouraging students to develop an understanding of the significance of modern

   organisational learning environments 

 

~ fostering the concept that ‘fluid’ organisational reforms demand an enlightened

   approach towards the management and development of people at work 

 

~ inculcating a challenging approach towards the ‘organic organisation’ 

 

~ developing an understanding of the role of personal development within the

   context of a strategic learning environment 

Synopsis of module content 

The Module encourages students, firstly, to read and understand organisational life by exploring, inter alia, mechanistic, organic, changing organisation structures and environments. 

This framework of aspects of organisational life leads on to examination of the concept of a learning organisation, enhanced by key theoretical perspectives, which develop students’ understanding of insight/inquiry/metaphor/reflection/creativity & innovation/change management at the workplace. This exposes main themes on single & double loop learning; barriers to learning; key learning company characteristics; learning tools, management of learning; and approaches towards implementation and evaluation of appropriate organisational learning interventions and strategies. 

Essential to the module is interaction with company specialists/consultants/ facilitators suitably experienced within transitional learning environments. 

Teaching methods 

The module will be conducted via lectures and workshops, incorporating a learning unit programme, backed up with learning activity promoting both individual and small group activity. Occasionally, case studies will be incorporated. Students will benefit, also, via direct consultation in the workplace from the experiences of professionals active within the wide employee development sector, who hold a keen interest in learning organisational approaches and have instigated these in the workplace.  

 

Learning Outcomes	Assessment of Learning Outcomes
Whilst acknowledging constant organisational transition :-  ~ intellectually explore the contribution that organisational learning initiatives make to organisational success,  and  ~ critically appraise both collective and individualistic commitment and approaches towards innovation and change within the concept of a learning organisation	~ Demonstrate understanding of significant changes – and specific aspects of – modern day organisation environments  ~ Explore and show understanding of key characteristics of current organisational learning theory  ~ Specify and apply, in a range of work scenarios, appropriate organisational learning interventions

 
 

Assessment requirements 

Assessment will consist of two essays (between 2,000 and 2,500 words) weighted 40% and 60% respectively. Heavy use will be made of in-company research for the second, 60%-weighted assessment. 

 Organisational  Learning  &  Development

PROGRAMME OF LEARNING UNITS

 

 

 

Student-led investigative research will be incorporated into the study programme during the second-half of the learning programme 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Reference

 

Learning Unit 1                                                                                                  Morgan (97i)     

Reading and understanding organisational life            

~  Organisations as machines

 

Learning Unit 2                                                                 Morgan (97i)  

Reading and understanding organisational life                         

~  Organisations as organisms

 

Learning Unit 3                                                                                                   Morgan (97i)

            Reading and understanding organisational life                       

~  Organisations as brains 

 

Learning Unit 4                                                                      Peters/Waterman (82), Senge (94),

The notion of the learning organisation                Edwards Deming (86), Harrison (95),

      Revans (82), Argyris/Schon (96)

               [ in Pedler (97) ]

 

Learning Unit 5                                                                                                Pearn et al (95)

            Understanding learning within the company   

 

Learning Unit 6                                                                                                Pearn et al (95)

            Expanding the concept of the learning organisation 

       

Learning Unit 7

            Case Study ~ No.1

 

Learning Unit 8                                                                                                                              Pearn et al (95)

            Understanding learning company components 

 

Learning Unit 9                                                                            Pedler et al (97)Pearn et al (95)

The learning organisation  ~  implementing the ideas

                

Learning Unit 10                                                                                        Argyris & Schon (96)

            Organisational learning  ~  the art of inquiry   

 

Learning Unit 11                                                                                Harri-Augstein et al (91) Schon (95)

Learning conversations  ~  reflection in action   

Returning to the ‘art of inquiry’   

 

Learning Unit 12

            Introduction to the module investigative research

 

Learning Unit 13

            Case Study ~ No.2

 

Learning Unit 14                                                                                                                             Pedler et al (96)

                Can both big and small companies learn?                                               Schon (96) [in Pedler, (97)]

 

Learning Unit 15                                                                                                 Morgan (97ii)

        Organisational learning  ~  Developing a metaphorical approach

 

Learning Unit 16

            Review of module investigative research   -  in preparation for Assessment 2

 

Learning Unit 17

            Case Study  ~  No. 3 

 

Learning Unit 18                                                                        Business Basics:BPP Publishing (97)       

Organisational learning  ~  The innovative approach  

      

Learning Unit 19                                                 Business Basics:BPP Publishing (97)

            Organisational Learning  ~  Developing a creative approach               King & Anderson (95)

 

Learning Unit 20

            Case Study  ~  No. 4

 

Learning Unit 21

            Case Study  ~  No. 5

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

q       Assessment 1      :       See separate handout

 

q       Assessment 2     :       See separate handout

 

q       Essay-writing Tips

 

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

INDICATIVE  READING

 

 

NOTE:  

 

   ~     In addition to the above texts you should also investigate journal articles, CD-ROMs and appropriate Internet sites (ie, those sites underpinned by recognised research and publication). You can receive help with researching these sources from the Learning Resources Centre at the University.

 

   ~     You can read more widely around this subject by taking full advantage of the case study materials included throughout this learning programme.

 

 

 

 P L E A S E     N O T E 

 

 

Each Learning Unit may be utilised for one or more Learning Weeks in the Learning Programme that now follows 
 

 

 

 

Where required, please read appropriate notes/case study in preparation for the following week’s Learning Unit workshop 

 

 

 

  

Each Case Study may be utilised for one or more Learning Weeks in the Learning Programme that now follows 
 

 

 

  

The nature of the learning activity within each of the Learning Units, ie group and/or individual, will be directed by your Module Tutor  
 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 1                                              [Source text: Morgan, 1997i] 

 

Reading and Understanding Organisational Life (1) 
 

 

 

Hello, and a very warm welcome to this Learning Programme. 

 

In this Introductory Unit, prior to taking an in-depth look at organisational learning principles – the focus of this module - it is considered appropriate for you to understand/refresh some of the fundamental images of organisations that have developed over the 20^th century and often still exist today. It is acknowledged that some students may be already very familiar with a range of business organisation environments from earlier study, yet students may benefit, here, from taking a ‘metaphorical walk’ through three of these business environments to assist your understanding of why and how organisational learning ideas have arisen.

 

To consolidate  your understanding, you may like to read Chapter 2 of this Unit’s text (Morgan, 97i), and/or a sample of this Chapter 2 in your accompanying Module Reading Notes. 

 

 

 

Gareth Morgan, in Images of Organisation (1997) opens with: “Effective managers and professionals in all walks of life have to become skilled in the art of 'reading’ the situations they are attempting to organise or manage”.  These skilled people develop the knack of reading situations with various scenarios in mind and are capable of creating actions appropriate to the understandings thus obtained. They are able to stay open and flexible, suspending judgments until a clearer, more comprehensive view of the situation emerges – something less effective managers cannot achieve, often interpreting situations from a fixed standpoint, and resulting in rigid and inflexible actions.

 

This reading of situations at work, Morgan tells us, can be helped by utilising the idea of metaphor.

 

What is metaphor?

 

The Concise Oxford Dictionary’s definition is:  “Application of name or descriptive term to an object to which it is not literally applicable”,   eg  a ferocious man described as a tiger.

Morgan suggests that “all theories of organisation and management are based on implicit images or metaphors that lead us to see, understand and manage organisations in distinctive yet partial ways”.  He says that using metaphor implies a way of thinking and a way of seeing that pervade how we understand our world generally. And that we use metaphor whenever we attempt to understand one element of experience in terms of another one.

 

He says, “When we say ‘the man is a lion’, we use the image of a lion to draw attention to the lion-like aspects of the man “.  This metaphor frames our understanding of the man in a distinctive - but only partial - way. In a  partial  way because, of course, ‘lion-like’, in this context, refers to the man being brave, strong, maybe ferocious, but not furry, four-legged or sharp-toothed !  Or, indeed, that the man may be a bore, a pig, a saint, a devil or a recluse.

 

Understanding and Use of Metaphor

 

In your first three Learning Units, you will be taking on board this use of metaphor to understand how organisations have been, and are, changing within the modern world.  Therefore, in discussing the organisation as a 'machine’, and as an 'organism’ and as a 'brain’ - each of these metaphors may create valuable insights about how an organisation is structured to achieve its goals and targets, but are actually incomplete (eg,  using the ‘machine’ or ‘mechanistic’ metaphor to describe an organisation ignores the human aspects of the organisation, etc)

 

What Morgan is suggesting, therefore, is that you “engage in a mode of thinking that generates important insights while having major limitations. You are likely to be attracted to certain metaphors and be impatient with others “. Morgan suggests that you should gain comfort in dealing with competing viewpoints, for this is one of the key competencies that needs to be developed as a basis for effective management. Also, it will aid enormously your understanding of the organisational learning principles that form the focus of this module. 
 

 

APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 

 

This Learning Unit (along with Learning Units 2 and 3) is the first of three exploring some  recognised approaches towards business organisation and management. There are many more approaches than can be covered over these three Units, but it is considered that these three provide a good foundation for understanding why organisational learning concepts have developed over the latter half of the 20^th century.  

 

The mechanistic, bureaucratic approach towards business organisation dominated the first half of the 20^th century – and some would argue still holds high significance today - and it is this one that will be highlighted first. 

 

 

 

'Mechanisation’ of Organisations   ~  The Machine Metaphor 

 

Gareth Morgan (1997) says "as we enter the twenty-first century we find bureaucracies and other modes of mechanistic organisation coming under increasing attack because of their rigidities and other dysfunctional consequences .... Now that we are entering an age with a completely new technological base drawing on microelectronics, new organisational principles are likely to become increasingly important". Lets take a look. 

Bureaucracy is the term used to describe organisations that operate as if they are machines. The term ‘organisation’ implies a state of orderly relations between clearly defined parts that have some determinate order, in other words, a set of mechanical relations. The use of machines, following the industrial revolution, required that organisations be adapted to the needs of machines. The changes in organisation accompanying the industrial revolution reflected an increasing trend toward the bureaucratisation and routinisation of life generally. Many skilled, self-employed workers at that time gave up this autonomy of home working to take up unskilled factory work. And factory owners realised that the efficient operation of their new machines ultimately required major changes in the design and control of work. 

 

Here are a few brief outlines of key proponents of the theory and practice associated with mechanistic organisation over the last century or so: 

 

 

q       Adam Smith, Scottish economist, The Wealth of Nations (1776)    ~    praised division of labour at work, whereby manufacturers sought to increase efficiency by reducing the discretion of workers in favour of control by their machines and their supervisors. New procedures and techniques were introduced to discipline workers to accept the new and rigorous routine of factory production.

 

q       Max Weber, German sociologist, 1940s/50s    ~    observed the parallels between the mechanisation of industry and the proliferation of bureaucratic forms of organisation. He defined bureaucracy as a form of organisation that emphasises precision, speed, clarity, regularity, reliability and efficiency, achieved through fixed division of tasks, hierarchical supervision and detailed rules and regulations. And he saw that the bureaucratic approach had the potential to routinise and mechanise almost every aspect of human life, eroding the human spirit and capacity for spontaneous action. In viewing it as undermining the potential for more democratic forms of organisation, he invoked great scepticism.

 

q       Henri Fayol, French classical management theorist, 1940s    ~    together with others, including F W Mooney (American) and Col. Lyndall Urwick (British), he set about the development of modern management techniques, basing his thinking on the idea that management is a process of planning, organisation, command, co-ordination and control. Military and engineering principles were key. Here, then, is the classic hierarchical structure – a pattern of precisely defined jobs, organised in a hierarchical manner, through precisely defined lines of command or communication. In other words, they were designing the organisation as a machine.

 

The organisation was conceived as a network of parts: functional departments (production/marketing/finance/personnel/etc) with precisely defined jobs and responsibilities, linked through the scalar chain of command, ‘one man, one boss’. By giving detailed attention to patterns of authority and to the general process of direction, discipline, and subordination, the classical theorists were ensuring that when commands were issued from the top they would travel throughout the organisation in a precisely determined way to create a precisely determined effect. 

 

The thrust of classical management theory is that organisations should be rational systems that operate in as efficient a manner as possible. However, it is people we are dealing with, not inanimate cogs and wheels. The classical theorists have been criticised for making humans fit the requirements of mechanical organisation, even though they recognised that it was important to achieve a balance, a harmony, between the human and technical aspects. 

 

q       Frederick Taylor, American engineer (turn of the last century)    ~    a much maligned organisation theorist, but also one of the most influential. Taylor’s scientific management principles have provided the cornerstone for work design throughout the first half of the twentieth century, and in many situations through to the present day. These are:

 

Þ      shift all responsibility for the organisation of work from the worker to the manager. Managers should do all the thinking relating to the planning and design of work, leaving the workers with the task of implementation.

 

Þ      use scientific methods to determine the most efficient way of doing work. Design the worker’s task accordingly, specifying the precise way in which the work is to be done.

 

Þ      select the best person to perform the job thus designed

 

Þ      train the worker to do the work efficiently

 

Þ      monitor worker performance to ensure that appropriate work procedures are followed and that appropriate results are achieved

 

Taylor advocated time and motion study for analysing and standardising work activities. Observation and measurement of the most routine work to find the optimum mode of performance. Fast-food outlets are the most obvious models of his approach to scientific management, where work is organised in minute detail on the basis of designs that analyse the total process of production, find the most efficient procedures, and then allocate these as specialised duties to people trained to perform them in a very precise way. Managers do all the ‘thinking’, employees all the ‘doing’.  On the assembly-line the same approach to work design is applied. Taylor’s ideas make the workers servants to machines that are in complete control of the organisation and pace of work. One gets the idea of ‘office factories’ !  And so, Taylorism lies in the degree to which he was able to mechanise the organisation of people and work. 
 

  

Mechanistic Organisations   ~   Strengths and Limitations 

 

Strengths                              Limitations 

 

~   Straightforward tasks to perform        ~   Hard to adapt

~   Stable environment                             ~   Mindless and unquestioning

~   Mass production                                 ~   Dehumanising employees

~   Precision required 
 

 

To sum up   ~    

 

In pursuing the origins of the metaphorically-titled Mechanistic Organisation, you have looked at bureaucratic approaches to work organisation; the division of labour; command and control; dehumanising the human spirit; classical management theory of precisely defined jobs, hierarchically organised through defined lines of command; functional departments with precisely defined jobs and tasks; direction, discipline and subordination; the production-line approach. 

 

Much of the apathy, carelessness and lack of pride so often encountered in the modern workplace is not coincidental; it is fostered by the mechanistic approach. 

 

Next time – a different slant  -  the organic approach to organisation. 
 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning  Activity 
 

 

 To reinforce your understanding of mechanistic organisation, drawing on your past experience, every-day observations and perhaps some research into current, appropriate news items in the media and/or appropriate case studies on work organisation and management : 
 

 

• Make a list of points which suggest mechanistic, bureaucratic organisation within the workplace,  eg  a superior at work frowning upon the periods your colleague spends away from his/her desk

 

• Using this list, write down your own views on how you perceive the reality of organising and managing people at work today. Do the ‘old’ ways still apply? Do you see the glimmers of new ways … ?

 

• If you have had actual work experience, give some examples of typical office scenarios and comment upon them in the light of your reading of this Learning Unit and/or Morgan’s (Ch. 2) expanded version  (if you have no work experience, perhaps you could examine scenarios in appropriate films or ‘soaps’ on television).

 

• Use, perhaps, Taylor’s five simple principles as a basis for your discussion.

 

• Try to produce at least one A4 sheet

 

• These explicit thoughts will be a useful reminder – and a resource - for you as you progress through the ideas on organisational learning later, and will help when it is time to prepare for your first assessment.

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development 

 

Learning Unit 2                                      [Source text: Morgan, 1997i]

 

Reading and Understanding Organisational Life (2) 

 

 

 

APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT

 

This Learning Unit is the second of three exploring some approaches towards business organisation and management, as preparation for your in-depth study of organisational learning and development. You have been introduced to ideas behind the mechanistic approach to organisation at work, now we look at the idea of the organic organisation. To increase your understanding, you can read Chapter 3 of this Unit’s text (Morgan, 97i), and/or a sample of this Chapter 3 in your accompanying Module Reading Notes. 

 

 

'Biological’ Organisations   ~   The Organism Metaphor 

 

"Under the influence of the machine metaphor, organisation theory was locked into a form of engineering preoccupied with relations between goals, structures, and efficiency. The idea that organisations are more like organisms has changed all this, guiding our attention toward the more general issues of survival, organisational environment relations, and organisational effectiveness. Goals, structures and efficiency now become subsidiary to problems of survival and other more ‘biological’ concerns.”  (Morgan, 1997i).  

              

During the 19^th  and early 20^th centuries it was by no means obvious that employees worked best when motivated by the tasks they had to perform and that the process of motivation hinged on allowing people to achieve rewards that satisfy their personal needs. As has been made evident in the last Learning Unit, the likes of classical management theorist, Frederick Taylor, were more likely to view the design of organisations as a technical  problem, where work was seen as a basic necessity and designed and managed as such. People were encouraged to comply with the requirements of the organisational machine by ‘paying the right rate for the job’ – a process of controlling and directing employees in their work. 

 

Since the late 1920s, however, views about this kind of organisation theory began to change, allowing the machine metaphor – organisation theory locked into a form of engineering preoccupied with relations between goals, structures and efficiency – to be complemented by the organism metaphor – organisation theory concerned with biology, whereby employees are people with complex needs that must be satisfied if they are to lead full and healthy lives, and to perform effectively in the workplace. This seems obvious – employees working best when motivated by the task they have to perform, this motivation hinging on allowing people to achieve rewards that satisfy their personal needs. But until late into the 1920s, this was not obvious. 

You may be reminded of the Elton Mayo (1933) experiment conducted at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago, researching the relation between conditions of work and the incidence of fatigue and boredom among employees. Whilst other aspects of the work situation were looked at – eg, the attitudes and preoccupations of employees, and factors in the social environment outside work – the studies are most famous for identifying the importance of social needs in the workplace and the way that work groups can satisfy these needs by restricting output and engaging in all manner of unplanned activities. In other words, a ‘formally-operated’ organisation existing alongside an ‘informal’ one based on friendship groups and unplanned interactions and activities. 

 

Quite clearly not what was put forward by the classical management theorists, but who, certainly, would now need to take on board that work activities are influenced as much by the nature of human beings as by formal design.  New theories of motivation suggested that individuals and groups, like biological organisms, operate most effectively only when then their needs are satisfied. 

 

q       Abraham Maslow (1943)   ~   promoted the idea of human beings as psychological organisms struggling to satisfy needs for full growth and development – motivated by a needs hierarchy progressing through the physiological, social and psychological. Bureaucratic organisations that sought to motivate employees through money, or by providing a secure job, confined human development to the lower levels of the need hierarchy. Jobs and interpersonal relations could be redesigned to create conditions for personal growth that would simultaneously help organisations achieve their aims and objectives.  Maslow’s hierarchy of needs:

 

Self-actualising ~ Commitment – major part of life  

Ego  ~ Achievement, recognition, responsibility ­                ­            

Social  ~ Allows interaction, sports, parties, etc. ­             ­

Security  ~ Pension, health-care, tenure, career path    ­ ­

Physiological ~ Salary, pleasant working conditions       ­ ­ 

 

q       Frederick Herzberg (1959),Douglas McGregor (1960), Chris Argyris (1964)   ~   these organisational psychologists soon demonstrated how bureaucratic structures, leadership styles and work organisation could be modified to create ‘enriched’, motivating jobs that would encourage people to exercise their capacities for self-control and creativity. Thus came the ideas of ‘meaningful’ jobs, personal autonomy, responsibility, as well as participative, democratic and employee-centred styles of leadership to counteract the dehumanising (scientific management) work orientation.

 

Human resource management thus arose to ensure employees were seen as valuable resources, contributing in rich and varied ways to the organisation’s activities. Human resource management is now high focus, supporting fully the design of work to increase productivity and job satisfaction, while improving work quality and reducing employee absenteeism and turnover. 

 

“When we choose a technical system (whether in the form of an organisational structure, job design or particular technology) it always has human consequences, and vice versa” (Morgan, 1997i).  The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in England concurs: 

 

"This has been particularly well illustrated in many Tavistock studies, such as that conducted by Eric Trist and Ken Bamforth on technological change in coal mining in England in the late 1940s. The attempt to mechanise the mining process through the introduction of …… assembly-line coal cutting to the coal face created severe problems by destroying the informal fabric of social relations present in the mine. The new technology promised increases in efficiency yet brought all the social problems now associated with the modern factory, compounded many times by much worse physical conditions. The resolution of the problems rested in finding a means of reconciling human needs and technical efficiency.” (Morgan, 1997i). 

 

This and other Tavistock studies (see Trist & Bamforth (1951) in booklist) have shown that in designing or managing any kind of social system, whether it be a small group, an organisation or a society, the interdependence of technical and human needs must be kept firmly in mind. 

In exploring the parallels between organisms and organisations, it is possible to produce different theories and explanations that have very practical implications for organisation and management. So, what are the strengths and limitations of the ‘organism’ metaphor?  

 

 

Organismic Organisation   ~  Strengths and Limitations 

 

Strengths                                      Limitations 

 

~   Links between and with environment             ~   Organisation’s visions, ideas,

~   Ongoing processes, not collection of                 norms & beliefs are fragile

     parts                                                           ~   Parts often work against

~   Attention to needs that must be                         each other – playing politics

     satisfied for survival                                   ~   Can choose to compete,

                                                                             collaborate, ignore  
 

 

 

 

To sum up   ~ 

 

Modern organisation theorists have looked to nature to understand organisations and organisational life. The ideas identified provide an excellent illustration of how a metaphor can open our minds to a systematic and novel way of thinking. By exploring the parallels between organisms and organisations in terms of organic functioning, relations with the environment, relations between species, and the wider ecology, it has been possible to produce different theories and explanations that have very practical implications for organisation and management. Very useful – when you come to review the concept of organisational learning and development. Read on ……

 

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Activity 
 
 

 

 

 

To strengthen your understanding of the organism metaphor, take a look again at Abraham Maslow’s  'hierarchy of needs’  of individuals at work (above) and tackle the following: 
  

 

  

 

q       Observe and describe two individuals you have encountered at work, and write down your assessment of their particular  ‘needs hierarchy’  (you might include yourself !)

