Organizational Learning as a feedback system: a Conceptual
Showing, Young
Department of Business
Management
National Sun Yat-sen
University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Phone:886-7-5252000
ext 4625
Fax:886-7-5252367
E-mail: young@cm.
Framework
Yi-Ming, Tu
Department of
Management
Information System
National Sun Yat-sen
University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Phone:886-7-5252000
ext 4717
Fax:886-7-5252367
E-mail:ymtu@mis.
Ya-Tsai Tseng
Department of Business
Management
National Sun Yat-sen
University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Phone:886-7-5252000
ext 4717
Fax:886-7-5252367
E-mail:d8541802@
student.nsysu.edu.tw
nsysu.edu.tw
nsysu.edu.tw
Abstract
Organizational learning is becoming a major concern to researchers and practitioners.
More and more researchers focus on how to facilitate organizational learning through
the improvement of individual learning. However, even individual learning is improved
and the learning outcomes are sustained in an organization, it is not necessary for the
organization to function better. Due to division of labor, organizations consists of tasks
by tasks. Various learning behaviors may happen at the same time and they may all
influence each other. The performance of organizational learning as a whole is more
than each division’s learning. To view organizations as systemic interlocked behaviors
and interdependent actions, this paper attempts to find out the relationships between
subunits’ actions to achieve their objectives and the performance of organizations as a
whole. Impediments and difficulties in the process of organizational learning are
discussed and suggestions are made to researchers and practitioners interested in
organizational learning for further endeavors.
1. Introduction
Organizational learning is no doubt an important concern to organizational
researchers and practitioners. However, few theories or models of organizational
learning have widespread acceptance, even the basic concept of what organizational
learning is (Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Huber, 1991, Kim, 1993). Major disputed issues are
concerned with the contents and agents of organizational learning (behavioral
changes or cognitive changes, individual learns or organization learns by itself),
connections between individual learning and organizational learning, and the
relationships between organizational learning and organization’s performance.
Following the integral definition of organizational learning by Fiol and Lyles
(1985), organizational learning is to be treated as the cognitive and behavior changes
of organizations in this paper. An organization can not learn by itself, but rather by
it’s members as agents. Several researches focus on the linkage between the
individual learning and organizational learning and on the skills to facilitate
organizational learning. However, most organizations in fact operate in the form of
division of labor, and various organizational learning processes ongoing concurrently.
The performance of organizational learning as a whole is more than the sum of each
division’s learning. Based on the basic organizational learning cycles developed
earlier (March & Olsen, 1975; Hedberg, 1981; Kim, 1993), this paper emphasizes
more on the linkage between organizational learning as a whole and various ongoing
learning cycles and processes. Each learning cycle and process is to be treated as
reorganizing feedback mechanism to achieve the task’s objectives. Organizational
learning as a whole is a feedback system of those interlocked behaviors between
various learning feedback loops. Possible impediments and difficulties in a
organizational learning feedback system are identified and suggestions are made to
researchers and practitioners interested in organizational learning for further
endeavors.
2. Review of organizational learning literatures
A number of recent research works deal with organizational learning. Fiol and
Lyles investigate related literatures to clarify the definition of organizational learning
(Fiol & Lyles, 1985). They distinguish learning from merely change without
cognitive improvement. Organizational learning is defined as the development of
insights, knowledge, and associations between past actions, the effectiveness of those
actions, and future actions. Learning accumulates, maintains, and restructures
knowledge that changes environment, and learning is the result of both adaptive and
manipulative behavior (Hedberg, 1981). Organizational learning is the process by
which knowledge about relationships between the organization and the environment
is developed and is a process of putting cognitive theories into action (Hedberg, 1981;
Argyris & Schon, 1978, Daft & Weick, 1984, Huber, 1991).
Adopting this definition of organizational learning, researchers further discuss
how an organization learns and how to facilitate organizational learning. Individuals
are the agents of organizational learning (Cyert & March, 1963). Although
organizational learning is accomplished by individuals, it would be a mistake to
conclude that organizational learning is nothing but the cumulative result of their
members’ learning (Hedberg, 1981). Kim builds a framework to link individual
learning and organizational learning together with experiential learning model (Kolb,
1979). Kim proposed several methods to improve the linkage between individual
learning and organizational learning to transfer individuals’ mental model into
organizations’ shared mental models. (Kim, 1993). Bohm stresses the potential of
dialogue to create people’s shared mental model (Bohm, 1996). Senge thinks that
individuals can learn to experience awareness of personal causal responsibility, thus
facilitate organizational learning (Senge, 1990). Argyris and Schon focus on the
development of several tools to solve these impediments. (Argyris & Schon, 1978;
Argyris, 1982; 1990). Morgan suggests five principles of holographic design from the
organizational metaphor as a brain: (a) build the “whole” into the “part” by visions,
values and culture, networked intelligence, etc; (b) importance of redundancy in
information processing and skills and the design of work; (c) requisite variety.
