Out 5 PDF

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6* x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MANAGERS PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
By
Fatima Weathers
Dissertation Committee:
Professor Philip Fey, Sponsor
Professor Victoria Marsick
Approved by the Committee
on the Degree of Doctor of Education
Datt FEB 7 2000
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in
Teachers College, Columbia University
2000
UMI Number: 9959349
Copyright 2000 by
Weathers, Fatima Linda
All rights reserved.
UMI*
UMI Microform9959349
Copyright 2000 by Bell &Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17 , United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright Fatima L. Weathers 2000
All Rights Reserved
ii
ABSTRACT
MANAGERS PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Fatima L. Weathers
This is a case-study to better understand managers perceptions of organizational
learning and knowledge management in a private non-profit consulting company. The
purpose of the research is to provide adult educators with insight into managers
perceptions of how learning is diffused throughout an organization and the impact of
knowledge management systems in the learning process. The conclusions from the
study can assist educators and others in designing more effective organizational learning
programs.
The participants in the study were the senior management team of a private non
profit company that specializes in manufacturing and engineering consulting services. In
addition to data from the organizations historical documents, data were collected from
the participants in the form of critical incident essays and in-depth interviews. The results
were compared and contrasted to the literature on organizational learning and knowledge
management.
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
There were several significant conclusions that resulted from this research: (1)
The managers typically perceived themselves as overseers of their employees learning
activities, but not as learners themselves; (2) Failure to learn as an organization was
often associated with not having access to how others solved a problem and corporate
memory loss - a phenomenon often associated with virtual teams, and employee
turnover, (3) Many very effective informal procedures, practiced within sub-groups,
were not captured in the knowledge management systems, i.e., best practices and lessons
learned were not shared effectively; (4) Technology-driven knowledge management
systems have not come close to reaching their potential to support organizational
learning.
There have been many highs and lows in this organizations effort to become a
learning organization. Through their work with consultants and an organizational
teaming committee, the participants in this study are effectively applying incremental
learning strategies in their respective departments and the company has progressed
toward becoming a learning organization.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is dedicated to the men and women who participated in this study
and who did so with genuine interest in assisting educators and consultants in designing
initiatives that improve the quality of work life and the outcomes of our work efforts.
They gave willingly of their time and their thoughts during a period when the
organization was in the midst of a major re-organization.
Thanks are in order to my colleagues at Teachers College who assisted in the
development of the data collection instruments. Especially, Anne Power Bolduc, Jane
Taylor, and Terry Maltbia who were my cheering squad and offered continuous
encouragement from beginning to end. A special thanks to Dr. Philip Fey who provided
thoughtful and focused guidance throughout the development of the proposal and the
dissertation. Similar thanks go to Dr. Victoria Marsick whos work in the field of learning
organizations and whos guidance in the early stages of this research proved invaluable.
Thanks to Dr. Barbara Macaulay who found the time to make herself available as an
advisor as well as a coach in the final weeks leading to the defense of the research.
Finally, to my greatest source of inspiration and perseverance, Myrtle Fuller, my
mother. And, to my family, Alex, Ankoanda, and Aziza Weathers who always provided
unfaltering support and unconditional love.
iii
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
Background of Acme, Inc............................................................................................ 2
II. LITERATURE REVIEW___________________________________________ 11
Introduction............................................................................................................... 11
Questions About Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management 12
Questions About Individual Learning.................................................................... 13
Overview of Research on Learning Organizations.................................................... 14
Learning Organizations.......................................................................................... 14
Organizational Learning........................................................................................ 17
The Link Between Individual and Organizational Learning..................................21
Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital.................................................36
III. METHODS............................................................................................................... 47
Introduction................................................................................................................ 47
Overview of the Design............................................................................................. 48
Rationale for the Case-Study Methodology...............................................................49
Overview Of Information Needed.............................................................................51
Plans And Methods For Data Collection...................................................................53
Literature Review................................................................................................... 53
Critical Incidents.................................................................................................... 54
Interviews............................................................................................................... 56
Documents............................................................................................................. 59
Plan And Methods For Data Analysis........................................................................60
Analysis of Data from Review of the Literature....................................................61
Analysis of Data from Critical Incidents...............................................................62
Analysis of Data from Interviews..........................................................................62
Analysis of Data from Documents.........................................................................63
Coding and Displaying Data...................................................................................... 63
Data Synthesis............................................................................................................ 65
Limitations of the Study............................................................................................. 66
Validity and Reliability.............................................................................................. 67
Rationale for Methods Selection................................................................................69
Case Study............................................................................................................. 69
Critical Incident..................................................................................................... 7 0
Interviewing........................................................................................................... 71
Document Analysis................................................................. 7 3
IV. CONTEXT OF THE STUDY________________________________________ 75
Introduction................................................................................................................ 7 5
Study Site............................................................................................................... 7 5
Participants in the Study........................................................................................ 7 9
iv
Organizational Culture.......................................................................................... 84
Rationale for Becoming a Learning Organization................................................. 86
Summary of Steps to Institutionalize Learning and Knowledge Management.... 87
Chapter Summary......................................................................................................91
V. RESEARCH FINDINGS____________________________________________ 93
Introduction................................................................................................................93
Documents.................................................................................................................95
Organizational Learning........................................................................................96
Organizational Learning During Periods Of Significant Change......................... 99
Impact of Change on Individual Learning........................................................... 101
Systems Thinking................................................................................................ 101
Impact of Technology on Organizational Learning............................................. 102
Facilitators of Organizational Learning............................................................... 105
Barriers to Organizational Learning....................................................................110
Summary of Document Analysis........................................................................... 111
Critical Incidents.....................................................................................................111
Organizational Learning.................................................................................... 112
Organizational Learning During Periods of Significant Change....................... 115
Impact of Technology on Organizational Learning............................................117
Barriers to Organizational Learning.................................................................. 118
Summary of Critical Incidents............................................................................... 121
Interviews................................................................................................................. 122
Organizational Learning...................................................................................... 122
Organizational Learning During Periods Of Significant Change........................126
Impact Of Change On Individual Learning......................................................... 129
Factors that Impede Learning..............................................................................146
Summary of the Interviews...................................................................................... 149
VI. ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF THE FINDINGS____________ 156
Introduction.............................................................................................................. 156
Document Analysis.................................................................................................. 157
Organizational Learning.................................................................................... 157
Organizational Learning During Periods of Significant Change......................... 159
Factors that Facilitate Organizational Learning................................................... 163
Factors that Impede Organizational Learning...................................................... 164
v
Summary of Document Analysis............................................................................. 165
Critical Incidents...................................................................................................... 166
Organizational Learning During Periods of Significant Change......................... 169
Impact of Change on Individual Learning...........................................................169
Systems Thinking................................................................................................ 17 0
Conditions that Facilitate Organizational Learning............................................. 17 2
Conditions that Impede Organizational Learning................................................ 17 3
Summary of Critical Incidents................................................................................. 17 7
Participant Interviews.............................................................................................. 17 8
Organizational Learning...................................................................................... 17 9
Organizational Learning During Periods of Significant Change.........................181
Impact of Change on Individual Learning...........................................................186
Impact of Technology On Organizational Learning............................................ 189
Factors or Conditions that Facilitate Organizational Learning............................ 191
Factors or Conditions that Impede Organizational Learning............................... 194
Summary of Interviews............................................................................................ 197
Synthesis of the Findings......................................................................................... 198
Organizational Learning During Periods of Significant Change........................ 201
Impact of Change on Individual Learning.......................................................... 203
Impact of Technology on Organizational Learning.............................................207
Factors that Facilitate Organizational Learning...................................................210
Factors that Impede Organizational Learning..................................................... 211
Summary..................................................................................................................212
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................214
Introduction.............................................................................................................. 214
Conclusions for Acme.............................................................................................. 215
Recommendations for Acme....................................................................................221
Conclusions for the Field of Adult Education........................................................ 224
Recommendations for the Field of Adult Education...............................................227
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research........................................230
Assumptions.............................................................................................................238
Closing Remarks...................................................................................................... 239
Bibliography................................................................................................................243
Appendices....................................................................................... 254
A. Critical Incident Questions.............................................................................254
B. Interview Schedule.........................................................................................255
C. Document Summary Form.............................................................................256
D. Participant Profile Data Collection Tool....................................................... 257
E. Organization Chart of Participants in the Study.............................................258
vi
F. Review of Literature...................................................................................... 259
G. Types and Sources of Information Needed................................................... 260
H. Participant Consent Form.............................................................................. 261
I. Participant Interview Response Coding Matrix..............................................262
J. Document Coding Matrix................................................................................263
K. Critical Incident Response Coding Matrix..................................................265
L. Final Analytic Categories and Indicators.......................................................266
LIST OF TABLES
1. Comparison of Key Points from Literature Review.............................................. 44
2. Participant Profile Summary................................................................................... 81
3. Individual Responses to Interview Questions...................................................... 151
4. Types and Sources of Information Needed......................................................... 260
5. Participant Interview Response Coding Matrix...................................................262
6. Document Coding Matrix.................................................................................... 263
7. Critical Incident Coding Matrix.......................................................................... 265
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Organization Chart of Participants in the Study.....
ix
1
I. Introduction
Advances in technology and information systems have reshaped the way
companies operate. Communication abilities and increased interdependence globally
mean that small changes create large reverberations throughout every segment of society
and in every aspect of organizations almost instantly (Pasmore, 1994). As a result,
companies seek to gain and maintain competitive advantage through organizational
adaptability and a knowledgeable workforce. Strategies for remaining competitive
include relocation, mergers, acquisitions, workforce reduction, quality improvement
programs, and corporate education programs, to name but a few. When used by large
corporations, these strategies for adapting to change eventually impact the internal
operations of their suppliers or customers often much smaller companies. The effect is
that todays organizations, regardless of size, are required to adapt and to learn. It is a
widely held belief that effective learning, and the ability to manage change, characterize
the high performance workplace now and will continue to be critical for success in the
foreseeable future. Although strategies for adapting and remaining competitive through
learning are widespread and gaining acceptance as a way of doing business, it is unclear
how they impact managers in learning organizations. This research is a case-study
designed to better understand the perceptions of managers in learning organizations. In
this study, perceptions refers to the views and beliefs of the participants based on their
professional experiences and observations in organizations striving to become learning
organizations.
This study focuses on Acme, Inc. (a pseudonym), a twelve year old
manufacturing consulting firm in the Midwest striving to be a learning organization in a
turbulent global market. Typical of many firms that are relatively young, the organization
has a concentration of managers who have experienced first-hand the effects of team
building, downsizing, re-engineering and other strategies aimed at adapting to market
forces. The managers at Acme, Inc. are well-educated, with many holding advanced
degrees. Profiles of the managers and the organization will be included in the research.
The researcher briefly describes them here only to point out that the managers are not
strangers to formal learning and education programs, nor are they unfamiliar with
managing in very dynamic environments
Background of Acme, Inc.
Located in the Midwest, Acme Inc. is a 12 year old consulting firm that works
closely with colleges and universities to provide manufacturing and engineering research
services to small manufacturers. Most of the employees work in teams that report to unit
managers. Most of the sales and consulting staff, like their managers, have engineering
and science backgrounds. The company is viewed as a leader in helping small
manufacturers modernize their operations by employing advanced technologies and
incorporating innovative business processes that make them globally competitive.
A few years ago, the CEO and several key managers were invited to attend a
3
seminar where Professor Victoria Marsick of Columbia Universitys Teachers College
was discussing her book Sculpting the Learning Organization. Since that time, the
organizations managers have been encouraged to attend other workshops and seminars
conducted by other well known management consultants such as Margaret Wheatley and
Steven Covey. Building on the learning from these workshops and others, the CEO began
implementing strategies intended to create the conditions that enable employees to learn
from one another and work together across functional lines in a systemic way (Watkins
and Marsick, 1993). Encouraged by research heralding the successes of learning
organizations, the CEO of this 150 employee company continued with plans intended to
facilitate the effectiveness of managers in a very dynamic industry. Committees were
formed to roll out the plan and the language in the strategic plan made specific reference
to learning organizations. His goal was to establish the principles of a learning
organization as the cultural norm for the organization - he was not successful.
The researcher hypothesizes that the difficulty experienced by the managers in
embracing the learning organizations focus on personal mastery (Senge, 1990a) or on
continuous improvement, could be the lack of tools to measure progress and the
differences in perceptions about what constitutes learning. One possible explanation for
the previous failed effort could be related to a lack of understanding about the link
between self-mastery and organizational learning. A widely referenced theory of modem
psychology is Maslows hierarchy of human needs. According to Maslow, the pinnacle of
human need-self-actualizationis often achieved through learning (Maslow, 1954).
4
During periods of relative stability in the business world, learning is encouraged and
opportunities to develop individually and organizationally are welcomed. However,
periods of great stability are getting shorter and shorter. Robert Quinn, a management
consultant writes in Deep Change, as fast, furious, and constant change takes root in our
everyday work lives, pressure is put on both organizations and individuals to adapt or
perish (Noer, 1993). The constant push to be infinitely flexible and responsive to
dynamic market conditions is usually accompanied by a degree of uncertainty (Kim,
1990). Even though human beings are predisposed toward learning, the uncertainties that
typically accompany significant change may threaten other basic human needs as defined
by Maslow, that is, food and shelter, safety, belonging etc. Since Maslows hierarchy of
human needs is a stage model, the human needs at the high end of the hierarchy like self-
actualization and self-esteem are contingent upon fulfillment of lower level needs.
Although there have been many challenges to Maslows theories, if one accepts his basic
concepts, his theory helps to explain why education programs and learning projects are
sometimes viewed as extra-curricular activities to be postponed until the next period of
calm and stability.
Three years ago, after two failed attempts at getting key managers to buy into the
idea of building a learning organization, the CEO re-structured the organization. He
created a fifteen member management team that includes the two vice presidents and the
directors of the major divisions and departments of the company. Consultants were hired
to work with the newly formed senior management team to promote the practices and
5
theories of learning organizations. The successful development and education of the 15
member team of senior managers is critical because they, in turn, will plan and lead the
learning and developmental activities for the entire organization.
Research Problem
There is a lack of research based information on the perceptions of managers
about why and how they embrace or resist efforts at creating organizational learning. This
lack of information inhibits adult educators and others from effectively supporting
managers by designing educational programs that address organizational learning and
knowledge management. The lack of research based information also inhibits managers
from helping themselves. It is a barrier to those inside the organization as well as to
those on the outside seeking to design effective education programs. The research takes
into consideration that not everyone views change as a negative or disorienting
experience. Some managers may perceive a dynamic environment as one which provides
opportunities while others perceive such an environment as threatening. In either case,
educators and consultants need to better understand managers thoughts and perceptions
about organizational learning to adequately support them in achieving their professional
and organizational goals.
Purpose Of The Study
The purpose of the research is to better understand managers changing
6
perceptions of organizational learning in a continuously changing work environment. By
concentrating on the perceptions of a targeted group of managers in a single organization,
the researcher will contribute to the understanding of learning organizations in a
particular type of organization - a small, non-profit, consulting firm. More specifically,
the following questions guide the study and direct the literature reviewed.
What are the managers perceptions about organizational learning?
What are managers perceptions about continuous learning in organizations: positive,
negative, insecure, hopeful?
How do the managers view the impact of organizational learning on themselves
individually?
How do the managers view the relationship of their own individual learning to
organizational learning?
How do the managers view the impact of technology on organizational learning?
What are the factors that facilitate organizational learning?
What are the factors that impede organizational learning?
The specific questions for the selected group of managers focus on interactions
and processes in . . .[a selected] organization and thus link to important research literature
and theory, [and the questions will be] grounded in everyday realities. (Marshall and
Rossman, 1989 pg. 28). The results of the study will add to our knowledge of the
relationship between individual and organizational learning.
Educators in the field of organizational learning are sometimes frustrated by what
7
appears to be a lack of sustained commitment to the process of becoming a learning
organization. On the other hand, managers are sometimes frustrated by what appears to
be too much focus on the process of learning and not enough on the expected outcomes
e.g. increased sales, more empowered employees, and more satisfied customers. Mary
Frances Ziegler, identifies other criticisms of learning organizations: criticisms of Senge
in the literature target the abstractness of his theory, its lack of connection to operations,
and the lack of supportive empirical research (Finger and Woolis, 1994; Harris in Ziegler,
1995). She adds, Senges learning organization is far from the reality of most
organizations. The study documents the practices and perceptions of managers in the
early stages of becoming a learning organization. Finally, the outcomes of the study may
guide educators who want to avoid using a one-size-fits-all approach to creating
learning organizations and helping mangers deal with continuous learning.
Assumptions
The premise underlying the research is that in learning organizations undergoing
significant change, educators need to facilitate and accelerate the adjustment of
managers in order to optimize their work performance. The study also assumes that
managers perceptions about learning organizations in stable, mature, large organizations
is different from the perceptions of managers in relatively young, dynamic, small
organizations. It is also assumed that educators can make a difference by designing and
delivering programs that take into consideration managers perceptions about learning
organizations. It is further assumed that coping routines may include behaviors that
interfere with achieving the goals of the organization.
9
Rationale Of The Research
The primary rationale for researching managers views about learning
organizations is the increasing recognition of the importance of continuous learning in
constantly changing business environments where knowledge often needs to be spread
throughout the organization. Todays workplace can be characterized as one which is
constantly changing. Robert E. Quinn, in Deep Change, describes what this researcher
considers to be a major justification for this type of study (Quinn, 1996). Quinn writes,
most of us build our identity around our knowledge and competence in employing certain
known techniques or abilities (Quinn, 1996, p. 3). At all levels of the organization,
workers are expected to keep pace with changes in technology, products and services,
and changes in the organizations management structure. We have knowledge, values,
assumptions, rules and competencies that make us who we are. As the world around us
changes, we lose our sense of alignment or develop attitudes and behaviors that effect our
ability to adapt (Quinn, 1996). Educators in organizations need to know whether
managers perceptions support theories like Quinns. And, if so, how should educators
respond?
Finally, in a 1989 article for Fortune magazine Dumaine writes, given the
accelerating pace of change, the most successful corporation of the 1990s will be
something called the learning organization, a consummately adaptive enterprise.
(Dumaine, 1989, p. 48.). Since the need to learn and adapt to change is expected to
continue for the foreseeable future, it is important to design education programs that
10
address the complexities of adult learning in modem corporate settings.
Significance
The views and perceptions of managers and leaders in small- and medium-sized
non profit organizations are often overlooked by educators and management consultants
when testing theories about adult learning. The perceptions of executives in small
organizations are important because about 53% of the nations workers are employed at
companies with fewer than 500 employees (Nussbaum, 1997 ). This study may uncover
important contextual factors that influence learning in smaller organizations. This case-
study provides a deeper understanding of how adult educators can assist managers in
resolving issues that impact their effectiveness during organizational transitions.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
11
Introduction
To complete this qualitative study, the researcher conducted a review of the
literature on the following: Learning organizations and related areas including
organizational learning, knowledge management, and intellectual capital; and, individual
learning with a specific focus on factors that enhance or impede individual learning in
relation to organizational learning. These areas of literature have particular relevance to
this study because an important aspect of the study is to understand the interplay between
organizational and individual learning in the context of modem, highly adaptable
organizations. There is a growing body of literature on the effects of continuous change
on individuals in organizations and a separate, but relatively large body of literature on
becoming a learning organization. There is very little literature, however, that looks at
managers perceptions of organizational learning and knowledge management in small
non-profit organizations. Specifically, there is a dearth of literature based on the
experiences of managers in small, dynamic, learning organizations.
An extensive review of the literature on learning organizations is included in this
research. This is intended to be a critical review of the literature comparing and
contrasting theories for commonalities, discrepancies and gaps. Emerging theories about
knowledge management and intellectual capital are closely linked to organizational
learning theory. A critical review of the literature on both of these areas is also included
in this research. The researcher continued to review this emerging body of literature
throughout the research.
To determine some of the commonly held definitions of what it means to be a
learning organization, the researcher briefly reviews the theories of Peter Senge, Daniel
Kim, Victoria Marsick, and Karen Watkins. These authors have been chosen because
their work is widely recognized as shaping the general knowledge about what it means to
be a learning organization. They have also been chosen because excerpts from some of
their writings have been distributed among the managers who are the subjects of this case
study.
To narrow the focus of the literature review, several preliminary questions are
being posed. By starting with general questions on organizational learning, followed by
more specific questions, the researcher was able to guide and control the scope of the
study. Literature was be selected on the basis of how well it answers the questions being
posed. To build in cross-checks and add validity to the findings, the questions that guide
the literature review are very similar to the questions that were asked during the
interviews.
Questions About Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management
What is organizational learning and how does it relate to a learning organization?
What are the essential elements of a learning organization?
What conditions enhance or impede organizational learning?
How does organizational learning impact the effectiveness of managers?
How does organizational learning and knowledge management support or impede
individual learning?
13
Questions About Individual Learning
What are some organizational factors that enhance or impede individual learning?
What is the relationship between individual learning and organizational learning?
How have information technology and knowledge management systems
supported organizational learning?
Answers to these questions and others emerged from the literature review. As
previously stated, these were preliminary questions and their relevance is evaluated
throughout the course of the research. Other questions may emerge that offer greater
insight into understanding the perceptions of managers about individual and
organizational learning. A full review of the literature is included in the study. These
preliminary sub-topics may be modified in the dissertation as determined by the
interviews, critical incident forms, and the literature review.
The chart at the end of the chapter compares ideas of the authors whose theories
form the theoretical framework for the study. The researcher answers questions such as:
What are the implications of the findings in the context of an organization striving to
become a learning organization? How does the literature add to educators understanding
of managers perceptions about individual and organizational learning? Where in the
literature is the relationship between individual learning and organizational learning
addressed? Does the literature support or refute the researchers assumptions about the
interception between individual learning and organizational learning? Does the literature
indicate a difference in perceptions about learning organizations based on the size,
14
maturity, or type of organization? Where are the gaps in the literature?
