Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2001
Vivienne Collinson, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
736 Bedford
Grosse Pointe Park
Michigan, U.S.A. 48230-1803
Tanya Fedoruk Cook, M.A.
Bethesda, MD, U.S.A.
Sharon Conley, Ph.D.
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA, U.S.A.
Organizational Learning: Theory and Applications
For Schools and School Systems
Organizational learning has enjoyed a recent revival despite little consensus about its meaning or nature. It has also been “conceived of as a principal means of achieving the strategic renewal” of organizations, including schools (Crossan et al., 1999, p. 522). This conceptual paper responds to two questions: What is organizational learning? and How would we recognize it if we saw it? The paper is informed by theoretical, conceptual, and empirical work from several bodies of literature. The first part presents four major theories of organizational learning, several merging perspectives, and democratic principles that support organizational learning. The second part describes three interrelated indicators of organizational learning: learning through inquiry, sharing, and organizational conditions. Examples from empirical research illustrate and indicate how the three constructs interact in schools and school systems. The paper closes with a section on complexities and dilemmas involving organizational learning. The paper indicates that visible behaviors or indicators in isolation can be misleading and posits that the beliefs, attitudes, and values associated with the three indicators both enhance organizational learning and also generate continual organizational renewal.
Organizational Learning: Theory and Applications
For Schools and School Systems
Vivienne Collinson, Tanya Fedoruk Cook, & Sharon Conley
The concept of organizational learning1 has enjoyed revived interest in both academia and the business world. Although the term is more than 35 years old (see Cangelosi & Dill, 1965; March & Simon, 1958), numerous different definitions of organizational learning exist and “little convergence or consensus on what is meant by the term, or its basic nature, has emerged” (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999, p. 522).2 Because researchers tend to focus on different aspects of this complex phenomenon, results are generally neither comprehensive nor cumulative (Huber, 1991).
Much of the empirical research on organizational learning has involved business and industry, not schools and school systems. However, interest in examining organizational learning in schools is increasing (Leithwood, Leonard, & Sharratt, 1998; Rait, 1995). Although schools have typically structured learning only as an individual endeavor, envisioning schools as enterprises where organizational learning takes place is not difficult. Schools “continue to face a steady stream of novel problems and ambitious demands.…[that] most certainly will generate considerable pressure to learn new and more effective ways of doing business” (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1995, pp. 3-4). The search to understand learning processes in schools is particularly important given the growing conviction that schools cannot simply adopt the actions of successful models but must develop their own paths of learning and transformation within their existing organizational cultures.
This jointly-authored paper on organizational learning grew out of our individual research interests and our personal work experiences. Each of us has worked in several types of organizations—private and/or public, profit and/or non-profit, business and/or education. Some of these organizations promoted learning and inspired our willing commitment and participation. Others had an established status quo where individual and collective learning and working was difficult at best. “What is organizational learning,” we wondered, “and how would we recognize it if we saw it?” This paper explores those questions by synthesizing theoretical, conceptual, and empirical work from several bodies of literature. We begin the paper by briefly introducing four major theories of organizational learning and illustrating them with applications within business and general organizational settings. We also discuss several merging perspectives and frequently cited ideas within organizational learning, followed by democratic principles that support organizational learning (Gardner, 1963/1981). The second half of the paper describes three interrelated indicators of organizational learning: learning through inquiry, sharing, and organizational conditions. Examples from empirical research indicate how the constructs interact in schools and school systems. The paper closes with a section on complexities and dilemmas involving organizational learning.
Theories of Organizational Learning
A variety of theoretical perspectives have emerged since the 1960s (Shrivastava, 1983). In this section of the paper, several major concepts embodied in the work of Argyris and Schon (1978), Daft and Weick (1984), Fiol and Lyles (1985), and Levitt and March (1988)3 are compared (see Table 1) and briefly described.
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Argyris and Schon
Argyris and Schon have written about organizational learning individually and in combination for more than 30 years. They tied the concept of organizational learning to Dewey’s (1933/1960) conception of inquiry in which thought and action are viewed as intertwined to move from a state of doubt or confusion to a resolution of doubt. Two of Argyris and Schon’s most influential ideas are those of theories-of-action/theories-in-use and single- and double-loop learning.