 

q       Try to choose people who differ significantly in this regard so that you can then compare and contrast their needs and aspirations, giving details if possible of where they have succeeded in their aims and where the disappointments have occurred. What do you conclude from these observations, and will/does this affect your own desires, demands and aspirations for your current/future work situation?

 

q       If you have limited experience of people at work, write perhaps about two individuals amongst your family or friends who work, or individuals you have observed on television, in a ‘soap’ perhaps, or maybe a politician or two. Or, you could discuss a couple of people you have met regularly during your daily routine – at the local supermarket, say, or in your dealings with business personnel. As a last resort, you could discuss characters from books you have read.

 

q       It is very important that you give as full a critique of your two individuals as possible, as this (1) will broaden your understanding of the  ‘biological’  approach towards organisation and management and (2) will provide useful reference for later module activities.

 

q       Discuss, at a plenary session with your tutor, why you believe it is important to understand an individual’s needs, habits, likes, dislikes, modus operandi, etc,  in the workplace.

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 3                    [Source text: Morgan, 1997i]

 

Reading and Understanding Organisational Life (3)

 

 

 

APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 

 

This is the third and final Learning Unit exploring some of the different approaches towards business organisation and management. Now that you have been given some insight into the machine and organism metaphors, we turn to the idea of organisations as brains. This Unit, together with the previous two, now brings your understanding of organisational life to the point where you can consider this module’s key theme – organisational learning.

 

To increase your understanding, you may like to read Chapter 4 of this Unit’s core text, Morgan (97i), and/or a sample of this Chapter 4 in your accompanying Module Reading Notes. 
 

 

 

Brainlike Organisations   ~   The Brain Metaphor 

 

What if we think about organisations as living brains?  

 

Is it possible to design ‘learning organisations’ - organisations that have the capacity to be as flexible, resilient, and inventive as the functioning of the brain? Is it possible to distribute capacities for intelligence and control throughout an organisation so that the system as a whole can self-organise and evolve along with emerging challenges?  

 

Consider these conceptions :- 

 

q       The brain  ~ a sophisticated library or memory bank for data storage and retrieval

q       The brain  ~  an information processing system

 

Why not add your own  ………   ? 
 

How about a holographic concept? 

 

Dennis Gabor (1948,in Morgan 1997)   ~   invented holography - using lenseless cameras to record information in a way that stores the whole in all the parts. Interacting beams of light create an ‘interference pattern’ that scatters the information being recorded on a photographic plate, known as a hologram, which can then be illuminated to recreate the original information. If the hologram is broken, interestingly, any single piece can be used to reconstruct the entire image. Everything is enfolded in everything else, just as if we were able to throw a pebble into a pond and see the whole pond and all the waves, ripples and drops of water generated by the splash in each and every one of the drops of water thus produced. Holography, therefore, demonstrates that it is possible to create processes where the whole can be encoded in all the parts, so that each and every part represents the whole. The memory is distributed throughout the brain and can thus be reconstituted from any of the parts.

 

When it comes to brain functioning, it seems that there is no centre or point of control. The brain seems to store and process data in many parts simultaneously. Pattern and order emerge from the process, it is not imposed. Holography suggests the ‘all over the place’ character of brain functioning, but there is also a strong measure of system specialisation; so it would seem that the brain is both holographic and specialised. 

 

To understand the brain, it is necessary to embrace this kind of paradox, acknowledging:- 

 

“

• How logical reduction and creative expansiveness may be elements of the same process
• How high degrees of specialisation and distributed function can coexist
• How high degrees of randomness and variety can produce a coherent pattern
• How enormous redundancy and overlap can provide the basis for efficient operation,         and
• How the most highly coordinated and intelligent system of which we are aware has no predetermined or explicit design    “

    (Morgan, 1997i) 

 

This is very difficult to understand. However, let’s liken the above to issues emerging from the field of artificial intelligence (AI), where brain-like machines are used to demonstrate ways of actually reconciling principles of centralised and decentralised intelligence. Rodney Brooks (MIT) describes key design principles of his ‘mobot’ (mobile robot): 

 

"There is no central controller which directs the body where to put each foot or how high to lift a leg should there be an obstacle ahead. Instead, each leg is granted a few simple behaviours and each independently knows what to do under various circumstances. For instance, two basic behaviours can be thought of as -  ‘if I’m a leg and I’m up, put myself down’, or ‘if I’m a leg and I’m forward, put the other five legs back a little’. These processes exist independently, run at all times, and fire whenever the sensory preconditions are true. To create walking, then, there just needs to be a sequencing of lifting legs (this is the only instance where any central control is evident). As soon as a leg is raised it automatically swings itself forward, and also down. But the act of swinging forward triggers all the other legs to move back a little. Since those legs happen to be touching the ground, the body moves forward.” 

 

Morgan asks: “Could it be that sophisticated forms of intelligence emerge from the ‘bottom up’, as the result of the integration of more modest capacities and intelligences?” Is what we see and experience in the brain as a highly ordered stream of consciousness really the result of a more chaotic process where multiple possibilities are generated as a result of activity distributed throughout the brain? No centralised intelligence? As a system, the brain engages in a set of incredibly diverse activities that eventually emerge as a coherent pattern. 

So, back to the original question – what if we think of organisations as living brains?

For Morgan’s more detailed views on brains as organisations, you can read these for yourself in Chapter 4 of his text. However, some important pointers are given to raise your awareness and propel you into thinking more openly about the idea of organisations learning. 

Organisations are information systems : 

 

q       Bureaucrats make decisions by processing information with reference to appropriate rules

q       Strategic managers make decisions by developing policies and plans that then provide a point of reference for the information processing and decision making of others

q       Computers automate complex information flows

 

Organisations are now synonymous with the decisions, policies and data flows that shape day-to-day practices. They are communication systems, they are decision-making systems, they are information-processing brains! 

 

 

 To sum up ~ 

 

Organisations are rapidly evolving into global information systems that are becoming more and more like electronic brains. What once seemed to rest within the domain of science fiction – peopleless factories coordinated by peopleless offices, producing services on demand – is rapidly becoming reality. While human intelligence is still the driving force, networked computing is able to realise organisational possibilities that not so long ago were no more than a dream 

 

In this world, where rapid change and transformation are becoming the norm, organisations face new challenges. In addition to planning and executing tasks in an efficient rational way, they face the challenge of constant learning and learning to learn.  

 

Let’s try to make a first, tentative link to the idea of learning organisations. How can complex systems be designed that are capable of learning in a brainlike way?

Read on ……
 

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Activity 
 
 
 

 

Dennis Gabor (1948, in Morgan 1997), above, invented the use of lenseless cameras to record information in a way that stores the whole in all the parts. This is holography, where the whole can be encoded in all the parts, so that each part represents the whole. 
 

 

 

 

Drawing on your previous understanding/knowledge of business organisations (and any work experience), and also on the information in the Learning Unit above, describe the breakdown of a large organisation, such as Barclays Bank, the Patent Office, or perhaps a county council, in holographic terms. Discuss how the whole might be encoded in all the parts (eg, examine  the departments, people, processes, etc).  For instance, are all departments actually run the same way? Or contain the same workers? etc 

 

There is no limit here, don’t worry if you find it difficult to get your teeth into. Whether you have written a little or a lot, this will still prove useful during your onward path through the module. 

 

Typical business departments include: 

 

~  Production

~  Marketing

~  Accounts

~  Personnel / Human Resources

~  Sales

~  Purchasing

~  Distribution

~  Design

~  Etc, etc

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 4                             [Source Text:  Pedler, 1997(i)]

 

The Notion of the Learning Organisation

 

 

  

To aid your learning throughout this Module, in particular your introduction to the concept of organisational learning, please read Sections 1 and 2 of Part I of The Fifth Discipline, by Peter M Senge (1998) - a sample of which is contained in your accompanying Module Reading Notes - which provides useful foundation. Also, the background reading text Managing Learning by Mabey & Iles (ed, 1995) contains 23 articles by different authors, which together provide a rounded picture of ‘organisational learning’. 
 

 

 

Learning Unit 4 builds on the groundwork of the first three Learning Units, which extended understanding of certain approaches towards organisation and management in today’s companies, chiefly through Gareth Morgan’s (1997i) views on metaphor in the reading and understanding of organisational life. Whilst he suggests a number of metaphorical approaches to organisational learning in his book, his ideas on mechanistic, organism and brainlike organisations provide an excellent foundation for developing an understanding of the concept of organisational learning.  

 

To consolidate your understanding of this Learning Unit, you may like to read Chapter 20 in the Pedler text, 1997(i), and/or a sample of this Chapter 20 in your accompanying Module Reading Notes. 
 

 

 

Graeme Salaman and Jim Butler, in this quote from 'Why managers won’t learn’ in Managing Learning (Mabey & Iles, 1997) provide an excellent foundation upon which to begin building an understanding of organisations learning : 

 

"Times are changing. ‘New times’ do not just affect social and political life, they also have a major impact on organisations and those who work for them. The certainties of the past disintegrate: ‘all that is solid melts into air’. Markets are changing - diversifying and differentiating; levels and forms of competitive pressure are changing; in many industries government-induced regulation is disappearing. Information technology increases the speed of communication and enables incredibly detailed control of work operations, thus in turn generating product differentiation. Organisations themselves are changing - and the ways they are changing are changing. 

 

"For the new certainty is change, and organisations and their employees must now be prepared to change and be able to change. In order to change appropriately they must be able to analyse themselves, their processes, structures and their environments, be able to identify preferred and appropriate responses, and be able to implement them. In a word, organisations must be able to learn, and to learn from their learning. On the basis of this learning, choices will be made: choices of structure, of process, of organisation, of product, of market, relationship with staff, with subcontractors and with clients. And these choices themselves must be the subject of constant review and revision. A barrier to learning is thus a barrier to survival.” 

 

In embracing Salaman’s and Butler’s view, it is easy to understand that learning is now a ‘given’ within the wide organisational environment. The rest of this Module is devoted, therefore, to an in-depth review of the opinions of key players in the research and development of organisational learning. Here - before introducing you to the very early ‘campaigners’ for a new, more fitting approach to coping with change, and thus managing learning at work – is a useful introduction : 

 

Pedler et al (1997ii), in A Manager’s Guide to Self Development, said, at the start of their book:       

 

"Most of us, if asked to think about how we have learned, think of our experiences when attempts have been made to  teach us. If, on the other hand, we are asked about problems we have solved, we think about difficult situations we have faced and managed to overcome. However, in solving problems we don’t just deal with the immediate difficulty, we discover a solution which we can use again in some form, and we may also become better at solving problems generally. Problem solving is, to a large extent, learning. 

 

“In the managerial world, dealing with live problems, rather than being taught, is the major source of significant learning. When it comes to a ‘crunch’ decision - for example selecting a new senior manager - what really matters is track record - whether the person has dealt successfully with a number of difficult situations. Information on what has been taught, through involvement on formal management development programmes, does not usually carry much weight. 

 

“The implication for the ambitious is clear: get a slice of the action, deal with it in a way that is clearly successful, and be seen to have done it (the visibility factor)” 
 

They round off their point by saying: 

 

"The manager’s job is to learn on behalf of the organisation. Operating systems are increasingly self-regulating, and the manager’s contribution is focused on how these can be improved . . . or working out what the next generation of systems should be, and working towards those . . . 

 

“An organisation which encourages and develops these qualities in its people can be called a Learning Company - literally a group of people who learn in company, not only as individuals, but also as a whole organism . . . for . . . the Learning Company requires its people to manage themselves and to learn for themselves, their colleagues and for the company as a whole” 
 

Pedler et al’s view provides a useful introduction to the Module themes. In their book, The Learning Company (1997(i) they acknowledge those “who have shaped and are shaping the field of organisational learning theory”. Let’s look at some of these to broaden the picture a little : 
 

 

WRITERS’ THOUGHTS ON LEARNING ORGANISATIONS 
 

TOM PETERS AND ROBERT WATERMAN (1982) will be well-known to many managers and HR specialists for their influential views on management in the 1980s. The key text was In Search of Excellence, often a company bible, setting the scene for achieving company excellence and maintaining it. They saw excellent companies as those which:

 

"experiment more        

encourage more tries      and

permit small failures,

interact with customers

encourage internal competition        and

maintain a rich informal (information) environment” 

 

These companies could not articulate what they were up to, they just knew it worked. 

 

Peters’ and Waterman’s position on learning organisations is held by many still, but their emphasis on customers, to the exclusion of other stakeholders, is limiting. 

 

W. EDWARDS DEMING (1986)  was one of the most radical gurus pushing the idea of TQM (Total Quality Management) to the fore, ie, creating constancy of purpose for improvement of product and service, with the aim of becoming competitive, staying in business and providing jobs. It is sufficient to say that as well as recognising the need for continuous improvement and other now well-known tenets on TQ, he emphasised that TQ requires fundamental shifts in the way we manage and organise. 

 

REG REVANS (1982), the mathematician, turned his attention to the theory and practice of action learning and onwards to the Learning Organisation. He has been concerned with empowering the manager struggling with intractable problems. Action learning, to Revans, means bridging the gap between ideas and actions, between thinking and doing, action and learning as parts of each other. He coined the phrase “helping each other to help the helpless” as part of his philosophy. This philosophy involves: 

 

-   Honesty about self                  What is an honest man? What do I need to do to become

                                                one? 

 

-   Seeing action, not thought        Not enough to know what is actually good; you must also

     as the defining characteristic be able to do it

     of human beings 

 

-   For the purpose of doing          "All meaningful knowledge is for the sake of action, and all

     some good in the world meaningful action for the sake of friendship” (Macmurray, 83) 

 

The distrust of experts and the commitment to the learning of the individual-within-the-company as the route to salvation, marks out Revans as one of the most visionary commentators on organisational learning. 

 

CHRIS ARGYRIS AND DONALD SCHON (1996)  It is they who first asked ‘What is an organisation that it may learn?’ How are we to organise in order to learn? What is

learning? They worked on the theory of single and double loop learning. Single loop learning is referred to simply as ‘error detection and correction’ and double loop learning, found only rarely, as much deeper enquiry and questioning, implying conflict and power struggles. This learning challenges current operating assumptions and changes existing norms and practices. Its current use is in encouraging reflective thinking in organisation members. Both single/double loop learning and reflective practice will be studied at later points in the learning programme. 

 

ROGER HARRISON  (1995) says  ‘defence mechanisms are part of who we are. Defensive behaviours help us adapt to a changing world and seeking to destroy them does not make us more effective’. He says leaders usually underestimate the prevalence of fear and anxiety in their organisations and that anger and resentment are rising due to a widespread sense of betrayal of trust. 

 

He says that organisations are primarily in need of healing before they can learn, change and adapt - hence exhaustion and burn-out among those in organisations suffering from ‘mandated change’ requires organisational healing 

 

PETER SENGE (1998) produced a best-seller, The Fifth Discipline, building on Argyris and Schon’s theory, which highlights organisational learning in relation to business thinking. He says we should practise the 5 disciplines: 

           

Personal mastery                                     Self development, clarifying personal visions, focussing                                                                    energies, developing patience and objectivity 

 

Sharing mental models                              We all have our own view of the world, our own perceptions/

assumptions. These should be shared as one organism, as a  

collective to create a shared vision 

 

Shared vision                                          A shared picture of the future, to foster genuine commitment, not compliance. This way, people excel and learn because they want to, and not because they are told to 

 

Team learning                                         Teams are the fundamental learning units in modern organisations. It starts with dialogue, ie thinking together, freeflowing of meaning through a group 

 

Systems thinking                                     This 5th discipline integrates them all - the discipline for seeing wholes rather than parts, for working with patterns and relationships in the subtle interconnectedness of living systems 

 

Senge is quite adamant that we could be literally killing ourselves because we are unable to think in ‘wholes’. And he said organisations suffer from 7 learning disabilities   (recognise any?) : 

 

-  I am my position                      Narrow focus on MY job, not the whole 

 

-  The enemy is out there             Blaming others when things go wrong

        

-  The illusion of taking charge     Taking charge is a reaction to outside events; true

proactiveness comes from seeing how we contribute to our

own problems 

 

-  The fixation upon events           Focussing on short-term events means not noticing the

slow, gradual processes, such as this next ‘disability’ :- 

 

-  The parable of the boiled frog   Where subtle changes in the environment are not

detected until it is too late (put frog in hot water, it

leaps out; but put frog in cool water, and slowly heat it, it stays, basking in the warmth, even to the point that it perishes! 

 

-  The delusion of learning            We learn best from experience, but because we act in     

from experience isolation, our actions have unintended consequences of which we know nothing and therefore we do not learn 

 

-  The myth of the                       Teams appear cohesive, function well on routines, but have

     management team                    have internal conflicts and can fall apart under pressure 

 

Senge tells us to get out of the reactiveness trap and become responsive to trends. Also, no one person is to blame for what is the joint production of many individual actions. 

 

Armed with the basic knowledge for development of your own ideas on organisational learning, influenced by the above ‘pioneers’, you are now well placed to consider the finer details of this hotly-debated approach. Here is a quote from Nancy Dixon (a student of Revans and Argyris) showing her own perspective on organisations learning. It is a good jumping-off point for the Learning Units ahead. Enjoy.  

 

NANCY DIXON  (1994) 

 

Organisational Learning   ~   “the intentional use of learning processes at the individual, group and systems level to continuously transform the organisation in a direction that is increasingly satisfying to its stakeholders” 
 

 

To sum up  ~

 

This introduction to organisational learning has drawn out some key points, including:-

 

~  Changing times mean changing organisations, and all employees must be prepared and  

    equipped to change.

~  Organisations must be able to learn, therefore, and learn from their learning, both for

    and with the organisation.

~ High regard must be paid, by those who manage and lead, to the needs of the individual

    at work, as well as the needs of the whole organisation.

~ Careful attention must be paid in the inculcation of participative approaches at work.

 

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Activity 
 
 

You have been made aware of the importance of the role of the individual within the organisation, ie needs, faults, relationships, welfare, development, as well as their own understanding of their position and importance within the company as a learning environment, as it shifts and changes in the economic current. So, it is important for you at this early stage to understand that people are key players in the development of suitable approaches towards organisational learning. To this end, it is perhaps very important to understand how individuals learn - particularly at work - so that you are more ready to take on board ideas on whole company learning. 

 

When it comes to acquiring skills and knowledge, and sharing them with others, it is useful to understand that people like to learn in different ways - working in their own time using self-instruct materials, learning as part of a group, maybe combining these and other ways. Therefore, managers, human resource specialists and other facilitators of learning need to understand the diversity of learning preferences within an organisation when fitting the learning support to their employees’ development needs. 

 

Honey & Mumford (1986) have produced their own ideas on how people learn, and have developed a way for people to assess their own learning style(s), via a questionnaire, that the employee and/or the ‘learning facilitator’ can utilise to assess learning style and thus to develop appropriate developmental strategies. There are many versions of this approach used widely in the human resource management field, here Honey & Mumford’s questionnaire is utilised to aid your awareness of the diverse population of organisations and the equally diverse population of individuals within them, and how they might learn – and be encouraged to learn. 

 

This Learning Activity, therefore, invites you at this early stage in developing your views on organisations learning, to check out the diversity of learning styles of people at work by making an analysis of your own. 

 

ACTIVITY  1 

 

q       Complete the attached Learning Styles Questionnaire as directed.

q       Check out your scoring using the sheet attached in order to discover your learning style(s)

q       Study the four outline descriptions of Honey & Mumford’s Learning Styles on the attached sheet.

q       Having reviewed your own learning style(s), write out your views on these styles, as a reference for later work in the learning programme, eg:

 
 

Ø       do they ‘fit’ you?

Ø       were you surprised at those that emerged from the scoring?

Ø       what does this say about your past and future learning?

Ø       have you completed such a questionnaire before, and if so has/have your learning style(s) changed?

Ø       how will you utilise/adapt your style(s) within the work environment?

Ø       if  it/they  has/have  changed, what does this mean for you and/or your employer/learning facilitator at work?

Ø       what strategies might a learning facilitator adopt where he/she feels a modification in learning style is appropriate? 
 

You should produce at least one side of A4 in this reflective exercise, although there is no

   imit. No particular style of writing is required. First person may be used in this instance

   (eg, I, me, my, we, us, our). 

 

The principle behind this exercise is that you fully understand the difficulties facing

    employers and facilitators of learning, when marrying up organisational and individual

    learning needs, whilst acknowledging the need to satisfy and work within individuals’ own

    learning styles, where possible. 

 

Feel free to reproduce this questionnaire (you have Honey’s & Mumford’s (1986) permission)

    and then ask others to complete it also. You may then wish to include in this Activity some

    discussion of others’ styles in relation to your own, etc. 

 

 

ACTIVITY  2 

 

If you are experiencing difficulty understanding the learning organisation concept, why not try to answer the following question:

 

How far do Senge’s seven learning disabilities apply to your own

organisation, or to one you know of, or have seen on TV perhaps?

 

Observe those around you and make a few notes about how their learning disabilities relate to those of Senge. A page of A4 maybe? Although you may wish to write much more! 
 
 
 LEARNING STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE                     (Honey & Mumford - revised 1986) 

 

This questionnaire is designed to find out your preferred learning style(s). Over the years you have probably developed learning 'habits' that help you benefit more from some experiences than from others. Since you are probably unaware of this, this questionnaire will help you pinpoint your learning preferences - so that you are in a better position to select learning experiences that suit your style. 

 

There is no time limit to this questionnaire. It will probably take you 10-15 minutes. The accuracy of the results depends on how honest you can be. There are no right or wrong answers. If you agree more than you disagree with a statement put a tick by it (/). If you disagree more than you agree put a cross by it (x). Be sure to mark each item with either a tick or cross. 
 