Internal complexity must match that of the environment; (d) minimum specs. Define
no more than is absolutely necessary; (e) learn to learn (Morgan, 1996).
Although the mechanism between individual learning and organizational learning
is being established and more and more researches contribute to the facilitation of
organizational learning cycles, the performance of organizations as a whole is not
necessarily to be better. Most organizations operate actually in the form of division of
labor and tasks are interdependent with each other. In carrying out those tasks,
various organizational learning processes may exist concurrently and each learning
process influences one another. As a result, the performance of organizational
learning as a whole is more than the sum of each division’s learning. With emphasis
on the interrelationships between various learning processes in the organization, this
paper attempts to establish an organizational learning feedback system framework to
find out the relationships between subunits’ learning processes and the performance
of the organization. The task carrying process, triggers of learning behaviors, linkage
between cognition and actions, and relationships among learning behavior in the task
reforming processes are the major components of the framework. Besides,
impediments and difficulties emerge in the organizational learning feedback system
are also identified.
3. Organizational learning feedback system
ity is factored or parceled out among a variety of
in the organizations. Division of labor is not only seen in the horizontal
working procedures, such as the division of decision making between marketing,
production, pricing, finance, labor management, etc, it also extensively used in the
hierarchical division of decision making and action taking. Tasks carrying in those
horizontal and hierarchical divisions of labor constitute an organization. That is what
conceived as organizing properties of an organization by Weick (1979).
Task is the basic unit of individual learning and organizational learning. In the
process of task carrying, an individual observes related facts of the task, assesses
what happens, designs new organizing methods, implements new actions, and shares
the knowledge and new design with those collaborated members (Kim, 1993).
Because the organization is beneficiary of the knowledge, this learning is
organizational (Huber, 1991). Reorganizing is a continuous genesis and a process of
creation and recreation, as Piaget describes (Piaget, 1968). Figure 1 is the
reorganizing process of task or the basic unit of organizational learning feedback
process. Dashed lines represent information passing, while solid lines represent the
physical changes to task organizing ways or task environments.
Cognition about
Organizing
Task environment
T
I
l
¥
Organizing
method
Adjustment of
organizing method |
Perceived
Organizing
Requirements
Perceived goals
Figure | Basic unit of organizational learning
In the reorganizing process in Figure 1, the individual cognition or the groups
shared mental model change does not equal to the increase of causal knowledge about
the task. In cognitive researches, the engine of the adjustment actions lies in the
imbalance between task performer’s cognition and the stimulus he perceives.
Learning is the process to eliminate the imbalance. Reality is constructed anew each
time a learner acquires a new concept or structure (Piaget, 1968). There are several
methods to do so, such as imitation and trial and error. Imitations and trial and error
indeed change the task performer’s cognition state, but they do not necessarily
increase his causal knowledge about the task. However, for the purpose of
transferring experience, the researchers and practitioners’ ultimate goal is to improve
the knowledge of knowing why and knowing how (Edmonsdson & Moingeon, 1996).
In real world, organizational learning is far more complex than described above.
Various tasks are performed and reorganized at the same time and they are all
intertwined. Interlocked behaviors and interdependent relationships constitute what
an organization is. Therefore, organizational learning is a system composed of
multiple organizational learning processes, rather than a simple task reorganizing
process. The organizational learning system framework is shown in figure 2.
Task 1 Cognition |
i ~—*| about Task [7 ay
Performing t
Tok Ea mae 7 Cognition
i >| about Task
Organizing D; Task Environmest | Performin
method i x BB organizing Sigal
method 3
Perceived Perceived
Requirement Requirement
B2
Task 2
Task 1.1 * Task 1.2
Figure 2 Organizational learning as a feedback system
Thompson identifies three kinds of interdependence between organizational
divisions, pooled, sequential, and reciprocal (Thompson, 1967). Down to the task
level, this paper identifies several relationships between tasks performing in Figure 2.
