Organisation Learning Essay

Where Argyris and Schon were the branch to propose homunculuss that facilitate organisational nurture, the following literatures have followed in the tradition of their work Argyris and Schon (1978) distinguish betwixt single-loop and double-loop familiarity, related to Gregory Batesons constructs of prime(prenominal) and second order association.In single-loop learning, separates, groups, or arrangements modify their actions according to the rest between expected and obtained outcomes. In double-loop learning, the entities ( unmarrieds, groups or placement) question the values, assumptions and policies that led to the actions in the first place if they atomic number 18 able to view and modify those, and so second-order or double-loop learning has carryn place.Double loop learning is the learning about single-loop learning. ?March and Olsen (1975) attempt to link up individual and organisational learning. In their model, individual beliefs lead to individual action, w hich in turn whitethorn lead to an organizational action and a solution from the environment which whitethorn induce repaird individual beliefs and the cycle then repeats over and over. Learning occurs as better beliefs produce better actions.?Kim (1993), as well, in an article titled The link between individual and organizational learning, integrates Argyris, March and Olsen and an early(a) model by Kofman into a single comprehensive model further, he analyzes all the possible breakdowns in the asseverateation flows in the model, leading to failures in organizational learning for instance, what happens if an individual action is rejected by the organization for political or other reasons and therefore no organizational action takes place? ?Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) developed a four stage spiral model of organizational learning.They started by distinctiating Polanyis concept of understood knowledge from explicit knowledge and describe a fulfill of alternating between the ii . Tacit knowledge is personal, context specific, subjective knowledge, whereas explicit knowledge is codified, trunkatic, glob, and easy to communicate. The tacit knowledge of key personnel within the organization can be made explicit, codified in manuals, and incorporated into new products and processes. This process they called externalization.The reverse process (from explicit to implicit) they call internalization because it involves employees internalizing an organizations formal rules, procedures, and other forms of explicit knowledge. They overly use the term socialization to denote the sh ar of tacit knowledge, and the term combination to denote the dissemination of codified knowledge. According to this model, knowledge creation and organizational learning take a path of socialization, externalization, combination, internalization, socialization, externalization, combination .. . etc. in an infinite spiral. ?Nick Bontis et al. (2002) by trial and error tested a model of organizational learning that encompassed both stocks and flows of knowledge across three levels of summary individual, team and organization. Results showed a negative and statistically significant relationship between the misalignment of stocks and flows and organizational performance. ?Flood (1999) discusses the concept of organizational learning from Peter Senge and the origins of the opening from Argyris and Schon.The cause aims to re-think Senges The Fifth Discipline through systems theory. The author develops the concepts by integrating them with key theorists such as Bertalanffy, Churchman, Beer, Checkland and Ackoff. Conceptualizing organizational learning in terms of structure, process, centre, ideology and knowledge, the author provides insights into Senge within the context of the philosophy of science and the way in which systems theorists were influenced by twentieth-century advances from the classical assumptions of science.?Imants (2003) provides theory developme nt for organizational learning in schools within the context of teachers professional communities as learning communities, which is comp ared and contrasted to teaching method communities of practice. Detailed with an analysis of the paradoxes for organizational learning in schools, two mechanisms for professional development and organizational learning, (1) head information about teaching and learning and (2) encouraging interaction among teachers and workers, are defined as full of life for effective organizational learning.?Common (2004) discusses the concept of organisational learning in a political environment to improve public policy-making. The author details the initial uncontroversial reception of organisational learning in the public orbit and the development of the concept with the learning organization. Definitional problems in applying the concept to public policy are addressed, noting re explore in UK local government that concludes on the obstacles for organizatio nal learning in the public sector (1) overemphasis of the individual, (2) resistance to variegate and politics, (3) social learning is self-limiting, i.e. individualism, and (4) political blame culture. The concepts of policy learning and policy transfer are then defined with detail on the conditions for realisticizing organizational learning in the public sector. organizational knowledge What is the disposition of knowledge created, traded and used in organizations? Some of this knowledge can be termed proficient ? knowing the meaning of technical words and phrases, macrocosm able to read and make good sense of economic data and being able to act on the basis of law-like generalizations.Scientific knowledge is ?propositional it takes the form of causal generalizations ? whenever A, then B. For example, whenever urine reaches the temperature of 100 degrees, it boils whenever it boils, it turns into go steam generates pressure when in an enclosed space pressure drives engin es. And so forth. A large part of the knowledge used by managers, however, does not assume this form. The complexities of a managers task are such that applying A may result in B, C, or Z. A chemical formula or an idea that crystalized very well a particular problem, may, in slightly different circumstances backfire and lead to ever more than problems.More important than knowing a satisfying lot of theories, recipes and solutions for a manager is to know which theory, recipe or solution to apply in a specific placement. Sometimes a manager may combine two different recipes or conciliate an existing recipe with some important modification to meet a situation at hand. Managers a lot use knowledge in the way that a handyman will use his or her skills, the materials and tools that are at hand to meet the demands of a particular situation.Unlike an engineer who will plan cautiously and scientifically his or her every action to deliver the desired outcome, such as a steam engine, a handyman is flexible and opportunistic, often using materials in unorthodox or unusual ways, and relies a lot on trial and error. This is what the French call ? bricolage, the resourceful and creative deployment skills and materials to meet each take exception in an original way. Rule of thumb, far from being the enemy of management, is what managers passim the world have relied upon to inform their action.In contrast to the scientific knowledge that guides the engineer, the physician or the chemist, managers are often informed by a different type of know-how. This is sometimes referred to a ? narrative knowledge or ? experiential knowledge, the kind of knowledge that comes from grow and resides in stories and narratives of how real people in the real world atomic reactort with real life problems, successfully or unsuccessfully. Narrative knowledge is what we use in everyday life to deal with awkward situations, as parents, as consumers, as patients and so forth.We seek the sto ries of people in the same situation as ourselves and try to learn from them. As the Chinese proverb says A wise man learns from experience a wiser man learns from the experience of others. Narrative knowledge usually takes the form of organization stories (see organization report card and organizational storytelling). These stories enable participants to make sense of the difficulties and challenges they face by listening to stories, members of organizations learn from each others experiences, adapt the recipes used by others to address their own difficulties and problems.Narrative knowledge is not besides the preserve of managers. Most professionals (including doctors, accountants, lawyers, business consultants and academics) rely on narrative knowledge, in addition to their specialist technical knowledge, when dealing with concrete situations as part of their work. More generally, narrative knowledge represents an endlessly mutating reservoir of ideas, recipes and stories that are traded mostly by word or mouth on the internet. They are often apocryphal and may be inaccurate or untrue yet, they have the power to influence peoples sense making and actions.Individual versus organizational learning Learning by individuals in an organizational context is a well understood process. This is the traditional domain of human resources, including activities such as training, increasing skills, work experience, and formal education. Given that the success of any organization is founded on the knowledge of the people who work for it, these activities will and, indeed, mustiness continue. However, individual learning is only a prerequisite to organizational learning. Others take it farther with continuous learning.The world is orders of magnitude more dynamic than that of our parents, or even when we were young. Waves of change are crashing on us just about one on top of another. Change has get down the norm rather than the exception. Continuous learning througho ut ones career has become essential to remain relevant in the workplace. Again, necessary precisely not sufficient to describe organizational learning. What does it mean to say that an organization learns? Simply summing individual learning is inadequate to model organizational learning.The following definition outlines the essential difference between the two A learning organization actively creates, captures, transfers, and mobilizes knowledge to enable it to adapt to a changing environment. Thus, the key outlook of organizational learning is the interaction that takes place among individuals. A learning organization does not rely on passive or ad hoc process in the hope that organizational learning will take place through serendipity or as a by-product of normal work. A learning organization actively promotes, facilitates, and rewards collective learning.Creating (or acquiring) knowledge can be an individual or group performance. However, this is normally a small-scale, isolat ed activity steeped in the jargon and methods of knowledge workers. As first stated by Lucilius in the 1st century BC, Knowledge is not knowledge until someone else knows that one knows. Capturing individual learning is the first step to making it useful to an organization. There are many methods for capturing knowledge and experience, such as publications, activity reports, lessons learned, interviews, and presentations.Capturing includes organizing knowledge in ways that people can find it multiple structures facilitate searches regardless of the substance abusers perspective (e. g. , who, what, when, where, wherefore,and how). Capturing also includes storage in repositories, databases, or libraries to insure that the knowledge will be available when and as needed. Transferring knowledge requires that it be accessible to everyone when and where they need it. In a digital world, this involves browser-activated search engines to find what one is looking for.A way to retrieve conte nt is also needed, which requires a conference and network infrastructure. Tacit knowledge may be shared through communities of practice or consulting experts. It is also important that knowledge is presented in a way that users can understand it. It must suit the needfully of the user to be accepted and internalized. Mobilizing knowledge involves integrating and using relevant knowledge from many, often diverse, sources to solve a problem or address an issue. Integration requires interoperability standards among various repositories.Using knowledge may be through simple reuse of existing solutions that have worked previously. It may also come through adapting darkened solutions to new problems. Conversely, a learning organization learns from mistakes or recognizes when old solutions no longer apply. Use may also be through synthesis that is creating a broader meaning or a deeper level of understanding. Clearly, the more rapidly knowledge can be mobilized and used, the more compe titive an organization. An organization must learn so that it can adapt to a changing environment.Historically, the life-cycle of organizations typically spanned stable environments between major socioeconomic changes. Blacksmiths who didnt become mechanics simply fell by the wayside. More recently, many fortune 500 companies of two decades ago no longer exist. Given the ever-accelerating rate of global-scale change, the more critical learning and adaptation become to organization relevance, success, and ultimate survival. Organizational learning is a social process, involving interactions among many individuals leading to well-informed finding making.Thus, a culture that learns and adapts as part of everyday working practices is essential. Reuse must equal or exceed reinvent as a desirable behavior. Adapting an idea must be rewarded along with its initial creation. Sharing to empower the organization must supersede controlling to empower an individual. Clearly, shifting from indiv idual to organizational learning involves a non-linear transformation. Once someone learns something, it is available for their immediate use. In contrast, organizations need to create, capture, transfer, and mobilize knowledge before it can be used.Although technology supports the latter, these are primarily social processes within a cultural environment, and cultural change, however necessary, is a particularly challenging undertaking. Learning organization The work in Organizational Learning can be distinguished from the work on a related concept, the learning organization. This ulterior body of work, in general, uses the theoretical findings of organizational learning (and other research in organizational development, system theory, and cognitive science) in order to prescribe specific recommendations about how to create organizations that continuously and effectively learn.This mulish approach was championed by Peter Senge in his book The Fifth Discipline. Diffusion of innov ations Diffusion of innovations theory explores how and why people adopt new ideas, practices and products. It may be seen as a subset of the anthropological concept of public exposure and can help to explain how ideas are spread by individuals, social networks and organizations.