1.        I have strong beliefs about what is right and wrong, good and bad.  

2.       I often act without considering the possible consequences.  

3.       I tend to solve problems using a step-by-step approach.  

4.       I believe that formal procedures and policies restrict people. 

5.       I have a reputation for saying what I think, simply and directly.  

6.       I often find that actions based on feelings are as sound as those based on careful thought and analysis.

7.       I like the sort of work where I have time for thorough preparation and implementation.

8.       I regularly question people about their basic assumptions.

9.       What matters most is whether something works in practice.

10.     I actively seek out new experiences.

11.      When I hear about a new idea or approach I immediately start working out how to apply it in practice

12.     I am keen on self discipline such as watching my diet, taking regular exercise, sticking to a fixed routine, etc.

13.     I take pride in doing a thorough job.

14.     I get on best with logical, analytical people and less well with spontaneous, 'irrational' people.

15.     I take care over the interpretation of data available to me and avoid jumping to conclusions.

16.     I like to reach a decision carefully after weighing up many alternatives.

17.     I'm attracted more to novel, unusual ideas than to practical ones.

18.     I don't like disorganised things and prefer to fit things into a coherent pattern.

19.     I accept and stick to laid down procedures and policies so long as I regard them as an efficient way of getting the job done.

20.    I like to relate my actions to a general principal.

21.     In discussions I like to get straight to the point.

22.    I tend to have distant, rather formal relationships with people at work.

23.    I thrive on the challenge of tackling something new and different.

24.    I enjoy fun-loving, spontaneous people.

25.    I pay meticulous attention to detail before coming to a conclusion.

26.    I find it difficult to produce ideas on impulse.

27.    I believe in coming to the point immediately.

28.    I am careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly.

29.    I prefer to have as many sources of information as possible - the more data to think over the   better.

30.    Flippant people who don't take things seriously enough usually irritate me.

31.     I listen to other people's points of view before putting my own forward.

32.    I tend to be open about how I'm feeling.

33.    In discussions I enjoy watching the manoeuvrings of the other participants.

34.    I prefer to respond to events on a spontaneous, flexible basis rather than plan things out in advance.

35.    I tend to be attracted to techniques such as network analysis, flow charts, branching programmes, contingency planning, etc.

36.    It worries me if I have to rush out a piece of work to meet a tight deadline.

37.    I tend to judge people's ideas on their practical merits.

38.    Quiet, thoughtful people tend to make me feel uneasy.

39.    I often get irritated by people who want to rush things.

40.    It is more important to enjoy the present moment than to think about the past or future.

41.     I think that decisions based on a thorough analysis of all the information are sounder than those based on intuition.

42.    I tend to be a perfectionist.

43.    In discussions I usually produce lots of spontaneous ideas.

44.    In meetings I put forward practical, realistic ideas.

45.    More often than not, rules are there to be broken.

46.    I prefer to stand back from a situation and consider all the perspectives.

47.    I can often see inconsistencies and weaknesses in other people's arguments.

48.    On balance I talk more than l listen.

49.    I can often see better, more practical ways to get things done.

50.    I think written reports should be short and to the point.

51.     I believe that rational, logical thinking should win the day.

52.    I tend to discuss specific things with people rather than engaging in social discussion.

53.    I like people who approach things realistically rather than theoratically.

54.    In discussions I get impatient with irrelevancies and digressions.

55.    If I have a report to write I tend to produce lots of drafts before settling on the final version.

56.    I am keen to try things out to see if they work in practice.

57.    I am keen to reach answers via logical approach.

58.    I enjoy being the one that talks a lot.

59.    In discussions I often find I am the realist, keeping people to the point and avoiding wild speculations.

60.    I like to ponder many alternatives before making up my mind.

61.     In discussions with people I often find I am the most dispassionate and objective.

62.    In discussions I am more likely to adopt a ‘low profile’ than to take the lead and do most of the talking.

63.    I like to be able to relate current actions to a longer term bigger picture.

64.    When things go wrong I am happy to shrug it off and ‘put it down to experience’.

65.    I tend to reject wild, spontaneous ideas as being impractical.

66.    It’s best to think carefully before taking action.

67.    On balance I do the listening rather than the talking.

68.    I tend to be tough on people who find it difficult to adopt a logical approach.

69.    Most times I believe the end justifies the means.

70.    I do not mind hurting people’s feelings so long as the job gets done.

71.     I find the formality of having specific objectives and plans stifling.

72.    I am usually one of the people who puts life into a party.

73.    I do whatever is expedient to get the job done.

74.    I quickly get bored with methodical, detailed work.

75.    I am keen on exploring the basic assumptions, principles and theories underpinning things and events.

76.    I am always interested to find out what people think.

77.    I like meetings to be run on methodical lines, sticking to laid down agenda, etc.

78.    I steer clear of subjective or ambiguous topics.

79.    I enjoy the drama and excitement of a crisis situation.

80. People often find me insensitive to their feelings.

 

 

 

(Honey and Mumford 1986)

 

LEARNING STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE – SCORING             (Honey & Mumford 1986)

 

You score one point for each item you ticked. There are no points for items you crossed.

Simply indicate on the lists below which items were ticked. 

 

	2 4 6 10 17 23 24 32 34 38 40 43 45 48 58 64 71 72 74 79	7 13 15 16 25 28 29 31 33 36 39 41 46 52 55 60 62 66 67 76	1 3 8 12 14 18 20 22 26 30 42 47 51 57 61 63 68 75 77 78	5 9 11 19 21 27 35 37 44 49 50 53 54 56 59 65 69 70 73 80
TOTAL
	Activist	Reflector	Theorist	Pragmatist

  

Ring your scores on this chart and join up. 

 

Activist	Reflector	Theorist	Pragmatist
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13	20    19      18	20  19  18  17 16	20  19  18  17	Very strong preference
12  11	17 16 15	15  14	16  15	Strong preference
10 9 8 7	14 13 12	13 12 11	14 13 12	Moderate preference
6 5 4	11 10 9	10 9 8	11 10 9	Low preference
3  2  1  0	8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0	7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0	8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0	Very low preference

 
 

 

LEARNING STYLES - GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS                             Honey & Mumford, 1986

 

Activists

 

Activists involve themselves fully and without bias in new experiences. They enjoy the here and now and are happy to be dominated by immediate experiences. They are open-minded, not sceptical, and this tends to make them enthusiastic about anything new. Their philosophy is: 'I'll try anything once'. They tend to act first and consider the consequences afterwards. Their days are filled with activity. They tackle problems by brainstorming. As soon as the excitement from one activity has died down they are busy looking for the next. They tend to thrive on the challenge of new experiences but are bored with implementation and longer-term consolidation. They are gregarious people constantly involving themselves with others but, in doing so, they seek to centre all activities around themselves.

 

Reflectors

 

Reflectors like to stand back to ponder experiences and observe them from many different perspectives. They collect data, both first hand and from others, and prefer to think about it thoroughly before coming to any conclusion. The thorough collection and analysis of data about experiences and events is what counts so they tend to postpone reaching definitive conclusions for as long as possible. Their philosophy is to be cautious. They are thoughtful people who like to consider all possible angles and implications before making a move. They prefer to take a back seat in meetings and discussions. They enjoy observing other people in action. They listen to others and get the drift of the discussion before making their own points. They tend to adopt a low profile and have a slightly distant, tolerant unruffled air about them. When they act it is part of a wide picture which includes the past as well as the present and others' observations as well as their own.

 

Theorists

 

Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They think problems through in a vertical, step-by-step logical way. They assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories. They tend to be perfectionists who won't rest easy until things are tidy and fit into a rational scheme. They like to analyse and synthesise. They are keen on basic assumptions, principles, theories models and systems thinking. Their philosophy prizes rationality and logic. 'If it's logical it's good'. Questions they frequently ask are: 'Does it make sense?' 'How does this fit with that?' 'What are the basic assumptions?' They tend to be detached, analytical and dedicated to rational objectivity rather than anything subjective or ambiguous. Their approach to problems is consistently logical. This is their 'mental set' and they rigidly reject anything that doesn't fit with it. They prefer to maximise certainty and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgements, lateral thinking and anything flippant.

 

Pragmatists

 

Pragmatists are keen on trying out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice. They positively search out new ideas and take the first opportunity to experiment with applications. They are the sort of people who return from management courses brimming with new ideas that they want to try out in practice. They like to get on with things and act quickly and confidently on ideas that attract them. They tend to be impatient with ruminating and open-ended discussions. They are essentially practical, down to earth people who like making practical decisions and solving problems. They respond to problems and opportunities 'as a challenge'. Their philosophy is: 'There is always a better way' and 'If it works it's good'.

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 5                                                                  [Source Text:  Pearn et al, 97] 

 

Understanding Learning within the Company 
 
  

 

A brief review of early views on organisational learning has now been made, and this will broaden in the coming Learning Units. Perhaps it is now  time to look at the application of theory in the workplace itself. 

 

From here onwards you should try to recognise those tenets of organisational learning that you study here, whether in your reading of newspapers,  journals, or texts, or in any work procedures and behaviour at your place of full or part-time work, if appropriate.  
 

 

  

 

Many practitioners too numerous to cover fully on the rest of our programme, have given opinion on their approaches to organisational learning in the workplace. However, here are two key players in the field who will, lead you through their own views on the subject, namely, the ideas of Pearn, Roderick and Mulrooney (1997) and Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell (1997). Firstly, some important principles from Pearn et al on understanding the learning going on in organisations. 

 

Pearn et al themselves say “Our view [on organisational learning] is that implicit theory is sufficient to initiate a process and that the insights gained from experience may enrich the theory, which itself suggests lines of action that can be taken”. This appears to mean that you should acknowledge the theory but get on and do, see what happens, then look back at theory if you need to, probably in the evaluative process. More on this later in the learning programme. 

 

Pearn et al have outlined the VALUES that have guided their work, which will undoubtedly guide YOU: 

 

q       Most people prefer to have control over their destinies and their immediate environment

q       The failure to mobilize people’s intelligence and wisdom is wasteful in the extreme

q       Given choice, people would prefer to organise work closer to the way they organise and run their own lives

q       Treating people with dignity is not only intrinsically motivating, it also brings rewards for the organisation

 

 

This reinforces your own views, maybe, from work experience? 

 

These authors reinforce also the generally held faith in group activity: 

 

q       Empowering through participative methods 

q       Creating commitment through shared understanding,   then

q       Equipping individuals and teams to use a range of practical tools

 

Then, its over to THEM, presumably, to get on and do. 

 

But in organisational learning terms, no-one in business should assume that there will come a point in the future when the processes and tools for organisational learning will all be in place. As Pearn et al say, there will never be the offer of “one-stop shopping for busy managers seeking quick solutions to entrenched and systemic problems” 

 

So, before we delve into the learning going on in organisations, we should perhaps take a first look at the kind of role (in whatever field) leaders should adopt in learning organisations. Pearn et al suggest: 

 

q       leaders must learn something new    

q       leaders must create a change management group

q       the change group must go through its own learning process

q       the change group must design the organisational learning approach and create task groups

q       task groups must learn how to learn

q       task groups create specific change programmes

q       there must be extensive and intensive communication throughout

q       mechanisms for continual learning must be created

 

LEARNING WITHIN ORGANISATIONS 

 

Pearn et al (1997) have suggested that in seeking to find out more about what a learning organisation might be, often the wrong questions can be asked about it.  For example : 

 

q       What IS one?        

q       How can you tell if you ARE one?

q       Who knows what THE learning organisation is?

q       How do you BECOME one?

q       What do you do AFTER you have become one?

 

A learning organisation surely cannot be viewed as a steady state – it is more a kind of attribute, or a dominant feature – and therefore these questions seem quite inappropriate to ask. 

Better questions to ask might be: 

 

q       Is  there such a thing as a learning organisation?

q       What do learning organisations do that others do not?

q       What do organisations that do not learn effectively look like?

q       What do organisations that learn effectively do differently?

q       How can an organisation tell if it is learning effectively?

q       What are the benefits of becoming one?

q       Must a prescribed path or set of steps be followed?

 

Can you see the difference? 

 

Here the questions focus on CHALLENGE and CONSTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION of the general idea of learning organisations. 

 

It is most important to realise here that there are no universal answers to these questions, of course. But we should also be aware that DIFFERENT answers will be developed by DIFFERENT organisations. 

 

So what we must understand is: 

 

q       that answers and solutions which are developed by the people most involved have more power and lasting impact than those that are offered or imposed by outsiders

q       and that the best conceptualisation of what it means to be a learning organisation will be the one that the organisation arrives at ITSELF

 

Pearn et al would suggest that the learning process: 

 

q       should encompass all individuals in the company

q       should look at group activity,   and

q       should encompass all the company’s systems

 

Ideally, organisational learning should be encouraged to transform gradually, and not just in response to looming crises. And all involved in the company must gain satisfaction.  

It may help at this point to look at what Pearn et al believe makes up an organisation, ie, the organisational relationship below : 

 

 

Mission             Why the company exists, its purpose, and what it is there to achieve

Vision               Its own idea of itself at specified points in the future, 5, 10, 20 yrs or

                        more. What it aspires to achieve

Values                          The guiding principles for determining policies, decisions, choices, and                                     behaviour emanating from the organisation’s mission/vision

Objectives        The specific goals set, not forgetting the strategy for achieving them

Behaviour         Behaviour which the whole company’s members SHOULD display 

Relationships    Between functions, layers, managers & teams, colleagues, stakeholders

Actions and       Outcomes which collectively form the overall effectiveness of the

Outcomes          organisation over time, moving it towards its fulfilment of the vision

and mission 

 

 

Here’s an example to illustrate these interlinking features, where the learning is prominent, not dominant, yet it is continuous and adaptive:

 

Example

 

Mission          To learn faster than our competitors, and to form all our processes into comprehensive

                        Learning systems. To establish learning as an inspiration and source of fulfilment for all.

 

Vision              To have created the capability to transform continuously within 5 years, and be the kind

                        of organisation that people want to work for.

 

Values             To value challenge and contention. To appreciate and harness diversity. To be open and

                        Honest. To treat everyone with dignity.  

 

Behaviour        To act with autonomy and to support self-development. To learn openly from mistakes.

                       To continuously improve. To learn routinely from actual, as well as simulated, experience.

                       To challenge and question continuously.

                                                                                                            Pearn et al, 1997

 

 

Pearn et al suggest 6 different levels where learning manifests itself: 

 

q       INDIVIDUAL LEARNING         

            Individual needs, now satisfied by self-directed learning & self-development,

as well as by traditional vocational education & job training. Many organisations are good at training - using multi-media, computer-aided learning, interactive video, open/distance learning, as well as traditional classroom-based instruction. 

 

And if the company has not placed high value on individual learning, the workforce may be passive, fearful, reluctant to change. 

 

However, if the company operates with a workforce of motivated, energetic, confident learners, the workforce will ‘use its head’, react positively to problems, learn from mistakes & not conceal them or fear punishment.

 

All employees should be encouraged to learn, not just key personnel or those with specific needs. 

 

q       GROUP/TEAM LEARNING

There will always be a need for team-based learning to occur, over and above

the learning needs of the individual. And some people actually learn BETTER

this way. 

 

q       CROSS-FUNCTIONAL LEARNING

Learning at functional/departmental level. A shared vision across departments means closer working together and almost INVITES learning 

 

EXAMPLES ?? 

 

~   How about, suddenly needing to understand and learn to cooperate effectively with 

     departments where there has  been little cooperation in the past?              …… OR

      ~   IT advances as a prime example of spreading cross-functional learning? 

 

q       ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING (INTERNAL)

This means WITHIN the company. Learning highly valued by the organisation and transmitted as such to all within it, with reinforcement of opportunities for learning to take place 

 

q       ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING (CURRENT EXTERNAL REALITY)

Directed outside the company. The whole company needs to learn continuously about the environment in which it operates. Assessing and adjusting to current trends in external markets, responding to new technologies and socio-political factors. 

 

q       ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING (FUTURE POSSIBILITIES)

The long-term view that must be taken of the company and its environment, the broader global picture, socio-political issues and population patterns. It’s the old unpredictability factor! Learning to cope with an unpredictable future is a key learning task 

 

But can managers, surrounded by these persuasive arguments for organisational learning, change that significantly?  What will change their set modes of thinking and behaviour that they believe have always worked well?  And isn’t there only so much you can learn from experience?  And what KINDS of learning organisation might there be? 

 

For what it’s worth, here’s how Pearn et al respond to these questions, by suggesting several ways to approach ‘organisational’ learning : 

 

q       A critical mass of effective learners [Group & individual above]

Clear benefits from developing a mass of effective learners, but these can be

undermined or eliminated if surrounding environment is not supportive to the

learners.  

 

q       A specially-created environment which fosters learning  [Group & individual above]

Via a training centre in-house, but it usually provides pockets or sub-groups trained in a specific skill/area, often causing a negative reaction from other workers and the vital step of creating structures & processes to facilitate cross-functional learning is generally omitted 

 

q       A micro-learning organisation

 

Encouraging all members of the organisation to learn, usually by concentration on formal mechanisms of training delivery and open learning. It operates as a supportive organisational learning framework within recognised structures and culture but does not get beyond to what the organisation perhaps should be, considering the unpredictability of the future 

 

q       A macro-learning organisation

 

Constantly examining the external environment, present and future, through built-in processes of thinking and evaluation, to determine whether it should change direction. This ties in with micro-learning, because the strategic advantage gained at macro level could easily be eroded if the wisdom and intelligence of all in the organisation are not tapped along the way. The combination of organisational learning competence at the macro and micro levels is the winning combination. These organisations are learning effectively at all six levels (above). 

 

Via these quite complex tenets of Pearn et al and others, organisational learning is beginning to emerge. So take your time, go back over these ideas and try to gain an outline understanding of the great difficulties facing companies trying to analyse their learning, their learning needs, and deciding how to put them into action successfully. 
 
 

 

To sum up  ~ 

 

~ You have now realised that it is down to the people at work to ensure it remains healthy, despite great change.

~ You have learned that ensuring that your company stays on top of change is in itself a difficult thing.

~ That using organisational learning to bring about such change through the creative approaches of groups and individuals is also a difficult thing.

~ That organisational learning itself is difficult to define

~ That Pearn et al have stressed time and again, above, that participation is the name of the game. That sharing, co-operation, cross-functional approaches must be encouraged.

~ And they have offered some suggestions on how to at least start visualising a business world where organisational learning approaches might work. 
 

  

Let’s look next at defining the CONCEPT of a learning organisation (after your Learning Activity)   …………… 

 
Organisational  Learning  &  Development 

 

Learning Activity 
 
 

 

You may have realised, now, that it is perhaps down to the people at work, to a certain extent, to ensure that the company remains healthy, despite great change. And you  have learned that ensuring that your company stays on top of change is, in itself, a difficulty thing. Drawing upon an understanding of organisational learning to bring about such change through the creative approaches of groups and individuals sounds appropriate, but is itself difficult to achieve.  

 

Teasing out some solutions is now your goal. Perhaps these activities will help set you in the right direction.  
 

 

 

ACTIVITY 1 

 

Write an ‘organisational learning’ focused Mission Statement for your college and/or the University of Glamorgan. 

 

In other words, as well as indicating why the organisation exists, its purpose, etc, try to encompass its learning strategy from the students’ perspective, the staff members’ perspective and the organisation’s perspective, taking into account key factors of organisational learning that you have studied to date. 
 
 

ACTIVITY 2 
 

Is driving along a motorway like working in an organisation? 
 

Following on from what you have just learned in this Learning Unit, think about some of the pitfalls of driving along a motorway, eg the unexpected actions of others, the change in road surface, etc. 

 

-   Suggest how it might be possible to view working in an organisation as similar to

    driving along a motorway. 

-   What are the ‘non-organisational learning’ pitfalls?

-   Conjure up some thoughts and produce a list of ideas on where the similarities might be. 
 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development 

 

Learning Unit 6                                                                    [Source Text:  Pearn et al, 97] 

 

Expanding the Concept of the Learning Organisation 
 

 

 

Thanks to the writings of Pearn, Roderick & Mulrooney (1995), a quite detailed account of the principles of organisational learning should now be beginning to shape your views - and remember that it is your OWN organisational learning standpoint and opinions that will be required in the writing of your essays later. 

 

You will now begin to unpick ideas about the kinds of organisation that might be learning, or otherwise, and also ideas about the people within them, their tendencies, fears, development, collaborative activity, relationship to their leaders, etc, etc. 
  

 

 

 

"I love to learn, but I hate to be taught”  

(Winston Churchill, My Early Life)  

 

‘My most valuable lessons resulted from my biggest mistakes’ 

 

‘Lessons gained from personal experiences are more likely to be remembered and internalised than principles or theories learned by other means’ 
 
 

Managers’ talk?  Perhaps not. 

 

Managers, it is said, talk about the value of learning to the organisation, but might not be entirely comfortable with the idea of the personal, intellectual, emotional side to learning at work. It may explain the amount of non-learning that is still so evident at work today. These could be said to be the people - referred to last week - who ask the WRONG questions about THE learning organisation. Questions about a steady state, a finite solid, as if it is tangible and able to be achieved ultimately. Which of course is unlikely to be the case. 

 

Managers may tend to pay lip service to the idea of the learning organisation generally, arguing over the detail and who then end up not accepting it, perhaps because they are too busy, and have more pressing issues to deal with. Perhaps, if you asked them to try to establish the link between LEARNING and the EFFECTIVENESS of the company, you might just be getting somewhere.  

 

Several texts on this subject refer to practical workshop exercises which can help managers link learning and effectiveness. In essence, these exercises encourage managers to learn how to assume a different approach, and ask the RIGHT QUESTIONS in order to elicit a COMMON view of their own organisation and how it is going about the learning process. Essentially, Pearn et al suggest, these kind of exercises are all about managers having a SHARED UNDERSTANDING of the significance of learning in THEIR OWN PARTICULAR ORGANISATION. And they effectively SET THE AGENDA for moving forward with future activities, ie  the benefits, consequences and signs of success providing the focus for future activities. 