Each different kind of relationships is marked with different letters. Relationships Al
and A2 represent that each organizing way of task | and task 2 influences each other’s
task environment, for example, the interactions between R&D department and
production department. Relationship B1 and B2 represent that both task performers
of task 1 and task2 adjust their perception of tasks’ objectives, such as negotiation. Al,
A2, B1, and B2 are relationships generated in horizontal division of task] and task2.
Relationships C1, C2, D1, and D2 are relationships of hierarchical division of tasks.
Task is to the super task, which decides the objectives of subtasks, namely task3 and
task4. Because of the imposed objectives, the perceived requirements of task3 and
task4 are influenced by task1, representing by relationships C1 and C2. In turn, the
way task3 and task4 organize constitutes part of taskl’s organizing method,
representing by relationship D1 and D2.
Therefore, organizational learning system is the aggregation of the individual or
group learning happened in each task carrying out process. The performance of
organizational learning is not the sum of each learning process. Because of the
inter-relationships among tasks, the performance of organization as a whole depends
on whether synergy or counterbalance is generated. When synergy is presented,
organizational learning means that organization as a whole has the ability to
self-organize and to regenerate itself on a continuous basis because the premise of
organization’s vision is enfolded in all tasks and divisions (Senge, 1990; Morgan,
1996). Individual learning has a positive effect on the performance of organizational
learning in this kind of organization. However, in most instances, counterbalance is
the principal phenomenon in reorganizing processes. Consequently, the performance
of individual learning does not necessarily correspond to the improvement of
organizational learning.
4. Impediments of organizational learning feedback system
In the organizational learning system, several impediments might exist. To
facilitate organizational learning and improve the performance of organization, this
section discusses impediments within and between task reorganizing processes.
From the perspective of feedback system, impediments and difficulties may exist
in different stages of learning process. Based on March and Olsen’s work (1976),
Kim (1993) identifies seven possible difficulties in the task reorganizing process.
Individuals have to figure out what the task and its environment are to determine what
they should do and implement the decided organizing method to achieve the
perceived objectives. In doing so, role-constrained learning occurs when individuals
attempt to change the organizing way of tasks. Constraining role definitions and
standard operating procedures prevent individuals from changing their behaviors in
response to new knowledge (March & Olsen, 1976; Hedberg, 1981).
Then, individuals have to know what happens and whether their methods work.
Problems of superstitious learning and learning under ambiguity (March & Olsen,
1976) emerge because the causal relationships of tasks are too complex to understand,
or the time lag between result and actions are too long or the task scope are too wide
to observe. Individuals or groups can not formulate appropriate relationships between
their actions and results and they can not design new action strategy for tasks.
Sometimes, the information feedback property of learning process does not even exist
because of the long time lag and wide scope of tasks. Individuals and groups just react
to various events. These situations often happen in the dynamic complexity problems
(Kim, 1993; Senge, 1990). Besides, because of the divided decision making and
action taking responsibilities, individuals can not judge whether their decisions are
right or not. It also influences individuals’ learning. In forming the mental models,
learners mental models may also be too rigid to change. It may occur both in
individuals’ mental models and group’s shared mental models, such as group
thinking. Problems of fragmented learning occur in the tasks carried out by groups of
people. It means that even some members learn some knowledge from the process,
they can not share the gained knowledge with other collaborators.
Among impediments of organizational learning, bad design of objective system is
the most serious problem. Objectives guide and direct each learning process.
Individuals and groups proceed their own regulating and learning process with the
objectives of tasks. When the objectives are clearly and properly defined, each
regulating process runs smoothly and contributes to the performance of organization
as a whole. If it is too difficult to achieve the objectives, individuals may modify or
erode their perceived goals to decrease the pressure they feel. With objectives unclear
and equivocal, individuals can not even have any learning actions because they do not
know where to go (Dorner, 1989; Senge, 1990). Objective system not only guide each
learning process, it also connect tasks to tasks. A bad design of objective system may
lead to individuals and groups impinge others’ task carrying because of conflicting
goals and harm the organization’s performance.