According to Argyris and Schon (1996), theories of action are the routines and practices that embody knowledge. They are theories about the link between actions and outcomes, and they include strategies for action, values that determine the choice among strategies, and the assumptions upon which strategies are based. The practices of every organization reflect the organization’s answers to a set of questions; in other words, a set of theories of action. For example, a university embodies in its practices particular answers to questions of how to attract, retain, and educate students. The particular set of both questions and answers (e.g., to retain students by offering financial aid) are the university’s theories in action.
Theories of action, according to Argyris and Schon, take two distinct forms. Espoused theories of action are those provided to explain or justify a pattern of activity or a way of doing things. Theories-in-use are the theories of action that are implicit in the way things are done. Organizational theories-in-use result from sharing assumptions and cognitive maps among organizational members. The authors define organizational learning as a process of individual and collective inquiry which constructs and modifies organizational theories-in-use.
Learning involves changes in these theories either by refining them (single-loop learning) or by questioning underlying assumptions, norms, or strategies so that new theories-in-use emerge (double-loop learning). Single-loop learning occurs within the prevailing organizational frames of reference. It is “concerned primarily with effectiveness—that is, with how best to achieve existing goals and objectives and how best to keep organizational performance within the range specified by existing norms” (Argyris & Schon, 1978, p. 21). Double-loop learning changes organizational frames of reference (Argyris & Schon, 1996). It resolves “incompatible organizational norms by setting new priorities and weightings of norms, or by restructuring the norms themselves together with associated strategies and assumptions” (Argyris & Schon, 1978, p. 24, emphasis in original). “Single-loop learning is usually related to the routine, immediate task. Double-loop learning is related to the nonroutine, the long-range outcome” (Argyris, 1983, p. 116). The difference is like the difference between becoming increasingly proficient in using a particular software program (single-loop learning) or choosing between software programs (double-loop learning).
Daft and Weick
The second set of theorists are Daft and Weick whose 1984 article on organizations as interpretation systems is one of the most widely cited sources on organizational learning (Crossan & Guatto, 1996). Their view of organizations as interpretation systems highlights the idea that organizational members try to interpret what they have done, define what they have learned, and solve the problem of what to do next. Daft and Weick (1984) maintain that although “organizations do not have mechanisms separate from individuals to set goals, process information, or perceive the environment,” the organizational interpretation process is more than the sum of what occurs individually (p. 285).
A distinctive feature of organizational interpretation is the sharing of data, perceptions, and puzzling developments that allows groups to “converge on an approximate interpretation” (p. 285). Reaching convergence among organizational members, according to Daft and Weick, enables organizations to interpret as a system. The authors view interpretation as linking data collection with action, as depicted in Figure 1. The data collected in scanning the environment are interpreted by the organization in a particular way by building shared understandings and the organization’s learning is represented through a new action or response based upon this interpretation. The actions taken in the learning stage serve as feedback to the earlier stages, providing new data for interpretation. Organizational interpretation, “the process through which information is given meaning and actions are chosen,” precedes learning (p. 294).
INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
Fiol and Lyles
Fiol and Lyles (1985), another set of theorists, brought together major organizational learning theorists in their 1985 review of the literature. According to the authors, major theorists (including Daft and Weick) generally agree that although “individual learning is important to organizations, organizational learning is not simply the sum of each member’s learning” (p. 804). Fiol and Lyles suggested that the literature discussed both behavioral and cognitive changes by an organization as constituting learning. Their review showed that there is disagreement among theorists as to whether organizational learning primarily involves behavioral change, cognitive change, or both. Behavioral change concerns actual responses, structures and/or actions. Cognitive change, by contrast, concerns new and shared understandings or “conceptual maps” of organizational members.