 

DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES which are often used in the field of organisational learning have drawn out, from interviews and group workshops discussions, say Pearn et al, three different - if crude - types of company operating today, in addition to the learning company: They provide, however, a useful framework (in addition to those laid out in the first three learning units of this module) for your understanding of the operation of organisations operating today, and their state of learning - or otherwise. 
 

 

In  STAGNATED  ORGANISATIONS:    

 

q       they rely solely on past experience for present solutions

q       all decisions originate from management

q       the workforce is passive and uninvolved

q       there is a reluctance to change and adapt

q       no encouragement or incentive is evident

q       few opportunities appear to exist for self-development

q       employees are not motivated to learn and adapt

q       the structure & general environment of the company inhibits learning

 

In  FRUSTRATED ORGANISATIONS: 

 

q       they provide opportunities and encouragement for learning and development in the company

q       they think they are doing the right things

q       but employees are fearful and lacking confidence in their ability to cope with change and new working practices

q       despite management seemingly doing right, employees are rarely involved in the  design of the processes

q       employees’ fears, needs and ability to contribute constructively to the design of solutions is ignored.

 

In  FRUSTRATING ORGANISATIONS: 

 

q       there is a failure to recognise its skilled, energetic, keen employees

q       the system/structure provides little opportunity for self-development or access to training or open learning

q       there is a wide gulf between managers and managed

 

These diagnostic studies of managers in business today have often drawn out the conclusion that it is the FRUSTRATED organisation which is the one most consistently quoted by them. 

 

And the danger, here, is that many organisations become stuck in the ‘frustrated’ category, thinking that enough has been done, and it is therefore the fault of an apathetic and intellectually defective workforce if more changes and improvements are not achieved - instead of recognising the talents and energy that exist in the workforce and building on them by putting in place support mechanisms, and removing barriers to, individual and group learning. 

 

It is at the SHOP FLOOR level, say Pearn et al,  that most is heard about the FRUSTRATING organisation. Here, you have a competent, intelligent, energetic workforce with, often, no access to a structured learning programme, and no encouragement towards self-development. The key here is short-termism, with nothing in place to sustain longer-term learning & development. 

 

Another way that this kind of group workshop can help in the understanding and perhaps development of more innovative learning development programmes in the workplace is in their participants’ discussion of Pearn et al’s six factors of the INVEST model. They have summed up the wealth of literature on learning companies and have put forward a model which allows members of a discussion group to rate each of six factors within it. They are: 

 

 

 

Inspired learners

The extent to which the workforce as a whole is motivated to learn continuously, is confident to take on new learning and seize opportunities for learning from experience and self-development 

Nurturing culture

The extent to which expressed values and displayed behaviour support continuous learning, encourage challenge to the status quo, questioning of assumptions, and established ways of doing things. Testing, experimenting, learning from mistakes, exploration and reasoned debate are valued activities 

Vision for future learning

The extent to which there is shared vision that includes the company’s capacity to identify, respond to, benefit from future possibilities, ie importance - for continuous transformation and survival - of learning at all levels 

Enhanced learning

The extent to which the company has put in place processes and techniques to enhance, encourage and sustain learning among all employees 
 

 

Supportive management

The extent to which managers genuinely believe that encouraging and sustaining learning results in improved performance by those who are much closer to the work actually done and/or the customer. Managers see their role as facilitating and coaching, rather than controlling and monitoring 

Transforming structures

The extent to which the company has been designed and operates to facilitate learning

between different levels, functions and sub-systems and permits rapid adaptation and change. It is organised in a way that encourages and rewards innovation, learning and development 
 

 

 

A complex analytical process involves extracting the data from the discussions held using the INVEST model; the results of which can help an organisation to build up fairly rapidly a detailed picture - or conceptualisation - of its state of affairs. 

 

In fact, FOUR key conceptualisations, or detailed pictures, emerge from a combination of such INVEST analyses and different definitions suggested by researchers in the field. In essence, these conceptualisations are : 

 

INDIVIDUAL LEARNING - ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING: 

 

q       switch on the brains of all employees so that they are fully engaged

q       a critical mass of challenging, developing, innovating people will result from the focus on individual learning

q       whole organisation approach recognises importance of the organisation acquiring a new vision of itself, including its own capacity to learn and self-transform

q       too much focus on learning from experience could result in an organisation in pursuit of the wrong, or already outdated, goals

q       balance needs to be drawn between optimising individual learning at all levels, and the setting of suitable mechanisms for dealing with external developments and influences on the company

q       neglect of full development of the learning potential and brainpower of the employees at all levels could allow competitive advantage to be gained by others

 

ELITE LEARNING - LEARNING FOR ALL 

 

q       emphasis to date has been placed on how managers (as leaders) learn or fail to learn, and on the creation of techniques and process for overcoming problems.

q       focus on personal qualities and learning styles, rather than structures and systems for transference of key learning

q       managers learning about long-term strategy etc can result in top-down approaches; the learning becoming watered down as it descends and possibly resulting in subversion

q       learning by proxy causes difficulties for those who have not had an input in the learning. Management knows best, you just have to be told is how it is perceived

q       full understanding achieved by creating learning opportunities where the brains of everyone in the organisation are actively engaged

 

CURRENT LEARNING - FUTURE CAPABILITY 

 

q       the REACTIVE approach to learning organisations results in a quest to find ways to do better what has already been done before (see Pearn et al’s example: dinosaur balancing on small surfboard, highly skilled at surfing: wrong wave!)

q       the PROACTIVE approach asks what we should be doing in the future and how we can equip ourselves to cope with situations and contexts that we can onlyguess at. How can we acquire a capability for influencing,rather than merely reacting, to future states?

 

OASES OF LEARNING - IRRIGATED LEARNING 

 

q       oases or isolated pockets of optimised learning which leave other parts of the organisation untouched, eg self-directed teams or high-commitment work groups.

q       high levels of empowerment in these oases, with devolved decision-making and team co-ordinators in place of regulatory supervisors by contrast, rest of organisation functions with multi-level supervision, autocratic management, little employee involvement

q       the irrigated approach = maximising amount of learning in all parts of the organisation and allowing a free flow of information and ideas across it.

 

 

 
To sum up  ~ 

 

And where do we end up after all this? The focus on individuals, oases, elite learning and present learning suggests they are all valuable in themselves, but only really contribute to a learning organisation if they form part of an overall strategy for the WHOLE ORGANISATION to learn and adapt continuously, and which itself is part of an overall vision of the future. The vision provides the cohesive framework. The order in which things are done cannot be prescribed in a way that meets the needs of and constraints on every organisation. It is important that the significance of learning for an organisation is fully internalised, rather than maintained solely on the surface. 
  

 

 

A very important last point - hold on to this, you will hear more ........ 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Activity 
 

 

 

ACTIVITY  1 
 

 

 

In  FRUSTRATED  organisations (say Pearn et al): 

 

-   they provide opportunities and encouragement for learning and development in the company

 

-   they think they are doing the right things

 

-   but employees are fearful and lacking confidence in their ability to cope with change and new working

     practices

 

-   despite management seemingly doing right, employees are rarely involved in design of the processes

 

-   employees’ fears, needs and ability to contribute constructively to the design of solutions is

     ignored.   

 

 
 

~   Check out Pearn et al’s definition of a FRUSTRATED ORGANISATION above. Think about these fearful, confidence-lacking employees and their lack of involvement in the design of new working practices. 

 

~  List ways in which both managers and employees might be encouraged to overcome these problems. It may be useful to imagine using the services of a consultancy firm, perhaps, or assume that your organisation has called in the Investors in People consultants, who might then suggest ways forward. 
 

 

ACTIVITY  2 

 

Bearing in mind some of the ideas coming through on the ways of learning companies, write your own description of an ‘inspired learner’ (in a work context)

 

 

 

In preparation for your next Learning Unit 7, please read the Case Study : “Quality of Work Life – Learning from Tarrytown”, by Robert Guest, in your accompanying Module Reading Notes.

 

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 7 

 

 

Case Study No. 1

 

 

Having reviewed the Case Study  - "Quality of Work Life – Learning from Tarrytown”, Robert Guest (Harvard Business Review, 1979), in your accompanying Module Reading Notes, proceed as follows:

 

 

 

Either by personal effort, or as a group debate, review the ‘Tarrytown’ case and write a list of what you believe to be key organisational learning factors that

 

(1)   already seem to exist at General Motors, and

 

(2)  any factors that may need to be incorporated into the working practices and

     culture at this plant.

 

 

Look, for instance :-

 

-   at building on successes, and working on failures.

 

-   at the whole issue of problem-solving here.

 

-   at how effective communications can spread the organisational learning message.

 

-   etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tutor:     This may be driven as a classroom debate and or an individual in-class or out-of-class

               exercise

 

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development 

 

Learning Unit 8                                                  [Source Texts:  Pedler et al, 97

                                 Pearn et al, 95]

Understanding Learning Company Components 
 

 

 

Do you feel you have a firmer grasp of the concept of organisational learning? You should certainly have a grasp of the poorly organised, and therefore the poorly learning companies. Also, you should be beginning to formulate ideas on how people might be encouraged to operate and learn within business organisations today, thanks to Pearn et al’s conceptualisations in the last but one Learning Unit. 

 

You will look now at the natural corollary to all this - the components of the ideal learning company - such as  the ‘learners’ at work, their skills, and the main characteristics of effective learning organisations. To aid your understanding, you may like to take a look at 11 GLIMPSES of situations in organisations, each indicating one of Pedler et al’s ‘learning characteristics’ and the BICC story, both from Pedler et al, in your Module Reading Notes. 

 

 

What is meant by components here? Tools of the trade? Skills for performing well? Learning techniques? Organisational learning approaches that might be employed? Characteristics of

good learning companies?  Perhaps all of these. You will now consider a few. Maybe this last one - characteristics - is a useful one to start with. Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell (97), in The Learning Company, devoted most of the chapters of their book to unpicking some of what they consider to be the key characteristics of a typical learning company. Here they are in outline: 

 

The Eleven Characteristics of a Learning Company 

 

 

A Learning Approach to Strategy Where policy and strategy formation are consciously structured for learning, for example, deliberate pilots and small-scale experiments are used to create feedback loops for learning about direction and the formulation of ‘emergent strategy’. 

 

Participative Policy Making Where all members of the organisation together with key stakeholders have a chance to contribute and participate in policy making. 

 

Informating In the Learning Company information technology is used not just to automate, but to make information widely available to front-line staff in order to empower them to act on their own initiative. 

 

Formative Accounting & Control This is a particular aspect of Informating, where systems of budgeting, reporting and accounting are structured to assist learning for all members about how money works in the business. 

Internal Exchange Where there is a high degree of Internal Exchange, all internal units and departments see themselves as customers and suppliers in a supply chain to the end user or client; contracting with and learning from other departments is normal. 

Reward Flexibility With greater participation comes a need for more flexible and creative rewards. High Reward Flexibility means that there are alternatives in both monetary and non-monetary rewards to cater for individual needs and performance. 

Enabling Structures Roles, departments, organisation charts and even procedures and processes are seen as temporary structures that can easily be changed to meet job, user or innovation requirements. 

Boundary Workers as Environmental Scanners Environmental scanning is carried out by all people who have contacts with external users, customers, suppliers, clients, business partners, neighbours, and so on. Processes are in place for bringing back and welcoming the information into the company. 

Inter-company Learning Through joint ventures and other learning alliances, the organisation learns from other companies and meets with them for mutual exchange. 

A Learning Climate In the Learning Company all managers see their primary task as facilitating company members’ experimentation and learning from experience, through questioning, feedback and support. The company seeks to export this Learning Climate to its context and business partners. 

Self-development Opportunities for All Resources and facilities for self-development are made available to all members, especially those in the front line with users or clients. People are encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning and development. 
 

 

All 11 characteristics of Pedler et al have been presented here, as they provide a very useful framework for you when considering ways in which a company might measure itself in the organisational learning stakes. In your accompanying Module Reading Notes you will find a selection of ‘Glimpses’ of organisations displaying an example of each of the characteristics in real practice, courtesy, again, of Pedler et al.  They say that ‘as the wilful child may metamorphose into a self-disciplined adult, so the Learning Company may change to adapt to new circumstances while seeking to preserve its purpose, values and core identity’. 

 

So companies should ask the question: How healthy are our processes of managing, directing, learning and participating? By utilising these 11 characteristics within a company’s diagnostic techniques and instruments, it is likely that learning disabilities will be highlighted, such as where a company is strong on operations management, but has little interest in the ideas of its members. Also, where learning may be obstructed by blocks, where free-flow of information and feedback is blocked or interrupted, perhaps because policy may be flowing into the operations plan, but for some reason the directors are never given feedback on how possible it is to implement these policies. 

 

The Characteristics of Skilled Learners 

 

Pearn et al (1997) say “writers on learning organisations tend to be strong on ideas but noticeably weak when it comes to practical tools which organisations can actually use to promote learning”. They talk of creating a range of practical tools, instruments and processes, with their clients, to help organisations progress towards their own definition of a learning organisation. 

 

Like Pedler & partners, Pearn et al have considered diagnostic instruments to seek out ‘learning blockages’, etc, of so-called ‘learners’ at work, and designed specific exercises to improve people’s ability to learn, to promote confidence to learn, to help people understand that there are different kinds of learning, different approaches to learning which require different approaches from the learner, to deal with learning blocks, and to develop questioning techniques. 

 

They, too, have developed a list of characteristics to aid learning, this time it is the Characteristics of Skilled Learners, which are represented in full here : 
 
 Skilled Learners : 

 

q       take responsibility for their learning & generally adopt an active role

q       can distinguish between things they have to memorise, things they need to understand, and things that are best learned by doing

q       use all the ways of learning available to them and choose between according to the material to be learned and their preferred way of learning

q       do not fall back on trying to memorise things that they should be trying to understand

q       make conscious decisions on how, when and where they will learn something

q       make sure they learn despite poor teaching

q       ask more questions and ask particular kinds of questions to ensure that they learn properly

q       seek feedback on their own performance

q       realise that difficulties in learning something are not always due to their own inability to learn but frequently lie in inadequacies in the delivery system

q       understand what can block their learning and how to act accordingly

q       are confident about new learning opportunities

q       realise that they learn best in particular ways that may suit them but not others

 
 

This set of characteristics was one of many proposals Pearn et al made whilst initiating a project to develop a range of practical tools that could be used by ‘learning facilitators’ and line managers in all kinds of organisations to aid improvement of organisational, group and individual learning (for further information on this project, see Pearn et al, 1997, Ch 4). During development of this project the question was asked:  

 

What might inhibit skilled learners from practising their innovative ideas and practices within the wider work environment? 

 

Factors such as:- 

 

q       the attitude of their immediate supervisors

q       the prevailing culture of the organisation (probably not encouraging questioning and challenge)

q       low value placed on individual development

q       lack of opportunity to learn

 

Companies interested in the organisational learning concept, in developing tools, practical exercises and instruments would have to take a long, hard look at the organisational changes that had taken place over recent years, both inside and outside their companies. What short of changes? 

 

It would be useful to consider the key factors associated with organisational change : 

 

-  Downsizing (achieving more, with less)

-  Delayering (removing unnecessary layers of mgmt)

-  Changing organisational culture

-  Empowering the workforce

-  Decentralizing (working cross-functionally)

-  Becoming more customer focussed

-  Introducing advanced manufacturing, information and other technologies

-  Working towards total quality/world class standards

-  Overcoming traditional demarcations/introducing flexible working

-  Developing high-commitment, cross-functional, customer-focussed work teams 
 

All companies today are to some degree moving away from the bureaucratic, Tayloristic scientific management styles of old. Many, as a consequence, are beginning to develop their own ideas of what a learning company means, and how to achieve appropriate responses to change. Pearn et al suggest they look at these five components of a working approach to learning : 
 

 

q       A learning organisation places high value on individual and organisational learning as a prime asset

 

q       It is working towards full utilization of all individual and group potential for learning and adapting in the interests of meeting (and eventually setting and renewing) organisational objectives (mission and vision)

 

q       It does this in a way that also satisfies the needs and aspirations of the people involved

 

q       Inhibitors or blocks to learning are being identified & removed and strong enhancers & structural support for sustained continuous learning are being put in place

 

q       A climate of continuous learning and improvement is being created

 

In order to exploit the potential for learning that exists within a company, it is surely necessary to be able to identify what would enhance as well as what would inhibit individual, group or whole organisation learning. 

 

An example of an organisational inhibitor? How about : 

 

q       In-house company training, where the training is delivered by specialists on a standard basis, with very loose matching between learning/development needs of people and the training provided?

 

OR 

q       Management assuming workforce has little intelligence for problem solving, prioritizing, planning, organising, and these must be done on their behalf by managers. No stimulation of flexibility and creativity here.

 

What about a good organisational enhancer?  

 

q       Autonomous workgroups perhaps? The groups planning their own activities and prioritising them, then setting about identifying their own learning needs and satisfying them.

 

(Don’t forget the warning about Oases of Learning:  pockets of good group working which remain isolated from the rest of the organisation) 

 

OR 

 

q       Open management styles, encouraging two-way communication and autonomy of individuals

 
 

Here is Pearn et al’s definitive list from their researches : 

 

Individual and Organisational Enhancers and Inhibitors 

 

 

Enhancers :      

 

Individual:

 

- recognition of personal learning achievements

- opportunities to learn from mistakes

- highly developed personal learning skills

- empowerment processes

- accurate feedback on performance

- coaching

- self-development

- self-directed learning

- a sense of purpose (doing something worthwhile)                                                 (Contd overleaf)

 

Enhancers :      

 

Organisational :

 

- cross-functional work teams

- everything permitted not actually banned

- redesigning jobs to include dialogue & problem solving

- quality reflection time

- inter-company consortia

- open learning

- widespread use of systems thinking

- scenario planning

- systematic examination of mental models

- learning laboratories

- action learning

- managers as facilitators 

-           

Inhibitors : 

 

Individual:

 

 - learned helplessness

- managers believe they know all the answers

- managers hooked on status and traditional ‘us and them’ role

- unwillingness to take responsibility

- entrenched view that learning stops in the classroom

- couldn’t care less about standards

- imbued with ‘not invented here’ syndrome

- fear

- lack of confidence to learn 

 

 

Inhibitors : 

 

Organisational :

 

- too many management levels

- design and manufacturing separate (functional separatism)

- workers confined to narrowly defined tasks

- equipment specialised and inflexible

- individuals treated as brain-dead

- too hierarchical

- centralised decision-making

- bureaucratic culture

- preoccupation with getting it done

- only do what is permitted

- belief that workforce is lazy and stupid

 

 

 

So how might this set of enhancers help in the practical approaches towards upgrading learning skills of employees? To round off this Learning Unit on so-called components of a learning company what actual, practical tools will support learning at all times and wherever it occurs, in order to ensure that this enhancement takes place? 

 

Pearn et al remind us, finally, of their own 10 support mechanisms which have the goal of enhancing learning at work. Each has something distinct to offer those ‘facilitators’ who are keen to support learning : 

 

q       Learning contracts

q       Mentoring

q       Shadowing

q       Self directed learning

q       Self development

q       Personal development plans

q       Networks and learning communities

q       Learning logs

q       Learning accomplishment audits

q       Learning albums

 

Take time out to investigate these support mechanisms. Good research now will aid enormously your assessed work later. 
 
 

To sum up  ~ 

 

It is becoming clear that the complex nature of a company’s infrastructure may not easily be disentangled or understood, let alone bombarded with so-called sound organisational learning initiatives. Pedler et al’s and Pearn et al’s helpful points on the characteristics a company might possess, and the skills its workforce members might display, provide useful resource to shape your developing conceptualisation of learning organisations, but the realisation should be dawning that there is no blueprint for their promotion and development. Some helpful tips, however, follow ………… 

 

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development 

 

Learning Activity 
 
 

 

So, you now have one idea of an ‘identikit’ Learning Company, thanks to Pedler et al and their 11 characteristics. These, once you have mastered their terminology, provide a very useful guideline as to how organisations might be able to learn – both individuals AND the organisation. 

 

Considering you are a consultant, or consultants, to a company attempting to gear up to change, and having some difficulty in finding ways to assess their internal problems, write a detailed letter to the General Manager suggesting what your first moves will be when you arrive at the organisation. Use the set of 11 characteristics to guide your thoughts on how the consultant might advise senior management of the company about assessing current ‘learning difficulties’ before attempts are made to solve them. 

 

An A4 sheet or two should be sufficient – but feel free to flow  …………… 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 9                                                                                               [Source: Pearn et al, 97

                                                                                                                                                                                Pedler et al, 97i]

The Learning Organisation : Implementing the ideas

 

 

 
 So, some of what we might call the components of learning organisations are beginning to emerge – 11 characteristics of a learning company (courtesy of Pedler et al) and

12 skills of organisational learners (courtesy of Pearn et al). These, together with ideas on what enhances and what inhibits good organisational learning are shaping nicely your picture of learning and non-learning at work. 

But what to do to get organisational learning started?? I hope that is the question you yourself are asking ……… 
  

 

 

Exactly how might a company introduce its ideas on organisational learning into the company? Here are some questions that Pearn et al suggest might be asked: 

 

q       Where do we begin?

q       At the top of the company?

q       With the people of the company?

q       Do we look for initatives that are currently in play, and adapt them or run with them?

q       Do we look for the nuggets of good practice round and about in order to get started?

q       Do we ask people for ideas?

q       Do we call in consultants?

q       Do we find out what other companies are doing?

q       Will we find most people in favour – or against?

q       Will we need to set up a global strategy, or a local one?

q       Is a strategic approach appropriate?

q       Who will instigate moves? Leaders? Managers? Trainers? HR? Consultants? Everyone?

q       Who will follow it through, and how?

q       Etc, etc.