To eliminate these impediments and overcome the difficulties, theories and tools
are proposed and designed. The paper does not intend to describe those tools. Efforts
made to improve organizational learning can be divided into three groups. The first
group is focus on the establishment of task objectives, such as Drucker, Senge (1990),
Fritz (1996), etc. The second group is focus on behavior complexity to improve
individuals’ mental models and to improve mental model sharing, such as Argyris
and Schon (1978), Bohm (19), Kim (1993), Senge (1990), etc. The last group
facilitates individuals and groups to obtain a better understanding and a policy design
in dynamic complexity and dynamic decision making, such as System dynamics
pioneered by Forrester (1961), Sterman (1989), Dorner (1989), etc.
5. Conclusion
Recently, more and more attention has been paid to organizational learning issues.
However, the gap between academic research and reality is still large at present. To
improve organizations’ performances, one has to facilitate organizational learning as
a whole. That is, the focus should be the whole organizational learning system, not
merely the individual organizational processes. An organizational learning system
consists of more than static relationships between organizations and individuals. The
interlocked relationships among various organizational learning processes are more
important than the learning processes themselves. This paper investigated the
interlocked relationships and clarified what organizational learning looks like with a
feedback system perspective. Some relationships between different organizational
learning processes were also addressed. Making use of the interlocked behaviors
among various organizational learning processes pointed out in this paper, further
researches can be carried out to explore those relationships more deeply by means of
empirical studies. Interfaces of various tasks have to be built so that the performance
of each learning process can be maximized. Furthermore, interested researchers can
focus on the impact of those interdependent relationships to see how each regulating
process causes the organization as a whole to change. Issues of organizational design
and evolutionary (Hutchins, 1996) can be approached with the organizational
learning feedback system’s framework. Besides, in this paper, possible impediments
and difficulties in the organizational learning feedback system are identified.
Systemic instruments and means can be designed to facilitate organizational learning
process and system.
References
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, Learning, and Action: Individual and Organizational,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational
Learning, Allyn and Bacon, Wellesley, Mass.
Argyris, C. (1993). On Organizational Learning, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge,
Mass.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue, Rout Ledge, New York.
Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Daft, R.L., & Weick, K.E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation
systems. Academy of Management Review, 9:2, 284-295.
Dixon, N.M. (1994). The organizational learning cycle: how we can learn collectively,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Organizational Studies, 14:3, 375-394.
Dorner, D. (1989). The Logic of Failure: Why Things Go Wrong and What We Can Do
to Make Them Right? Rowohlt Verlag GMBH.
Edmondson, A. & Moingeon, B. (1996). When to learn how and when to learn why:
appropriate organizational learning processes as a source of competitive advantage,
In: Moingeon, A. and Moingeon, B. (eds), Organizational Learning and
Competitive Advantage, Sage Publications, London, pp. 17-37.
Fiol, C.M., & Lyles, M.A. (1985). Organizational Learning. Academy of Management
Review, 10:4, 803-813.
Forrester, J.W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Forrester, J.W. (1968). Principles of Systems: Text and Workbook/ Chapters 1
Through 10, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Fritz, R. (1996). Corporate Tides, The Inescapable Laws of Organizational Structure,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.
Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn? In: Nystrom, P. and
Starbuck, W. (eds), Handbook of Organizational Design, Oxford University Press,
London, pp. 1-27.
Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures, Organization Science, 2:1, 88-115.
Hutchins, E. (1996). Organizing work by adaptation. In: Cognition Within and
Between Organizations. Sage Publications, London. pp. 368-404.
Kim, D.H. (1993). A Framework and Methodology for Linking Individual and
Organizational Learning: Applications in TQM and Product Development,
doctoral dissertation at the MIT.
Kolb, D. (1979). On management of the learning process. In: Rubin, D.L. and
McIntyre, F. (eds), Organizational Psychology: A Book of Readings, Prentice Hall,
Lexington.
March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1975). The uncertainty of the past organizational learning
under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3, 147-171.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations,
Universitestsforlaget, Bergen.
Morgan, G. (1996). Images of Organization, 2rd, Sage Publications, London.
Piaget, J. (1968). Le Structuralisme. Presses, Universitries de France.Paris.
Scott, W.R. (1992). Organizations, Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, Prentice
Hall, New Jersey.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York.
Sterman, J.D. (1989). Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 301-335.
Tompson, J.D. (1967). | Organizaitons in Action: Social Science Bases of
Administrative Theory, Mc Graw-Hill, New York.
Weick, K.E., (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, Random House, New
York.
Wheatley, M.J. (1992). Leadership and the New Science: Learning about
Organization from An Orderly Universe, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.