The ideas of the Marsick and Watkins, Senge, Nonaka and Takeuchi provide the
theoretical framework for the case study and establish the shared meaning about what it is
to be a learning organization. For the purpose of this study, the learning organization is
defined as one which continually and intentionally develops its capacity to be responsive
to its internal and external customers, by promoting and facilitating learning opportunities
for all its members which are generative in nature and systematically shared throughout
the organization (Senge, 1993; Kim, 1994; Marsick and Watkins, 1993).
In addition to textbooks, the sources for this preliminary literature and for the
final literature review includes: ERIC, Dissertations Abstracts, Management and
Organizational Development Journals, CLIO, the Kelvin Smith Library at Case Western
Reserve University and the Milbank Library at Columbia Universitys Teachers College.
Overview of Research on Learning Organizations
Learning Organizations
Most research is focused on comparing and contrasting different models of
learning organizations based on popularized theories of what it means to be a learning
organization. An emerging body of literature on knowledge management (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995; Choo, 1995; Pinchot, 1994) and intellectual capital (Shrivastava, 1997 ;
Stewart, 1997 ) is beginning to add insight into the impact of learning organizations on the
business practices and people who work in those organizations. Many of the early
reviews on organizational learning, the product of the learning organization, focused on
defining the entity. Marsick and Watkins (1997 ) write,
15
Recent researchers have built on these early reviews to
interpret the meaning of organizational learning in a rapidly
changing environment and to challenge some of the original
assumptions on which models were based (e.g., Brown and
Duguid, 1991; Glynn, Milliken, and Lant, 1991; Isaacs and Senge,
1992; Miner and Mezias, 1996). (p. 4)
Research on learning organizations frequently falls into two distinct categories: research
based on case studies, i.e., applied research ( Marsick and Watkins, 1996); and research
based on abstract modeling and computer simulations, i.e., knowledge development
research (Senge, 1990a; Senge, et al., 1997 ; Argyris, 1990; Kim, 1989; 1990). Some of
the differences in how learning organizations are evaluated is attributed to the variations
in the conceptual models of management theorists. The theorists use different research
frameworks for determining the organizational phenomena that need to be studied. Chris
Argyris (1990), for example, examines the behavior of individuals, especially managers,
and their coping routines. Edgar Schein (1988) looks at organizational culture and group
processes. Peter Senges theories (1990a) are based on models developed and tested in
learning laboratories that attempt to shed light on the interplay between organizational
systems through simulations and scenario variations.
Another level of complexity is added to the research when one considers the
various types or levels of learning ranging from individual, to group, to team, to the
organization. Some researchers will extend the organizational learning research
framework beyond the boundaries of the organization to include the external community
and society in general (Marsick and Watkins, 1993). Senge, (1990) often refers to
learning that is generative and synergistic or greater than the sum of the parts. The
various conceptual frameworks and theories that attempt to illuminate the dynamics of
16
learning within organizations are sometimes at odds with each other.
Research is still not clear as to how teaming relates across
different levels, as Gephart, Marsick, Van Buren, and Spiro (1996)
point out in a review of different models of learning organizations
and the diagnostic instruments that theorists have created to assess
systems-level learning. Much research has been done on
individual learning, but it is not possible to automatically apply
models and insights generated about individuals and make sound
statements about systems-level learning, whether that takes place
in groups or larger entities. (Marsick and Watkins, 1997 , p.5).
In considering how learning occurs in organizations, researchers also consider the
effectiveness of processes that result in improving the skills, knowledge, behavior, or
attitudes of individuals. This type of learning may be what is needed to solve specific
types of problems and although the skills may be spread broadly throughout an
organization it is characteristically not very deep learning. It is often referred to as
single-loop or adaptive learning. It is contrasted by generative or double-loop learning
that results in dramatic changes in the way people view a problem. In double-loop
learning ones underlying assumptions or values are questioned allowing a problem to be
viewed in radically different ways which may lead to radically different solutions or
problem-solving processes. Double-loop learning requires critical examination of mental
models that may inhibit learning. Argyris and Schons (1996) theories of effective
organizational learning emphasize the ability of the organization to practice double-loop
learning to prevent revisiting the same problems over and over without benefiting from
previous attempts to solve the problem. Many promoters of learning organizations
believe that unless an organization can reframe its mental models, effective
organizational learning cannot occur (Senge, 1990a; Kim, 1993). The inability to practice
17
double-loop learning may lead to solutions based on false or unexamined assumptions.
The result is, at best, the problem will go away and re-occur in a few weeks or months. In
the worst case scenario, the organization will create system-wide response to the wrong
problem leading to systemic dysfunction (Argyris and Schon, 1996). Researchers,
however, do not completely devalue incremental or single-loop learning and
acknowledge that both types of learning are useful under some conditions, but harmful
under others. (Marsick and Watkins, 1997 p.6).
Organizational Learning
What is organizational learning and how does it relate to a learning organization?
In their work Sculpting the Learning Organization (1993) Watkins and Marsick,
characterize the learning organization as an organization wherein learning occurs at four
interdependent levels - individual, team, organization, and society and that learning
transforms or changes the organization (p. 9). Learning organizations can be described as
companies which employ the operating principles commonly associated with
organizational learning. Therefore, a learning organization is the product of
organizational learning. In his article Toward Learning Organizations Daniel Kim
(1989) writes, all organizations leam, whether they consciously choose to or not -- it is a
fundamental requirement for their sustained existence. Other theorists describe
organizational learning as an intentional, systemic process. Organizations can leam
naturally, without intentional efforts, in order to cope with changes in their environment
(Marsick and Watkins, 1997 ). But the learning organization involves dynamic,
. intentional processes in order to accelerate the creation an utilization of knowledge across
the system (Marsick and Watkins, 1997 ). Peter Senge (1990a), often credited with
popularizing the learning organization, believes organizational learning occurs when
members share ideas and information, through dialogue creating new knowledge for the
purpose of improving the organizations systems, increasing revenue, or changing the
organizations culture or image (Senge, 1990a). For Senge, organizational learning
involves mastering and practicing disciplines until they become second nature (Senge,
1990a). Kline and Saunders (1993) elaborate on Senges definition by describing a
learning organization as one which has an environment favorable to learning at every
level, [which can ] reawaken and stimulate the power and joy of learning in all the
members of the organization, regardless of their position and background, and [is able] to
harness the new learning that was generated in order to produce maximum benefit for the
organization (Kline and Saunders, p. 12).
To further define the concept of a learning organization, some experts describe
the essential components that support their model (Senge, 1990a; Kline and Saunders,
1993; Watkins and Marsick, 1993). Senge (1990a) identifies five disciplines that he
considers to be essential for establishing a learning organization:
1. Building Shared Vision - the practice of unearthing shared pictures of the
future that foster genuine commitment.
2. Personal Mastery -- the skill of continually clarifying and deepening our personal
vision.
3. Mental Models -- the ability to unearth our internal pictures of the world, to
scrutinize them, and to make them open to the influence of others.
4. Team Learning - the capacity to think together which is gained by mastering
19
the practice of dialogue and discussion.
5. Systems Thinking The discipline that integrates the others, fusing them into a
coherent body of theory and practice.
Senges (1990a) disciplines are the foundation for his model of learning organizations.
He provides illustrations and mental models as vehicles for teaching his ideas. By
practicing and mastering the five disciplines they will become second nature. For
example, intuition and rationality are widely thought to be important characteristic of
leaders and managers. Senge (1990a; 1990b) believes that people with high levels of
personal mastery do not set out to integrate reason and intuition. Rather, they achieve it
naturally -- as a by-product of their commitment to use all resources at their disposal.
A criticism of organizational learning is the lack of measures to evaluate its
impact on the organization. In an article entitled, Does training pay off? Steve
Blickstein says of Senges five disciplines, these ideas and other abstract concepts have
led to criticisms and misinterpretations of Senges work (Blickstein, 1996). Unless
learning can be captured, leveraged, and applied to daily operations its value is frequently
called into question.
In espousing theories about the importance of learning organizations, critics agree
the challenge of integrating action and learning remains a major obstacle. A practice-
reflection approach to learning is promoted by Watkins and Marsick (Marsick and
Watkins, 1993; 1996). They identify six action imperatives for the learning organization:
1) Create continuous learning opportunities
2) Promote inquiry and dialogue
3) Encourage collaboration and team learning
20
4) Establish systems to capture and share learning
5) Empower people toward a collective vision
6) Connect the organization to its environment
7 ) Leadership
Watkins and Marsick (1993), in contrast to Senges (1990a) emphasis on
management systems, are more interested in theories of adult learning (Ziegler, 1995).
Ziegler (1995) compares and contrasts the work of Senge to the work of Marsick and
Watkins as follows:
Watkins and Marsick (1993) are more interested in
the implications of the learning organization within the
practice of human resource development and adult
education. Their approach represents a key shift in the
literature on the learning organization for two reasons: first,
its intended audience, and second, its focus on the
individual and collective learning process. Watkins and
Marsick (1993) use the metaphor of sculpting to show the
emerging nature of a learning organization. Though Senge
emphasizes generative learning in describing a learning
organization, his focus is more on organizational behavior,
strategy, and change than learning (Ziegler, 1995, p. 36).
Daniel Kim, 1993, presents a third approach to understanding learning
organizations. He links the characteristics of a learning organization to the concepts of
total quality control. He considers business aspects such as total commitment to
satisfying customers, and operational learning to be foundational. From there he adds
Systems Thinking to create a new model of Systemic Quality Management (Kim, 1993,
p. 7 ). He proposes a model of learning organizations built on the combined elements of
TQC and Systems Thinking (Kim, 1993, p. 7 ).
21
The Link Between Individual and Organizational Learning.
Senge (1990a) makes the connection between individual learning and
organizational learning: Organizations leam only through individuals who leam.
Individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning. But without it no
organizational learning occurs (Senge, 1990a, p. 139). Watkins and Marsick (1993) share
this belief. Organizational learning is not simply the sum of the learning of all
individuals, nor is it the learning of top managers, (p. 147 ). They quote Fiol and Lyles
(1985) organizations, unlike individuals, develop and maintain learning systems that not
only influence their immediate members, but are then transmitted to others by way of
organizational history and norms. (Watkins and Marsick, 1993, p. 147 ). The learning
organization is not just the sum of many individuals who are learning. It speaks to the
collective capacity of a company to respond effectively to a rapidly changing, turbulent
environment by more effectively fostering, capturing and sharing learning in order to
reap the benefit of what people know so as to improve performance (Marsick and
Watkins, 1997 ). Similarly, Kim writes, (1993) the importance of individual learning for
organizational learning is at once obvious and subtle obvious because all organizations
are composed of individuals; subtle because organizations can leam independent of any
specific individual but not independent of all individuals (Sloan Management Review,
Fall 1993). Stated another way,
There is little question that the intangibles of databases,
personal know-how, technological understanding, communications
networks, market flexibility and effective motivation are the true
assets of most companies and the primary sources of their future
income streams. (Quinn, p. 243)
22
The literature on organizational learning emphasizes the importance of everyone,
including the senior managers, becoming self-directed learners who proactively share
their learning within the organization. In Argyris article (1991) on teaching smart
people to leam, he discusses how members of an organization may not be very good at it.
He is referring to the well-educated, high-powered, and commitment professionals,
similar to those in this study, who occupy key leadership positions.
The literature indicates that learning is a function of the personal, behavioral and
environmental conditions interacting with the individual. Wood and Bandura, 1993,
believe, people are both product of and producers of their environment. (pp. 361). In
their 1993 article, Wood and Bandura, emphasize the importance of skills as well as self-
confidence as important to the learning process. They write,
To be successful, one not only must possess the required
skills, but also a resilient self-belief in ones capabilities to
exercise control over events to accomplish desired goals. Peoples
beliefs in their efficacy can be instilled and strengthened in four
principal ways: A series of mastery experiences; Modeling through
social comparison with others; social persuasion - realistic
encouragement; and, enhancing their physical status (dress, fitness,
appearance). (p. 364)
Similar to Wood and Bandura, Kolbs work (1981) looks at individual and
external factors that influence preferred learning styles. His work on the learning styles of
adults is based on three stages of development marked by increasing complexity and
relativism in dealing with the world and ones experiences. He writes,
individuals are shaped by social, educational and
organizational socialization forces develop increased competence
in a specialized mode of adaptation that enables them to master the
particular life tasks they encounter in their chosen career path. (p.
249)
23
In their review of the research on organizational learning, (1997 ) Marsick and
Watkins identify several schools of thought in the literature about learning outcomes. The
following is excerpted from their work Organizational Learning: Review of the Research
(1997 ):
The organization has learned when the organization has:
Developed better systems for conscious error detection and correction
Changed its organizational memory by changing some part of how it encodes
memory (for example, the management information systems, the budget,
policies, or procedures)
Changed its mental models
Developed cultures of inquiry and generativity
Extracted knowledge latent in experience, which is then translated into new
products or services or skills. (1997 , p.7 )
Argyris and Schon (197 8; 1996) build on John Deweys understanding of learning
as a response to an error. Error is not necessarily a mistake; it is simply that which was
not desired. Learning as conscious error detection and correction is a hallmark of
organizational learning. Argyris believes learning consists of constructing new
knowledge by re-framing ones understanding of information to gain a different
perspective. According to Argyris and Schon (1996), learning is correcting errors by
adjusting the data or revising the cognitive structures that produced the failed
expectations. Organizations leam when individuals inquire into error on the
organizations behalf:
They experience a surprising mismatch between expected
and actual results of action that leads them to modify their images
of organization or their understanding of organizational
phenomena and to restructure their activities so as to bring
outcomes and expectations into line, thereby changing
24
organizational theory-in-use. hi order to become
organizational, die learning that results from organizational inquiry
must become embedded in the images of organization held in its
members minds and/or in the epistemological artifacts (the maps,
memories, and programs) embedded in the organizational
environment (p. 16)
What is measured in this conceptualization of organizational learning? Some examples
include: changes in mission, vision, and values statements which reflect a transformed
underlying consensus on the organizations purposes; structural changes which promote
learning; higher levels of inquiry behavior at all ranks; use of mistakes or problems as
opportunities for learning rather than blame; and the presence or absence of systems for
detecting error rates as well as for addressing causes.
Organizational Learning as a Change in Organizational Memory. James March
(March and Olsen, 197 5; Levitt and March, 1988) pioneered a focus on capturing
knowledge gained from experience through organizational memory. Organizations leam
by encoding inferences from history into routines that guide behavior. These routines are
both formal (forms, rules, procedures, policies, strategies, technologies or work
processes) and informal (culture, beliefs, paradigms). Changes in these routines
constitute a measure of learning in the organization.
Organizations, like people, leam only if information becomes sufficiently relevant
for them to become aware of i t Like people, they are limited in their capacity to store
and retrieve information, and subject to biases which may lead to storing inaccurate
information. Experience may or may not lead to learning. A theory of organizational
learning must take into account information exposure, memory and retrieval; learning
incentives, belief structures and their micro development in organizations.
25
March (1991) further differentiated two forms of organizational learning which
result from experience-based improvements exploration and exploitation. Exploitation
is investing in continuous, incremental improvements through efficiencies, innovation,
and product differentiation. Exploration, on the other hand, is investing in more long
term, fundamental research and development. This type of experience based
organizational learning involves drawing on the learning that comes from outside the
organization, from listening to newcomers, and from basic research. Organizations with
a long term learning capacity balance investments in both exploitation and exploration.
What would be measured in this conceptualization of organizational learning?
Some examples include: changes in organizational investment in research and
development; whether or not systems are created to buffer and leam from new hires;
environmental scanning systems; changes in formal procedures, work processes, or
cultural artifacts; and information systems processing capacity.
Organizational Learning as Changing Mental Models. According to DeGeus
(1988) from Royal Dutch Shell, institutional learning begins with the calibration of
existing mental models. (p. 7 4). Competitive advantage derives from the managers
ability to continually revise their mental models of the world. Planners helped Shell Oil
company prepare for changes in oil prices in 1984 through creatively playing with
Shells possible responses to different oil prices. Consultants interviewed people,
incorporated what they learned into computer-based models, and used these as a
springboard to play with ideas. Computer models allowed people to play with a few key
variables at a time, to see how effects could be caused by events that took place much
earlier than people would imagine, and to find out which information, was relevant in a
26
particular situation. The models helped people make their thinking explicit: When
people play with models this way, they are actually creating a new language among
themselves that expresses the knowledge they have acquired. (p. 7 4).
Mental models become operationalized in a companys systems and processes.
Without conscious examination, these systems can inhibit organizational learning.
Shrivastava (1983) highlights this facet of mental models in an early review of research.
He identifies two differentiating dimensions of organizational learning systems: the
person(s) they serve, and the degree to which they are intentionally designed. Mental
models differ if the systems serve a few key individuals, in which case they are highly
personalized; or if they serve a larger, and sometimes impersonal, group of decision
makers. Likewise, mental models are often incorporated without explicit review when
information systems evolve without design. Organizational learning can be enhanced
through revamping information systems. However, Shrivastava suggests that the
development of learning systems without adequate examination of socio-cultural learning
norms may explain the frequent failure of designed learning systems. To the extent that
organizations have embedded norms which suppress learning, designed learning systems
are often less effective.
Organizational Learning as Cultures of Inquiry and Generativity. Senge (1990a)
emphasizes the ability of an organization to both adapt and to create alternative futures.
He conceptualizes organizational learning environments as places where,
people continually expand their capacity to create the
results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of
thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and
where people are continually learning how to leam together. (p.3).
27
Senge has developed learning laboratories that are characterized by continuous
learning and the ability to run experiments in the margin. He operationalizes
organizational learning through five disciplines. Systems thinking is the integrative
discipline. The other four disciplines are: developing personal mastery with an emphasis
on clarifying a personal vision; clarifying mental models which encourage individuals to
identify and test their assumptions; building shared visions, and understanding the power
of team learning.
Measures which fit this conceptualizing include: tests of systemic thinking;
employee opinion surveys which assess the degree of congruence between
organizationally espoused values and organizational or individual actions, between the
vision as defined by top management and as defined by all others, and between
employees sense of empowerment and managements belief in employee participation;
presence and quality of experimentation designed for innovative problem solving; reward
systems that support innovation; and assessments of the extent to which all members of
the organization are engaged in learning either individually or in teams.
Organizational Learning as Extracting and Building Knowledge. Organizational
learning has been newly conceptualized as knowledge creation (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995) based on an analysis of the experience of Japanese companies.
Knowledge is embodied in a companys goods and services, and as such, is part of its
intellectual capital. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) describe an interactive, spiral, iterative
organizational process that moves back and forth between implicit (tacit) and explicit
knowledge, and that does so through alternating cycles of extemalization and
internalization. Through socialization, tacit knowledge is created through sharing of
experiences, mental models, and skills. Knowledge is then drawn out and made
explicit so that ideas can be built into archetypes, and tested through new product
development. New ideas are explicitly shared throughout the organization, or cross
leveled, so that they can be externalized and experimented with in other parts of the
company. Finally, the newly evolved ideas are again internalized so that they become re
socialized. Five organizational conditions support this knowledge creation process:
intention, fluctuation/chaos, autonomy, redundancy, and requisite variety. Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995) describe an elaborate, integrated knowledge creation system that is built
around specialized knowledge roles for all employees at various levels, and that involves
a virtual, group-based learning management system.
The four types of organizational learning that were identified earlier. . .[m]ight be
described, as well, using these dimensions of knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1994). To be maximally effective, knowledge creation involves all four types of
learning. Implicit knowledge creation (behavior learning) is recognized and consciously
studied and drawn out. Based on this, experimentation occurs (inferential learning).
Results of experiments are shared (vicarious learning) so that others in the organization
can adapt what is know to their own settings (discovery learning).
Research from this organizational learning perspective would assess such things
as the quality and speed of the research development and diffusion process in the
organization; the number of new patents, products, or services per year; the extent to
which new ideas are modified and incorporated into other products or services; the roles
of individuals and groups in drawing out, testing, and spreading new knowledge; and
whether or not the organization has the requisite cultural and structural infrastructure to
29
develop new knowledge.
What Conditions Impede Organizational Learning? Watkins and Marsick (1993)
believe a barrier to building organizational capacity is organizations habit of exploiting
superficial fads without making the investment in learning required to leam at a deeper
level (1993, p. 154). Other theorists also recognize conditions that impede organizational
learning. Senge (1990a) compares organizations to people and refers to organizational
learning disabilities (p. 18). The way [organizations] are designed and managed, the way
peoples jobs are defined and, most importantly, the way we have all been taught to think
and interact may create fundamental learning disabilities (Senge, 1990a).
The literature suggests attitudes about learning influences the effectiveness of
managers. Argyris and Schon present a theory of action perspective where organizational
learning takes place through individual actors whose actions are based on a set of shared
models (Kim, 1990a). According to Kim (1990a), Argyris and Schon argue that most
organizations have shared assumptions which preclude challenging peoples attributions
and provide self-sealing affirmation of those attributions. Engaging in such actions,
referred to as single-loop learning, ensures that very little learning occurs. Another
management consultant, Diamond (1986), agrees that Argyris and Schons contributions
to organization theory are particularly relevant to theories of adult learning. Diamond
(1986) argues that psychological resistance to change and therefore to learning is deeply
rooted in contradictory motives and defensive actions. (p. 559)
Kim (1993b) attempts to a build theory about the process through which
individual learning advances organizational learning. He identifies seven organizational
or behavioraj conditions that impede learning: Situational learning, fragmented learning,
30
opportunistic learning, learning under ambiguity, superstitious learning, audience
learning, and role constrained learning. Conversely, by eliminating the impediments or
reducing the degree of ambiguity, for example, the impact of these impediments is
minimized and conditions for learning are enhanced.