 

To start the process of implementation of organisational learning, it might be a good idea to find out the current state of learning within your company. Perhaps a Learning Audit could be introduced. A range of methods are open to you but a favoured approach to operating an audit involves the use of FOCUS GROUPS:

 

For example:  

 

Imagine focus group sessions being run across the whole site at your organisation (see example of the Mercury organisation in Learning Unit 10 ? [from: Argyris & Schon] ). They would be run by project teams of specially-trained managers and supervisors and other operators, and the data collected from these sessions - and from any further consultation – would eventually result in the development of an Action Plan for use across the company site. 

The anecdotal, qualitative data drawn from audits like these is likely to reveal : 

 

q       General lack of support for/recognition of the importance of learning

q       Lack of time and opportunities for learning

q       Resistance to change in general, fear, distrust

q       Lack of resources – time, money, facilities

q       Perceived lack of management commitment

q       Poor communications across site

q       Culture unsupportive to challenge and experience

q       Little perceived linkage between individual and organisational goals

 

It might be useful to gain more quantitative data, by using psychometric instruments, such as questionnaires, the resulting data helping to answer the basic question:  how well is the company helping to support workplace learning and development? Unfortunately, these results do not help with the implementation of organisational learning initiatives (what to go for first, etc), which the focus groups might be able to achieve, to some degree. 

 

EXAMPLES OF LEARNING CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRES 

 

In your last Learning Unit you looked at the 11 Learning Characteristics that Pedler et al have put forward to focus your understanding of the learning company. As an investigator, you could use their jigsaw questionnaire – with individuals, pairs or perhaps a small working group - to create a profile of a company (refer to the example in your accompanying Module Reading Notes). 

 

As you will see, in each piece of the jigsaw are 5 short descriptions of each one of the characteristics (as described by Pedler et al) in practice in the workplace. Also included in the jigsaw piece is a square for the respondent’s score – 10 if the company looks like the picture created by the 5 descriptions, down to 1 if it does not. From these questionnaire results, a graph or histogram can be plotted of the scores, and used appropriately. 

 

It might, also, be useful to ask staff members to complete the questionnaire twice, once for the company as they see it NOW, and once more for the company as they would like it to be. This is useful for a group analysis which rates the 11 characteristics. 

 

Likewise, Pearn et al (1997) have offered suggestions for assessing learning climate. In your accompanying Module Reading Notes you will see Part 1 of a 5-part questionnaire which asks employees to rate the ORGANISATION AS A WHOLE, in terms of its ability to encourage and foster learning in all its employees. Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 that make up the complete questionnaire are: 

 

Part 1 : The organisation rated as a whole

Part 2 : The department / function rated

Part 3 : The company managers/ capacity to foster learning

Part 4 : The training/HR functions capacity to foster learning

Part 5 : General comments required about perceived barriers to learning and

             what an individual might think would help them to learn 

What do you think is gained from such Learning Climate Questionnaires? Can they provide a useful starting point from which to understand your company’s learning climate? Some useful data CAN be drawn from them, such as : 

 

~ The strengths & weaknesses of all staff of the workplace, and its teams, etc

~ The comparisons with different teams and workplaces

~ Before and after assessments of the learning climate 

 

And maybe it can be seen to be effective, to some degree, as a tool in the development of a learning organisation. 

 

As you will already have come to realise, individuals also need to assess their own learning at work. Pedler et al (1997) suggest the following questions they might ask themselves : 

 

 

q       What did I learn?

q       How did I learn it?

q       Which factors helped me to learn?

q       What changed as a result? How do I know that I have learned?

 

 

So, what shapes our company? Is it a good idea to look at this aspect before embarking on ideas for implementing company learning? Are the following company characteristics useful to know? – 

 

q       The management relations and style

q       The time available for learning effectively

q       Autonomy and responsibilities

q       Team style

q       The opportunities for development

q       The guidance available

q       General contentedness

 

So, good or bad, strategic or individual, eliciting whether learning is going on is perhaps a little clearer to us now. 

 

IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES AND IDEAS 

 

Each company will have its own ideas about how it will implement and inculcate learning at work. Generally, it is accepted that if you can get the managers on board, you are probably three-quarters of the way there. However, how managers behave in a learning situation, say Pearn et al, may be “at best, grudging, in response to new initiatives, and at worst, is downright confrontational and pig-headed !”  How they should behave is quite clear – there are (say Pearn et al) 3 strands to their role, namely as: 

 

q       Leader

q       Facilitator of learning

q       Individual learner

 

The last one is the key one. If managers can recognise their own need to learn, and the difficulties in getting to grips with learning, and receiving some learning time, they will be much more sympathetic to their own staff. The facilitation is then a relatively easy matter, providing a conduit to recognised training programmes, and supporting and mentoring the efforts of staff endeavouring to change and adapt through learning. The leadership role is then almost clear, with the added bonus of being able to embrace the company’s vision and mission in such a way that appropriate procedures for learning are set up in response to the company’s implementation of change strategies. 

 

Two approaches are now offered as examples of how company learning might be implemented: 

 

GROUP LEARNING 

 

So getting down to the nitty gritty of organising learning may involve a whole range of exercises, workshops, mentoring surgeries and personal development interviews. Group learning skill exercises can cover a lot of ground and are often used to help people to consider learning as a skill, and to develop their abilities as learners. Invariably, they should be designed to be fun and ‘experiential’.

  

OPEN LEARNING 

 

You may not be as familiar with open and distance learning techniques as you might be with group learning techniques.  So many people mismanage them that they need careful consideration before implementation 

 

What do you think is meant by open learning? 

 

q       Open University?

q       Notes to be read for next week’s classes?

q       Correspondence courses?

q       Video conferencing?

q       IT self-instruct packs?

q       E-learning

 

All of these and more. But whatever mode is used, it is vital to consult widely and carefully in order to select good and appropriate open learning materials. Tutor support, which is much more important here than in a more structured learning environment, provides valuable and essential feedback, as there is often no-one else around to support and encourage your ideas and innovations, answer questions, provide encouragement and introduce you to other learners.  

 

 

 

To sum up    ………   overleaf
 

 

To sum up  ~  

 

Focus group forums and individual questionnaires produce qualitative and quantitative data that provide some direction for ‘facilitators of learning’ (managers, training personal, directors, consultants, ‘switched-on individuals’) in their attempts to initiate true organisational learning.  

 

The strengths and weaknesses that emerge, and the comparisons that can then be made across the departments of the company will enable these facilitators to at least try to introduce appropriate learning interventions. These will take account of management and team styles, current learning opportunities, staff availability for learning and their general state of company mental health! 

 

Will it be group activity? Or open learning? Mixtures of a number of modes of learning? Masterminded by key individuals, by consultants, or by ‘facilitators’? And is it easier or harder for large companies, compared with the smaller ones …………… ? 

 

An answer to the last question will be attempted in Learning Unit 14 

 

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development 

 

Learning Activity 
 
 

q       Prepare an advisory outline document from the Human Resources Manager to all senior management  in the form of a briefing memo, on the planned development of open learning initiatives to aid employees in the management of their work.

 
 

q       In considering these open learning initiatives, in your small groups, ensure that

                  you :-  

 

                  -  Tackle the question from as many angles as possible,

                  -  Look at all levels of the workforce. 
 
 

Questions you might ask yourselves: 

 

- Would all personnel benefit from open learning? 

- If not, who might, in what circumstances, and how? 

- What kind of courses? 

- How would they disseminate their knowledge gained (organisational learning in

  action!) 

- etc 

 

  

q       Hand in your briefing memo as directed by your tutor

 

   

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 10                                                                       [Source: Argyris & Schon, 96]

 

Organisational Learning : The Art of Inquiry 
 
 

 

You have now come to understand a little more about what might be considered the components of a learning company, by examining so-called organisational learning tools, such as the operational characteristics of such a company, the skills of the ‘learners’ of such a company, etc.  

It is now appropriate to turn to a particular approach to learning, which it is said could aid the skills of learners at work, namely the concept of single loop learning and double loop learning (others, not referred to here, have even looked at a third loop of learning). The principle behind this concept is grounded in the art of inquiry, which will now be explained. 
 

 

Any well-operated business organisation encourages and promotes analysis of its practices and processes to ensure that it remains healthy and ahead of the game. The state of learning within the organisation must, therefore, constitute a vital component of that analytical process. In analysing the state of learning, Pearn et al say, company members must ask questions - the RIGHT questions - in order to set off down the road of developing learning company strategies. Inquiry, ie a strategy for inquiring, should be instilled in everyone at work, in order: 

 

q       to look at operations in a different way

q       to query judgements made

q       to provide another viewpoint to that treated as the norm

q       to seek out new directions

q       etc

 

When you inquire into, say, how an operation is being performed at work, what kind of questions might you ask?              What about : 

 

Questions that: 

 

q       relate to the PURPOSE of the exercise you, or someone else, performs?

q        relate to potential PROBLEMS occurring on a particular job?

q       make COMPARISONS, contrasting one thing with another?

q       CHECK understanding/progress/achievement?

 

Check these out : 

PURPOSE questioning

     What possible reasons . . . ?

     Why does . . . ?

     What possible purposes could be served . . . ? 

 

COMPARISON/CONTRAST questioning

     In what ways is A similar to/different from B?

     How does A contrast with B? 

 

PROBLEM questioning

     What could go wrong?

     What could happen if we were not successful?

     What are the possible consequences . . . ? 

 

CHECK questioning

     How could we tell if we were succeeding?

     How could we assess whether progress is being made? 

 

You may wonder, at this point, what the value of questioning might be, why should one bother at all? After all, you might say we usually react quickly enough to ‘difficult’ situations, and things generally run smoothly afterwards. But it is not necessarily the reactive approach that is the best one in all work situations. And so it is important to understand that when developing an inquiring approach towards work situations and problem-solving : 

 

q       some kind of questions can be more helpful than others

q       not asking questions might actually limit learning

q       questioning might be actively encouraged, maybe taught as a technique, and

q       managers should perhaps encourage and respond to questioning, by giving helpful answers

 

Is it possible that such questioning opens up greater understanding of work operations and learning than might otherwise be the case, particularly if it becomes part of an employee’s operating norm at work? And it could lead to opening up people’s minds much more to new, complex, diverse ideas - if they get the questioning right. 

Line managers, for instance, could be taught to use questioning techniques in order to structure and run discussion groups and problem-solving sessions on any aspect of normal business operations. Techniques could also be used by work groups trying to understand problems and operational difficulties by asking questions of PURPOSE, COMPARISON, etc, quite randomly, or by systematically working through some specific keys to aid their deliberations. Team managers and team members who ALL use the same approach should achieve maximum synergy.

Let’s look at another, complementary, approach to questioning and inquiry, namely that of Argyris & Schon (1996) who have given their own views on 'the true art of inquiry’.  Their ideas seem to build on the work, much earlier last century, of John Dewey who set out his Theory of Inquiry (1933) that, quite literally, told us how to INQUIRE. He explained that whenever we are caused to DOUBT something (usually when a problem occurs which upsets our daily routine), we attempt to RESOLVE THAT DOUBT. John Dewey said that by doubting and attempting to resolve doubt, we are INQUIRING - that is, we are demonstrating that we are not satisfied to ‘leave it there’, so to speak, but to get on with sorting a solution. In other words, TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 

In a work context, a DOUBT (an organisational PROBLEM) is INQUIRED into, and attempts are made to RESOLVE the problem. Dewey suggested that INQUIRING is therefore LEARNING, and as this is happening at work, this might be viewed as the simplest form of organisational learning. 

Chris Argyris and Donald Schon (Organisational Learning II, 1996) who were referred to in Learning Unit 1, have followed up Dewey’s line on inquiry by putting forward their own view of one way in which organisational learning could be seen to take place. They use the terms SINGLE LOOP LEARNING and DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING to try to explain their view. 

You will become familiar with these expressions soon, and to help you to reach understanding of these quite difficult concepts of inquiry and learning it is necessary, firstly, to discuss what might be termed ‘simpler’ forms of learning. In this instance it is INSTRUMENTAL LEARNING  - What is it? 

Instrumental learning can be described simply as ‘learning on the job’, which we all do every day. For example, at work, you might instigate an action of some kind, in order to achieve your intended objectives, and you set up processes to measure the effectiveness of that action. 

Here (courtesy of Argyris & Schon) are some examples clarifying simple learning on the job: 

 

 

>>  Quality control inspectors who identify a defective product may convey

that information to production engineers who, in turn, may change product

specifications and production methods in order to correct the defect. 

 

>>  Marketing managers who observe that monthly sales have fallen below expectations may enquire into the shortfall, seeking an interpretation they can use to devise new marketing strategies to bring the sales curve back on target.

 

>>  Line managers may respond to an increase in turnover of staff by investigating sources of worker dissatisfaction,looking for factors they can influence, such as salary levels, fringe benefits, or job design, to improve the

stability of their workforce. 

 

 

Argyris and Schon’s explanation for this ‘simple’ learning is that, here, we are looking at a SINGLE FEEDBACK LOOP, created as a result of ‘simple’ organisational inquiry.     That is: 

 

>>     A problem occurs     (ie, you are surprised by a mismatch between your action

and your expectations) 

 

>>        You instigate some kind of strategy or action to overcome the problem (the

mismatch), and probably use this strategy again in similar situations 

 

>>     Your inquiry into the problem, and solving of it, may have been successful,

at least in the short term, for that particular incident, yet it is highly

unlikely that anyone else gets to benefit from your solution, no work

practices change, etc. The bedrock of the organisation, its operating norms,

values and practices, are not likely to have been affected in any significant

way by your solution. 

 

This is how Argyris and Schon view SINGLE LOOP LEARNING. You, maybe your work group also, seek solution, solve and strategise, but these actions do not in any way impact upon the wider work environment. 

So, true organisational learning, they say, should involve a DOUBLE LOOP. 

By DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING, they mean learning in such a way that whatever comes out of our inquiry - such as changing our strategy on something, and even, changing our assumptions about something - somehow has an impact upon the

existing set up of our global working environment. Argyris and Schon call this  “impacting upon the norms and values of our organisational environment”. 

In other words, your inquiry into a problematic situation, and the kind of solution you put in place, could have a tremendous impact on some other operational aspect of your company, perhaps changing totally the way certain things have been done for many years, and even the way people have thought.  

This is not an easy concept. The difficulty comes in working out how to ensure your inquiry and solution and strategy make the necessary transfer into the wider organisation.      

 

Let’s take another look at Argyris & Schon’s points on both SINGLE and DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING:                                                                                                                                                                                           

Single Loop

 

>  You and/or your team experience a problem

>  You inquire about how to solve it

>  You implement a solution, correcting the deficiency

>  You use your newly-devised actions/procedures/thoughts again to try to solve

     similar cases of difficulty 

 

Double Loop 

 >  You and/or your team experience a problem

>  You inquire about how to solve it

>  You implement a solution, correcting the deficiency

>  You use your newly-devised actions/procedures/thoughts again to try to solve

    similar cases of difficulty

>  You engender wider scope for your actions etc by, for example, disseminating

    your important information/insights around the company (eg: cross-department

    meetings, everyday exchanges, assisting development of others’ new working

    practices, etc)

>  You are able, to some extent, to effect a shift, some change in the order of

   things, over time, changing – hopefully for the better - some of the company’s

   norms and values  

 

 

You are encouraged now to read the following abbreviated article on the Mercury Corporation of America, discussed by Argyris and Schon in their text, which provides a useful contextual approach to aid your understanding of the single/double loop concept. The Mercury Corporation of America, in distress but without recourse to solve its difficulties, brought in consultants who reviewed the whole organisation’s workforce and operations and put forward their own ideas on solution. 
 

q       The Mercury Corporation began as a chemical company in the 1920s.

q       It diversified over several decades into many businesses in different fields.

q       It set up one of the original R & D (research & development) divisions to support the new businesses.

q       In the 1960s, the Corporation could not maintain the tremendous rate of growth, and its vitality began to flag.

q       As a result, the R & D division became reluctant to take risks on new products.

q       Management solution?   They established the New Business Division (NBD) where all the divisions’ new ideas were ‘incubated’ before being handed back to them once they had proved their worth.

q       The divisions were happy to take on the new technologies, now that the risk factors were shouldered elsewhere.

q       However, by the early 1970s, the greatly increased scale of Mercury’s 5 billion dollar business had resulted in a declining rate of earnings.

q       Solution? The company decentralised, setting up semi-autonomous divisions with their own business charters and presidents.

q       By the mid-1970s, there was much frustration within the NBD due to the failure over the previous 10 years to develop a single new business of any consequence.

q       Solution?  Senior managers at NBD called in outside consultants to help them explore whether -

"the pursuit of new ventures is still a viable alternative to growth for a mature corporation in these changing times” 

 

q        The consultants began to map out the problem :

 

They interviewed individual members of staff across all divisions, with the

following outcomes: 

 

Individuals’ private views                      Individuals’ private views of the company’s ills were very varied. Because they were private views, no attempts at solution had been made. Examples of these very private views included: 

 

"We have been going for 10 years, and have not produced anything of real

consequence ...... We have entertained lots of projects rather than pick an

area and try to figure out how to get there.” 

 

"You need lots of balls in the air, because the odds on any one are so low.

You must look at lots of possibilities. Over 10 years, we’ve looked at more than

200 business opportunities.” 

 

"NBD tends to take the path of least resistance placing new technology

within existing divisional boundaries.”

 

"NBD is constrained by its charter ....” 

 

"We’re not organised to do the job, not only in development but in the whole

technological area .... 50% of our profits come from 30% of the products,

the proprietary ones .... “ 

(Argyris & Schon)

 

q        Mercury’s key senior personnel and NBD personnel gave the consultants case histories of the last 10 years of corporate development. In particular, they stated which developments they saw as successes and which as failures. Again, old ideas and efforts at development were so scattered amongst the minds of company individuals that no comparisons of their different views had ever been made - or conclusions drawn. For example, they would say -

 

~  "Good ideas come from the top”  and

~  “A good idea will find its own way” 

     

 Resulting in self-fulfilling prophecies - 

      ~  Successes were seen as good ideas  and

      ~  Failures were seen to be bad ones 

q        So, failures weren’t highlighted, despite some excellent ideas behind them, which were therefore never tested out, or compared with the quality of ideas of the successes.

 

q        Successes were always seen as the test of good ideas, and the good ideas were always assumed to come from top management.

 

q        The consultants spurred on Mercury’s senior personnel, despite these revelations, and in so doing, they delved behind these cases of success and failure to find out what the processes of development were at the time.

 

q        The consultants got them to try and draw inferences, from all these company stories, about the design of more effective organisational structures and technological development practices.

 

q        The result?   A more accurate, explicit picture of the actual practice of business development at Mercury. This would help all the company’s individuals -

 

~  to question their existing theories and practices

~  to criticise new business proposals and not to rely on old, probably

                inadequate, ideas

~  to set up better development ideas based on the organisational REALITY,

            rather than their outdated theories 

 

q        This would all generate a more insightful (enquiring) approach towards the ways in which Mercury operated.

 

q        This review of Mercury has therefore presented us with some fascinating insights into ORGANISATIONAL NON-LEARNING. Take a look at some of the prevailing views that shaped Mercury’s ‘behavioural world’ before the consultants got there - a fascinating catalogue of woe -

 

~  Let buried failures lie

~  Keep your views of sensitive issues private;  enforce the taboo against

    their public discussion

~  Do not surface and test differences in views of organisational problems

~  Avoid seeing the whole picture; allow maps of the problem to remain

    scattered, vague, and ambiguous 

 

q        'And what do these views reflect?’ ask Argyris and Schon.  Deeper, more fundamental, possibly sub-conscious individual views -

 

~  Protect yourself unilaterally, by avoiding both direct interpersonal

    confrontation and public discussion of sensitive issues, which might expose

    you to blame 

~  Protect others unilaterally, by avoiding the testing of assumptions, where

    that testing might evoke negative feelings, and by keeping others from

    exposure to blame 

~  Control the situation and the task by making up your own mind about the

    problem and acting on your view 

~  Keep your view private, and avoid the public inquiry which might refute it. 

 

So, only by highlighting the non-learning - that is, the secrecy, the private views, the lack of a shared response to both local and global corporation problems - do the productive organisational learning ideas begin to emerge.  Here, at Mercury, the process of productive organisational learning was shown, at the time Argyris and Schon wrote, to be just getting started, but already, it was the DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING that was seen to be the beginning of the solution to the NBD’s ills. That is – ~  Sharing widely

~  Constant feedback

~  Creating wider scope

~  Pushing at the boundaries - constantly

~  Talking to each other - locally AND globally

~  And more, and more, and more 

 

 

To sum up  ~   

 

If corporate managers are to engage in productive organisational learning (of the double loop variety) they must undertake a process of inquiry which is significantly different from the inquiry characteristic of single-loop learning. They must make themselves fully aware of the problems, the conflicts, and realise that they cannot adequately deal with the errors by doing better what they already know how to do, or by getting people/divisions to perform more efficiently under existing norms.  

 

The managers must undertake such an inquiry, the results of which will take the form of a restructuring of organisational norms and, very likely, a restructuring of strategies and assumptions associated with those norms. These must then be embedded in the images and maps that permeate the organisation. 

 

Here is a DOUBLE FEEDBACK LOOP  which connects our inquiry into, and detection of, errors and problems, not only to our company’s organisational strategies and assumptions, but also to the values and norms that define the company itself. 
  

 

It is hoped that this unfolding of the Mercury Corporation case has helped you to understand the concept of single and double loop learning. The key principles surrounding this concept have been adopted by those in industry and academia who are helping others to reflect appropriately upon their thoughts and actions, in order to improve/develop their ideas/workplace activities/modus operandi, etc in a wholly constructive way. In the next Learning Unit you will learn a little more about the art of reflection in action. 

 

Organisational Learning and Development

Learning Activity

 ACTIVITY  1

In considering that the best way to trigger your working colleagues into thought and action might be to use humour in the monthly information bulletins, try to produce, in a light-hearted form:

q        A list of 10 non-learning pointers that your company’s Human Resources Manager might send out in warning about the spread of complacency at work. You might include, if you like, those points already made by Argyris and Schon above. It is important to write them in such a way that employees are fully aware of the joke element of the article, whilst being triggered to consider the consequences of bad action.