Based upon these two types of changes, Fiol and Lyles (1985) proposed a distinction between organizational adaptation and organizational learning. Organizational adaptation involves behavioral changes separate from cognitive changes; that is, “the ability to make incremental adjustments as a result of environmental, goal, policy, or other changes” (p. 811). This concept is similar to the concept of single-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Organizational learning, on the other hand, involves not only behavioral changes but also cognitive changes—new insights, understandings, cognitive maps, and associations between past actions, their effectiveness (in terms of desired outcomes) and future actions. This concept is associated with higher-level learning and double-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978).
Levitt and March
Finally, theorists Levitt and March (1988), in their analysis of organizational learning, placed greater emphasis on routinized behavior than on organizational inquiry and interpretation. They described organizational learning as routine-based, history-dependent, and target-oriented. Routines, broadly defined, include the rules, practices, procedures, conventions, and strategies through which organizations operate. They also include the structure of beliefs, frameworks, paradigms, cultures, and knowledge that bolsters, elaborates, and contradicts the formal routines. Routines are independent of individual organizational members and are capable of surviving considerable personnel turnover. Over time, routines are transmitted among organizational members through a variety of means including socialization, education, professionalization, imitation, and personnel movement. Routines may be based on the organization’s direct experience (e.g., history) or be imported from other organizations.
Levitt and March (1988) viewed organizational interpretation as a challenging task because it involves making difficult judgments about cause and effect on the basis of limited information within a highly complex system. They thus downplayed organizational interpretation, cautioning that it can be tainted by the ambiguity of success and/or by the organization’s frames of reference that limit how history is seen and interpreted. Success itself can be a barrier to organizational learning because successful organizations may fall into “complacency traps” where they rely almost solely on the lessons of past achievements to guide future action. Fullan (1993) captured this phenomenon in examining change processes in schools. He observed that in most educational change processes, there is an “implementation dip” when things get worse before they get better. Almost anyone who has switched from using a typewriter to a computer can attest to this. They are likely to maintain that a temporary loss of competence and/or comfort was, at least initially, a barrier to change.
Finally, Levitt and March (1988) caution that “superstitious learning” can occur when incorrect interpretations about the connections between actions and outcomes persist in their association. In education, for example, the student body of a charter school might have grown substantially ever since the school started offering an after-school sports program. Therefore, the faculty might assume that the sports program is vital to the school’s growth and must be continued or expanded despite its cost and inconvenience. In reality, the sports program may not have attracted many new students. The growth may result from marketing conducted in conjunction with the program and/or to word-of-mouth referrals from satisfied parents as the school became more established. To the students and parents choosing the charter school, the sports program may be a desirable but nonessential component whereas the faculty superstitiously connects it with continuing school growth and vitality.
Merging the Perspectives
In considering the different views of organizational learning highlighted above, several important points of agreement emerged among the different perspectives. There is considerable agreement among the above-mentioned theorists that organizational learning involves multilevel learning (individual, group, organization), that it requires inquiry, that it results in shared understandings, and that it implies behavioral and/or cognitive change.
Shrivastava (1983), however, suggests that differences are evident as well. For example, Argyris and Schon (1996) viewed organizational learning as the sharing of assumptions developed through individual and collective inquiry, whereas Levitt and March (1988; also see March & Olsen, 1976) emphasized organizational learning as adaptation to changes in the environment by adjusting strategies and structures including procedures and routines. Although there is considerable debate whether organizational learning is adaptive behavior or whether lessons learned are embodied in shared cognitive maps that guide behavior, many theorist agree that there is a difference between learning involving behavioral and cognitive change.
Multilevel Learning
“Organizational learning is multilevel.…There is a reasonable degree of consensus that a theory of organizational learning needs to consider the individual, group, and organizational levels” (Crossan et al., 1999, p. 524).4 Specifically, different theorists (e.g., Argyris & Schon, 1978, 1996; Daft & Weick, 1984; also see Huber, 1991) underscore that although insight and innovative ideas occur to individuals, not to organizations, sharing individual ideas, insights, and innovations is a key component of organizational learning. Moreover, “although individuals are the agents through whom the learning takes place, the process of learning is influenced by a much broader set of social, political, and structural variables. It involves sharing of knowledge, beliefs, or assumptions among individuals” (Shrivastava, 1983, pp. 16-17).