William Pasmore (1994), a management consultant and professor at Case
Western Reserve University, believes the growing complexity of organizations pushes us
to the limits of our knowledge about organizational behavior. The people who create and
manage these complex structures are being bombarded with information at a rate that
would be humanly impossible to absorb, critically reflect upon, and act upon with a
consistently high degree of reasonableness because of the sheer magnitude and
complexity of the dynamic data. New forms of management and learning are required to
effectively bridge the gap between raw data and wisdom. To move beyond
organizational management to organizational innovation and renewal, an organization-
wide framework that cultivates creativity, openness, and discovery has to be established.
The model would be the basis for constructing an institutional capacity for learning and
sharing ideas.
Marsick and Watkins (1997 ) looked at the work of Zander and Kogut (1995) who
studied the effects of the extent to which capabilities can be communicated and
understood on the time to their transfer and imitation. According to Marsick and
Watkins, Zander and Kogut examined the thesis that the transfer and imitation of
capabilities are related to the dimensions of underlying knowledge. The quantitative
study was designed to understand how quickly innovative ideas can be manufactured
innovations. In the Swedish study using correlational models, strong relationships were
31
found between two characteristics of the innovation and the time to transfer. Zander
and Kogut believe, the more codifiable and teachable an innovation is, the higher the risk
of rapid transfer (in Marsick and Watkins, 1997 ). Marsick and Watkins conclude the
Swedish study suggests,
that organizational learning, when defined as the
development of knowledge, is enhanced by continuous
development activities. The more an organization invests in
knowledge creation and modification, the less the threat of
imitation by competitors. Transfer of knowledge and the imitation
of innovations are facilitated by making new knowledge explicit
and by key employees taking knowledge to competitors, (p. 19)
Peter Senge (1990), and Daniel Kim (1993a) have contributed extensively to
theories about learning organizations through research based on computer simulations.
This laboratory research has the advantage of being able to work through an almost
endless set of variables or possibilities that could occur in organizations. The
disadvantage of the simulations is that they cannot account for all of the unplanned and
unpredictable events that characterize actual work settings.
In their review of research on organizational learning, Marsick and Watkins
(1997 ) describe the computer simulation work conducted by Lant and Mezias in 1990
that tests the effectiveness of different entrepreneurial strategies in organizations in
response to major changes in their environments.
The study suggests that implications for costs and
effectiveness vary depending on the degree of ambiguity that exists
in the relationship between organizational characteristics and
performance. High costs for entrepreneurial activity, interpreted as
environmental scanning, are not justified under unambiguous
conditions, although the authors caution that real life conditions
may differ from those set by the simulation. Under conditions of
ambiguity, adaptive activity bears high costs, and as such, should
32
often be avoided if possible. Imitative firms should not change too
rapidly until industry leaders have emerged whose experience can
be first analyzed, (p. 20)
Marsick and Watkins, conclude that studies such as these,
if based on accurate assumptions, enable companies to play
out the results of certain choices over time. Results can ward off
actions that seem intuitively appropriate, for example in this study,
investing in the high cost of constant surveillance, when conditions
might not predict desired impact. (p. 20)
In comparing and contrasting the research theories on organizational learning,
there is still a lot to be learned before educators can begin to espouse generalizable
theories. Learning in organizations is subject to the complexities of the individuals,
teams, and systems that make up the organization. To further complicate the analysis
customers, market fluctuations, new developments in technology and other dynamics that
characterize the external environment also impact the effectiveness of organizational
learning.
The review of the literature reveals there are some established baselines for
determining whether the organization is indeed a learning organization. Baseline
elements for a learning organization include but are not necessarily limited to some
degree of systems- level learning, effective use of communications systems and
technology, and learning from the experiences of others in the organization and in other
organizations (Senge, 1990a, 1990b; Marsick and Watkins, 1993; Argyris and Schon,
197 8; Kim, 1993a; Ziegler, 199S). There is no consensus on the degree and effectiveness
to which these elements need to be practiced to qualify as learning organizations. But
theoretical frameworks for understanding organizational learning are emerging.
The research suggests that organizations, whether they are in relatively stable
environments or are experiencing periods of highly discontinuous change, cannot easily
change the many dimensions of their culture, mental models, and organizational systems
in such a way as to support totally new approaches to organizational learning (Marsick
and Watkins, 1997 ).
Another theme that continues to emerge from the review of the literature on
organizational learning, is the expectation that everyone is responsible for the
organizations learning. Systems-level learning (Senge, 1990a) assumes that the
infrastructure (information systems and management processes) are in place that will
support systematically capturing and spreading knowledge that will improve a
companys products and services. Conversely, there are some organizational structures
where individuals or small teams are expected to manage their own information gathering
processes independently and then self-organize in ways that will allow the knowledge to
be spread more widely either through relationships or technology (Wheatly, 1992).
The culture of an organization has a significant impact on organizational learning.
The degree to which people feel negative risks associated with sharing expertise and
information will influence their willingness to participate in learning systems. Defensive
behaviors that stem from distrust or uncertainty create barriers to learning and continuous
improvement processes (Argyris, 1990; Argyris and Schon 197 8; Schein, 1989). The
culture of an organization is not easily changed or measured. Organizations often seek
strategies that will enhance knowledge acquisition and utilization (Marsick and Watkins,
1997 ), which often result in incremental learning; but to be strategic and targeted toward
34
higher performance the organizations culture needs to reward innovation and out-of-
the-box thinking, which often threaten the status quo.
New experiences and new interpretations of old experiences often foster learning.
Some learning organizations have established cultures and developed processes that
reward and support risk-taking (Prokesch, 1997 ). Organizational learning occurs when
there is creative tensions that promote innovation (Senge, 1990a). Put another way,
organizations need to understand how to balance strategies that support discontinuity and
creativity in order to generate new ideas, and strategies that support continuity and
routine in order to foster high performance implementation (Leonard-Barton, in Marsick
and Watkins, 1997 ). This paradox calls for the simultaneous encouragement and
balancing of conflicting skills, strategies, and structures within the system as a whole,
though not necessarily within every individual, team, or set of procedures, (ibid.)
Marsick and Watkins have summarized the implications of the review of the
research as follows:
A review of the research suggests that we need to find a
theory-based framework within which to locate our studies
(Gephart, Marsick, Van Buren, and Spiro, 1996). Noting the lack
of such a framework, Gephart, Holton, Marsick, and Redding,
(1997 ) have developed and are testing a research instrument for
systems-level learning that has been based on a theory-oriented
framework for organizational change and performance (Burke and
Litwin, 1992). Based on open systems principles, the Burke-
Litwin model portrays the primary variables that need to be
considered in any attempt to predict and explain the total behavior
output of an organization, the most important interactions between
these variables, and how they affect change. (p. 23)
35
Burke and Litwin (1992) have defined the external environment as the input,
individual and organizational performance as the output, and ten organizational variables
as throughput. They distinguish between transformational variables that are levers for
fundamental, generative change; and transactional variables that are needed to implement
change, but which are incremental in nature. Transformational variables include mission
and strategy, leadership, and culture. Transactional variables include management
practices, structure, systems, work unit climate, task and individual skills, motivation,
and individual needs and values. The new instrument should enable its users to track
learning and performance outcomes at the individual and organizational level that are
most linked to systems level learning. Given that the design of interventions to create
learning organizations must remain somewhat unique to each setting, this instrument will,
over time, help identify features of interventions that can be linked more closely with
bottom-line results, which is what the learning organization is all about.
The authors above were chosen because they are experts in the field and because
their work is familiar to the subjects in the research. The writings of these authors are
circulated among the managers and are often recommended reading. They provide the
language and the shared meaning about learning organizations for the managers at Acme,
Inc. The consultants working with the managers at Acme, Inc. often cite the work of
Senge. Some of the managers attended a workshop led by Marsick several years ago and
others are familiar with her writings and work at Columbia University. Daniel Kims
Systems Thinking Newsletter and articles are also circulated among the managers.
36
Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital
The traditional paradigm of information systems is based on seeking a consensual
interpretation of information based on socially dictated norms or the mandate of the
company bosses. For many, this has resulted in the confusion between 'knowledge' and
'information'. However, knowledge and information can be viewed as two different
things. While information generated by the computer systems is not a very rich carrier
of human interpretation for potential action, 'knowledge' resides in the user's subjective
context of action based on that information.
Knowledge management and intellectual capital are increasingly being addressed
by adult educators and management consultants who work in the area of organizational
learning. Knowledge management is the practice of capturing expertise and making it
accessible to those in the organization who need it (Stewart, 1997 ). It is the process of
harvesting the tacit knowledge of the expert and making it explicit and available to others
in the organization to the point where it becomes tacit again, (Nonaka, 1994).
Karl Erik Sveiby (1997 ) contends that the confusion between knowledge and
information has caused managers to sink billions of dollars in technology ventures that
have yielded marginal results. He asserts that the business managers need to realize that
unlike information, knowledge is embedded in people... and knowledge creation occurs
in the process of social interaction. On a similar note, Ikujiro Nonaka (1994), has
emphasized that only human beings can take the central role in knowledge creation. He
argues that computers are merely tools, however great their information-processing
capabilities may be. A very recent Harvard Business Review special issue on Knowledge
37
Management (July-August 1997 ) seems to lend credence to this point of view. This
issue highlighted the need for constructive conflict in organizations that aspire to be
leaders in innovation and creation of new knowledge.
The ability to interpret the complexity of massive amounts of data and apply the
findings in various ways that are both timely and beneficial to the organization
distinguish knowledge management from managing information outputs generated by
computer systems. Such variety is necessary for deciphering the multiple world views of
the uncertain and unpredictable future. Knowledge management emphasizes
understanding the various views of the future using techniques such as scenario-planning.
A similar process of strategic planning was pioneered by Arie De Geus, the strategy chief
of the multinational Royal Dutch/Shell (1997 ). Non-linear change imposes upon
organizations the need for devising non-linear strategies. Such strategies cannot be
predicted based on a static picture of information residing in the company's databases.
Rather, such strategies will depend upon developing interpretive flexibility by
understanding multiple views of the future.
In contrast to the behaviorist view of knowledge management, there are many
who consider knowledge management from a view driven by technical capability. A
central reason is the advent of what some people are calling the the digital economy.
The digital economy both enables and requires organizations to continually learn new
knowledge and systematically deploy it for value creation (Pinchot and Pinchot, 1994;
Quinn, 1992). This is the economy of the future based on information technologies,
computers, and telecommunications technologies. It is building around the Internet, the
World Wide Web, electronic commerce, and information services.
The digital economy implies fundamental changes in the way business is
organized and conducted in every functional area (Shrivastava, 1983). Convergence of
computing, communications and content is reinventing wealth creation through services.
Web based training and performance evaluation is changing the way human resources are
admitted, accounted for, and transformed in organizations. In brief, the digital economy
prioritizes the centrality of information and knowledge for all organizations. It makes
knowledge management a strategic issue (Linstone and Mitroff, 1994; Negroponte, 1995;
Tapscott, 1996).
Stewart (1997 ) believes knowledge management is a strategic issue because it
holds one of the highest potentials for gaining efficiencies, and creating value. Other
sources of efficiency and value creation have already been exploited to a great extent. For
example, over the past century business organizations have exploited material (physical)
efficiencies through industrial machines and automation. During the same period,
financial capital was a big source of value and efficiency. Post 1960s human resource
efficiencies became an important source of value. Knowledge management is an
extension of these human efficiencies in the information economy of the future. It allows
organizations to develop, use and preserve intellectual capital and perform knowledge
work (Stewart, 1997 ).
Shrivastava (1998) believes that in the milieu of rapidly expanding information
technology and knowledge work organizations are challenged to find a framework for
knowledge management. He believes the framework should combine the human
intellectual capital and technological processes that enable knowledge work and
knowledge value creation. Shrivastava (1998) proposes some basic concepts of
39
knowledge management in the business education and training industry, viewing
classrooms as learning organizations that promote life long learning and create learning
communities. His work discusses networked knowledge management systems that can
support this type of knowledge ecology.
Organizational knowledge processes deal with the creation, distribution, use and
exchange of knowledge for purposes of value creation. The processes involve managing
the intellectual capital of organizations. These processes are best understood with the
ecology and ecosystem metaphors (Shrivastava, 1983). Performative organizational
knowledge is a knowledge ecology - a system consisting of many sources, venues, forms
and species of knowledge agents in a symbiotic relationship of productive exchange and
value creation. The output of the knowledge ecology is both forms of knowledge that add
value in the enterprise, and perform the work of the enterprise. Organizational knowledge
and learning occur in these ecologies (Shrivastava, 1983).
In the education and training industry, knowledge management represents the
core work of organizations such as, colleges, universities, training consultants, corporate
training programs, and corporate universities. It deals with the creation, interpretation,
critique, and distribution of knowledge within communities of scholars, practicing
experts, and between trainers/teachers and learners and managers. Historically, these
tasks have been labor intensive with technologies (particularly information technologies)
playing a secondary albeit increasingly important role. With the advent of the digital
economy, the balance of human and technological elements in knowledge management in
education and training is being destabilized. This is especially true in business education,
because in that context both educational processes and content, and business process are
40
being simultaneously transformed by electronic (computers and telecommunications)
technologies (Alavi, Yoo and Vogel, 1997 ; Shrivastava, 1997 ).
Shrivastava (1997 ) believes, that the knowledge ecology of business education is
undergoing profound changes with the advent of the digital economy. The digital
economy with its hyper competitive environments and ultra rapid changes calls for life
long learning of currently relevant information. When products and services change each
month and product life cycles are down to under a year, the rate of knowledge
obsolescence becomes a key determinant of what is relevant and useful knowledge.
Managers need to learn continually and leam on the job to improve performance
(Shrivastava, 1997 ; Stewart, 1997 ; Pasmore, 1994). They need continually updated and
diverse learning resources. They need to leam to improvise and experiment with real
decision situations. The knowledge ecology perspective sees business education
programs as places to initiate learning processes that can extend over the entire working
life of the learner. The objective of the knowledge ecosystem is to create and maintain
learners as strategic human resources that are capable of continually creating competitive
advantage for their companies, through knowledge application.
Traditional academic approaches of highly structured and polished lessons in pre
programmed classes are too static for the digital economy environment. They do not
promote improvisation in the learning process (Weick, 1997 ). Carefully prepackaged
knowledge resources (books, articles, case study packages) sometimes become obsolete
even as they are under preparation. For classrooms to be successful learning
organizations they must be plugged into permanent and continually updating knowledge
instruments and networks (Shrivastava, 1997 ).
Choo, (1995) defines knowledge management based on how the information is
handled: information seeking is the process of searching for information in a purposeful
manner so as to be able to alter one's state of knowledge. Information use is when the
individual selects and processes information which lead to a change in the individual's
capacity to make sense of an experience and to act or respond in the light of that new
understanding. Choo cites research that suggests the behavior of people seeking and
using information should be analyzed at three levels. The situational level looks at how
demands of the work-related context shape information needs and use. The cognitive
level looks at how information is used to bridge different kinds of cognitive gaps. The
affective level looks at how emotions and psychological states influence information
seeking. Thus, information needs, information seeking, and information use are all
determined by the norms and demands of the work and social setting, by the individual's
definition of the cognitive gap representing the information need and use, and by the
emotional experience of seeking, selecting and using the information encountered. This
three-level framework is used by Choo (1991) to explore the structure and dynamics of
information use by people in organizations as they construct meaning, create knowledge,
and make decisions (Weick, 1997 ).
Choos approach to knowledge management weaves together perspectives from
organization theory and information science. An organization possesses three kinds of
knowledge: tacit knowledge embedded in the expertise and experience of individuals and
groups; explicit or rule-based knowledge codified in organizational rules, routines, and
procedures; and cultural knowledge expressed in the assumptions, beliefs, and norms
used by members to assign value and significance to new information or knowledge. New
knowledge is created by knowledge conversion (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995),
knowledge building (Leonard-Barton, 1995), and knowledge linking. In knowledge
conversion (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), the organization continuously creates new
knowledge by converting between the personal, tacit knowledge of individuals who
produce creative insight and the shared explicit knowledge which the organization needs
to develop new products and innovations. Tacit knowledge is shared and externalized
through dialogue that uses metaphors and analogies. New concepts are created, and the
concepts are justified and evaluated according to their fit with organizational intention.
Concepts are tested and elaborated by building archetypes or prototypes. Finally,
concepts which have been created, justified and modeled are moved to other levels of the
organization to spark new cycles of knowledge creation. According to Leonard-Barton
(1995), in knowledge building, the organization identifies and nurtures activities that
build up knowledge which strengthens the organization's distinctive core capabilities,
enabling them to grow over time. Knowledge is transformed into value not only within
the organization, but also through knowledge-based interactions with its customers,
suppliers, and other partners.
The increasing appearance in the business and academic press of articles about
knowledge management, intellectual capital, and organization beg the question - how are
these concepts linked? While organizational learning would appear to be linked to
knowledge management and intellectual capital, only on rare occasions did the researcher
find the terms used together in the literature. In fact, it appears that the terms emerge
from different disciplines and perspectives i.e., one driven by technology, the other by
organizational culture and individual behavior. Organizational learning is the process of
43
embedding individual and group learning in the organization itself through systems,
structures, routines, procedures, strategy, and culture. The research shows most
organizations collect and use certain types of knowledge routinely. However, many
organization are not prepared to institutionalize much of the learning flowing upward
from individuals and groups. Knowledge management, when supported with the effective
use of information technology, can impact individual, group, and organizational learning.
The chart below captures some of the main ideas presented in this chapter from
the authors whose theories provided the framework for the study and the initial analytic
categories. One or two key ideas from these theorists are presented below as they address
the major research questions. The researcher sought deeper insight into those areas in the
chart that are not fully addressed in the literature. The last column represents ideas from
several theorists who are emerging as experts in the area of knowledge management as it
relates to organizational learning.
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Table 1. Comparison of Key Points from Literature Review
Marsick and Watkins Nonaka and Takeuchi Senge Others
Davenport
ODell andGrayson,
Prusak, Stewart
Organizational
Learning
OL must lead to
transformation as a
means for effectively
managing continuous
change in organizations.
OL involves dynamic,
intentional processes in
order to accelerate the
creation an utilization of
knowledge across the
system.
OL is the process of
harvesting the tacit
knowledge of the expert and
making it explicit and
available to others in the
organization to the point
where it becomes tacit
again.
OL is learning that is
generative and synergistic
or greater than the sum of
the parts.
Organizations evolve over
much longer periods of
time and that learning is
incremental rather than
transformational.
OL is the practice of
capturing expertise and
making it accessible to
those in the organization
who need it.
OL as it links
to Continuous
Change
Highly discontinuous
change, can't easily
change the dimensions of
the culture, mental
models, and systems in
ways that support new
approaches to OL.
Information and knowledge
are context-specific and
relational in that they
depend on the situation and
are created dynamically in
social interaction among
people
The proliferation and
increased dependence on
knowledge management
systems can be attributed
to the need to accelerate
learning because of
globalization, mass
customization, cost
cutting and downsizing,
and business process
complexity.
j=-
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Comparison of Key Points from Literature Review (cont)
Davenport
O'Dell andGrayson,
Prusak, Stewart
Systems
Thinking
The LO involves
dynamic, intentional
processes in order to
accelerate the creation
and utilization of
knowledge across the
system.
New ideas are explicitly
shared throughout the
organization, or cross
leveled, so that they can be
externalized and
experimented with in other
parts of the company.
Systems thinking is the
conceptual framework of
organizations where people
and processes are like
interwoven fabric joined by
relationships and
interrelated actions.
OL as it relates
to Individual
Learning
Organizations learn
through individuals, but
only when that learning
is socially constructed,
shared, and used to make
a difference in larger
social units or
subdivisions of the
organization, or more
typically in the entire
organization.
The organization
continuously creates new
knowledge by converting
between the personal, tacit
knowledge of individuals.
A learning organization not
only benefits the business
purpose of an organization,
in practice, it reawakens
and stimulates the power
and joy of learning in all
members of the
organization.
Organizational systems
including learning
systems are unwittingly
making demands on the
minds and mental
capacity of managers
beyond what can be
considered reasonable.
Impact of
Technology on
OL
Computers are merely tools,
however great their
information-processing
capabilities may be.
Systems-level learning
assumes the management
processes and IT systems
are in place that support
systematically capturing
and spreading knowledge.
IT and communication
systems help improve
processes and increase
productivity.
4=-
VJI
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Comparison of Key Points from Literature Review (cont)
Davenport
O'Dell andGrayson,
Prusak, Stewart
Conditions or
Factors that
Facilitate OL
Organizations often seek
strategies that will
enhance knowledge
acquisition and
utilization which often
result in incremental
learning; but to be
strategic and targeted
toward higher
performance the
organizations culture
needs to reward
innovation
Knowledge is created
through sharing of
experiences, mental models,
and skills.
OL occurs when there is
creative tension that
promotes innovation;
people have the
opportunity to grow their
own capacity for openness;
continually expand their
capacity to create the
results they truly desire;
new and expansive patterns
of thinking are nurtured;
collective aspiration is set
free and where people are
continually learning how to
learn together.
Knowledge management
systems and information
technology can be strong
facilitators of OL in a
culture where there is
willingness to share
information across
organizational
boundaries.
Conditions or
Factors that
Impede OL
Lack of trust, the lack of
good listening skills, and
fear of reprisal are
impediments to learning.
Viewing human
institutions as machines.
Information overload,
real or perceived, could
lead to organizational
paralysis. Hoarding
information in data bases,
only communicating via
e-mail, or never
communicating via e-
mail.
-Cr
cn
47
III. Methods
Introduction
This case study research looks at managers perceptions of organizational learning
and knowledge management. The study assumes that CEOs and educators need to better
understand managers underlying perceptions about individual learning and how it is
related to organization learning to be able to adequately support them in achieving
organizational as well as professional goals.