 

q        As an example, one of the above so-called pointers was:

 

" Let buried failures lie "

 

q        Warn of the dangers of complacency at work in a range of areas and suggest how training might be set up to overcome these weaknesses. The training might be one-to-one, discussion with a mentor, focus group, personal reflection, etc etc.

 

 

ACTIVITY  2

 

q        Consider, as a group or individually, the following difficulties (taken from your learning notes above) being experienced at work,   and

 

q        Write out your collected suggestions as to how the single-loop solutions that have been applied could be replaced/enhanced by double-loop solutions :-

(1)    Quality control inspectors who identify a defective product may convey that information to production engineers who, in turn, may change product specifications and production methods in order to correct the defect. 
 

(2)    Marketing managers who observe that monthly sales have fallen below expectations may enquire into the shortfall, seeking an interpretation they can use to devise new marketing strategies to bring the sales curve back on target. 
 

(3)    Line managers may respond to an increase in turnover of staff by investigating sources of worker dissatisfaction,looking for factors they can influence, such as salary levels, fringe benefits, or job design, to improve the stability of their workforce.  

 

 Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 11                                                    [Harri-Augstein et al, 91

      Schon, 95] 

 

Learning Conversations : Reflection in Action

~  Returning to the Art of Inquiry

 

  

 

At this point in the learning programme it is considered appropriate to build upon  Argyris and Schon’s (1996) views of single and double loop learning (given earlier),  with some apposite views of Sheila Harri-Augstein, Laurie Thomas and the trio of editors – David Boud, Rosemary Keogh and David Walker.  Their books, entitled Learning Conversations (1991)  and  Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning (2000) respectively, provide good food for thought concerning the development of reflection on personal work practices.

 

 

The art of reflection

 

Argyris and Schon (1996) alerted you to their ideas on using insightful inquiry to challenge and attempt solution to endemic practices and procedures at work. Schon (1995) had for some time put forward his own ideas on the reflective practitioner at work, which you might like to read for yourself (The Reflective Practioner, Arena).For instance, Schon tells us that at work we have reflective conversations with situations. He explains it thus, using a designer as an example : 

 

“A designer makes things. Sometimes he makes the final product; more often, he makes a representation – a plan, programme, or image – of an artifact to be constructed by others. He works in particular situations, uses  particular materials, and employs a distinctive medium and language. Typically, his making process is complex. There are more variables – kinds of possible moves, norms and interrelationships of these – than can be represented in a finite model. Because of this complexity, the designer’s moves tend, happily or unhappily, to produce consequences other than those intended. When this happens, the designer may take account of the unintended changes he has made in the situation by forming new appreciations and understandings and by making new moves. He shapes the situation, in accordance with his initial appreciation of it, the situation talks back, and he responds to the situation’s back-talk.” 

The implication is that this personal conversation with the situation is reflective. “In answer to the situation’s back-talk, the designer reflects-in-action on the construction of the problem, the strategies of action, or the model of the phenomena”, all implicit in his moves.  

Candy, Harri-Augstein and Thomas (in Boud, Keogh & Walker, ed, 2000), writing on a similar theme, suggest that “if people are aware of what they are presently doing, and can be encouraged to reflect on it and to consider alternatives, they are in an excellent position to change and to try out new ways of behaving”. Like Schon, above, they are saying that here, the learning is independent. The learner contemplates and reviews an insight or experience to reach understanding, maybe experimenting, and ultimately improving, without any intervention from someone else. Effectively, a reflective learning conversation with oneself.

 

Developing the art of learning conversation

 

All the above should suggest to you that reflection on what you say and do is an important skill in your day-to-day working life (if not in your personal life), and can help, perhaps, with the reworking of previously poorly-operated work procedures, with the solving, via different means, of persistent problems, with the zest for creativity and innovation becoming more focussed in the daily routine. 

It is this emphasis on creativity and innovation that forms the final segment of your learning programme, and in leading you to this point, it is considered appropriate to include here some views of the art of the learning conversation.  

Whilst working situations are often team-oriented, the reflection is something that one often works through on one’s own. You will converse with yourself, maybe complete your own learning journal on the experiences of the day, of the project, of the future projections, of the unexpected difficulties that arise, etc, etc. And the art of reflection-in-action is a powerful tool.  However, it might be that in the early stages of developing this reflective skill, practice would be useful with someone else listening – a sounding board, if you like. At work, this would probably involve someone trained in such skill, such as a training specialist or mentor, perhaps.  

Candy, Harri-Augstein and Thomas (in Boud, Keogh & Walker, ed, 2000) suggest the title 'Self-organised Learner’ to describe those who have now come round to the idea of ‘learning how to learn’ at work and elsewhere. And they, too, believe that in helping the ‘learner’ at work to maintain improved standards of performance, a tutor/trainer/mentor might support them well until they have developed the art of conversing appropriately with themselves and following up this conversation appropriately. Ultimately, the training professional could see the learner through to achieving the desired-for solution to a sticky ‘difficulty’, to a change in work performance, etc, etc.

The tutor/trainer/mentor works with the ‘learner’, who discusses his/her ‘learning’ experiences, which in turn are guided and directed by the trainer using the type of conversation necessary to evoke specific aspects of the experiences. As time goes on the ‘learner’s’ awareness of his/her own processes increases and the trainer gradually hands over more and more control to the ‘learner’. Eventually, the two of them explore how the learning can be improved, how to look at things differently, ultimately to perform better, with greater understanding.

 The ultimate aim for the ‘learner’ is to conduct more and more of the conversation him/herself, because, as Harri-Augstein and Thomas (1991) say: “The ability to conduct most of a Learning Conversation with oneself is the essence of self-organisation.” They can utilise effectively the techniques they have developed in learning about, and dealing with, any situations/experiences that are of concern to them. 

Remember what was said about reflection at work at the start of this learning unit: 

“ …………  the designer’s moves tend, happily or unhappily, to produce consequences other than those intended. When this happens, the designer may take account of the unintended changes he has made in the situation by forming new appreciations and understandings and by making new moves. He shapes the situation, in accordance with his initial appreciation of it, the situation talks back, and he responds to the situation’s back-talk.” 

In other words, people (as ‘inquirers’) will reflect on the surprising consequences of their efforts to deal with a certain situation in the ‘usual’ way, and will then shape new questions and new ways forward. Their skill with reflective learning conversations will reinforce this process.

 

 

To sum up  ~

 

The Learning Conversation and the Learning Organisation

 

The potential is great for use of the Learning Conversation in the workplace. In the context of organisational learning, developing the skills of reflection in such a way would undoubtedly further the cause of problem solving by providing those at work (the ‘learners’  or ‘inquirers’ at work) with the ability to search wider and in more depth for solution to endemic problems, to one-off operational difficulties and to the strengthening of their own ideas and effective thought processes. With or without a ‘support’ (tutor/trainer/mentor) they may well have developed a tool that could prove highly valuable to the company – furthering the cause, maybe, of double loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1996)!!

Organisational Learning and Development

 

Learning Activity 

It is clear that having a reflective learning conversation with a situation results in very useful advancements in the work process, whether this process is production of something, development of an idea, the working through of a product development idea, the teasing out of a more workable team structure, etc, etc, etc.

In this exercise, you are a mentor (on the immediate line above your colleague) to a relatively junior member of staff, who is experiencing difficulty in dealing with a colleague on his/her same line, where the colleague appears to have become distant in recent weeks, after 18 months of good, convivial relations between them.

Remember that as the respected mentor, you are required to guide and direct your colleague using the type of conversation necessary to evoke specific aspects of his/her experiences.

 

Explain :

 

-   how you would set up one or more opportunities for learning conversations,

 

-   how you would guide and direct the conversations appropriately with regard to

    the difficulty involved 

 

-   what kind of record, if any, you think you should make of this/these learning   

    conversations,       and  

 

-   what long-term objectives you might set up, if any.

 
 
Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 12

 

Introduction to the Module Investigative Research

                                                                                    Research Interview One 
 
 

 

By the time you have reached this point in the learning programme you have become familiar with some of the key concepts of organisational learning, but mainly from a theoretical perspective. At this stage, therefore, it is recommended that you make some small research of your own, to see how actual organisational practice matches up to these accepted concepts on organisational learning, and to your own views. 

In this way, you will come to understand some of the problems – and hopefully, some of the joys – in applying conceptual approaches in the workplace, gaining a more balanced view of this subject, which will aid your efforts when your second assessment is due. 

One of the requirements of your second assessment, therefore, will be evidence of the research undertaken, which will now be explained. 
 
 

 

You will conduct some investigative research (in consultation with your module tutor) in order to develop the scope for your later module assessment. Good research should provide substantive clarification of the theoretical perspectives introduced throughout this module. Your view of approaches to organisational learning, as applied in the workplace, is a key component of the coming assessment. 

Your aim, therefore, is to seek out a company and make investigations into its operations and working practices in order to test some of your theories (see box below). It is likely that many students will be able to conduct this research using your own full or part-time place of employment, having first received clearance for such research from the appropriate personnel at the company, and also appropriate clearance from your module tutor. Where you are not employed in any capacity, it will be necessary to approach an organisation for such research (making the same, all-important,  clearances with key personnel). 

Your company research should look at :-

 

 

q        How small teams operate and their influence on ‘creative’ working

 

q        Line managers, and/or owners (where the company is a small one) and their encouragement of individual and/or collective innovation, etc

 

q        HR and/or training support for promoting good ideas, innovative practices, etc, within small work environments/departments, and across the company.

 

 

Format for the investigative research

 

The second essay will be submitted in Week 24 (approx) of the learning programme for this Module, therefore you will have a number of learning weeks in which to complete your research, in order to leave you sufficient time to make a good attempt at the essay topic. Evidence of such research must be submitted to the Module Leader for scrutiny at no less than two research interviews before Week 22, and must be signed by the tutor. The research data must be submitted in the appendix of your essay for Assessment Two. Essentially, however, it is a resource for development of your essay. 

 

Points to note for the research:

 

q        Seek permission from appropriate company leaders in order to undertake your research.

q        To conduct your research, observation of company personnel may be useful. Again seek permission

q        Ensure people and processes observed/questioned are appropriate to the three points set out above

q        Make sure, in advance, that you are clear about the kind of questions you need to ask in relation to the abvoe three points.

q        There is no need to seek clearance of any research instruments you administer (it is assumed that you are fully conversant with such research principles at this stage in your learning programme - you are given information on these elsewhere in the BABA course programme)

q        Try not to overburden those you interview/observe - good planning should result in clean, crisp execution of your research

q        If at all possible, clear the way for just ONE research session with the company targeted if you can, then you are more likely to be allowed good access to people, places, data, etc

q        At the close of your research effort, produce appropriate notes as resource material for Assessment Two

q        The information required to answer the specific aspects of the Assessment Two essay question is the driving force behind your company research. Therefore, think very carefully about the subject matter, theoretical perspectives, your own developing ideas etc, before embarking upon the research. Your module leader will provide support and counselling upon request.  
 

 

Remember :

 By Learning Unit 17, you should be gathering appropriate data to support your essay development. If any difficulties are being experienced prior to Week 17, you should approach the Module Leader for support, encouragement and clarification of research requirements.

 

 

 

 

 

q        See   Learning Activity   overleaf

 

Organisational Learning and Development

 Learning Activity

 

Research Interview with Module Tutor (Week 11)

 

This week you will discuss with your module tutor how you intend to find a company to research, and how to conduct research at that company. 

 This research is important for the development of your assessed work, but is not itself assessed EXCEPT that your attendance at this interview and at the second research interview (see later Learning Units) must be documented, and all details must be submitted in the appendix to Assessment Two essay. You should regard this research as a vital learning tool.  

 

In your research interview with your module tutor this week, you may both wish to use the following as a guide to your planning : 

 

q        Set up a research diary

A formal approach to writing down your research findings is recommended. It is suggested that you keep a comprehensive ‘learning log’ that contains all your information from the company researched, but also includes your own thoughts on the experiences at the company – these will prove invaluable. 
 

q        Sketch out your questions

Keep the list fairly short, more likely to get answers!  Understand, first of all, the exact areas of interest for your essay 
 

q        Seek appropriate research clients

If you do not have your own work departments and staff to approach, use your

friends and family to introduce to their places of work. When approaching any

company – small ones are often as useful for your researches as large ones – be very

careful with your approaches, eg  telephone before arriving at the door, etc! 

 

q         Set up client appointments

Don’t be despondent if you are rejected – this is normal. So make sure you have a few  companies to approach before you start. Give a good introduction by ensuring the  company member knows about your course and module and its requirements. They can  be referred to the module tutor, if required 

 

q        Produce any appropriate documentation

Questionnaires are very useful, both for handing out and for using as prompts for  you in your personal interviewing. Think them through careful – avoid leading questions and ambiguous ones 

 

There are no rules here, you set up your research as you, and your tutor, think fit, bearing in mind the advice notes above. If in any doubt about the way forward, contact your module leader.

 

 

q        In preparation for your next Learning Unit 13, please read the Case Study – Individual and Organisational Learning - by Alan Mumford, taken from Mabey and Iles, in your accompanying Module Reading Notes, before attending your class.

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 Learning Unit 13

Case Study  ~  No. 2

 Having reviewed, in your accompanying Module Reading Notes, the following article prior to attending this class, proceed as follows:  

In Alan Mumford’s article on Individual and Organisational Learning, taken from your background reading text 'Managing Learning’ (Mabey & Iles (ed), 1994), he produces a list of “potential helpers in development” :- 
 

 -  Boss

-  Grand Boss

-  Mentors

-  Colleagues

-  Subordinates

-  Clients for projects 

 

Using your organisational learning knowledge to date as a base :- 

 

~ Discuss how each of these ‘potential helpers’ might be seen to aid the progress of

    company organisational learning 

~  Report to your plenary session  

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 Learning Unit 14                                                        [Sources: Pedler et al, 96

      Schon, 96 (in Pedler, 97)]

Can Both Big and Small Companies Learn?  
 
 

You should be beginning to develop an image of the learning company as one which displays various kinds of key characteristics, tools, diagnostic techniques, types of learner, etc, etc. Amongst them you have examined in particular those Characteristics of Learning Organisations put forward by Pedler et al, and the Skills of the Organisational Learner put forward by Pearn et al.  

 

But you may not have considered yet the different types and sizes of organisation and how they may or may not differ in their approaches towards (organisational) learning. Of course, it is not easy to assess the learning and non-learning in either large or small organisations; and indeed the writers of texts quoted in this learning programme have generally referred to the larger ones. However, you can now at least attempt to compare a typical biography of a major corporation with that of an SME (small-medium enterprise) in the hope of enhancing your views on organisational learning. 

 

 

So, starting with the  SME : 

 

Can we sketch out a standard organisational development model that applies to all small companies? 

 

Do the principles of organisational learning apply to all companies? 

 

In SMALLER companies it is important to note the POWER and ‘CENTRALITY’ of their OWNER(s). These are easily overlooked, yet the biography and destiny of these companies is bound up inextricably with that of their owners.  Why?  Because …… 

 

q        It is THEIR company, they OWN it, they are the FOUNDERS, HOLDERS and CHAMPIONS of the original idea

q        They commit most of their waking hours to the company

q        The owner is SYNONYMOUS with the company

q        PERSONALITY is often in play. Owners are often creative, driven, ‘big’ people. The Company is an extension of their personality

q        Therefore, the PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT of the owner and the BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT of the company are often closely linked

q        The owner’s KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, OPINIONS and BELIEFS, PRIDES and PREJUDICES are likely to be dominating the collective body

q        Knowledge and skills are likely to be those of the whole

 

It might help to look at the different kinds of smaller company (courtesy of Pedler et al). This should aid your development of a view of learning within these organisations:

 

THE OWNER-OPERATED COMPANY    

 

q        Founder does everything from origination of order to delivery of finished product/service

q        Systems are personal, idiosyncratic (good or bad)

q        Company driven by personal vision, energy of founder

q        People are busy, work long hours, learn quickly

 

THE OWNER-MANAGED COMPANY 

 

q        Much more rationality in the company

q        Personal energy and vision no longer sufficient

q        Company brings in PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE, trained staff, management systems

q        A sense of FUNCTIONAL management, specialists in production, marketing, design, etc

q        Owner probably the ONLY MANAGER, less ‘hands on’ than before, co-ordinating others

q        Owner still makes IMPORTANT DECISIONS

 

THE OWNER-DIRECTED COMPANY 

   

q        Owner ceases to be only/main manager

q        Other people grow into key managerial roles

q        Directors/partners created

q        Management team making collective decisions

q        Owner power still dominant, but more debate, more disagreement !

q        Owner/director monitors internal operations, also monitors outside world for market changes, competitor actions, legislative/government policy trends

q        Director is business brain linking inside and outside aspects of company operation

q        Management and/or team development taking place, plus essential operative training

 

Now the contentious one  ~

 

THE OWNER-DEVELOPED COMPANY    

 

q        Owner takes step back from management/leadership/direction of the company

q        Takes primary responsibility for organisation development

q        Outside/inside monitoring done by others (the policy and operations process)

q        Prime purpose of owner as developer - to facilitate collective and individual company learning. Linking both together

 

Organisational learning and development within these smaller companies may need to be instigated for the following reasons: 

SUCCESSION  -  replacement of the central person

GROWTH -  loss of vitality and energy as the original vision is exceeded. Growth

may make a currently adequate operating system and structure ineffective

CHANGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT  -  misjudgement of the current environmental

climate

CHANGE WITHIN  -  directors and managers beginning to question company

policies and procedures in a way that it has not experienced before.

Directors may want their people to be more proactive  

 

So, to sum up : how do small companies learn?  - 

 

q        Learning from past experience

 

-  Is there clarity of purpose?

-  Do people understand the idea behind the business and how it has changed?

-  Is there an awareness of past events and what was learned from them? 

 

q        Present performance INSIDE the company

 

-  Regular reviews of performance of its individuals (where improvement plans &

   projects form part of everyday life) ensure there is evidence of the

   company learning from its staff 

 

q        Present performance OUTSIDE the company

 

-  Company learning from trading partners (customers, suppliers), and other  

   companies  (benchmarking good practice and avoiding their pitfalls)

-  Learning partnerships with other companies, colleges, schools

-  Company showing ability and willingness to use expertise and knowledge of   

   outsiders, consultants etc

-  Company has track record of obtaining & using grants, development schemes,etc 

 

q        Company learning habits

 

-  As part of working routine, company people take time out for reviews and

   reflection on recent experiences

-  Company abounds with examples of people developing and learning new skills

-  Sense of a company learning style and culture

 

q        Owner’s self awareness and learning

 

-  Owner shows considerable self-awareness, also concerned with own personal

   development

-  Owners invest in training and development of other company people

-  Owners show ability and willingness to experiment with new ideas in order to learn

-  In a well-developed company, there is

-  evidence of feedback and challenge to the owner

-  an ability to tolerate and learn from conflict 

 

q        Learning for the future

 

-  A learning company:

     - looks ahead, beyond immediate operating plan

     - has a vision of the future (something to go for that will change the nature of  

       the company as it is today)

     - a process is in place for implementing the vision (with feedback loops and pilot

       schemes built in for learning purposes)

-  Owner has a sense of their future role in the company      and,

-  Succession plans are in place (where appropriate) 
 

BUT ARE THESE IDEAS ONLY RELEVANT TO THE SMALL OR MEDIUM-SIZED COMPANY? 

 

Of course large and small enterprises differ in terms of : 

 

~  geography

~  scope

~  structure

~  sophistication

~  complexity 

 

but the smaller company workforce means that everyone knows everyone, and, over time, understand what each other thinks and what concerns them 

This can be good and bad :-

 

AT BEST :

 

People can discuss important issues together, make good, quick decisions and move into action with great speed and considerable commitment

 

AT WORST :

 

These companies can be miserable, mediaeval fiefdoms (brutal regimes) where both  brutality and ignorance reign 

 

BUT IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM BIGGER ORGANISATIONS, OR PARTS OF BIGGER ORGANISATIONS? 

 

As bigger organisations move away from the bureaucratic command and control models of managing that no longer deliver the goods and services as well as they need to, so they come to resemble more small companies or, perhaps, federations of small companies. 
 

So where does this get us?  Whether or not large companies resemble small companies, can these big companies really learn? 
 

q        Is big best?   

q        SIZE is probably their greatest DISADVANTAGE

q        BIG has proved best in obtaining economies of scale, but it also means big infrastructures, legions of support staff, complex technical and social systems of communication, meetings and relationships

q        Do we really like working in them though?

q        They’re big on Herzberg’s (in Mullins 2000) HYGIENE FACTORS :  income, security, training, a structure for life, but these do not motivate.

 

Not exactly the perfect environment for highly-motivated, creative, entrepreneurial people!  EXCELLENCE, that was so keenly sought in the 1980s, is great, but can you keep it up? After becoming excellent - THE market leader - aren’t you sure to slide? 

 

Perhaps the idea of the LEARNING COMPANY means that these companies will STAY EXCELLENT !

  

So, what does LEARNING COMPANY mean to big companies?

 
 

q        All staff see themselves as learners on behalf of the company

 

People taking responsibility for their own learning and development and responsibility for keeping the company up to date.   This requires:- 

 

q        Self-direction and self-management

 

People are proactive and taking initiative, less directed.  Fewer people more focused on users and customers 

 

q        Company becomes fit to house the spirit of self development

 

People need the space and headroom to develop.  Staff need voice in the organisation, need to have their say and to influence decisions

 

q        Company works as a consortium of small businesses

 

Everyone sees their job as their own business, with vitality, energy and effort. Company as a collective market where people exchange and trade with users, customers and suppliers. The success of the enterprise is everybody’s business. 
 

All this requires the company to be healthy and full of vitality in order to encourage learning. 

 

Well, we’re trying to get there.  So, can big companies really learn? If small companies tend to lose the natural ability to learn at a comparatively early age and must take special steps to rediscover the learning habit, what chance the big company with all its complexities? Can they really revitalise and reinvent themselves? 