The researcher chose to conduct a qualitative case study because compared to
quantitative research methods the qualitative approach is better suited for research on the
perceptions of selected managers in one organization. Patton writes, qualitative methods
permit the evaluator to study selected issues in depth and detail (Patton, 1990). By
contrast, quantitative research designs are better suited when the goal is to measure the
reactions of a great many people to a fixed set of questions, thus facilitating comparison
and statistical aggregation of the data. Another important factor for using the chosen
methodology is that qualitative methods typically produce a wealth of detailed
information about a much smaller number of people and cases. This can also be viewed
as a limitation because although qualitative studies increase understanding of the cases
and situations studied it reduces generalizability (Patton, 1990). The strength of the
qualitative study is that it explores a problem or describes a setting, a process, a social
48
group, or a pattern of interaction (Marshall and Rossman, 1989). Since cultural norms
and values are being increasingly recognized as crucial for understanding organizational
change and effectiveness, one benefit of using qualitative methods is the ability to
describe unintended but critical effects (Schein, 1992).
Overview of the Design
The literature review provides the theoretical framework for the study and the
initial analytic categories which were as follows: organizational learning, organizational
learning during periods of significant change, impact of continuous change on individual
learning, systems thinking, and factors that facilitate or impede organizational learning.
After reviewing the initial data from critical incidents and field tests of the interview
questions, new information emerged and the final analytic categories were created. The
major categories remained as stated above with new indicators emerging and one new
category was added. The new category was related to the impact of technology on
organizational learning. The study used three methods for collecting data: 1) interviews
2) critical incident and 3) document analysis. All of the data collection methods are inter
related. The individual interviews made the most significant contribution to this
qualitative case study by providing detailed information in the form of stories, anecdotes,
and very articulate descriptions of managers perceptions of organizational learning. The
critical incidents provided insight that was used to refine and revise the interview
49
questions. Finally, the document analysis provided information that describes the context
of the study and additional insight for designing the interview questions.
Rationale for the Case-Study Methodology
The participants were interviewed and their activities relative to organizational
learning were documented during the research period to understand their perceptions of
their own development and where the organization resides along the continuum of
becoming a learning organization at a particular point in time.
Most of the participants in the study have functioned as members of the senior
management team for more than three years. Three of the participants are relatively new
to the team and to the organization. The demographic breakdown of the research
participants describes how long each person has been in the organization and how long
they have been on the senior management team. During the period of the research, the
team met twice each month to review business operations and to discuss issues that have
consequences beyond the departmental or divisional levels. Typically, the management
team uses a ranking process to decide which potential agenda items have priority. Since
its inception, the group has set aside time at retreats to examine group norms and critique
group behavior. However, the groups processes for problem solving have not been
documented, nor has the group routinely evaluated and spread their learnings throughout
the organization - two critical elements in the process of becoming a learning
organization. This research discloses how the participants perceive their own
50
development and that of the organization in practicing the principles of a learning
organization. This case study further documents, in the words of the participants and
experts in the field, the relationship between technology and organizational learning.
The researcher uses an interpretive case study methodology using qualitative data
from interviews with all of the senior managers. To help shape the interview schedule
and provide the researcher with guidance on the quantity and types of questions, the
managers were asked for written responses to two critical incident questions regarding
their perceptions about what impedes or facilitates learning being transferred from the
individual, to the team, and to the organization. The case study design provides the
opportunity for the researcher to test theories which have a clear set of propositions as
well as the circumstances within which the propositions are believed to be true (Yin,
1984) . In this case, theories about managing in learning organizations were tested by
studying the perceptions of the selected group and comparing the findings to the theories
of Senge, Marsick and Watkins, Kim, and others. Additional data for this case study
came from an analysis of documents produced by the organization at various points in
time describing the organizations eight year journey toward becoming a learning
organization. The data on organizational learning from Acme's archives, as well as
contemporary theories from adult educators were used as points of comparison with the
managers perceptions of organizational learning at the time of the interview. The
s
research was also compared to literature on knowledge management and intellectual
capital, two contemporary areas of interest for managers and adult educators.
51
Although the concept of organizational learning is not new, the means and
methods for becoming a learning organization are subject to current management
practices and technological developments. Yin (1984) writes, the case study is the
method of choice 1) when studying contemporary events in their real life contexts, 2)
where the events or behaviors can not be manipulated, and 3) when trying to answer the
question of why or how the event(s) occurred (Yin, 1984). Questions concerning the
impact of technology were not part of the field test interviews. They were added to the
interview schedule following the field test interviews because the role of technology kept
emerging in significant ways making it virtually impossible to ignore an investigation
into the perceived significance of computer-driven communications technology on
learning.
Overview Of Information Needed
To conduct the research, the researcher needed information related to the three
major areas of the study: 1) information about Acme Inc., 2) information about learning
organizations and organizational learning, and 3) information about managers views of
their own learning and how it relates to organizational learning.
Information about the history of Acme was used to establish the context of the
study. Information about the participants and the companys internal organizational
learning programs were important for analyzing and interpreting data from the research.
52
Participant demographic profiles are part of the document analysis. (See Appendix D).
Information about the types of technology available in the organization to support the
exchange of information also emerged as an important key to understanding managers
perceptions about organizational learning. By comparing data from interviews to
documents such as annual reports, strategic plans and management development plans,
the researcher gained insight into the organizations knowledge management systems and
efforts to diffuse learning throughout the organization. (See Appendix G Types and
Sources of Information Needed)
The literature on organizational learning was compared to the participants views
as revealed in interviews. The literature, interviews and document analysis trace the
areas in which individual and team actions impact others in the organization and impact
organizational policies, practices and norms. The literature on organizational learning
establishes why organizations in general need to be learning organizations. The
interviews, critical incidents, and documents elicit opinions as to whether members of the
executive team perceive that Acme needs to be a learning organization. This information
also compares the goals of a learning organization as described by experts versus the
research participants understanding of the goals of a learning organization. A further
comparison of espoused theories versus theories in practice was made by comparing
Acmes planning and evaluation documents related to organizational learning to practices
described by the research participants. Specifically, data revealing the factors that
enhance or impede organization learning come from the literature, the interviews, and
53
from the document analysis. (See Appendix L)
Plans And Methods For Data Collection
To get the information needed for this case study, four qualitative data collection
techniques were used: review of the literature, critical incidents, semi-structured
interviews, and document analysis.
Literature Review
The literature review provides the framework for developing and further refining
the data collection tools for the study and it guided the researcher in developing analytical
categories. Two research areas, learning organizations and organizational learning,
supported the analysis and interpretation of the data. The researcher reviewed and
critiqued previous research relating to the research questions in this case study. The
following data bases were searched in the process of developing the literature review:
Dissertation Abstracts, InfoTrac, ERIC, and the World Wide Web. Libraries that were
used as critical resources included Milbank at Columbia University, Kelvin Smith at Case
Western Reserve University, and the corporate library at Acme Inc. Marshall and
Rossman (1989) write,
the literature review demonstrates the underlying
assumptions behind the general research questions. It
demonstrates that the researcher is thoroughly knowledgeable
about related research and the intellectual traditions that surround
and support the study. It shows that the researcher has identified
54
some gaps in previous research and that the proposed study will fill
a demonstrated need. Finally, the review refines and redefines the
research questions and related tentative hypotheses by embedding
those questions in larger empirical traditions, (p. 28)
The literature review was ongoing during the research process permitting a creative
interplay among the process of data collection, literature review, and researcher
introspection (Marshall and Rossman, in Patton, 1990 p. 163).
Critical Incidents
The entire senior management team, including the CEO participated in the
research. The first phase of the research involved a presentation to the management team
describing the study and explaining the data collection processes. The presentation was
on the agenda of the bi-weekly management meeting so it was anticipated and well-
received by the management group. Thirteen of the fifteen managers were present. The
managers were asked to complete the research consent forms and the critical incident
questions were distributed at that time. The researcher invited them to ask questions
regarding the process and the outcomes of the research. Within the next two weeks, the
researcher met individually with the two managers who missed the management meeting.
In addition to an overview of the study, they were given the critical incident questions
and the consent forms at that time.
Seven of the managers returned the critical incident questions within two or three
days of the meeting. The last eight took several weeks and many reminders to collect.
55
During this period, the organization and the management team were re-structured. One
of the managers was terminated, however she had already turned in her critical incident
questions. Her input was used in revising the final interview schedule. The director of
information technology was assigned to the senior management team and thus became a
participant in the research. He was recently hired and assigned to the team after the
critical incidents were collected but before the interviews were conducted. Two of the
fifteen managers never turned in the critical incident questions. When reminded about
the form, one of the managers insisted he could not think of an answer to the questions.
The second manager kept losing the form although the researcher provided him with at
least three copies. Consequently, their ideas had no bearing on the development of the
interview schedule.
A critical incident is any observable human activity that is sufficiently complete
in itself to permit inferences and predictions to be made about the person performing the
act (Flanagan, 1954, p. 327 ). Critical incidents are written accounts of events as they
are understood by the person responding to the question. Because critical incidents are
written accounts by people about their own actions, they are incontrovertible sources of
data in the sense that no researcher stands between the subject and the data which are
collected (Brookfield, 1990).
The two critical incident questions were initially based on the literature and the
researchers professional experience. After field testing the critical incidents with
colleagues at AEGIS their suggestions were used to improve the wording of the critical
56
j incident instrument. The critical incident questions were field tested with three managers
who are not part of the study but who have similar professional profiles.
i
i
i The critical incidents were intended to reveal managers perceptions about how
they view learning in organizations. The purpose of the critical incident questions was to
provide additional insight for the researcher to use in formulating and refining the
interview questions. Two critical incident questions were used to elicit examples of
when learning was transferred from an individual to a team or to the whole organization
and an example of when significant learning stopped at the individual and did not get
transferred to a team or to the organization (Appendix A). After the field test, the critical
incident instrument was refined and distributed to the research participants. One
unanticipated theme emerged regarding technology and how it is used in the
organization. The AEGIS advisor also agreed on the importance of including a question
that would elicit data about the role of technology in facilitating learning in organizations.
Therefore, the interview schedule was revised from the initial field test interviews to
include a question about the impact of technology on organizational learning.
Interviews
Qualitative interviewing begins with the assumption that the perspective of others
is meaningful, knowable, and able to be made explicit (Patton, 1990). A semi-structured
interview was conducted with all of the participants in this case study to better understand
their perspectives on organizational learning and how it relates to their individual
57
learning. The semi-structured interview offers the interviewer a high degree of flexibility
in sequencing and working questions compared to a closed fixed response interview
(Patton, 1990). This data collection technique allows the researcher to explore, probe, and
ask questions that will elucidate and illuminate a particular subject (Patton, 1990).
The semi-structured interview was used because it offers the interviewer a high
degree of flexibility in sequencing and wording questions compared to a closed fixed
response interview (Patton, 1990, p. 289). The questions focused on the four areas of
information needed for the study 1) perceptions about individual and collective learning
in organizations 2) factors that enhance or impede learning 3) perceptions about the links
between individual, group, and organization learning, and 4) the impact of technology on
learning.
The initial interview questions were based on a preliminary review of the
literature and were refined following input from Columbia colleagues and the
researchers advisors. Then the interview questions were field tested with managers who
were not involved in the study but who have similar professional profiles. The field test
took place eight weeks prior to the actual interviews to allow time for transcribing the
tapes, coding and analyzing the data and making revisions to the interview schedule. The
researcher review the responses to the field test with colleagues at AEGIS and others who
are experienced in qualitative research methods. The purpose of this iterative process
was to refine the questions and to eliminate vague and cumbersome questions or
questions that would not add value to the research. The data from the critical incidents
58
were also used to refine the final questions for the interviews. The final revision of the
interview questions was used to interview all of the senior managers in the organization --
totaling 15 managers targeted for the study.
All of the participants, without exception, were interviewed by the researcher
within a four week time frame. Most of the interviews were conducted within a two
week period. The researcher felt it was important that all of the participants were
experiencing similar organizational dynamics during the period of the research to
minimize the variations in responses based on the climate of the organization at the time
of the interview. With one exception, all of the interviews took place in the same
location. Again, the researcher was attempting to minimize variations in the environment
that might influence responses. Also, because the interviews took place away from the
managers offices, there were no interruptions during the interviews. The interviews
were scheduled to last one hour. The first five or ten minutes were small talk and a
general overview of the research intended to put the interviewee at ease. An audio tape
recorder with a built in micro-phone was used. The time immediately following the
interviews was used to record field notes about the interview itself (Patton, 1990). The
researcher transcribed all of the tapes herself because she felt inflections in tone the
affective behavior of the participants during the interview could have some bearing on
the interpretation and analysis of the data. Therefore, because the researcher/transcriber
was actually in the room it was possible to capture the silent behavior associated with the
interview such as smiles and winks, animated hand movements when the interviewee was
59
particularly excited or looks of confusion and concern. The tapes were transcribed within
a few days of being recorded. One interview was particularly difficult to transcribe
because the participant tends to mumble and end his sentences in a whisper. Those
places were his words are inaudible are noted on transcription. All of the remaining
recordings were of very good quality and easily transcribed.
Documents
The review of documents is an unobtrusive data collection method which
provides the researcher with information about many things that cannot be learned
through interviews (Marshall and Rossman, 1989 p. 85). The researcher used two
categories as a framework for creating a systematic approach for organizing and
analyzing documents. Category 1: setting, location, and history were used to describe
the organization. Category 2: philosophy, purpose, and goal setting process were used to
get at insights on organizational learning.
Extant data were examined for information about the history and background of
the company and to provide a better understanding of the goals and values of the
organization related to becoming a learning organization. The historical documents are a
basic source of information about organizational decisions and background, or activities
and processes (Patton, 1990, p. 233). The documents include the organizations mission
and vision statements, strategic plans, and management training programs evaluations.
Documents generated at team meetings and retreats were included.
60
Documents were used for two purposes. First, documents such as annual reports
and vision and mission statements were used to describe the organization and context of
the study. According to Marshall and Rossman (1989) minutes of meetings, logs,
announcements, formal policy statements, letters, and so on are all useful in developing
an understanding of the setting or group studied (Marshall and Rossman, 1989, p. 85).
Second, documents were used to get at insights on organizational learning, and factors
that enhance or impede the transfer of learning from the individual to the group or to the
organization. A document checklist was used to capture the data during the collection
process. (See Appendix C) The document checklist includes the type or name of the
document, the date the document was created, who generated the information in the
document, and how the document was used in the organization. Then, coded data from
the selected documents were placed in the document analysis matrix.
Plan And Methods For Data Analysis
Analytic categories for the matrices initially came from the review of the
literature and the field tests. Then, as more data came in from the actual interviews,
critical incidents and documents, the final categories emerged. When the final analytic
categories were determined, those same analytic categories were used to compare and
contrast data from the interviews, critical incidents, and selected documents. Initially, no
firm conclusions were drawn from the data as patterns and themes started to emerge. The
61
patterns and themes were compared and contrasted to each other as well as to the patterns
and themes that emerged from the other data sources. For example, the patterns and
themes that emerged from the critical incidents were compared and contrasted to those
that emerged from the document analysis and so on until all of the data sources were
compared and contrasted to each other. The recurring themes (patterns, events, situations,
experiences) from the different sources triangulate the data. The analytical process
involved reading each source of data several times looking for emerging themes.
The themes shown in the matrices in the appendices to this research are final
themes that resulted from this case study. They can be compared to the preliminary
themes which are also shown in the appendices and were based on the researchers initial
literature review and experience in learning organizations.
Analysis of Data from Review of the Literature
Initially, the key points and major theories from each author were recorded on index
cards and placed in a matrix to easily compare and contrast the authors to each other.
Each authors key points were listed vertically under that authors name in the matrix.
The names of the selected authors were listed horizontally across the top of the matrix.
The process of comparing and contrasting the authors resulted in certain preliminary
analytic categories for the interviews, critical incidents, and document analysis. The final
categories were identified as data were collected. Later in the analysis process, notes
from the literature were transcribed into a data base where they were more easily sorted
62
by subject and by author for further analysis. The themes and patterns from the literature
were later compared to the themes and patterns from the other data sources.
Analysis of Data from Critical Incidents
Each of the responses to the critical incident was read several times by the
researcher. The purpose of the critical incidents was to look for patterns and themes that
should be included in the interview schedule. After reviewing the responses and
comparing them with the preliminary interview schedule, the researcher met with
colleagues from AEGIS to get their input on how the critical incidents should influence
the types of questions on the interview schedule. The most important theme that emerged
from the critical incidents was the repeated references to technology and its role in
supporting organizational learning. Upon further discussion with the researchers
advisors at Teachers College, Columbia University, the researcher revised the interview
questions and added it to the information needed for the study.
Analysis of Data from Interviews
The analytical categories were placed vertically down the left column of the
interview matrix and the participants, numbered l-l S, were placed horizontally across the
top of the matrix. Initially, key points and quotes from the transcribed interviews were
kept on separate index cards. Then, data on the index cards were placed in the matrix
using an alpha-numeric coding scheme that identified the participant, and the interview
63
question that elicited the data. The interview data were compared and contrasted with a
view to identifying patterns and themes. Later, the themes and patterns from the
interviews were compared and contrasted to the themes and patterns that emerged from
the other data sources.
Analysis of Data from Documents
Initially, data from documents were recorded on the document summary form.
The data were sorted according to the source and type of document. Category 1: setting,
location, and history were used to describe the organization. Category 2: philosophy,
purpose, and goal setting process were used to gain insights on organizational learning.
The analytical categories used with sorting the interview data were used to analyze the
data from the documents. The analytical categories were placed vertically down the left
column of the document analysis matrix and the name of the document was placed
horizontally across the top of the matrix. The data from various documents were
compared and contrasted and patterns and themes emerged. During the data synthesis
process the patterns and themes from documents were compared to those from the other
data sources.
Coding and Displaying Data
The researcher worked with two AEGIS colleagues to confirm the researchers
64
coding and development of analytic categories. They looked at the data to corroborate or
suggest alternative themes. Guba and Lincoln (1981) advise researchers to involve
stakeholders in the evaluation of the data. (p. 381). After all of the tapes were transcribed
and the analytical process started, the participants were given an opportunity to react and
comment on the data collected in the interviews. In qualitative studies there are times
when reviewers disagree on the meaning and interpretation of data (Guba and Lincoln,
1981). Their comments and any significant differences in interpretation are
acknowledged in the conclusion of the study, but the data are kept in their original form
throughout the study.
Throughout the study, the researcher worked with colleagues to sift through the
data to sharpen, focus, and organize data in such a way that final conclusions can be
drawn and verified (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Guba and Lincoln, 1981; Marshall and
Rossman, 1989). The researcher traveled to different cities to meet with AEGIS
colleagues at scheduled times throughout the study. We set aside large blocks of time to
review each others progress and code each others data using coding schemes developed
by each of us for our individual study. By keeping in close contact by phone between
visits, we were able to stay on top of each others progress and offer useful suggestions
on how to proceed with the research. The data reduction process of selecting, focusing,
simplifying, abstracting and transforming the data was ongoing throughout the research
as was verification and making meaning of the data.
After the final categories were agreed upon for data analysis, each data collection
65
tool has a matrix or grid for sorting the data that lists the categories down the left
column and the sources across the top of the matrix. (See Appendix I - K).
Each data collection tool was assigned an alphabet and had an associated matrix
to display the data collected with that tool: A = Literature Review, B = interview,
and C - Documents. This helped help make it easier to reference the source of the
data when that data were later placed in a comprehensive matrix where themes
and patterns from all data sources were compared and contrasted.
Using alpha-numeric codes and colored print fonts data were sorted and displayed
in a matrix that combined or synthesized all sources of data to look for
overarching themes and patterns. The colors helped highlight clusters of themes.
For example, quotes indicating repeating the same mistakes were printed in
blue font. When the data were placed in the matrix it was easy to see where
clusters of blue data were located and a closer look at the alpha numeric code on
an individual index card indicated the source of that data. When placed in the
synthesis matrix the color patterns aided in the interpretation of the data. For
example, a blue text with B-15/7 in the upper right comer indicates that
participant number 15 responded to question #7 in the interview indicating
repeating the same mistakes.
Data Synthesis
To synthesize the data, patterns and themes from all of the matrices were placed
66
in an all-encompassing matrix. The final analytical categories were placed down the left
column and the sources, Literature, Interviews, Documents, were placed horizontally
across the top of the matrix. The quotes and data from the literature and documents were
placed throughout the grid. To generate meaning from all of the data the researcher
compared and contrasted patterns and themes that emerged from the analysis of each data
source looking for the following: patterns and themes common to several data sources;
plausibility of data; clustering of perceptions or ideas; use of and types of metaphors;
and, contrasts and comparisons of themes and patterns from all of the data sources.
Drawing final conclusions from the data occurred after all sources were put through
several analytical iterations.
Limitations of the Study
The researchers close affiliation with the organization could lead to biased
interpretations of the findings. To counteract the researchers bias, the researcher worked
closely with colleagues from AEGIS in interpreting and analyzing the findings. The also
researcher acknowledges that data from the interviews and the critical incidents reflect
current conditions in the organization vs. conditions as perceived over a longer period of
time. Therefore, the participants views are more vulnerable to the influence of a
particular manager or the CEO. To incorporate a broader view spanning a longer period
of time the researcher included data from the documents which are reflect a different
period in the history of the organization.
67
Validity and Reliability
The depth of the case-study was very penetrating due to the limited number of
subjects and the researchers access to the organization. Although this case-study was
limited to one company, the knowledge gained can be applied to firms experiencing the
effects of the need for continuous learning especially learning organizations that rely
heavily on computers and technology to share knowledge and communicate information.
The participants in the case-study consisted of the entire senior management team
including the CEO of a rapidly growing manufacturing and engineering consulting firm.
The researcher, an employee of the firm and a member of the management team believed
that her position and familiarity with the organization provided an invaluable vantage
point in being able to interpret and analyze the data. She was familiar with the culture
and the stated goals of the organization and she had easy access to the participants. She
made special attempts to remain neutral in her views on organizational learning while
collecting data during the period of the research. For example, her responsibilities related
to organizational learning programs for executive development were assigned to the
human resources director during the course of the research. Patton (1990) cautions
qualitative researchers to avoid debates about subjectivity versus objectivity, (p. 55). The
researcher agrees with Patton that it is important to adopt a stance of neutrality with
regard to the phenomenon under study (Patton, 1990). Therefore, the researcher worked
closely with AEGIS colleagues to get their views and to reduce the researchers bias in
68
interpreting the data. Marshall and Rossman (1989) recommend controls for minimizing
the researchers bias. (p. 145). The bias controls that were applied in the study included:
A research partner or a person who plays devils advocate and critically questions
the researchers analyses (AEGIS colleague)
A constant search for negative instances
Devising tests to check analyses and applying the tests to the data, asking questions of
the data
Following Pattons (1990) recommendations, which include systematic data collection
procedures, rigorous training, multiple data sources, triangulation, external reviews, the
researcher believes the research methods resulted in high-quality qualitative data that are
credible, accurate, and true to the phenomenon under study. (p. 56).
The sampling group was the senior management team of a learning organization
which is embarking on an organization-wide learning initiative. This was a purposeful
sampling to support an intensive case study. The members of this group represented a
broad spectrum of personal and professional backgrounds and each of them played
significant roles in the changes underway at the company. The researcher believes this
study uncovers important perceptions about organizational learning in dynamic
organizations that rely heavily on the internal use of technology for communicating ideas
and information. The results have led to compelling recommendations for designing
more effective educational and developmental interventions for adult learners in
corporate settings.
69
Rationale for Methods Selection
This study relies on qualitative data collection methods. The methods include
critical incidents, interviews, and document analysis. This research is not intended to be a
quantitative approach to the development, defense or refutation of theory. Instead it is a
qualitative case study designed to identify themes, and uncover emergent themes
regarding organizational learning in a limited context. In contrast to the quantitative
research, qualitative research is inductive and depends upon the data to develop theory
(Glaser and Strauss, 1968) or to develop themes that can describe cultural context or a
specific social unit situation. Qualitative research provides rich, thick data, that often
uncover serendipitous findings (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 117 ).
Case Study
Merriam (1988) suggests the use of the case study approach for a qualitative
research effort within a bounded context. She depicts case studies as particularistic in
that they focus on a specific situation or phenomenon; they are descriptive and they are
heuristic - that is, they offer insights into the phenomenon under study. (p. 21). This
study was focused on a specific group of managers and conducted within the bounded
context of a single organization, the manufacturing consulting firm of Acme, Inc. Bogden
and Bicklen (1982) describe the case study method as a detailed examination of one
setting, or one single subject, or one single depository of documents, or one particular
event. (p. 58). Patton (1990) cites the usefulness of case studies for situations where
7 0
understanding of special populations, particular problems, or unique situations is needed.
As this study sought to generate data that would provide in-depth information about the
perceptions of organizational learning from a particular group of individuals at a single
organization, the case study method seemed most appropriate.
Critical Incident
The critical incident method is used as a way to identify patterns and themes that
may influence data collection through interviews and other methods (Brookfield, 1987 ).
The critical incident methodology and results should not be the sole data source in
qualitative research (Brookfield, 1990) because the results lack the depth and richness of
data that comes from individual interviews. The strength of the critical incident as a
technique in qualitative research is that it represents accounts by people of incidents in
their own lives. Combined with other research techniques these stories can prove very
valuable. For some research participants, particularly those who are comfortable with
their writing ability, the critical incident may be viewed as less threatening than a face-to-
face interview. Compared to interviews, the data generated by critical incidents are
usually more focused and offer insight regarding actions, situations, and circumstances
(Brookfield, 1990).
Flanagan suggests that this procedure makes it possible to formulate the critical
requirements of an activity (Flanagan, 1954, p. 313). The critical incident is a technique
for gathering information about significant events in the lives of people (Brookfield,
7 1
1990; Flanagan, 1954; Patton, 1990). Flanagan (1954) describes the technique as:
a set of procedures for collecting direct
observations of human behavior in such a way as to
facilitate their potential usefulness in solving practical
problems and developing broad psychological principle, (p.
327 )
When the critical incident method is combined with other data collection methods, the
critical incident can help to verify the accuracy and validity of previously reported and
observed actions (Brookfield, 1987 , p.22). The critical incident method is used to
identify patterns and themes that may influence data collection through interviews and
other methods (Brookfield, 1987 ).
In her research, Macaulay (1995) references Bums (197 5) who delineated three
ways in which the critical incident can prove to be an asset to a research project: (a) by
identifying reports of perceptions; (b) by identifying and comparing perceptions; and (c)
by identifying, comparing, and verifying perceptions. In this case, the researcher used
the data from the critical incidents to refine the interview schedule and to further validate
the researchers preliminary themes for categorizing data. As more data were collected
the analytical categories were revised.
Interviewing
Individual interviewing is one of the most common of the qualitative methods.
Merriam (1988) cites Webb and Webb who define the interview as a conversation with a
purpose. (p.7 1). The purpose of conducting interviews (Brookfield, 1990; Merriam,
7 2
1988; Patton, 1990), is to gain information that cannot be directly observed or measured.
Although the interview is sometimes used as the sole source of data collection, in this
study it was one of several data collection techniques. Merriam (1988) posits that
Interviewing is [also] the best technique to use when conducting intensive case studies
of individuals. (p.7 2). Brookfield (1990) indicates:
Interviews should be reserved for those times when researchers
are trying to find out peoples perceptions of their environments, of
their own actions, or of the reactions around them. (p. I)
The use of a semi-structured interview, described earlier in this chapter, was the
primary data collection method for this study. The semi-structured interview method
allowed the researcher to engage the participant in a guided conversation that resulted in
less chance of misunderstanding because there was an opportunity to probe, redirect
the questions, and seek clarification. (Guba and Lincoln, 1981) This flexibility also
provided the researcher with an opportunity to gain information that may otherwise be
difficult to obtain about sensitive issues (Brookfield, 1987 , Guba and Lincoln, 1981).
In conducting interviews, the researcher needs to maintain a position of neutrality
and non-judgmental attitudes, to refrain from argumentative stances, to be sensitive to
both verbal and non-verbal messages, and to be reflective in listening (Merriam, 1988).
Bogden and Bicklen, (1982) encourage interviews to demonstrate flexibility,
responsiveness, non-evaluative feedback, non-argumentative stances, and patience. The
skill of the researcher when conducting interviews is critical to the data collection
process. As with any methodology, there are limitations and weaknesses in the interview
7 3
process (Marshall and Rossman, 1989); these include such factors as personal interaction
and the need for cooperation, use of inappropriate questions, lack of expertise on the part
of the interviewer, and difficulty in managing or manipulating large amounts of data
generated by the interview process. McCauley (1995) cites Bogden and Bicklen (1982)
who stress that the limitations of the researcher can be overcome through training and
experience of the interviewer. In this study, the interviews were central to gathering
information for better understanding the perceptions of managers regarding
organizational learning.
Document Analysis
Document analysis of records and other written materials is often used to
supplement other types of data collection. The historical documents are a basic source of
information about organizational decisions and background, or activities and processes
(Patton, 1990). The review of documents is an unobtrusive data collection method which
provides the researcher with information about many things that cannot be learned
through interviews. Guba and Lincoln (1982) indicate that documents are almost always
available, provide rich information regarding context, are legally acceptable data, and are
non-reactive. Patton (1990) indicates that documentary analysis serves a dual purpose:
(a) documents can be a basic source of information about program decisions, processes,
and activities; and (b) documentary analysis can provide the researcher with definite
ideas to pursue further information about the setting.
7 4
Merriam (1988) lists several strengths of document analysis including
accessibility, stability, and grounding of the study in context. Document analysis (Patton,
1990) provides a behind-the-scenes examination of the setting which cannot be gained
through interviews or observation (p. 245). A potential weakness of this data collection
method (Merriam, 1988; Patton, 1990) is incompleteness, bias, and inaccuracy of the
information.
In this research, the primary purpose of the document analysis was to establish the
context in which the research was conducted. The document analysis also provided a
basis of comparison for stated organizational learning goals and managers perceptions
regarding those goals.
7 5
IV. Context of the Study
Introduction
This study was conducted at Acme Inc., a 15 year old private non-profit
organization located in the Midwest. Acme was established by a consortium of business
leaders who were determined to stop the exodus of manufacturers from the region.
Acmes mission is to support the economic development of the region by : fostering
innovation in manufacturing through research and development, technology deployment,
and training; motivating and helping the regions manufacturers to develop people, use
technology, and modernize products, processes, and facilities; and, mobilizing and
leveraging academic, government, private, and public resources to help manufacturers
grow and improve.
The chapter will be presented according to the following sub-headings: Study
Site, Participants in the Study, Organizational Culture, Rationale for Becoming a
Learning Organization, and Summary of Steps to Institutionalize Learning and
Knowledge Management. The information presented under these headings provide the
reader with a complete picture of the organization. The chapter ends with a summary of
the context of the study.
Study Site
Acme is located in a section of the city that was once heavily populated by
7 6
manufacturers whose products supplied parts to the automobile and steel industries.
Typically, their employees were first generation immigrants primarily from Eastern
Europe. During the 1960s and 7 0s, the area was characterized by high unemployment,
dilapidated public housing projects, and abandoned factories.
The CEO of Acme, a participant in the study, chose to move Acme from its rented
offices for two reasons. First, Acme had outgrown its space in an industrial complex.
Second, and more importantly, the new location was in a neighborhood undergoing
extensive urban renewal and business development initiatives. Investing in the
community by rehabilitating the building and providing employment opportunities for
area residents was in keeping with the mission of the organization.
At the time of the research, Acme employed 150 full-time employees and about
20 part-time employees including interns from nearby universities. About one-third of
Acmes employees hold science or technical degrees. Acme also employs contractors
and consultants on an as-needed basis. Similar to most consulting firms, Acme has
departments dedicated to general administration and operating functions such as
accounting or finance; human resources and employee benefits; and, sales and marketing.
The major consulting divisions include Electronic Commerce, Automated Equipment,
Environmental, Human Resources Consulting, and University Research Program. These
divisions generate almost three-fourths of Acmes annual revenue of $38.3 million
dollars. The remainder comes from Acme's public grants which support a variety of
special projects involving manufacturers, colleges and universities, and community
7 7
economic development organizations.
Acmes employees provide technical assistance and consulting services ranging
from environmental issues, human resources development, electronic commerce, and
automated equipment design and development. The company provides services to all
types of manufacturers including fortune 500 firms, but a typical customer is a
manufacturer with less than 250 employees. Acmes client companies are typically
suppliers to the automotive or aerospace industries. Acmes services often involve
assisting the customer in keeping a major contract by assisting them in implementing a
quality control program, upgrading the skills of their workers, or designing automated
machinery to modernize the factory and increase productivity.
In the year the research was conducted, federal, state, and private foundation
grants accounted for almost half of Acmes $37 million in annual revenue. The public
and private grants were used to support a variety of technical and engineering related
activities. For example, one highly specialized division of Acme, the electronic
commerce division, receives large subsidies from the federal government to prepare
manufacturers in five states for doing business via the internet. Another division, the
advanced automation and manufacturing division, is an applied research center
established in partnership with a local university. It receives public funds for community
college and university students to allow them to gain valuable experience in designing
and building automated equipment for local companies. The division also conducts
research in very specialized niche areas such as understanding the properties of liquid
7 8
glass and motion studies related to industrial ergonomics. This division of Acme has
dozens of patents to its credit and is recognized as a leader in transferring technology
from an academic setting to the factory floor.
Acmes university and community college affiliates provide ancillary services to
Acmes customers. For example, if a manufacturer is having difficulty implementing a
highly specialized process, an engineer from Acme works with the company and with
faculty or researchers from the university to help solve the clients problem. If a company
needs new equipment, and also needs to train employees in Total Quality Management,
Acme builds and tests new equipment while Acmes community college affiliate delivers
the TQM training.
In addition to federal and state grants aimed at technology deployment to help the
regions manufacturers remain globally competitive, Acme receives funding from
companies who attend seminars, forums, and conferences hosted by Acme. The company
also receives funds from local foundations for education programs targeting high school
students and adults seeking manufacturing and technology-related training or education.
Total revenue from government contracts, fees for consulting services, and
foundation grants exceeded $37 million in 1997 . Acmes annual budget tripled between
1992 and 1998, the year the research was conducted, causing tremendous growing pains
while simultaneously providing unprecedented opportunities for growth into new
markets.
In summary, the services provided by Acme are very diverse and require a well-
7 9
educated and in many instances a highly specialized workforce. The directors or leaders
of each of the major divisions are members of the senior management team and
participants in this case study.
Participants in the Study
The participants in the study included all members of the senior management
team - sometimes referred to as the Acme leadership council. Their positions in the
organization relative to each other are shown in the organizational chart. (Appendix E).
These 15 managers are responsible for all of the full-time employees at Acme and
external the contractors and interns. The management structure of the organization is
relatively flat. As shown in the organizational chart (Appendix E), there are rarely more
than two levels of management between any employee and the CEO.
Members of the leadership council are appointed and removed from the council at
the CEOs discretion. Over the past 4 years six managers have been removed from the
leadership council. Subsequently, three of them also left the company. Other changes in
membership resulted from members retiring or members being added to represent new
business units. During the period of the research, the membership was relatively stable.
One member of the leadership council was removed from the council when her hours
were reduced to part-time - a few weeks later she resigned from the company. Her
critical incident data were collected before she left the company and is included in the
research.
80
Acme's current leadership council is only three years old; it replaces the former
senior management team known as the Company Operations Group. Most of the
participants in this study served on the Company Operations Group and the Acme
Leadership Council. The researcher combined their tenure on the Participant Profile
Chart to indicate the number of years they have been members of the senior management
team at Acme.
Of the fifteen participants in the study, one participant, #8, is female. Participant
#1 is a retired captain from the United States Army Special Forces Division. Participant
#14 is a retired nuclear sub-marine commander and Naval Academy graduate. Participant
#2 has strong ties to the federal government having once been a White House Fellow and
subsequently serving in a prominent position in the department of environmentalism. In
addition to their business and government experiences, participants #2, #4, #7 , #12, #13,
and #14 are former university or college professors. As shown in the participants profile
chart, (Appendix, D) all of them hold baccalaureate degrees. Eleven of the participants
have graduate degrees - mostly in science and engineering disciplines. One-third of the
participants hold doctorates in the physical sciences. Their academic degrees are listed in
the participant profile chart, however, their certificates and other credentials - patents,
licenses, commendations - are not shown. This is a team of highly educated middle-aged
adults - mostly scientists. The average age is 48 and the average tenure at Acme is 4.5
years while the average tenure on the leadership council is 3 years. The researcher is
very familiar with the organization and the members of the management team.
81
Table 2 Participant Profile Summary
Name Age
Sex
Title Yrs.
Acme/
Team
Under
graduate
Degree
Masters
Degree
Ph.D.
1Ethan* 40-46
M
Manager of
Consulting
8/5 Mechanical
Engineer
2 Stan 54-60
M
CEO 8/5 Mechanical
Engineer
Nuclear
Engineer
Nuclear
Eng.
3 James 47 -53
M
Director of
Consulting
6 mos Electrical
Engineer
Electrical
Engineer
Eng.
Science
4 A1 47 -53
M
VP Sales 5/5 Physics Math and
MBA
Physics
5 Edwin 40-46
M
Assoc. Dir.
Automation
6/3 Mechanical
Engineer
ME
6 Kevin 40-46
M
CFO 4/4 Accounting Acct and
MBA
7 Frank 54-60
M
Director of
Automation
8/3 Mechanical
Engineer
ME and
MBA
ME
8 Delores 40-46
F
Dir. Human
Resources
9/4 HR HR
9 Kyle 54-60
M
Director of
e-Commerce
9/5 Mechanical
Engineer
MBA
10 Darryl 40-46
M
Dir. Sales -
Plastics Div.
9/5 Mechanical
Engineer
ME
11 Tom 40-46
M
Dir. Info
Technology
5 mos Computer
Science
12 Dell 40-46
M
Government
Relations
5/5 Marketing MBA
13 Bob 47 -53
M
Director
Marketing
4/4 Chemical
Engineer
Chem.
Eng.and
MBA
Chem.
Eng.
14 Brad* 40-46
M
VP
e-Commerce
8 mos Mechanical
Engineer
15 John 54-60
M
Manager
e-Commerce
6/5 Marketing
82
A significant degree of gender, race, and ethnic diversity is encompassed in the
extended organization which includes Acmes interns and its college and university
affiliations. The demographics of Acmes leadership council, however, are very similar
to that of the organizations full-time employees.
The leadership council, also referred to as the senior management team, uses a
participatory process for resolving organizational issues that typically involves members
of the council addressing problems in sub-groups or action teams. Those sub-groups may
work together on a problem for a few weeks. Then they disband after a course of action
has been presented and agreed upon by the rest of the leadership council.
The leadership council represents all major divisions of the company and meets
every two weeks for about two hours. Members rotate the role of the meeting facilitator
on a quarterly basis. Agendas for the meeting are developed by the CEO with input
requested from everyone. Those agendas are published prior to the meeting. The format
of the meetings range from formal presentations on new initiatives, to in-depth
discussions or dialog on problems or opportunities. The sub-groups or task teams report
on the status of their respective projects.
The leadership council has two standing committees that also meet regularly.
One is the organizational learning and development committee which is responsible for
Acmes organizational learning efforts. The organizational learning and development
committee consists of five managers from the leadership council including the CEO and
two external consultants. The external consultants have been working with Acmes
83
managers very regularly since 1992. The organizational learning and development
committee is responsible for developing and implementing the strategy to develop Acme
into a learning organization. They are also responsible for measuring and evaluating
progress toward meeting the organizations learning goals as stipulated in Acmes
strategic plan. This committee oversees the executive development of the senior
managers as a leadership team. In doing so, the organizational learning and development
committee plans leadership retreats, confers with the external consultants on appropriate
assessment tools for determining strengths and weaknesses of the leadership council, and
develops plans for improving the teams overall effectiveness.
The researcher chose not to interview the OD consultants as part of the study
because of her concern that their contractual agreement with the organization could raise
questions as to the objectivity of their views. During the period of the research, the
researcher had no direct relationship with or responsibility for the activities of the
external consultants. At the time of the research, the consultants reported directly to the
director of human resources and the CEO.
The other standing committee is the CEOs cabinet which consists of the four
vice presidents and the chief financial officer. The CEOs cabinet first met in the
winter of 1997 just as the research for this study was beginning. The invitees were the
vice presidents (including the researcher) the director of the automated equipment
division and the chief financial officer. This was the first of what would become
quarterly meetings to discuss future trends and opportunities for Acme.
84
Organizational Culture
Although the focus of this research was the management team, to better
understand the context in which the research was conducted it is important to briefly
describe Acme as a whole. The overall demographics of Acmes employees is similar to
the senior management team in two important areas. First, it is a highly educated
workforce in comparison to most organizations outside of academia. Most employees,
including the administrative support staff, hold at least a bachelors degree and many
have graduate degrees. In addition to hiring recently retired highly experienced
managers, the company attracts many young and well-educated college graduates seeking
their first experience in a consulting firm. There is a heavy concentration of people with
engineering and technical degrees. It should be noted however, that in recent years the
company has been making a special effort to hire more people with broader, more diverse
academic and professional backgrounds.
Tapping into the ideas and knowledge of Acmes employees is practiced in
several ways. For example, the entire organization was involved in strategic planning
activities some of which were specific to Acmes organizational learning and knowledge
management systems. In 1996, the employees at Acme, frequently referred to as
associates, were invited to participate in crafting the strategic plan by serving on teams
or making individual recommendations to the strategic planning committees. As a
result, the revisions to the strategic plan that took place during the period of the research,
included specific tasks designed to move the organization closer to its goal of becoming a
85
learning organization.
Another example of sharing ideas and information is the town hall meeting. In
addition to e-mail and the usual means of communicating information across an
organization, widespread participation involving all employees at town hall meetings is
strongly encouraged by the CEO. These quarterly meetings involving all Acme
associates are convened to brief everyone on important events that have occurred during
the quarter. The time is also used to give recognition of outstanding contributions by
individual employees and teams. New employees are introduced and retiring employees
are roasted. These meetings are scheduled to last four hours and everyone is expected to
attend - continental breakfast and lunch are provided. The CEO often uses the time to
teach or provide updates on local, state, and national political initiatives that could
impact Acmes programs. These town hall meetings are received with mixed results.
There are some associates who are very interested in the inner workings of the
organization and the legislative policies that influence the organization. There are many
others who would rather just stay at their desks or out in the field with their customers
and not be bothered with issues of finance, or legislative updates. All are invited to
contribute ideas in these town hall meetings which are very interactive by design. These
examples are provided to give the reader a view of Acme as an organization that
explicitly seeks ways of involving all employees in learning through dialog and
exchanging ideas.
86
Rationale for Becoming a Learning Organization
From an organizational standpoint, the need to harness Acmes collective learning
and use it to strengthen the organization became especially evident as the regional
economy began to recover in the early 1990s. Several factors began to accelerate the
need for becoming a learning organization:
The pace and intensity of work began to make it difficult to find the time to share
information and success stories that could benefit others;
Information technology systems were not being used to their full potential to support
knowledge management and learning;
Manufacturers, driven by globalization and tighter quality standards in the automotive
and aerospace industries, were looking for help from consultants to develop smarter,
cheaper, and faster ways to get their products and services out the door;
The unemployment rate, at a 25 year low, accelerated the need to develop new skills
within the current workforce rather than wait for colleges, and universities to produce
new employees;
Talented people at Acme began to feel confident enough about the stability of the
economy to look for other jobs;
New people who joined the company were expected to come up the learning curve
and be productive almost immediately;
Acmes customer base, comprised of niche industries which have increased their use
87
of highly specialized technologies, equipment, and processes, made it necessary to
expand the scope and depth of Acmes manufacturing consulting services.