It is useful here, to introduce you to an example cited by Pedler et al in their text. This example of a casualty of a turbulent environment refers to the decline of  WANG Laboratories in America in recent times: 
 

q        The company was founded in 1951 by Chinese immigrant to America, An Wang

q        It pioneered word processing equipment before the advent of the personal computer, and was flourishing throughout the 1970s and early 1980s

q        Wang was focussed on mid-sized computers and was slow to adapt to the advent of personal computers

q        Poor management by An Wang’s son and heir accelerated the decline

q        A new Chairman was brought in, in 1989, at a salary of $l million, who promised a new ‘Wang’ computer

q        However, he formerly worked for General Electric’s TV operations, had no experience of the computer world, and the hoped-for turnaround did not happen

q        The Wang company almost disappeared

 In the computer business, as in many others, the real test of a company’s mettle is not whether it slips or not, but if it can learn from the inevitable mistakes and recover quickly. It’s all about climbing back on the merry-go-round after you have fallen off, maybe several times. 

In the case of Wang, the company did recover somewhat at that time, and its experiences were mirrored by the company, IBM, which, similarly, did not respond to its own strategic predictions of 1980 that mainframe computers were in decline; but later somehow it managed to claw some way back. 

One of the big problems with big companies is that so much knowledge and information is not collected or passed on, and is simply forgotten.  
 
Argyris and Schon said: 

“There are too many cases in which organisations know less than their members. There are even cases in which the organisations cannot seem to learn what every member knows”. 

If only we knew what we know !!! 

 

One of the fundamental challenges to organisational learning:   Make sure you’re making the best of what is available.

 

 

FINALLY –

 q        Can we remember what we have learned? Loss of organisational memory can be a serious problem for companies, especially the big ones, because they have so much of it stored in departmental records and individual minds all over the place.

q        In a small company you usually find your way around this crucial database by asking, but how do you do this in a multinational?

q        Connectedness has to be encouraged, learning through sharing, a sense of community

q        It is wise not to fall into the trap of creating an over-respect for the past that works against future creativity

q        So, tapping the experience and knowledge of all the people who work in the business and improving organisational memory is a good place to start in establishing the learning company.

q        No company should rely on just one style or method of learning. This leads to missing out on ideas and innovation that come via other routes. And the overuse of any one particular way of learning can actually cause damage.

q        Perhaps one answer for big companies in their efforts to learn is the idea of intercompany learning. Joint ventures and partnerships as a vital avenue of learning. The takeover boom of the acquisitive 1980s has given way to the notion of partnership. In the face of rising competition, disillusioned with acquisitions that fail to live up to their apparent promise, many companies are looking to share costs and resources to create new products, acquire new technology, enter new markets.

q        In all this, we must not lose sight of the people, the individual. For it is considered that this is where the greatest developments in organisational learning are going to be made. Whether there is a strategic approach to spreading the vision or not, whether the company is small, medium or large, growing pockets of individual invention and creativity must surely be the key developments of the early years of the 21st century.  Yes?

 

 To sum up  ~ 

Small companies, it has been implied here, learn from past experience, present performance of the staff, liaison with trading partners and in-house expertise; from the owner’s personal vision, and  willingness to experiment, by sharing widely and rewarding each other’s success. 

Larger companies? Do they differ very much when, arguably, there are many similarities of operation, and bearing in mind that the departments/divisions/

sections of larger organisations appear, often, to operate as mini-businesses in many respects? Do they therefore not seek the same ends, the same kind of internal audit, the same group cohesion, the same creative spirit, the same ends?  

And if this were the case, would similar approaches to implementation of organisational learning initiatives be appropriate within the large and small enterprise? 
 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Activity

  

The idea that large organisations and small ones could adopt the same approaches towards organisational learning intervention requires some further investigation. So, to aid this investigation :-

 

q        Choose two companies in the business community today that you believe would make good candidates for a compare and contrast study.

 

q        For the large one, it might help to look at those that make the news for their good or bad behaviour.

 

q        For the smaller one, choose, perhaps, a firm you, friends or relatives have been, or are currently working in. 

q        Consider the operational activities of these two organisations and : 
 

Having discussed your key assumptions of how you believe your chosen organisationsight present (some poetic licence being required, of course),

 q        Draw up a list of key organisational learning factors that you can use in your compare and contrast study of these two companies

 q        Once you have your ideas together, draw up two lists – for the larger and the smaller organisation – detailing which organisational learning interventions would be common to both, and which might be invoked in each of the larger and smaller firms.

 
 *     For this exercise, you may have to revisit a number of earlier Learning Units in

          order to remind yourself of important key points. 
 
 

 Tutor:   You may wish this exercise to extend beyond the normal class time

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 15                                                            [Source:  Morgan, 97(ii)]

 

Organisational Learning

~  Developing a Metaphorical Approach 
 

 

 

You will recall from Learning Units 1, 2 and 3 of this Module that Morgan (1997) used the machine, organism and brain metaphors to draw out your understanding of various approaches towards organisation and management at work. 

 

In this Learning Unit, you will be encouraged to understand the use of metaphor in attempts to further the process of turning organisations into learning ones, again with Gareth Morgan’s help. This use of metaphor may prove a more difficult concept to grasp than those discussed earlier. Therefore, it is very important for you to read carefully the section of Chapter 11 of Imaginisation : New Mindsets for Seeing, Organising and Managing (Gareth Morgan, 1997) headed  'LIVING THE MESSAGE' IN TRAINING AND ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT to support your learning here, and/or the sample from this Chapter 11 in your Module Reading Notes. 
 

 

 

The opening paragraph of 'LIVING THE MESSAGE' IN TRAINING AND ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT states

 

" ... I have been particularly intrigued by the possibility of using metaphors for shaping the structure of learning events .... The aim is to get beyond telling people what you think they may need to know by creating an experience that allows them to live the reality of what needs to be done". 

 

Gareth Morgan offers some examples which clearly illustrate his perspective on promoting and developing creative and innovative ideas in dealing with difficult company situations, in both group and individual settings, through the use of living metaphor. Two of these are represented overleaf    >>>>> 

 

These two examples illustrate how the process of imaginisation can provide a ‘creative toolbox’ for shaping constructive interventions of any kind and form.  

 

"Whether one is a manager wishing to make a key communication to one's colleagues or staff, or an HRD practitioner seeking to develop creative, impactful learning processes, the message is to use resonant metaphors for shaping key learning experiences where actions speak louder than words."                                                  (Morgan, 1997) 

To help you to understand what is being said in this chapter, Gareth Morgan explains that :

 

"brilliant ideas and great insights often go nowhere. Most of us have had the experience of making a breakthrough in our understanding of a situation only to find that it eventually withers away. As we encounter the idea months or years later, we are left wondering, ‘Whatever happened there? A great idea. Why didn't it take off?’ Perhaps the idea/initiative contradicted existing culture which mobilised political opposition. Perhaps it got lost in the heat of fighting other battles. Perhaps it just atrophied through dwindling commitment or insufficient understanding.” 

 

It seems people can get thoroughly involved and carried away with their creativity and the possibilities this opens up. But unless this is brought back into the realm of action, and means are found to ground the insights in practice, the process counts for nothing, and the outcome might even be worse. In other words, the message here is:  

 

Ensure that good insights receive good follow-through 

 

To get that follow-through, Morgan suggests finding holographic actions to reinforce the spirit of what you are trying to achieve, in order to improve chances of success. These examples help to explain his view:

 

 

Example One

In the first example, a company chief executive wants to change the company from a 'top-down' controlled one to a more 'bottom-up' flexible one and turns the process for change into a living metaphorical one by turning up unexpectedly at a senior staff seminar on this and inviting those present to test out the ideas they have come up with on HIM first, on HIS OWN job description. In other words, it is 'for real' rather than a hypothetical situation. The chief executive was the model for what the senior staff wanted to do, and therefore he provided a powerful motivational context for change – HE (and his presence at the seminar) was the living metaphor.

 

Example Two

Likewise, in the second example, team changes instigated to undo old group working practices within a sales team did not have any significant effect until the sales manager decided to move to the same floor and working space as the rest of the sales team. This move (the living metaphor) had enormous symbolic power, by communicating that the changes towards the team approach were genuine and not just a passing fad, so pushing forward change. 

 

These two examples of living metaphor succeeded in bringing about constructive change within the respective organisations, often stoking up similar change in other individuals/teams within their organisations. And Gareth Morgan says that the challenge facing modern managers is “to become accomplished in the art of using metaphor to find new ways of seeing, understanding and shaping their actions”. He says that images and metaphors can be used to create experiences where “key messages are LIVED, not just spoken”. 

 
 

 

To sum up  ~

 

Like Argyris and Schon, Morgan is trying, here, to encourage employees to ‘read’ work situations in a new light and to respond (in ways which are different from the norm) to the signals they are receiving around them at work. 

As with double-loop learning, they must see their own – and their working group members’ – learning ranging out to encompass the company in its own learning. 

Think on   ………

 

SOME ILLUSTRATIONS OF ‘LIVING THE MESSAGE’

 
  

TO GET BEYOND TELLING PEOPLE WHAT YOU THINK THEY MAY NEED TO KNOW, CREATE AN EXPERIENCE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO LIVE THE REALITY OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE                                  (Morgan, 1997) 
 
  

 

 

(1)  Dealing with Earthquake Zones

 

"The CEO of a manufacturing organisation wishes to ‘open’ and ‘acclimatise’ staff to the challenges of the firm’s changing environment. His first thoughts are that they need a series of talks or seminars.

 

Adopting the ‘lived message’ approach builds on a different principle. Staff are invited to a session designed to explore ‘earthquake zones’. After a short overview of how social, economic, technological, and political trends are reshaping the world economy, they are invited to identify the ‘earthquakes’ that could transform their organisation or even put it out of business; just as automatic teller machines and home banking are reshaping financial services and fax and courier services are reshaping the postal system.

 

The ‘earthquake’ exercise’ produces a vivid and penetrating analysis of key challenges. Staff confront the turbulence of the world around them, exploring how new technology and ‘Just in Time’ management is likely to reshape the workplace; how information networks facilitate the emergence of new organisation structures and managerial styles; how occupational health and safety legislation demands a new philosophy of workplace management; how problems of literacy and cultural diversity demand new forms of communications; how new economic trends are influencing the marketplace. They examine the problems and opportunities associated with these ‘earthquake-like’ changes and identify strategies and ideas for shaping a corporate response.

 

In engaging in this process for themselves, rather than just reading the latest consultant’s report or attending a series of seminars or briefing sessions on the various topics, staff internalize the challenges. They understand and ‘own’ the significance of upcoming changes, because they are the ones who have identified the ‘earthquakes’ and unfolded their consequences.

 

It’s often amazing to see how this kind of process can mobilise key insights from ‘regular’ employees drawn from the middle or lower levels of an organisation, even though they have never engaged in any form of environmental analysis or strategic planning exercise. If the ‘earthquake exercise’ is appropriately framed, so that participants are given an indication of some of the changes unfolding in the world at large, they usually have great competence in seeing the relevance for their organisation and in anticipating likely consequences. By ‘living’ through the earthquakes metaphorically, they put themselves and their organisation in a much better position to deal with them.”

 

 

 

(2)  Blocking Change

 

"A group of middle managers in a telecommunications company have come together to develop an action plan to implement a new phase of their organisational development strategy. They have a history and reputation for being expert planners but also for getting blocked when it comes to implementation. Their plans are such great accomplishments that they often become ends in themselves!

 

To aid their process, it is decided to perform an ‘iceberg analysis’.  In other words, they are asked to identify the kind of organisation and managerial competencies they wish to develop, as well as the forces beneath the surface of the existing organisation that could prevent them from getting there.

 

They are then presented with the challenge of developing a detailed plan for blocking key changes. In essence, each person is asked to reflect on a key aspect of the desired change and to identify the six most effective ways of ensuring that there will be an unsuccessful outcome. The ideas and results of the exercise are then used as a basis for discussion with colleagues in the wider group.

 

Paradoxically, by focusing on what they can do to ensure failure, the group is often able to discover what needs to be done to ensure success. The approach obliges the group to confront and metaphorically ‘live’ the reality of how they are experts at blocking change! The exercise confronts the fact that their expertise at planning, even action planning, lies at the foundation of their problems and, in so doing, creates an opportunity for them to move forward on their current project in a different way.”

 

Organisational Learning and Development

 

Learning Activity

 

 

To cement your understanding of 'the medium as the message' (the living metaphor) you are now asked to consider, in this hypothetical exercise, the difficulties encountered by sight-impaired students of a (fictitious) community college who are constantly chasing Brailled, voice-activated, large-printed, and other special materials to use in their classes, and who are being frustrated by what some consider to be unsatisfactory working practices of their Student Support Services Department, which has been designated to support them. Suffice to say that : 

 

1)         Busy college tutors often respond too late to advance requests for teaching materials for Brailling, etc, despite their best efforts. Also, perhaps through ignorance of the rules, too often they still provide hard copy only, rather than the preferred medium of items emailed direct to students and/or Student Support Services Department on disk, which can, if necessary, be Brailled very quickly. 

 

2)         Student Support Services Department staff often under much pressure also, often take too long to turn around materials for students, whether received in good time for the course start or not. This can be due to lack of full-time staff in the department to carry out the necessary functions and/or inadequate or insufficient equipment, despite requests for increased funding. 

 

3)         Support staff, within the various departments, designated to monitor these students, can be caught up, on occasion, in the problems by not reminding teaching staff of their duty to these students requiring special materials etc, and/or by not making enough effort to make themselves known - and therefore, helpful - to key department personnel and sight-impaired students. 
 

What kind of approaches might the college take in order to jolt tutors, support staff, etc, into sharpening up their act for the students?  Read through Gareth Morgan’s examples set out earlier, and : 

 

q        Brainstorm onto paper some appropriate living metaphor approaches to any or all of the above aspects of the student services problem;

 

q        What ingenious tricks can you come up with that might more likely create permanent change in this slightly dysfunctional field?

 

q        There may be just one LIVING METAPHOR approach that you can think of that might solve all three aspects of the situation above

 

q        Or different approaches for the three aspects of the problem – the sometimes inadequate support for these students

q        Prepare a rough outline of the results of your brainstorming for discussion at your plenary session with your tutor

 
  

In preparation for your Learning Unit 16, Case Study No. 3, please read Creative Values and Creative Visions, in Teams at Work by Michael A West, in your accompanying Module Reading Notes. 

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 16

 

 

Case Study  ~  No. 3

 
 
 

 You were asked to read, in your accompanying Module Reading Notes,  Creative Values and Creative Visions in Teams at Work by Michael A West (in Ford and Gioia, 1995) before attending this class. 
  

In the next few Learning Units, you will be encouraged to consider the art of creativity and innovation within company individuals and practices. 

One suggestion made later is that creativity in organisations is associated with uncertainty, ambiguity, conflict and risk. 

Having read the article, discuss these four aspects within the context of organisational life: 
 

-  Uncertainty

-  Ambiguity

-  Conflict

-  Risk 
 

and review your ideas with your tutor. 
 
 
 
 Organisational  Learning  &  Development 

Learning Unit 17

 

Review of the Module Investigative Research

Research Interview Two 
 

 

Students should now be reviewing their collected research data for the second essay assessment of the Module. At this stage in the learning programme it is considered appropriate to commence preparation for the writing of the essay, in order to provide sufficient opportunity to develop an appropriate, well-rounded, well-referenced response to the essay topic by Week 25.  [Please note carefully that an understanding of organisational learning principles applied in practical situations is a component of this essay.]   

INTERVIEW WITH YOUR TUTOR 

At this compulsory second interview, review with your tutor your developing research, and plan and execute any further research work agreed between you. 
 

A REMINDER   ~  Points to note for the research (if not yet completed): 

 

q        Seek permission from appropriate company personnel in order to complete your research.

 

q        Observation may be useful, again seek permission

 

q        Ensure people and processes observed/questioned are appropriate to your essay topic

 

q        Make sure you are clear about the kind of questions you need to ask

 

q        There is no need to seek clearance of any research instruments you administer (it is assumed that you are fully conversant with such research principles at this stage in your learning programme - you are assessed on these elsewhere in course programme)

 

q        Try not to overburden those you interview/observe - good planning should result in short/sharp bursts of research

 

q        Clear the way for one research session only if you can, then you are more likely to be allowed good access

 

q        At the close of your research effort, produce appropriate notes as resource material for your essay

 

Students may approach the Module Leader at any point in the research for clarification, support, etc.

Organisational Learning and Development

 Learning Activity 

(1)        Proceed with your organisational learning research.

Where there is a shortfall, plan and carry out further research work, as

appropriate. 

 (2)        Read your essay question, making early research and planning for your

            answer. 
 

 Note:       There are  essay-writing  notes at the end of the learning programme 

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 18                                                               [Business Basics : BPP Publishing,97]

 

Organisational learning

~  The innovative approach 
 

 

Previously, in this Module, you should have built up a sound understanding of the  learning organisation concept, viewed from a range of key authors’ perspectives, taken from their own texts and from the Managing Learning (1997) background reading. You now continue with reviewing aspects of complementary theory which will broaden further your perspective on the subject. These will include creative/innovative approaches – the subject of this Learning Unit and the next. 

 

Background reading for this Learning Unit should be taken from Chapter 12 (Innovation, Creativity and the Learning Organisation), in Business Basics : Organisational Behaviour (1997), and/or from the sample taken from this Chapter 12 in your accompanying Module Reading Notes. 
 

  

Much has been written about the increasing need for innovation if organisations are to survive in a fast-moving competitive environment. The major oil company, Shell (Royal Dutch/Shell), following their 1983 survey of the lifetime of firms, estimated that the average lifetime of the largest industrial enterprises is less than forty years. In most organisations that fail, there is abundant evidence in advance that the organisation is in trouble. This evidence often goes unheeded, however, even when individual managers are aware of it. The organisation as a whole cannot recognise impending threats, understand the implications of those threats, or come up with alternatives. 

 

Innovation, adaptability and flexibility of response are critical ingredients for organisational survival; they are equally relevant necessities for the company’s individuals. For both organisations and people, continuous learning is a precondition for prosperity, not only to keep up with change but also, preferably, to move ahead of it. Against this background, the concept of ‘the learning organisation’ makes sense, even if the expression is confusing because, by themselves, organisations cannot learn. But people can learn - and in so doing, they can transform the world around them. 

 

People at work have to both learn and be innovative in order to provide solutions to problems caused by their changing work environment. Peter Senge (5th Discipline) calls it adaptive and generative learning - adaptive learning is about coping with the situation, adapting and responding positively to the changes; generative learning is about being creative, about expanding one’s ability and actively looking for new solutions, whether as an individual or as an organisation. 

 

In order to understand the essential role of both ‘learning’ and ‘innovation’, and to be able to appreciate the underlying philosophy behind the development of a learning organisation, this Learning Unit looks at assessing the factors which encourage creativity within organisations.

 Innovation and Learning

 Very few organisations operate in a static environment. Today many organisation environments are turbulent and changing and require innovative responses. Tom Peters’ (1992) view is that constant innovation is the answer to organisational success. This is very easy to say, but not so easy to achieve in practice. After all, there is such a range of sectors in business, and such a lot of activity, that it might be seen as impossible to achieve constant innovation. However, the important point to note, here, is that whatever the organisation, innovation can occur anywhere in its everyday life. 

 

Think for a moment about this ……… presumably, constant innovation requires a constant flow of ideas  -  Where do they come from?  From management?  From an innovation ‘pool’?  From anyone?   -  The answer is, surely, that innovation can affect any aspect of an organisation’s activities, and so, too, can the ideas which drive it come from any part of the organisation and, presumably, from any member of it. 

 

If you consider that being innovative is about ensuring an organisation’s success and survival in a fast-changing world, you may agree with BPP Publishing’s advantages of innovative approaches at work: 

 

q        improvements in quality of product and service

q        less management/administration layers, specialist support reduced – a leaner structure

q        prompt and imaginative solutions to problems – using project teams

q        a less formal structure and style – so, better communication

q        greater confidence inside and outside the organisation in its ability to cope with change

 

Perhaps, then, this is where greater delegation of tasks, and more personal authority can allow subordinates to ‘have their head’ and act more creatively, come up with new ideas. It is suggested in this Unit’s text that “in itself, delegation has great value – morale and performance are improved, top management is freed for strategic planning, and decisions are made by those ‘on the ground’ and therefore more ‘in the know’. Most importantly, the organisation benefits from the imagination and thinking of its high flyers”. 

 

You may disagree somewhat here, for involving all an organisation’s staff in initiative-taking amidst constant change might be tantamount to anarchy and chaos!  There is a need, then, to be innovative – in order to deal with a chaotic environment – whilst retaining appropriate control over employees, giving them and their managers parameters within which discretion can be exercised, and ensuring that accountability for one’s actions is clear. 

 

There are considered to be two common mistakes that are made when viewing acts of innovation and creativity   -   (1) that such acts can be achieved only by special people, and (2) that there are only certain kinds of situations where innovation and creative thinking are appropriate. These narrow viewpoints should be dispelled and it might help to look at the categories these ‘problems’ (some might say ‘opportunities’) fall into: 

 

q        Insight (‘Aha’) problems   ~   they turn out to have unexpected answers which may be discovered by a ‘Eureka’ experience – therefore, not one correct response to these puzzles (check out De Bono’s lateral approach to problem-solving)

q        Wicked problems   ~   here, the supposed solution cannot be proved until it has actually been implemented. Requires courage, creativity as intuition and follow-up creativity to solve the unexpected difficulties of implementation. People who need logical proof before acting will try to avoid wicked problems, but will never achieve significant innovation.

q        Vicious problems   ~   when conventional remedies are applied, they turn out to produce ‘solutions’ which in turn create even bigger problems than were there in the first place. Opportunities for creativity and innovation hinge on looking beyond the obvious for solutions with less vicious consequences.

q        Fuzzy problems   ~  situations with unclear boundaries which make them difficult to resolve by the use of logical or analytical approaches.