Summary of Stens to Institutionalize Learning and Knowledge Management
The organizational development process began in 1992 and is ongoing. There are
four explicit phases to the strategy that is intended to lead Acme to become a learning
organization. Phase I of the transformation process, known as the participatory strategic
planning phase, began in 1992 with the creation of a comprehensive strategic plan. The
process involved multiple facilitators, and engaged all of the departments and
representatives from Acmes academic partners. This participatory planning process used
an inter-departmental approach that laid the foundation for Acmes future and helped
establish a shared mental model of what the organization could become. With guidance
from external consultants, the theories of Senge (1990a) formed the theoretical
framework for a shared mental model based on the five disciplines of a learning
organization.
Phase II of the organizational learning strategy was the creation of Acmes first
management team in 1993. The team was originally known as the Company Operations
Group, referred to as the COG. That group of managers with a few changes in members,
later became the Acme Leadership Council - the participants in this study. From an
organizational standpoint, Acme is relatively young -15 years since it was incorporated.
In 1993, many of Acmes senior executives were new to the company and they did not
88
have a shared vision or even a common organizational culture. They were steeped in the
cultures of former organizations where many of them had built long and successful
careers before joining Acme. These experienced managers operated like an all-star
basketball team - lots of individual talent, but very little collective vision or commitment
to each others long term success. The CEO believed that this attitude among the senior
managers needed to change if the organization was going to meet the challenges of
serving very demanding customers in a very dynamic business environment. After
several re-formations, the management team, now known as the Acme Leadership
Council is performing somewhat better as a team than its predecessor - the Company
Operations Group. The establishment of the Leadership Council was the initial leverage
point for moving the whole organization toward systemic learning and inter-departmental
cooperation.
Phase III of the organizational learning strategy involved employee training in
three categories: strategic learning; employee orientation; and, skill or knowledge
enhancement. The first organizational learning category, strategic learning, were
activities aimed at addressing the organizational culture and aimed at establishing an
environment to support learning. The specific activities associated with strategic learning
included team development and effective communications. The Vice President of
Operations, working with trainers from the community college, developed a training plan
for all Acme associates (employees). The training was scheduled to last for one year
beginning in June 1993. The components of the training included cross-functional team
89
development, empowerment, negotiation skills, conflict resolution and group facilitation
skills.
Other components of this first level of training included effective communications
training which included effective listening, building rapport, diversity awareness,
addressing diverse learning styles and the impact of personality types on
communications. The structure and skills for conducting effective dialog were also part
of the planned training. The training program was launched, but was abruptly terminated
by the CEO after just a few weeks when it was determined that many managers did not
support the program and would not release employees to participate in training activities.
The vice president of operations was publicly criticized and blamed for the failed training
program and especially for not getting buy-in from the managers. He retired shortly
thereafter and was not a participant in this study.
Even though this particular initiative was canceled, some training activities have
continued. To date, outside consultants have trained 45 facilitators at the company. At
the time of the research, Acme facilitators were learning more advanced facilitation skills
and they were conducting train-the-trainer programs to continue teaching these skills to
other employees. The facilitation training and cross-functional team training, originally
planned for all associates was quietly phased out in 1998 as other issues emerged and
interest started to wane.
At the new employee orientation which is also a formal part of Acmes
organizational learning initiative, new employees meet each other and the CEO. The
90
orientation includes an overview of the key elements of the companys strategic plan. It
is an informal interactive session usually involving 8 to 10 new employees. The
companys organizational learning goals are an important topic of these breakfast
meetings. The CEO also emphasizes the importance of participating in town hall
meetings and other employee forums. He talks about the brown bag lunch forums where
employees lead discussions on a topic of their choice. The company also conducts
informal sessions sponsored by the HR director who invites guest speakers to give
presentations on topics of interest, i.e., retirement planning, CPR training, health and
fitness programs, etc.
The third category of training, skill and knowledge enhancement, is implemented
by the manager in each department. Each manager, working with his or her employee,
develops a learning plan for that individual employee. The individual training plans
range from short courses in computer skills to training or professional development
seminars that are specific to the individuals job responsibilities. The HR director is
often called upon to recommend seminars or education programs that are available
outside of the organization. The manager is responsible for tracking progress and
providing financial support through Acmes tuition reimbursement program and the
departments education budget. All learning and training activities are expected to be
reported back to the HR director for monitoring the organizations overall progress in
meeting its learning objectives.
Phase IV of the organizational learning strategy involved upgrading the
91
information systems and knowledge management systems. Explicit and measurable
organizational learning goals were identified in the strategic plan. In 1998, the
information technology systems were being evaluated and upgraded to support
knowledge management and organizational learning activities. The managers were
required to include training and development activities, especially advanced computer
skills, in every employees personal development plans. Every employees personal
development plan is reviewed every six months as part of their performance evaluation.
Training in the use of network data bases, electronic meeting schedulers, desktop
publishing skills, are examples of the type of training that were to be delivered by the
information technology department. Training for understanding budgets and financial
reports were planned for dozens of employees outside of the finance and accounting
department. There were many requests for learning software to improve project
management skills. Progress on all of these learning activities are supposed to be tracked
and monitored by the managers and reported to the leadership council quarterly.
Chapter Summary
Acme is a private non-profit consulting firm specializing in providing technical
assistance related to engineering and manufacturing technology. The company
employees 150 full time employees many of whom are scientists and engineers. Like
many successful companies, Acme is experiencing the paradoxical impact of a strong
92
economy - there are many new opportunities for expanding Acmes products and
services, but the lack of experienced consultants and managers make it difficult to exploit
these opportunities. At the same time, information technology offers the promise of
being able to offer more goods and services with fewer employees. If effective systems
for learning and sharing information can be established, it is assumed, the organization
can continue its current growth trajectory.
The participants in the study, Acmes senior management team, volunteered to
provide data on how Acme is progressing toward accomplishing its goal of becoming a
learning organization.
93
V. Research Findings
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of managers regarding
organizational learning. Selected concepts from experts in the field of organizational
learning were used to provide a framework for this study. The researcher used three
qualitative research methods to collect data for the research. This chapter reports
findings from each of those data sources - documents, critical incidents, and interviews.
Findings from document analyses describe the organizations commitment to becoming a
learning organization and how it will facilitate organizational learning. Findings from
critical incidents provide written accounts from the participants of specific occurrences
related to organizational learning. Findings from interviews are thick descriptions,
metaphors, and stories as they were told to me by the participants regarding their
perceptions of organizational learning within Acme. Within each data source, the
researcher looked at each of the following seven analytic categories:
Organizational teaming. Category I, is defined as when the organization has met
the following criteria: developed better systems for conscious error detection and
correction; changed its organizational memory by changing how it encodes data; changed
its mental models; developed cultures of inquiry and generativity; and, extracted
knowledge latent in experience which is translated into new products, services, or skills.
94
Examples of the indicators for this category include changed behavior, not repeating the
same mistakes, and distinguishing between individual, team or organizational learning.
The impact of significant change on organizational learning. Category II, is meant
to elicit data on how managers leam during major changes occurring within the
organization or in the external business environment. Significant change is defined as
events such as introducing new communications or financial systems, management
reorganization, downsizing, adding new products, services, or business divisions. Some
indicators associated with this category included: rapid or slow response to changes in the
business environment, synergism or lack of synergism among organizational business
units, and employees being viewed as assets or not being viewed as assets.
Impact of Significant Change on Individual Learning. Category III, looks at how
changes in the internal and external business environment impact the individual
managers learning. Indicators include awareness of ones value to the organization,
responsibility for career management, and self-directed learning.
Systems Thinking. Category IV, is defined as the discipline that integrates the
other systems by fusing them into a coherent body of theory and practice. Some
indicators for this category include: cross functional group learning, integrated approach
to solving problems, and thinking across organizational boundaries.
Impact of technology on organizational learning. Category V. seeks to
understand the role of information systems and communication systems that generate
value by providing the means to access, store, process, evaluate, package, and distribute
95
information, i.e. technical systems which underlie the organizations ability to generate
wealth through knowledge and information management. Indicators associated with this
category included references to use of information and communications technology,
electronic mail, voice mail, information storage, retrieval, and distributions systems.
Factors that facilitate and factors that impede organizational learning. Categories
VI and VII, provide information that managers perceive as impacting Acmes efforts to
become a learning organization. A significant amount of findings in these two categories
relate to the culture of the organization. The researcher uses Scheins definition of
organizational culture, the pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as
it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well
enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct
way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (1992, p. 12).
Documents
In this study, the documents are used for two purposes - to provide data relative
to organizational learning at Acme and to provide general information about Acme
thereby establishing the context of the study. This section records findings or statements
taken from 19 documents created and used at Acme from 1992 until the completion of
the research in 1998. Statements from these documents are quoted and correlated to each
of the seven analytic categories.
96
Examples of the documents used for this section of the findings include Acmes
mission and vision statements, the strategic plans and revisions or updates to those plans,
and the annual reports. Minutes from management meetings and retreats are also
referenced. The findings also come from Acmes published newsletters and magazines.
A complete listing of all the documents with their source and usage is in Appendix J .
General statements about organizational learning are found in many of the
documents used for the research. Indicators for this category are very broad concepts
related to team learning and individual learning, learning from mistakes, and changing
behaviors of individuals and organizations. The statements make comments espousing
the importance of such things as personal achievements and capabilities; internal
mentoring programs. There were several statements in the documents describing the
organizations emphasis on teamwork. Acmes 1992 Vision statement provides a
summary of the organizations commitment to learning. It states that Acme will, Target
training to: encourage teamwork, promote internal as well as external customer
satisfaction; create an effective learning organization; support continuous measurement
and improvement of Acmes performance; and facilitate individual growth. That quote
from the Vision statement is repeated in subsequent revisions of the strategic plans from
1993 - 1998. In 1993, continuous learning became an explicit goal in the organizations
strategic plan. The fifth goal of the 1993 strategic plan is to enhance Acme's
97
organizational environment to support continuous learning, encourage teamwork,
facilitate individual growth, and promote internal as well as external customer
satisfaction. In the revised plan of 1996, explicit steps for achieving Goal 5 also became
part of the document.
In 1992, the responsibility for documenting strategies leading to becoming a
learning organization was given to a group of managers referred to as the Continuous
Improvement Council. That council wrote as part of its mission, It is understood that
the Continuous Improvement Council will call for strategic training in ways to implement
Acme's vision of becoming a learning organization. Realizing that membership in teams
can change, they wrote, An attempt will be made to create training groups that stay
together as identifiable learning teams. In 1993, the Continuous Improvement Council
hired external training consultants to help with achieving the Councils objectives. The
hired consultants wrote a brief description of Acme's Learning objectives: acquire the
knowledge, skills and attitudes required to be a world-class leader in providing services
for manufacturing customers; create an organizational climate which fosters respect,
mutual support, and service to our internal customers; become a continuous learning
organization.
Minutes from meetings provide insight into how the organization was progressing
toward meeting its learning goals. Changing behaviors is an important indicator for this
category. Minutes from a retreat in Septemberl995, recounted how the managers
practiced their newly learned skills. This excerpt is taken from the notes written by the
98
vice president of operations, We did a little teaching piece as a reminder about the
fundamentals of dialogue: Attitude of learning; avoid non-negotiable positions; spirit of
inquiry; slower pace to enhance listening.
By 1998, the publications from the organization were starting to link
organizational learning with knowledge management The president wrote in Acmes
quarterly publication Learning is an integral part of corporate renewal and must become
an integral part of knowledge management. Top management must recognize that
knowledge management and organizational learning go hand in hand. The publication
has a readership of approximately 10,000 manufacturers and other interested parties. The
magazines editor, has been working for Acme for several years and contributed an
article about Acmes efforts at becoming a learning organization. She summed up
Acmes efforts this way, Acme is committed to mastering the professional behaviors
and business practices that characterize a high-performance workplace.
Supporting and encouraging individual as well as team learning are indicators for
this category. Second only to general comments about organizational learning, team
learning was the most frequently cited indicator for this category. Examples of the
statements include: Group processes such as [meeting] facilitation and dialogue can be
used to develop the knowledge of the team as well as its culture. And, Teams also have
to take responsibility for their learning with adequate support from the organization.
Thinking across organizational boundaries is another indicator for this category.
In addition to many statements found in the documents about the importance of cross
99
functional team-building, by 1998, the president of Acme was writing articles that talked
about the importance of sharing information and thinking across organizational
boundaries. In one article he wrote, Deep relationships with team members and partners
provide the foundation for sharing information and tapping the specialized skills that
reside in various departments throughout the organization. He also wrote, Acme needs
a venue where managers come together to discuss innovative ideas and formulate
responses to emerging opportunities. These ideas are indicators of the importance of
encouraging collaboration and team learning. Both are key components of organizational
learning. Moving beyond the effective use of information technology, Acme's
managers need to continuously share the wealth of information that resides within each
business unit. This is an example of leaders modeling learning and encouraging them to
establish systems to capture and share learning.
Organizational Learning During Periods Of Significant Change
Although the annual reports and strategic plan mention the importance of being
responsive to market trends, more thoughtful comments were found in a document called
Ideas, Beliefs, and Values Related To Organizational Change. In January of 1995, the
Operations Group, which was the governing body of managers at that time, were asked to
write a description of their ideas, beliefs, and values relative to organizational change and
development. The consultants who were involved in the professional development of the
managers shared the essays with all fifteen members of the management team. Most of
100
the findings relative to organizational learning are taken from that collection of essays.
The following are some comments from those essays:
In a sense we are still inventing Acme and so managing
organizational change is a constant responsibility.
If an organization is to succeed in implementing permanent
change, the culture of the organization must contain these critical
elements: the entrepreneurial process, the innovation process, a
shared vision reflecting the purpose of the organization, shared
values, and a leadership that can articulate, nurture and
continuously improve on the vision.
[Tjhere is something in people that needs constancy in the
organizations that they are associated with. These elements of
constancy could be stated principles, an understood doctrine, or
just a culture. Acme needs to decide on its basic principles so that
its supporters and staff can identify strongly with Acme while
Acme in many ways is changing.
There can be both adaptive and creative approaches to
dealing with change. At one extreme, the individual/organization
allows the environment to dictate the direction and magnitude of
change; at the other end of the scale, the individual/organization is
constantly pushing the envelope - defining the environment to
which others will have to adapt There will be elements of both
adaptive and creative change in varying degrees in any successful
organization.
[I]f culture is defined as widely-shared values and norms of
behavior, then cultural change must come from an individual or
group of individuals that have the widest spheres of influence. So
it falls to an organization's management to define, enable, and
support constant renewal.
101
Impact of Change on Individual Learning
There were no findings in the documents to support this analytic category.
Systems Thinking
Several different types of documents have indicators supporting this analytic
category. In general, the relevant data in the documents describe the importance of
working and sharing information among different business units. In 1992, a meeting of
all employees was held to gather ideas about individuals learning needs. The
information was to be used in developing the strategic plan and in designing an
organization-wide training program. In reviewing the notes from the meeting, the
findings revealed several comments expressing the need for interdisciplinary team
skills to promote cross-functional learning and facilitate better interactions among
people from different departments. During that same period of time, members of the
board of Trustees were also asked to provide input for developing Acmes strategic plan.
One board member expressed his concern with the importance of linkages within Acme
in speeding up its own [internal] processes.
An important continuous improvement tool, first used in January of 1997 , was a
document showing how managers had prioritized the organizations primary objectives for
the first six months of the year. The significance of the document has to do with its use as
a tool to track progress toward achieving goals that impact the whole organization and
102
often had to be accomplished by cross-functional teams. The document, by virtue of its
design and purpose, is a representation of systems thinking and organizational learning.
The data indicators supported by the documents were related to developing better systems
for conscious error detection and correction. The document lists eighteen prioritized
objectives. The objectives included such activities as, create a disaster recovery plan;
complete the design and begin implementation of the performance-based compensation
plan; introduce one new product or service offering; implement the customer satisfaction
system and meet industrial revenue objective. Each activity indicates the key person
responsible and a delivery date. Incidentally, one of the objectives for that period was
specific to learning, complete facilitator training for other Acme managers by April 30
1997 . Managers use the document to measure progress, share information, or to trigger
a group problem-solving process when an objective is not being met.
Impact of Technology on Organizational Learning
Technology refers to everything from the effective use of voice mail to linking
networks of information systems among employees and other external information
systems. There were a number of comments about increasing an individual's skills and
improving the computer systems. Several comments were related to the use of e-mail and
Acmes internal networks and databases. In 1992, Acme employees were invited to a
meeting to provide input on what they perceived to be their individual learning needs and
the learning needs of the organization. In reference to technology, someone indicated the
103
need for continual education and information about new technologies. During that
same meeting, another Acme associate expressed the need for [Establishing compatible]
systems. . .across Acme i.e. infrastructure systems - accounting, communications. Both
of these comments are indicators of the importance of technology in facilitating
In 1995, a member of the operations team wrote in the document called Ideas,
Beliefs, and Values Relating to Organizational Change and Development, [Measuring
change] requires not only developing new metrics but also figuring out how to capture
the necessary data to support the metrics in a cost-effective manner. Developing
systems, including technical systems, for conscious error detection and correction is an
indicator for this category. The findings indicate several references to the lack of
adequate systems to capture and share data. The same manager continued writing, it
must also be recognized that data from conventional financial management systems are
generally not suitable or adequate to track the intended results of organizational change
and development.
The notes from a management meeting in 1996 also mentioned the importance of
capturing data, a key indicator for this category. In describing the future plans of the
management team, the vice president recorded the teams agreement to, Commit time to
capturing key conclusions, decisions, [and] learning to improve their efficiency and
effectiveness. By 1998, this was still a critical shortcoming in the organization. It was
important enough to be mentioned in an article authored by the president. He wrote,
104
Only when the knowledge becomes explicit, can it be learned by others or captured in
best practices, process manuals or databases.
E-mail has become a major communication tool for many contemporary
organizations. By 1996, Acmes managers were calling for more communication via e-
mail and the companys electronic network. The 1995-96 revised strategic plan added
language to specifically address ways to expand the reach of the companys electronic
network. In addition to expanding and enhancing the network, the plan set a goal to
Teach Acme [associates] how to use the network and explore opportunities for including
key company experts in the resource database.
In a 1998 article titled, Knowledge Management for the Smaller Manufacturer,
the president wrote,
In an organization, . . . knowledge is embedded in the
minds of its employees, in the practices and procedures of its work
teams and in its collective memory bank. Examples of the latter
may include policy and procedure manuals, processes, trade
secrets, project reports, customer and competitor intelligence, best
practices, forecasts, etc.
He concluded the article with a quote from Pate Fortune, Monsantos Chief
Information Officer,
My observation is that most companies undervalue the
scope of their knowledge, They've undervalued what's in their
processes and their peoples' heads, and the leverage they can get
by moving practices from one place to another.
105
Facilitators of Organizational Learning
Acmes documents contained far more indicators and references specific to this
category than any other category associated with the research. The documents mostly
emphasized the importance of behaviors and attitudes that facilitate learning. It should be
noted that there were very few negative comments. In general, the statements in this
category come from documents that were intended to be explicit about the desired culture
or norms, organizational philosophy, and employee behaviors that are most conducive to
learning as an organization. In other words, many of the statements in this section reflect
efforts to apply organizational learning theories as they are described by experts in the
field of organizational learning. For example, in the minutes from a 1995 management
meeting, the vice president of operations writes,
Key learning from the dialog exercise were: how beneficial
it is to really seek to understand before reacting/overreacting; the
need to use/count on others in the team; it helps
discussion/understanding not to get defensive; How powerful and
different this discussion was especially as it relates to public
shaming; How valuable and helpful it is to hear the assumptions,
feelings and thoughts that we haven't spoken.
In a similar style, the managers co-authored the norms of the organization
which were subsequently posted in meeting rooms. The high leverage norms document
stated,
We value and seek to grow the potential of each other through:
self development and the development and well-being of others;
respecting each other;[and] giving others recognition. We will
positively contribute to the success of team efforts by building on
106
the ideas of others rather than challenging them, and practicing
honest and clear communication. We resolve to recognize team
strength comes from individual differences.
The philosophy of the organization is a lengthy statement. The following excerpt
is taken from that document:
Acme fosters honesty, integrity, and mutual respect among
associates; the open and timely sharing of information; encourages
the role of the individual champion; and vests each associate with
the responsibility to lead by example and model best practices in
their daily activities.
In 1995, the newly formed management team, known as the Acme Operations Group,
was especially concerned with establishing norms for their own behavior. The group was
barely a year old and wanted to make policies for how they would interact as a
management team. They agreed that,
The Operations Group policies and programs [will]
encourage and motivate Acme associates to share their business
experiences and to learn from them. The operations group will
foster an environment that encourages: creativity, innovation, and
continuous improvement; openness, mutual support and
organizational learning teams and individual champions.
These excerpts are statements that capture the espoused theories of managers and reflect
the cultural characteristics of organizations that, according to experts, are facilitators of
organizational learning. The espoused culture of the organization is repeated many times
in documents that reference the desired goals of the organization. For example, the
organizations vision statement and mission statement uses phrases like Acme will
maintain a caring, helpful and productive environment in which employees learn,
107
improve and achieve personal fulfillment. The organization promotes and encourages
creative change and remains flexible enough to adapt to new circumstances and
opportunities.
Sharing information, honesty and openness are also key indicators in this
category. Several documents from diverse sources - minutes from managers meetings,
associates input at meetings, written articles - emphasize the importance of working
together and sharing. One manager wrote in Ideas, Beliefs, and Values about Change and
Organizational Development, collaboration is the backbone of organizational and
individual learning. In providing input for the strategic plan one associate talked about
the importance of learning and Full utilization of everyone's skills/abilities. Another
employee interested in sharing technical expertise emphasized that employees need to
understand the other technical disciplines we have in-house. Similarly, the president
wrote, Workers must feel safe if they are to progress from hoarding their expertise to
protect their turf to sharing their knowledge so everyone benefits. He continued,
Moving beyond the effective use of information
technology, Acme's managers need to continuously share the
wealth of information that resides within each business unit. Deep
relationships with team members and partners provide the
foundation for sharing information and tapping the specialized
skills that reside in various departments throughout the
organization.
Leadership support and allocating resources is also an indication of behaviors that
facilitate organizational learning. Multiple documents from a wide range of contributors
emphasized the importance of making time and resources available to support learning.
108
Many of those same documents connected the allocation of resources with the support of
leaders in facilitating learning. The vice president of operations wrote, The most critical
challenge for Acme is the need to have all supervisors and managers totally support the
training for their employees. He also wrote that, Freeing employees to attend training
opportunities must be given priority along with other important responsibilities and the
training must be reinforced or at least not be negated by supervisors and managers. One
manager sounded especially committed to the learning process when he wrote, We all
have to be change agents and practice what we preach to the clients we serve.
Allocating resources for professional development is certainly indicative of
behaviors that facilitate organizational learning. In describing the philosophy of the
organization, the managers wrote, The professional development of Acme staff is a
priority in the allocation of resources. The philosophy states that, The key is for the
leader(s) to create a positive environment, facilitate and reward the changes.
Recognizing that teams have to take responsibility for their learning it was also noted
in several documents that teams need adequate support from the organization to make
that learning feasible. Adequate support includes [Sjetting aside time for this process.
Although he acknowledged that everyone was not willing to make changes, the president
wrote this about leadership in his 1998 article: Structures and styles have to change from
command-and-control to coaching, mentoring and advising. In the article titled,
Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, he writes [leaders] must, in
addition to providing the right tools, create an environment conducive to open
109
communications and to providing support for their key knowledge assets, their workers.
(P- 5).
Another indicator of behaviors that facilitate organizational learning that received
significant attention was learning from the external environment . The Vision statement
says, Acme will constantly seek new information and deeper understanding of
manufacturers, their business, pertinent technologies and the global economy. The
philosophy statement says,
Acme learns continuously from its customers, associates,
stakeholders, and competitors. This learning is assimilated into the
way in which we conduct our business and drives a process of
continuous improvement.
The strategic plan from 1994 states that Acme will bring together opinion
leaders and technical experts to develop a consensus agenda on what is needed for the
next phase of manufacturing advancement. One manager wrote in an essay, that it is
important to,
know the customer - what's important, how we can best
serve them. External forces such as global competitiveness,
political changes, trade issues, natural disasters, and so forth,
cannot be controlled by you. What you can control is how you and
your organization are prepared to cope with the changes.
In describing how Acme began to listen and respond to customers, the president
wrote, in the introduction to the 1997 annual report,
We had to put Acme into the crucible and reinvent
ourselves as an organization. We began using customer satisfaction
surveys extensively, and, more important, we acted on the
feedback. We are learning to identify, develop, and serve our
markets.
no
Barriers to Organizational Learning
Although, barriers to organizational learning can be assumed to be the absence of
facilitators of organizational it is important to note some specific statements describing
barriers to learning. There were seven or eight such statements written in the documents
used for this research. One such example was found in the notes from board members
who were invited to a meeting to generate ideas for the upcoming strategic planning
process. A member of the board of trustees, concerned about Acme not being prepared to
respond to changes in the external environment stated, Acme needs to define critical
areas and skill sets that correspond with an increasingly complex environment.
The vice president of operations recorded notes from a senior management team
retreat in January 1996. The document is very critical of the groups behavior. The
recorder wrote, some attacking going on; attendance has broken down; focusing on
tactical not strategic; biases and prejudices show up in discussions; static not dynamic
agendas - looking back. The notes from that retreat captured a number of explicit
behaviors that are barriers to organizational learning. Trust and openness are often cited
as facilitators of team learning. These two characteristics were questioned by managers at
the 1996 retreat. In a summary of the minutes from the retreat, one manager spoke up
about the lack of trust and openness in the decision making process, Most substantive
decision making occurs outside the operations group [meetings] and may not be
reported. Another manager reported concern about perceived misuse of e-mail. The
I l l
minutes from the meeting captured his concern this way, Don't use e-mail as a substitute
for dialogue.
Summary of Document Analysis
The documents of the organization describe the thinking and espoused theories of
managers, employees, and external stakeholder i.e. trustees of Acme. From as early as
1992, the organization has documents that are filled with references to Acme becoming a
learning organization. Of the seven analytical categories serving as a lens and focus for
this study, indicators for all but one of the analytical categories were found in the
documents. The most frequently cited analytical categories were facilitators of
organizational learning with 37 citations. There were 14 recorded statements related to
organizational learning in the broad sense, and there were 10 indicators relative to
technology and its impact on organizational learning.
Critical Incidents
The Critical incidents were coded using the same analytic categories that were
applied to the documents and the interviews. The critical incidents were coded by
analytical category after the materials were read and re-read.
112
The findings show a significant number of participants stated that Acme was
making noticeable progress toward adapting the principles of a learning organization.
One indicator of organizational learning is demonstrating changed behavior. Several
participants talked about changed behavior as being important at the team level. They
discussed such things as creating new tracking and reporting systems as an example of
changed behavior. One participant wrote, Today, a new Acme system of tracking and
reporting this same information has become part of the Acme institution. Edwin, wrote
about changed behavior within the team, Later we [his departments team] discussed
what happened, and what should have happened and how to avoid such problems in the
future. Since that meeting, there have been additional sessions on team-building and
facilitation,. . .the meetings have gone well.
Ken also wrote about changes within the team, I believe what I have learned has
been transferred as learning to the management group. After inputting new financial
systems, the organization set revenue targets differently. A1 wrote, The result of this
learning is the change in revenue objectives.
Participants also wrote about sharing new ideas with team members as another
example of changed behavior. For example, Stan and several others wrote about how
their personal learnings were later transferred to others. Stan wrote, One of my personal
learnings - which I have shared with the team - is how to share learning.. .[W]e had to
113
learn that we cannot suppress open discussion of issues or they will come back to bite us
in the future. Kevin wrote, I believe I stayed with it long enough to have had some
learning impact the group. A1 wrote about his key learning related to group problem
solving,
A key learning for me [at my previous organization] was
investigating and understanding the source of resistance. I initiated
a series of meetings with key members of the groups to discuss
their problems and ways which other groups were impacted by
their decisions. In addition, I elicited senior management support
to educate all groups as to the critical corporate need. We worked
through these issues and jointly introduced some successful
products.
Most of the participants wrote about Acme becoming a learning organization.
The findings indicate several examples of how Acme has made progress in sharing
information. One person wrote, Significant learning took place with the executive
management team and the entire organization through management and communications
meetings. Communications meetings refers to quarterly meetings where the entire
organization stops operations for 4 -5 hours. Everyone convenes in a large meeting place
where information is shared regarding the financial status of the organization.
Outstanding employees or teams are recognized and awards are presented. All employees
are expected to attend and temporary help is hired to handle the receptionists area.
Team learning, an important principle of organizational learning, was mentioned
in the critical incidents more than any other single indicator of changed behavior. Grace
wrote, about her colleagues on the senior management team developing processes for
114
transferring learning, During the early days of the [senior] management team, while the
[whole] group worked out the distinctions and internalized the concepts, through key
managers, these concepts have been disseminated in the organization.
Another example of organizational learning is described by Delores. She believes
that organizational learning took place as a result of her teaching her colleagues on the
management team how to improve their hiring decisions. She wrote, I've had an
opportunity to share my learning with other Acme managers as they approached new
[employee] selection decisions.
Another indicator for organizational learning is group problem solving skills. The
findings were stated with specific regard to planning and working together. A1 wrote,
The learning which was shared by all the group was that there was a value to project
management, there was a positive result from taking the time to plan together, and finally
there was significant value in teamwork to achieve common goals.
The findings indicate many specific comments about team learning. It is
important to note, however, that one participant had a negative comment about team
learning. He stated the learning was not moving beyond the management team. Kevin
wrote, People below the management team do not seem to get much of the information
flow.
Many participants wrote about not repeating the same mistakes as an important
indicator that the organization has learned. Several participants described how Acme had
failed to learn from past errors. Ethan recounted an episode,
A non-leaming was when every aspect of our business
115
from proposals and sales to projects and revenue followed a very
obvious cycle of peaks and valleys and did so each of the past
years and the current year. One year later Acme was in the same
valley with low sales and revenue.
Repeating mistakes was alluded to by John, Some teams need constant reminders of the
previous lesson. Grace wrote something similar about not repeating mistakes, Acme
did not use the knowledge to change the manner in which we prepared annual budgets,
and continued to divide the annual target into twelve equal increments. She continued
writing about avoiding learning, In the face of the down-tum, we blamed individuals,
departments (sales) and activities (training) for the problem, rather than trying to deepen
our understanding of our business and our market.
Organizational Learning Purine Periods of Significant Change
There are no findings for this category from the critical incidents. No one wrote
anything about learning during periods of significant change.
There are no findings for this category from the critical incidents. No one wrote
anything about the impact of change on individual learning.
Systems Thinking
The concept of systems thinking was mentioned by more than half of the
116
respondents. Fourteen written comments from six different participants were coded to
this category. Stan wrote about learning related to changes in the membership of the
senior management team,
I learned that, as new personalities were added, not only did
the members behave differently toward one another in the
meetings but the nature of the meetings themselves qualitatively
changed. I am not naive about group dynamics but I did think that
all of the time and effort we dedicated to organizational building,
dialogue, etc., would tend to ameliorate the normal tugs and puils
of interpersonal dynamics, leading to an organization whose center
would remain more constant as membership changed.
Further, looking at systems, Stan wrote, Each new configuration [of the
management team] introduced a new level of anxiety and uncertainty which eventually
resolved into a new modus vivendi for the organization. Kevin commented on
impacting multiple systems with new ways of looking at the financial data. He wrote,
While tracking doesn't generate revenue, per se, it does let everyone know what is in the
future and what actions are necessary to correct adverse trends. In looking at external as
well as internal systems that impact learning, Grace recounted a limited learning
experience,
After doing some analysis of sales and revenue data, it
became clear that indeed, sales tended to taper off during a five-
month period from December to March of each year. We tried to
correlate the pattern to internal factors (such as when account
managers tended to take vacations) with the thought being that if
some controllable factor caused the cycle, we might be able to
dampen its effects with more careful planning. Where our learning
fell short: No correlation to any identifiable internal factor was
found, but the team did not delve any further into possible
influences that might be external to our organization.
117
Ethan describes an example of systems thinking within the management team.
The team has representation from every business unit of the organization including the
administrative functions i.e., marketing, HR, and finance, Through proximity, talking to
each other, working on projects together and having common goals [or] metrics the
management team [has come] a long way toward a higher level of efficiency and group
skills.
Four of the participants wrote something about the impact of technology on
organizational learning. Those findings are not recorded here because they are so few.
However, it should be noted that writing about the impact of technology in the critical
incidents resulted in changes to the interview schedule. A technology question was
added that elicited significant data about perceptions on organizational learning. Those
findings are presented later in this chapter.
Sharing and trust were mentioned by many of the participants, Delores wrote,
Sharing this learning with him was possible because we have learned over the years that
we can trust each other. . . Stan wrote about sharing, One of my personal learnings -
which I have shared with the [management team] is how to share learning. Another
118
participant wrote, The one area I really do question is: How much of the Management
Team's learning is shared with the rest of the organization.
Participants had this to say about being open honest or willing to learn
which are some indicators for this category: After much observation. . .we had a very
open and construction conservation. Someone else wrote, The learning is that it is
important to solicit support of the group when undertaking a new venture or experience,
especially when this is being facilitated by outsiders.
Stan wrote about the challenges of establishing a culture of learning within the
management team as its membership continued to evolve, The learning is that the center
moves, despite the attempt to develop a learning organization environment.
Another cultural indicator in this category had to do with the role of leadership.
One participant wrote about his learning related to leaders, It is important to brief key
staff who are the natural and appointed leaders as to what the expected outcome should
be in new situations.
Barriers to Organizational Learning
Findings from the critical incidents indicate the norms of the management team
were a barrier to some newer members. Norms refers to group qualities such as how
members of the team interacted with one another, their style or approach to solving
problems or discussing new ideas. The treatment of a new member in the group caused
him to write this lesson learned about the norms of the management team, Teams
119
sometimes forget common courtesy and revert back to having little patience with a new
member. I raised a question that had been a sensitive issue in the past - and every one
jumped all over me.
Stan wrote about the interpretation by the group of his comments to Ethan,
Despite my attempts to avoid personalizing this learning, Ethan took my comments as a
personal attack.
Leadership in the organization has an impact on the culture and how employees
view the value of their work. One manager wrote, The tracking system we developed
was not viewed as important by higher level management. He continued, Since the
higher management did not (evidently) view this work to be of great value, there was no
obligation by the successors to carry it on.
Transferring learning to the rest of the organization was seen as important, but
often managers wrote about how that transfer did not occur. For example, The actual
work should have been delegated within the staff, rather than performed by the managers,
. . . the process would have continued beyond the tenure of the individual managers.
Another manager put it this way, 1took some of the managers aside to enlist their
support to me in making this [training] a success. The result was that they restrained
their negative comments but only minimally participated in the day's work [training
activities].
Sometimes important learning between two or a few individuals does not go
beyond those individuals. One manager wrote, While I consider this a successful
120
learning experience in some respects, neither of us shared it with the broader group in any
explicit way. That same manager felt that sometimes the roles managers play in
organizations preclude openness, I think his role. . .makes it difficult for him to be as
open as he would sometimes like to be, continuing, this participant wrote,
We have missed an opportunity to examine the rich insights
gained about coaching . . . and about how his role affects each of
us as individuals, and the impact that has on our organization.
Learning organizations learn from the internal and the external environment. The
findings show that Acme is only learning from one of the two environments that facilitate
organizational learning. One manager felt the learning at Acme was focused inward. He
wrote, Acme's areas of focus are more internally driven than market driven.
It is widely held that systems thinking and collaboration are key to organizational
learning. The findings reported here indicate that there is an absence of these facilitating
factors. One manager wrote this,
Top management, management teams, program
coordinators and delivery staff have yet to integrate activities to
enhance both initiatives [divisions] and grow Acme's business.
The ability to capture, store, analyze and learn from data is another indicator of
organizational learning. It often requires sharing across business functions. The findings
for this indicator, similar to systems thinking, are that there is an absence of this
important facilitator of organizational learning. One participant wrote,
There have been numerous working groups and committees
chaired by top management. while we are doing better it appears
the sales and delivery staff, who are the front line contacts, have
121
not grasped the significance of capturing this important
information.
Another manager, Darryl, put it this way, We have not learned how to integrate
development efforts [among divisions] into something that results in sustainable
business.
Summary of Critical Incidents
Generally speaking, the findings show Acme has made progress in becoming a
learning organization. The members of the senior management team are in agreement on
most issues with only a few exceptions. Most notably, although there were many positive
comments about the management team sharing ideas and practicing the principles of the
learning organization, one team member thought the team learning was not indicative of
organizational learning since the learning did not go beyond the management team to the
rest of the organization. There was general agreement that the organization was not
doing a good job of learning from past mistakes. Of the seven analytical categories
serving as a lens and focus for this study, a significant number of indicators for four of
the analytical categories were found in the critical incidents. The most cited analytical
categories were Organizational Learning, Systems Thinking, Factors that Facilitate
Organizational Learning, and Factors that Impede Organizational Learning.
Significantly, there were no findings in the critical incidents for two of the analytic
categories: Organizational Learning During Significant Change, and the Impact of
122
Change on Individual Learning. Significantly, the findings revealed factors related to
organizational learning that were perceived not as barriers or facilitators but simply as
being absent.
Interviews
Changed behavior was mentioned by seven of the participants as an indicator that
learning has really occurred. Changed behavior refers to such things as reporting
financial information more often or in a format easier to understand by those who are not
accountants by training. Another example of changed behavior was sharing information
across departments or among different business units on a regular basis. For example,
Stan talks about learning resulting in, Higher and better forms of performance. He
connects organizational learning to changed behaviors,
I'd define it as a process by which people and groups within an
organization become more self-conscious of what they're doing
and how they're doing it and gain more insight into how to make
the always desired improvements.
Similar to Stans comments, Kevin links learning to continuous improvement, I define
organizational learning to be the continuous improvement of the understanding of the
123
organization on how to be more efficient and effective. Looking back to when the
organization changed the way financial reports are presented, A1 describes learning and
changing behaviors as occurring gradually, Its not like we all went away to a course
and learned the basics of financials. We all did it in a [he pauses] I'll coin the phrase
osmotic way. [P]eople absorbed all of these concepts and talked with each other and
we all got to the same level. Ethan also talks about applying what has been learned, its
the ability of an organization to carry an experience through to learning and then apply
that in the future. Edwin uses a behaviorist metaphor to describe changed behaviors, If
you've learned something, you're going to change something and not have that behavior
again. It's almost like Pavlov's dogs - you know? If you try it one way and it doesn't
work that way, you change and do it again.
Similar to changing behaviors, eight participants indicated one aspect of
organizational learning is not repeating the same mistakes. Darryl, had this to say about
repeating mistakes as a result of changes in personnel and losing corporate memory,
we're doing a lot of the same kind of stuff that we tried years ago and due to changes in
personnel some of what we learned is lost. So we end up having to redo and rework.
Sometimes we end up reworking and redoing the same wrong thing we did before. Five
managers mentioned the need for a repository o f lessons learned to avoid repeating
mistakes. Edwins comments about the lack of a place to go for answers were tied to his
perception about the organizations ability to learn, Rather than learning the first time,
probably one of the biggest un-leamings at Acme - we don't write things down. We don't
124
have anyplace where an employee can go or a manager can go and say this is the way its
going to be. Stan believes not repeating mistakes is a hurdle for many companies, I've
been in and around a number of organizations, where it just seems like every few years
the organization is back [to] making some of the same stupid mistakes again just because
they didn't learn from earlier problems or debacles or what have you. A learning
organization, in Stans view, needs to guard against backsliding and forgetting. He
continues describing ineffective learning, Its not paying attention. . . not honoring what
you've learned. Kevin sums up organizational learning and the importance of not
repeating mistakes this way,
Another way of defining it is: our organization is learning if
it is not making the same mistake time and time again. [The
organization is] learning from its mistakes and thereby you don't
see them recurring and that is a way to quantify whether an
organization is learning. Because if they're not, they just keep
stumbling over the same rock time and time again. And as time
goes on any organization that isn't learning eventually becomes
non competitive to any competition out there that is learning.
Seventy-three percent, or 11 of the 15 participants, chose to define organizational
learning by distinguishing it from individual or team learning. For example, A1 said, We
all have our individual skills, formal education, [and] things that we've learned and
experienced in our lives. So organization implies to me a collective way in which that
[individual] learning is added up . . . Kevin classified individual and team learning as
tactical and organizational learning as strategic. He said,
I would distinguish it mostly on a tactical versus strategic
definitional basis. So I look at that as learning that takes place
within the team that can be different from organizationally where
125
it's more broad-based.
A newer member of the team, James, also used the term strategic when he
described the need for organizational learning, there's the strategic direction - the senior
people leading strategic direction. James, interpretation of organizational learning was
that organizational learning is additive, I would say team learning would be really
restricted to within the group or maybe people with a specific mission in mind. He felt,
Organizational learning would then be a combination of those clusters. Tom, another
new manager on the team, defined organizational learning as,
the ability of people within the company to leverage the
knowledge they have amongst themselves for the betterment of the
company so we can share that knowledge. Knowledge,
information, data, whatever you want to call it - make it available
for everyone so everyone has the benefit of that knowledge.
Stan was grappling with developing the current team of managers while
simultaneously growing the team,
How do you get new people up to speed? How do you get
them aware of what's been going on so that they don't come in and
basically dishonor three years of very, very hard work on the part
of the group to become more tolerant of each others views.
In addition to the changes in the organizational environment, the managers must
accommodate changes to the personality of the management team itself as new
managers are hired as others retire or the business grows. Stan put it this way, the very
nature of our organizational learning group itself has changed because of the changes in
126
personalities.
Organizational Learning Purine Periods Of Significant Change
The ability to rapidly respond to changes and be able to seize opportunities was
important to the managers. Seven of them linked learning with the ability to adapt to
changes in the marketplace. James talks about the impact of learning at Acme, Well as
organizational learning is instilled in organizations like Acme, the response to that
change will be much faster. A1 had similar thoughts about learning to adapt to change,
if there's one thing we have to do better - we have to improve our ability to adapt to that
change. Tom believes, [Ejvery organization needs to be a learning organization. If
they're going to continue to compete in this rapidly changing world. Frank doesnt
believe all organizations need to leam. He puts limits on who needs to be a learning
organization in response to change, all growing, dynamic organizations need to be
learning organizations ... Delores thinks the environment at Acme promotes the ability
to adapt, A fluid environment is, I think, one of the things that helps.
Two-thirds of the managers talked about synergy or building on the capabilities of
the individuals and teams in new ways to meet the challenges of significant changes in
the marketplace. Dell, the director of marketing to state and federal agencies, depends on
his ability to understand and present the combined capabilities Acmes individual
business units. He shared his perception that the units did not operate or think with a
collective vision. In Dells view, Acme is wrestling with and has yet to really
127
accomplish an integration of the different divisional responsibilities to make one whole
progressing down the highway together. Referring to a particularly difficult fiscal crisis,
the director of finance described organizational learning this way, As we went through
the whole process of plugging up a lot holes that were leaking [and] re-established a
financially healthy organization, people really learned there are linkages between how
we're doing and how programs are doing as to whether or not we'll have a future or not.