 

 You might find it useful, here, to check out point 2 from Chapter 12 of Innovation, Creativity and the Learning Organisation, where patterns of innovation and creativity amongst successful large organisations are suggested and explored, including:  Atmosphere & vision; orientation to the market; small, flat hierarchies; development shoot-outs; and interactive learning.

Creativity and Innovation 

Creative ideas can come from anywhere and at any time :  

q        Innovation requires creativity – establish a climate in which free expression of abilities is allowed for both individuals and groups

q        Creative ideas must then be rationally analysed – in cold water thought sessions – to decide whether they provide a viable, commercial proposition

q        An organisational system must exist whereby a viable creative idea is converted into action through effective control procedures.

 

Your Unit text quotes from Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s book ‘When Giants learn to Dance’ (1990), where she is critical of excessively authoritarian and non-participative management on the grounds that it stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. In particular, her 'Rules for stifling innovation’ give an excellent critique of ‘management by terror’ : 

 

q        Regard any new idea from below with suspicion

q        Insist that people who need your approval first go through several other levels of management

q        Get departments/individuals to challenge each other’s proposals

q        Express criticism freely, withhold praise, instil job insecurity

q        Treat identification of problems as signs of failure

q        Control everything carefully. Count everything in sight – frequently

q        Make decisions in secret, and spring them on people

q        Do not hand out information to managers freely

q        Get lower-level managers to implement your threatening decisions

q        Above all, never forget that you, the higher-ups, already know everything important about the business

 

These may seem a joke, but in reality they are responsible for much frustration, marginalising, victimisation, stress and unease in many organisations today coping under added pressure for change, speed of delivery and quality standards.  

Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s shaking out of ideas on dealing with the stifling of innovation at work, now suggests some of the impossible or incompatible demands made at work in order to achieve improved performance and excellence through innovation. Take careful note of them :

 

Demands made of Managers

 

q        be entrepreneurial & risk taking     BUT     don’t lose money

q        invest in the future`                       BUT     keep profitable now

q        do everything you’re doing now       BUT      spend more time communicating,

q        but even better                                          on teams & new projects

q        lead and direct                              BUT     participate, listen, co-operate

q        know everything about your            BUT     delegate more

      business

q        work all hours                                BUT     keep fit

q        be single-minded in your                 BUT     be flexible & responsive

q        commitment to ideas 

Demands made of Organisations

 

q        be ‘lean and mean’                          BUT      be a good employer

q        be creative and innovative              BUT     'stick to the knitting’

q        decentralise to small, simple           BUT     centralise to be efficient and

autonomous units    I                                  integrative

q        have a sense of urgency                 BUT     deliberately plan for the future

 

Again, Moss Kanter is presenting a light-hearted approach in reviewing these impossible demands, but here she does at least provide a more balanced one. The important point is that she has emphasised greatly the significant difficulties that might be overcome by a little more creative thinking ……… check this out in your next Learning Unit.

Organisational  Learning  &  Development 

Learning Activity 

 

ACTIVITY 1

 

Drawing upon past or present work experiences, newspaper research, etc, discuss and present two examples to illustrate typical organisational problems (remember: insight, wicked, vicious, fuzzy problems).

 

 

ACTIVITY 2

 

~   Having read through Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s ten so-called ‘rules for stifling innovation’ above, discuss and prepare a short paragraph on any instances of such stifling that you have experienced at work, or that you have researched in literature, on TV or in the newspapers. 

~   Produce a list of ‘rules for promoting innovation’, bearing in mind the points that have been made above, and perhaps drawing on your own experiences. To help you get started, ask yourself how far do organisations you have researched/worked in exhibit any of the more positive features connected with innovation and creativity?

 

ACTIVITY 3

 

~  Take a good look at the above list of barriers or obstacles to innovation and creative-thinking.  

 

To show your understanding, write down a critique of your own creativity or lack of it !  Or you might like to do the same for someone within your acquaintance or knowledge, say, a colleague at work, a student friend, a politician, a journalist, a person you have read about in a newspaper or journal, a businessman, etc. 

 

Essentially, you are aiming at setting down some positive steps that you, and/or your chosen target, might take in order to increase your/their own personal creative powers. 
  

 Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 19                                        [Business Basics : BPP Publishing,97

                                                                                                                                        King & Anderson,95]

 

 

Organisational Learning

~  Developing a creative approach

 

 In the last Learning Unit you were introduced to various aspects of coping with problems associated with change in the workplace. Whilst innovatory solutions were given, you were also alerted to the lack of creative approaches towards problem solving facing employees within modern organisation environments. This Learning Unit extends your understanding a little further, by looking more closely at how such creative approaches might be made. 

 To consolidate your understanding of this Unit, please read from your Unit texts: Chapter 12 of Business Basics, 1997, and Chapter 2 of King & Anderson, 1995, and/or the sample taken from these Chapters in your accompanying Module Reading Notes.

 

                             

Creative Thinking 

Theorists and practitioners alike often agree that adding a creative approach is one of the most significant ways forward in the quest for effective organisational learning. Having now looked at some of the conditions needed if creative thinking and innovation are to flourish in the work environment, you might like to consider what the individuals within these environments have to face up to, and overcome, in making such ‘creative’ steps.  What, therefore, might be the typical obstacles to creativity?  

In Business Basics (1997) they are seen as:  

q       Experience and habit Relying on past-experience and ‘ready-made’ solutions, even if they were successful in the past, may not be the best way to solve today’s problems

q       Over-motivation and over-exertion Too much pressure leads to few new ideas being put forward

q       Lack of positive outlook Often a solution/answer comes from ‘it can be done’ mindsets, rather than ‘it can’t’

q       Premature evaluation of possible solutions Dismissing own ideas as obviously inadequate, or not expressing an idea for fear of criticism

q       Excessive reliance on so-called expert advice Dangerous to take too much account of experts (remember: experts proclaimed Titanic unsinkable)

q       Generalised resistance to new ideas 'It would never work’, ‘why change something when it’s working okay?’

q       'Whole-brain’ v. ‘right hemisphere’ thinking The verbal, logical left hemisphere of the brain being less visual, intuitive and creative than the picture-processing right hemisphere? OR both hemispheres working together for creativity? The debate goes on

q       Mind sets generating stuckness Mind sets stuck when things have changed but everything continues to look the same. Incorrect assumptions and accepting similarities with the past can lead to error (eg pilots who, through familiarity, fail to notice when dials show abnormal readings)

q       Scientists’ & engineers’ intellectual backgrounds – own worst enemies They blot out others’ fanciful excursions, or things that seem silly or irrational, failing to realise that these often lead down new alleyways that may culminate in creative new solutions.

 

Enhancing creativity at work

 King & Anderson (1995), in their critical approach to the psychology of innovation and change at work, say: 

“The starting point for any innovation is an idea. It may be a brilliant new invention, or a recognition that something tried and trusted in one context can be usefully transposed into a new and different setting. It may be the result of one individual working alone, or of several people working together”. 

According to King & Anderson, people are seen as creative to the extent that they demonstrate certain abilities, achievements and/or personality traits. Scientists, artists, architects and R&D personnel all rise to the top of any list of those seen to be particularly creative. But what about all the rest?  Is the creative person just someone who shows a strong disposition towards originality; and the creative outcome something that is perceptible to people other than its creator? And what about the response to the creative action? Responses may vary widely from person to person and they may change over time. What at first may have seemed a brilliant idea may after a short period of reflection appear flawed or inappropriate. 

So it is, therefore, difficult to measure the effects of particular creative acts, and often organisations concentrate their measurement on characteristics of the creative person, the creative process and the creative product. 
 

For a more in-depth understanding of these creative aspects, read  Chapter 2 of Innovation and Change in Organisations (1995) by King and Anderson, Routledge

Strategies for enhancing Creativity 

King & Anderson (1995) say “creativity enhancement is no miracle cure for organisational ills, but used intelligently it can be a way of loading the dice in an organisation’s favour”.  Stimulating the creative performance of its members can enhance the company’s creativity, so might not the following strategies be employed? 

q       Brainstorming (idea elicitation)  ~  introducing procedures to encourage the generation of new ideas. In other words, idea elicitation techniques which enable individuals at work to generate more and better new ideas to tackle particular problems or meet particular challenges. Take note though – the main intention is not to make people generally more creative in all aspects of their work, but rather to provide them with a tool to be used in specific situations.

 

Synectics (see Ch. 2, King & Anderson) is one way of utilising the brainstorming technique. Here, when faced with a problem, the individual needs to make connections between the unfamiliar situation and his/her own experience, skills and knowledge in order to understand clearly the nature of the task facing them. Creative? Not yet. What the problem-solver must also do is look at the problem from as many different perspectives as possible in order to find a genuinely novel yet relevant viewpoint on which to base a solution.  

Synectics group leaders encourage participants to use various types of analogy and metaphor to identify the underlying concepts of a problem (remember Gareth Morgan on metaphor …… ?) and to address the problem from new directions. King & Anderson cite Evans’ (1991) analogy of the properties of wet leaves in solving the problem of how to pack Pringles crisps; and Howard’s (1987) machine gun belt, in the development of a soluble tape used to ensure seeds are evenly spaced across a field; and Gordon’s (1961) Indian Rope Trick, in the development of a hydraulic jack ………… think about it. 

 

q       Creativity training  ~  in the skills required for successful creative performance. Of course, there must be some overlap with brainstorming/idea generation techniques, because most creativity training programmes would focus on some of these. But with regard to organisational learning  - our main interest here - training programmes with a wider effect, intending to make organisational members more creative in their whole approach to their work, are of greater interest.

 

Here, two aspects are covered in the group sessions – idea generation and evaluation. Usually 2-day sessions, they emphasise a whole-process approach,  applying the skills being taught to real-world problems. Generally, the results of these sessions indicate that people are better at the evaluation side of things than actual idea generation.   

King & Anderson suggest that  “until there have been more long-term evaluation studies which focus on the transfer of creativity skills to real work performance, the effectiveness of creativity training in organisations remains uncertain.” And they further suggest that a series of regular training sessions, rather than just one, promoting motivation, self-image and colleague-support, as well as idea generation and evaluation, are most likely to succeed. The follow-up sessions, where people review how well they have been able to use what they have learnt in the initial course, and considering ways to overcome obstacles to creativity that they have encountered are more likely to bring about some kind of organisational change/learning.  

q       Selection & assessment processes  ~  which recruit creative individuals, allocating them to positions appropriate to their level/type of creativity. Also, existing members of the company are placed in jobs which enable them to fulfil their creative potential. Using various techniques and instruments, a company may examine whether an employee’s personality or biographical characteristics match those considered to be associated with creativity. Their creative thinking skills and the quality of their creative products may also be assessed. In the process, the company may employ personality testing, biographical inventories, creative-thinking tests, etc.

 

King & Anderson stress the importance of also examining creative motivation as part of the selection and assessment process, as they say “there are times when past creative behaviour does not predict potential well; most of us can think of examples of organisational members who were promoted on the basis of an apparently creative track record, but having reached their desired position of seniority, very soon became anything but creative”.  

q       Changing the company characteristics  ~  such as structure, climate and culture, in order to facilitate creativity. Strategies for promoting creativity in an organisation, however well implemented, may fail to have any significant effect if features of the organisation itself actually inhibit creativity. These inhibiting features include authoritarian leadership, routine jobs, steep hierarchical structures and over-bureaucratic cultures, all of which restrict people’s freedom to work in the way that best suits them (remember Pearn et al on this). This could result in them being less likely to be motivated by enjoyment of the job itself, and more likely that they will find motivation in material rewards.

 

In other words, extrinsic motivation is less conducive to creativity than intrinsic motivation, inhibiting free flow of ideas within and between organisations and limiting possible sources of creative stimulation. Good ideas, also, may never reach those who have the power to authorise their implementation. Notice the link between motivation and communication? King & Anderson say “if creative ideas repeatedly achieve nothing because of poor communication, the motivation of organisational members to continue to be creative is likely to be reduced”.

      What say Argyris & Schon on this …… ?? 

 King & Anderson have provided some useful food for thought here, not least this list of organisational characteristics which they say are widely said to influence individual creative performance : 

Leadership   ~   Democratic, participative styles facilitate creativity; authoritarian styles inhibit it

Job characteristics   ~   Discretion is positively associated with creativity

Structure   ~   Strongly hierarchical structures inhibit creativity; flat structures with permeable boundaries between subdivisions facilitate it

Climate   ~   Creativity is encouraged by climates which are playful about ideas, supportive of risk taking, challenging and tolerant of vigorous debate

Culture   ~   Creativity is impeded by cultures which emphasise formal rules, respect for traditional ways of doing things, and clearly demarcated roles. 
  

 

To sum up (with reference to King & Anderson)  ~ 

 

This Learning Unit started off by acknowledging that adding a creative approach is one of the most significant ways forward in the quest for effective organisational learning. King & Anderson (1995) have been researched extensively here in this regard and have pointed out that organisations have a wide range of strategies and techniques available to them when attempting to enhance the creativity of their employees. They point out that it is the managers who must decide which best fits their needs and resources; and idea generation techniques – which do not require extensive training – that are probably the cheapest option and reap the quickest benefits. 

 

Project development teams are likely to improve their effectiveness via these techniques but are unlikely to have a pervasive effect on creative performance in the wider organisation. Longer-term strategies (with larger resource investment) of creativity training, and selecting and assessing for creativity, are probably needed. And combining idea generation, with training, with selection/assessment and with culture change is best suited to a successful ‘creativity’ outcome. 

The barriers to adoption of creativity enhancement techniques should be acknowledged, though, and of course the main one is that their benefits are not easily predictable. After all, evaluation studies on the outcomes that matter to organisations are few, and creativity itself is essentially unpredictable, being influenced by so many things not within the direct control of management. Are the strategies worth the risk? – they might ask – bearing in mind the disruption, wasted resources and possible demoralising failure? But as we know, and which we will debate soon, for managers “the greater risk is in NOT responding creatively to the threats and opportunities of a rapidly changing environment. Creativity enhancement is no miracle cure for organisational ills, but used intelligently it can be a way of loading the dice in an organisation’s favour”. 
 

In addition to the good points made in this and the last Learning Unit, on creativity and innovation, this final passage is a particularly good one to hold on to, as you focus on your final assessment work. Check out the last sentence, and go forward with confidence.

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 Learning Activity

 

 

In a chapter on 'managing creativity’ in the text Creative Action in Organisations (Ford & Gioia, 1995), Richard W Woodman (Clayton Professor of Business Administration and Professor of Management Texas A & M University) said:

 

"I have no wish to oversimplify the complex mosaic of forces at play in work settings that impact creative behaviours, processes, and outcomes. We cannot directly manage creativity because we really do not directly manage either creative persons or processes. Indeed, to attempt to do so is likely to be counterproductive. What we can manage is aspects of the situation that impact creative behaviour and outcomes. The high-payoff strategy is to understand and identify contextual aspects that evoke and nurture creative acts.”

 

Think carefully about this last sentence and proceed as follows:

 

 

 

q       Seen any people busy at work in TV programmes lately? Any of your office scenarios come to mind? Heard any gossip from members of your family, friends, etc, about the goings-on at work?

 

q       Recalling any of these, discuss what you think Richard Woodman means by ‘understanding and identifying contextual aspects that evoke and nurture creative acts’.

 

q       In other words, what situations in the workplace, and maybe which kind of personnel do you think will best bring about new, innovative, creative approaches and activities?

 

q       Bear in mind, perhaps, some of the earlier readings you have made in this learning programme so far, say, for instance, Argyris’ and Schon’s ideas on spreading learning beyond your immediate work environment to the wider organisation and beyond ……… Or perhaps Morgan’s metaphorical approaches ………  and that’s just for starters.

 

q       Produce an A4 sheet to introduce your ideas on how ‘creativity’ might be fostered in the organisation. And be radical, if you wish, that’s what being creative is all about, it’s thinking ‘outside the box’ - beyond the usual to the unusual, it’s finding different solutions from the usual ones to endemic problems, it’s perhaps joining forces with others to tease out new, exciting, creative, productive initiatives.

 
 
 

 

~   In preparation for your Learning Unit 20, Case Study No. 4, please read

        Creativity Held Hostage, by Pedro Cuatrecasas, in Ford and Gioia (ed)(1995) in

        your accompanying Module Reading Notes.  

 

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

Learning Unit 20

 

Case Study  ~  No. 4

 Having reviewed the following article in your accompanying Module Reading Notes, prior to attending this class, proceed as follows:- 

 

 

In this item, Creativity Held Hostage, by Pedro Cuatrecasas, President of Pharmaceutical Research, Parke-Davis (from Ford and Gioia (ed) (1995), he suggests that: 

 

"Corporations tend to be authoritarian institutions run by a few people with enormous power who are survivors and products of the ‘system’. They are thus not likely to be sensitive to its weaknesses, but rather committed to its preservation. They will simply do the same, but more of it, and faster and better. Creativity stifling systems are thus perpetuated. 

 

“There are a number of widely embraced business practices that underscore the fundamentally anti-creative nature of most organisations. For example, the popular benchmarking asks people to copy what others are doing not to come up with their own unique ways of doing things. 

 

"Many corporations have ‘special programmes’ to promote creativity. This is, of course, an admission that creativity does not, or cannot, exist under normal conditions. For programmes to work they must become part of the way of life or culture.” 
 

 

Having read this article, as a  whole group, or as  small groups bringing collected ideas together later,  discuss the following :- 

Is there hope for creative life at work ? 

 

-  What are those factors that seem to mean that creativity in the workplace is not

   possible? 

 

-  How might some of the barriers that suppress the creative drive be removed? 

 

-  What kind of systems might then be established;      and 

 

-  What kind of relationships might be encouraged that stimulate self-driven,

   genuinely challenging opportunities for people, allowing their natural creativity to

   emerge?
 
  

 

q       In preparation for your Learning Unit 21, Case Study No. 5, please read Ageing and the Training and Learning Process, by Sterns and Doverspike, in Goldstein (ed) (1980), in your accompanying Module Reading Notes.
  

 

Organisational  Learning  &  Development

 

Learning Unit 21

Case Study  ~  No. 5

 

You were required to read Ageing and the Training and Learning Process by Sterns and Doverspike, in Goldstein (ed) 1989, in preparation for this Learning Unit, in your accompanying Module Reading Notes. 
 

Whilst this rather long chapter from Training and Development in Organisations is an organisational psychology text, and not the easiest of reads, it does provide some very good points on ageing and the training and learning process. At this point in your learning programme you should be able to find time to consider its contents. 

 

So study this chapter well and consider some key points relating to the development of older personnel at work. The chapter actually talks about training of older people in general, but you are required to look at it from the perspective of those still enjoying life in the workplace. And it is useful as a trigger for your further investigation of the value and use of the older and younger workers within the context of a learning organisation. 
 
 

 

~   When you have brought your points together as a group, discuss and produce an overall briefing memo on ageing and the learning process to be directed at a hypothetical HR Director. 

 

~  Try to produce a document that makes an effective comparison of older and younger workers (does this article help you? Does it help or hinder the older workers’ cause?) 

 

~   Remember that you are engaged in understanding organisational learning, here, so try to refer to appropriate aspects wherever you can. 
 

 here are a number of thought-provoking points made throughout this article, some of which are given here to ‘get you started’ (with which you may agree or disagree, at this stage in your learning) : 
 

q       This is an item from late 1980s research and perhaps you consider that it is out of date. If it is out of date, why?

 

q       Should older workers’ extensive experience and knowledge be more exploited?

 

q       The point is made that we need to have a better understanding of the motivations of older learners

 

q       Is the idea that there is an optimal point in the lifespan for acquiring information really no longer acceptable

 

q       Should care be taken to :

 

-  understand the attitude of the individual?

-  provide a positive situation for the learners?

-  ensure they are feeling good about engaging in new training activities?

-  check whether they are afraid of failure? 

 

q       Very often different speeds of learning and information acquisition WITHIN age groups are greater than differences BETWEEN age groups

 

q       Experience may compensate for age-related changes

 

q       Older managers continue to perform well even while they show age-related cognitive change

 

q       It is indicated that being old may not be the reason for one’s being a poor learner

 
 
 Organisational  Learning  &  Development

Essay Writing

 

Writing an essay is different in a number of respects from writing a report, with which you are a little more familiar. It will help if you take a look at the relevant section in your Study Guide to help you with your essay development. 

Here, a few hints and tips are given to which you can refer from time to time: 
  

 

 

q        Do not write in point form

 

q        Do not use headings or sub-headings

 

q        Do not abbreviate your words

 

q        Do not highlight or bullet your text

 

q        Stick to the word limit

 

q        Do not plagiarise others’ work – heavy penalty

 

q        Try to use common essay terms (see your Study Guide)

 

q        No appendix (apart from inclusion of your research notes with Assessment 2)

 

q        Write in the ‘third person’ (that is, do not use a personal format, use of ‘I’, ‘we’, etc is not appropriate)

 

q        Answer the question !

 

*   Study the essay question carefully

*   What is the tutor looking for? 

 

q        Plan carefully before starting

 

q        Be critical in your response - analytical and objective in your discussion

 

q        Define terms and concepts well (provides evidence of understanding)

 

q        Reference ALL the texts you have read appropriately

 
 

Structure: 
 

 

q        Write an introduction that outlines clearly what is about to be discussed. This is normally a relatively short section.

 

q        Discuss fully, in the main body of the essay, the key aspects of your essay topic, ensuring that you show understanding of appropriate concepts by being analytical and objective, and by making sound reference to experience, where applicable.

 

q        You should also take care to ensure that any texts used are referenced correctly, and an appropriate and comprehensive bibliography provided (Harvard, for example).  You may refer to module texts as you think fit, and also other sources, in order to provide good support for your discussion/argument. These will include books, journals, etc, located at your learning resource facility, on-line journals, and appropriate Internet sites.

 

q        Ensure that all quoted works are grounded in sound research/publication, taking particular care to avoid poorly-supported Internet sites, reference to which is highly inappropriate. If in doubt, consult your module tutor, in order to avoid any penalty or non-marking of your work.

 

q        Your conclusion should sum up key points from your main discussion and attempt to round things off succinctly. This section is, normally, a relatively short one.