Stan talks about collective knowledge, I may even be bold enough to say the
collective wisdom of the organization [needs] to figure out how then to move to higher
and better forms of behavior. Another participant linked the synergy to the
organizational environment, I think the biggest thing would be to realize the capability
of the staff and again put in place the environment where they can freely expand on those
capabilities. A1 was concerned that synergism would not happen between units, My
fear is that the business units are not going to learn from each other. Darryl was looking
for a way to create a physical environment to promote synergy, My sense is even in this
facility, although most of us are in the same building, we're still disjointed a lot by walls
by floors. James was one of several managers who talked about building on peoples
experiences as one aspect of learning or acting synergistically,
[Organizational] learning provides a wonderful
opportunity, but it also provides the biggest challenge, that is,
taking what you've learned from your experiences, and from the
experiences of others . . . and putting them into some kind of
action or consciously deciding that you're going to move in a
certain direction or do something.
128
Twelve managers discussed the value of people during periods of significant
change. Terms like cultivating and harvesting intellectual capital or viewing people
as assets were repeated often. Stan said, the fact of the matter is you also have a store
of human capital within the organization. Darryl, the director of new product
development and an engineer by training, said, All things being equal the intellectual
capacity or the knowledge of a company is what's going to help keep them healthy and
ahead of the pack. The differentiator [sic] is the people. Bob, the director of sales and
marketing, had similar comments,
Technology is a commodity. Raw materials are a
commodity. This stuff is all available. What's going to
differentiate the truly high performance organization that will
survive, thrive, and grow from the 'me too has beens' [sic] are
going to be that organization that is able to create from
organizational learning a knowledge base that will truly allow it to
. . . create a sustainable competitive advantage over time.
Tom, the director of information systems, referring to the practice of massive
layoffs had this to say,
What they didn't realize and what they are realizing now is
that they lost their core competencies. These people are what
made the company. And defined what they knew as an
organization. Theyre all gone. So now theyre struggling with
what are our core competencies. They don't have any anymore
[core competencies] because the people were the definition of that.
He continues with how people are important to the learning organization,
I think the whole impetus behind the learning organization
is to learn from that whole downsizing era. People are the
important thing here. How do we not make that same mistake in
letting that knowledge get away from us. How do we capture it for
129
the organization. Make it an asset of the organization and not of
the individual. I hope we use that intelligently and not capture it
and do away with the people.
James thinks, People have, over the years, evolved from being a pair of hands to
[a point where] actually people are the competitive advantage and people are the asset
now. The director of HR, Delores, makes a point about the organizational learning
process being dependent on individuals, I don't know any other way that organizations
learn unless individuals do and so one of the things in my role that's really important to
me is finding out. . .how important learning is to an individual.
Kevin believes the things youTl need to be successful and valuable to the
organization are determined by the external environment. The tools of success as he
calls them, will constantly change as the environment changes. And, according to
Kevin,
Those external pressures change the internal environment of
the organization you're with. You need to leam what is important
at that point in time for that organization to be successful. If you
can do that, then you'll be valuable to that organization and that
will be recognized internally.
Impact Of Change On Individual Learning
Ten managers talked about how learning impacts an individual's value to the
organization. James advocates for seeking internal learning opportunities.
[L]ook for opportunities to bridge or step across out of
your assigned area to work both cooperatively and form
cooperative partnerships with other groups or individuals in the
company to advance the entire organization.
130
James feels, [P]eople only bring us on board if they feel we have something to
offer of value to them at the right price. He says,
The learning organization is so important because as people
do become the competitive advantage and [are viewed as an] asset
to the organization..., you need to leam what is important at that
point in time for that organization to be successful.
Kyle thought peoples learning activities need to be acknowledged,
And, to the extent that they're going to put time and effort
into that extra work they have to have a feeling that I'm therefore
going to have greater value because of this. And because of
having greater value in the organization, that gives me other
opportunities that I may have.
Eleven participants discussed the impact of rapid changes in the work
environment on individual learning and career management. Tom believes rapid changes,
internally and externally should be seen as an opportunity,
I think today a lot of people may have two or three careers in
their lifetime because things are changing so rapidly. The more
adaptable you are, the more skills that you have, the more
opportunities you have.
Other managers made similar comments alluding to making yourself more
valuable while being proactive about your career direction. John advises people to
look for opportunities. Bob puts his advice even more forcefully, [I]f you want to
ensure yourself a successful career, my belief is you've got to have a plan for life long
learning.
The managers not only felt it was important to take responsibility for ones career
131
through seeking growth opportunities, 67 % of the managers described the importance of
learning outside the organization. Self-directed learning, or self-initiated learning was
mentioned by ten of the participants in this study. Bob said, It [learning] isn't going to
stop when you graduate. It isn't going to be a few seminars. You need to have a plan and
be proactive for lifelong learning to ensure uh your ability to have a successful career.
Ethan said,
I don't think there is a conscious effort [in] organizations, to
recruit and keep long term employees. So, it almost becomes a
thing where my advice would be do a really good job but keep
your options open. Because its more you're going to have to look
out for yourself than the organization is going to look out for you.
Several of the managers have had three or four different careers. Stan describes
how self-directed learning impacted his career path,
You're talking to somebody that's had four careers. I'm not
talking about four jobs. There's been many, many more than that.
Four careers. And its been achieved primarily through self-study.
I've had wonderful opportunities to get into these careers, but its
been the self study, the self development that allowed me to
develop and grow and even bloom in these different careers.
A1 values the college experience not only for the degree that is earned, but for
teaching one how to leam, [Y]ou've learned skills in how to leam, how to teach yourself
how to analyze problems. So its easier for you to go back and you can now teach yourself
and leam new things or re-invent yourself. Kevin had very similar thoughts, all the
college you've ever had has taught you one thing and that's how to leam and .. .how to
think critically.
132
Systems Thinking
The research participants did not mention systems thinking very often during the
interviews. The indicators for this category included cross functional group learning,
evidence of integrated approaches to problem-solving, and thinking across boundaries.
There was sporadic mention of all of these indicators, but not enough to warrant further
discussion under this analytic category.
Everyone, without exception, had something to say about the impact of
technology on organizational learning. Most often, the participants talked about using
technology to share information. The ability to share, collaborate, and document
lessons learned is mentioned by most of the research participants including Tom, the IT
director. He puts it this way,
Now, with this idea of sharing, okay, we're getting into
this concept of collaboration. And this collaboration software and
tools out there that say, here's how you share information with the
team and with our organization. The nice thing is that its captured.
Its documented. Then what your organization can do with that is
hopefully, roll that knowledge back into those systems to improve
those systems, to continuously improve the ability to share
information.
Stan said,
a key element is sort of capturing - whether its in stories or
whether its in best practices or whether its in some form of
documentation, oral or written or digital - what you . . .leam so it
133
can be reviewed; so it can be put back before the group; so it can
be chewed over as the basis for future learning. That's probably
the area where I think, where I know we're most deficient at this
point. And its one where I feel a keen need to do a lot more.
John, who is the manager of the electronic commerce division, is skeptical about
humans being able to keep up with all of the new tools available for sharing information.
He believes, As technology increases, a human's ability to use that technology to the
best benefit is lagging far behind in my opinion. Stans view was that the technology
was being used mostly by people in finance or people who count and measure things.
I think it has a great potential. [However,] I think that IT
has basically been captured by the financial people. [As for]
general management, in terms of how you manage a new product
or department sort of from top to bottom, the use of IT to support
knowledge management in a department like that is still at a very,
very primitive stage.
Bob was especially concerned with how quickly information moves around the
world because of technology. The 'global village is the popular term indicating how
quickly information can be transmitted. He put it this way,
[In] my view the entire work paradigm, if you will, is
changed - totally changed. Partly due to external factors, partly due
to technology, partly due to internal factors and it's a bit of all
three. An external factor - it's the common buzz word but its true-
the world is becoming more united. We're no longer in these
isolated regions of our own. Every thing is inter-linked and as a
part of that every thing is speeded up to a degree.
Edwin had this to say about the speed of global information, . . .the learning
should be much more rapid. It's just like the world. Whatever happens- in Baghdad
134
tomorrow, or an hour ago, we know about now. Finally, the selectivity and usefulness of
the information being shared was frequently mentioned. Kyle described the downside of
e-mail, for example, as a vehicle for sharing technology,
Now, there's a downside though and that is that just pushing
that information out doesn't cause somebody to actually accept it
or read it or do anything about it. And there are, for example,
communications that come from some people that you read very
closely because you know that that person imparts valuable
information. There are things that come from other people that
you probably dont even look at it. You delete it. So uh the
technology also speeds, if you will, impressions about people and
can likewise be a barrier.
Edwin was also talked about sharing useless information and wasting time,
It used to be real nice when we were on the University voice
mail. Save five messages - couldn't save any more. Now, with
this new system - you pick it up, you got fifteen messages. You
throw 90% of it away. So, you pull up your e-mail. If you're gone
for a week on vacation there's a hundred e-mails and it takes you 2
hours to go through and most of it is just time wasted.
There was general agreement that technology is not a substitute for human
interactions and that it is a vehicle for distribution or storage of data which could
facilitate or in some cases create barriers to learning. Ethan summed it up this way,
learning has to be initiated by a human. It has to be discussed by humans. It has to be
processed by humans. About the only thing that technology is going to help you do is
distribute it. Kevins comments are similar to previous comments regarding the
importance of face to face interactions,
I think [the impact] is minimal compared to the impact of
face to face meetings whether its one on one or group. So, I
135
would say that most learning takes place outside of what we
consider to be the current office type technology loop. And I also
will take it a step further, and say that how much learning and
productivity has modem technology brought to the office? I don't
think the impact has been major. I don't think it has come
anywhere near fulfilling its potential.
Tom, the director of information technology, acknowledges the value of
electronic systems to store, retrieve, and share information, but he is emphatic about the
need for people to talk to each other,
Everyone in the group, every one on that particular project,
should be like a group mind. Everyone should know what everyone
else knows. That's die way you can be most effective working in
project work. And I'm hoping, I don't think we're there yet all the
way, but I'm hoping they talk a lot anyway. If they're not capturing
it in some way, I hope theyre talking.
Delores talked about peoples comfort level with using technology to share
information. She acknowledges the power of technology to reach everyone in the
organization. However, she is aware that not everyone has the same skill level. For
some, technology becomes a barrier to learning,
I f . . .you put some real elaborate knowledge management
system in place you can lock . . .people out who aren't comfortable
with it or who don't find that to be the appropriate vehicle. I thinks
it's a tool but it can be an impediment if its misused.
A1 likens computers to televisions with limited usefulness in promoting
organizational learning capacity among adult learners,
I think, by the very definition of how most [his emphasis]
adults leam, I don't think a lot of learning takes place through a
telephone system or through an e-mail system. I don't think our
136
current technology, whether it's here or elsewhere, provides much
of a true organizational learning capacity. And I think part of it is
if you're in front of a computer, it's not that much different from
being in front of a television set.
There is general agreement on some important factors or conditions that facilitate
learning including: Systems thinking approach to problem within teams, a shared vision
of the organization, a culture that supports inquiry or creativity, the leadership supports
learning, the ability to extract knowledge that is latent in experience, and the willingness
to leam or develop personal mastery. The findings from the interviews indicate many of
these factors are present at Acme.
Exhibiting an attitude that suggests a willingness' to leam was cited by nine of
the participants as being important to organizational learning. Kyle uses the notion of a
can do attitude similar to willingness,
Exude a positive attitude. Build relationships with the
people that you work with; with your customers, with your
supervisors. And build it through that positive attitude and be
thought of as a positive, can-do person. That positive attitude then
translates into people thinking about ideas as to how to get it done
as opposed to how not to get it done.
Stan talked about a persons willingness to share learnings. He said, I think first
and foremost there has to be a basic individual commitment to the company itself - to
Acme. And without that you don't get the absolutely key next things which has been a
137
willingness, in fact, an eagerness to share insights, observations, criticisms, critiques etc.,
of what's going on in the organization.
A1 put it this way,
We're not moving paper from an in-box to an out-box.
So I think that requires us to have people. . . that love the chase,
the intellectual chase, if you will. [We need to] find a way to hire
people that look on our organization as having that challenge, are
excited by that and willing to participate in it.
Brad talked about, A willingness and a thrust on the part of the company to
grow - to build in terms of people's abilities, people's capacity. A willingness to accept
new ideas and probe into new opportunities. He came back to this point later in the
interview when he talked about creativity and innovation which he referred to as, A
willingness to think out of the box.
When asked what kind of attitudes or behaviors facilitate organizational learning,
trust was mentioned by eight of the fifteen participants. Tom had this to say about a
trusting environment, I need to trust that you're not going to stab me in the back in some
way. You know, that we're going to work together; that I can trust that you will respect
what I know and vice versa. James, who is the newest member of the team also talked
about trust, Well, first of all there has to be a certain trust level within the organization.
You have to be able to share information freely within the organization. Delores talked
about trust, too,
I think its largely a people issue. You know, people create
the environment. The fact that you and I know that we can go
down and talk to Stan and have those difficult deep conversations
when we need to promotes an environment that encourages
138
learning and supports it. So my trust with him, our relationship is
strong. And for me that's what sets that environment.
Nine managers used the word openness to describe conditions that facilitate
organizational learning. Openness and honesty were often used in the same sentence
or used interchangeably. Delores said, I think an attitude of openness is a foundation for
any learning - individually as well as an organization. Stan said something along those
same lines, The ability to talk openly and honestly and respectfully to one another. . .
weve learned, is just absolutely a key characteristic of a learning organization. Kevin
put it this way, [A]t the very basic level, its open-mindedness and flexibility versus
stubbornness and resistance to change. John said, leaders are responsible for creating
the kind of environment that encouraged openness and communication throughout the
organization. His comments reflected his perception that employees, in general, are not
listened to or their ideas are not valued by upper management. He said, . . .they're not
idiots,. . . they want to do a good job and they can contribute something to the
organization and the well-being of the company. [They] at least need to be listened to.
Darryl said, [T]o be able to talk frankly and to be able to be honest. . .not threatened in
a conversation when you share something. It [your ideas] will be held as your truth, if
you will.
When asked to describe behaviors that support organizational learning, the most
frequently cited term sharing was used by 13 of the 15 participants. Among those who
mentioned sharing to facilitate organizational learning, Stan added, [S]haring through
139
dialog. Bob thinks, the organization needs to create opportunities for people to learn
together, share together, and communicate their experiential [learning] or other learning
process. A1 and Delores described their views on new people bringing in new ideas and
new skills and sharing them with a team. Both of them, talked about the challenges faced
by an organization to be able to tap into the ideas that new hires bring, while A1 indicates
this sharing will happen of its own accord,
So, as soon as you bring new people in you're bringing in
new perspectives. You're bringing in new skills. You're bringing
in new ways of doing things. So, automatically, because that's a
dynamic, there's going to be shared learning. People are going to
leam horn other people and approaches and things like this.
Delores also talked about learning from new employees, I think that by being
able to bring in new people stimulates us to keep thinking and learning. In her words, I
think we have to always be looking to bring in the people with new ideas who can help us
keep growing.
Nearly all of the managers, thirteen, mentioned something about how the culture
of the organization facilitates or impedes organizational learning. Kevin, the chief
financial officer, said,
You [either] have a culture that supports learning at the
individual level, at the team level, and at the organizational level or
you don't. To me, its relatively black and white. Now, obviously
with that said, we both know that's really not true. 1mean, there's
degrees between. But the reason why I say it's a black and white
issue is simply this - either I, in my gut, feel that the culture
supports that level of learning or it doesn't And that's what makes
it so easy to say its either one or the other.
140
Kyles description of an environment or culture that facilitates learning is one
where you have,
the feeling that you can differ from, you know, the opinion
of the leader, or the opinion of the team leader, or the opinion of
the team. If you can have a different idea, be able to express that
idea with an understanding that people are going to listen to that
idea, evaluate it and also at the same time recognize that that idea
might not be adopted and be able to accept that.
A1 explained what he meant by a cultural norm that promotes learning through
dialog, Consciously trying to understand other people's point of view before trying to
advocate for your own. James said, [L]eaming has to be instilled in the organization
as a process. In other words, it has to be okay to ask questions and inquire.
According to Kevin, the environment should provide people with the opportunity
to ask for questions or clarifications, to raise concerns, to raise issues; to raise what ifs.
Edwin said, I think sometimes that its gotta be an environment where people truly
believe in it [organizational learning].
Most notably, in this category of factors that facilitate learning, twelve managers
mentioned the importance of leaders demonstrating they value organizational learning.
Many of them cited leadership more than once. In total, there were 24 references to
leaders demonstrating their commitment to learning at the organizational level. The
behavior of leaders in the organization was cited more than any other characteristic as the
single most important cultural indicator for supporting or impeding organizational
learning. John, had this to say about the leadership,
The leadership of the company can be the biggest hurdle to
141
organizational change. And you lead by example rather than by
action. You can't dictate and make an edict that 'we're going to be
a learning organization'. You have to show the masses that you're
willing to change yourself. That you're open to new suggestions,
new ideas, that you're flexible, that you don't want to have all this
rigid policy.
Stan, had reservations about whether the model of starting with the managers and
using them to spread the principles of the learning organizations throughout the company
is enough. Stans words,
[T]his attempt to try to start with the top managers to get
them to leam what a learning organization is and to start to behave
more like people involved in a learning organization and then
hopefully, and this is my transition to the rest of the organization
hopefully, to carry those kinds of insights and attitudes and
mindsets and practices back to their home organizations, back to
their individual departments to inculcate the same kind of
environment. . .[pause]. . . its still very much a question in my
mind whether my model of propagation to the departments is going
to work. It may take, . . . a lot more than that to really get the
learning organization practices more uniformly accepted and used
throughout the rest of the organization.
Bob said,
the senior management's attitude and tolerance for learning is
very key. If the senior management and the culture of the
company places no value or premium on learning, then it won't
happen in an organizational sense.
Stan, talks about how the behavior among three members of the management
team, including himself, during a particularly stressful period impeded progress toward
organizational learning. He recounts a time when he lost his temper,
the stress had really built up. . . I found myself [s]o
142
exasperated that I burst out in meetings of our management group.
And it was certainly a very, I think, non-productive, or certainly an
off-putting kind of behavior on my part. It sort of set back our
overall group learning efforts.
Kyle had this perception about the role of leadership,
. . . people leam from each other. They watch other people.
They tend to watch leaders and of course you have formal leaders
and the informal leaders. But they tend to watch the leaders and
see what they do especially if they're perceived as being
successful.
James placed the responsibility for creating a learning environment on the
shoulders of the managers and leaders in the company, I think, the best thing would be
that the managers and leaders of the company start working more closely with their staff
and start focusing on creating that environment. James also said, [Ljeaming has to be
instilled in the organization as a process. In other words, it has to be okay to ask
questions and inquire . . . [A]s leaders within the organization we also have to create the
environment for that behavior to take place. Similarly, Edwin described managers role
in facilitating organizational learning,
Well I think that number one is that unless the employees
truly believe the management is walking the walk, or walking the
talk and not just blowing smoke - unless they believe that top
management truly believes they want to be a learning organization
and that the ability in this environment to leam and to take risks, to
me, learning is the ability to take risks - if they don't believe that
the top management is truly behind it then youre dead. You're
dead immediately. I've gone through that several times myself.
Most of the participants who talked about the role of leadership indicated
143
managers need to reinforce the value of learning as they establish environments and
systems to promote it within the organization. Kevin talked about the role of leaders in
helping orient new employees in this rapidly growing organization where new
employees need to know what is required for success. He said,
Reinforcement is important because as people come and go
from the organization. . . [pjeople aren't going to sense that this
[learning] is part of being here, a requirement of being here, and a
requirement of being successful here.
There were many other references to the role of leadership but Kyle captured
many of the thoughts of his colleagues on the management team with his comments,
I believe that it all begins in the leadership. The leadership
that walks the walk and talks the talk just doesn't talk the talk.
The leadership has to begin by modeling that learning
environment. Modeling the attitude. Modeling the openness.
Modeling the contribution as well. Where does it flow from there?
Well, you know, people tend to follow leaders. So the people
[managers] who work for you, they need to model it. You need to
teach them [the managers] to be able to model it.
Al, who earned a doctorate in physics and much later returned to school for an
MBA, discovered he was very interested in the human interactions associated with
managing people. Al used a gardening metaphor to describe the managers role in
establishing the culture of an organization that supports and nurtures learning,
Its like nature and growing. You can put a seed in the
ground and a seed can grow - possibly. There's a chance it can
grow. If you want to increase the probability of it growing, you
want to increase its rate of growth. And if you want to increase
[the probability of] a more healthy final result, you cultivate it. So,
I look on this as being, if you bring in new people to the
organization you are bringing in seeds. So some of them may
grow which may add learning to the organization. Some of them
may not because they fall on ground that's hard and doesn't get as
144
much moisture, or gets too much sun, or too little sun and that sort
of thing. Whereas if you now have a conscious effort to improve
the learning in the organization then, if you have a culture and you
have a management [team] that makes a conscious effort to
encourage learning in the organization then you go out and say
now we're going to apply fertilizer. We're going to cultivate. We'll
take away the weeds - the roadblocks. We're going to do some
things to try to insure that when we bring seeds in that you can get
a healthy final results. They grow faster. More of them survive to
adulthood.
In a learning organization, interdependencies between an organization and its
internal and external environment are acknowledged and worked through (Watkins and
Marsick, 1993). Twelve participants in the study mentioned the external environment as
a factor impacting organizational learning at Acme. Some managers made more than one
reference to the external environment. In total, the external environment was cited 17
times in the interview transcripts. Edwin believes you need to leam from your external
environment and change accordingly,
I think that most organizations, ail organizations probably
are affected by outside influences - outside economy,
demographic, weather. You know, any number of things that will
cause them to have to change. And any time you change you've
got to leam. You should leam from the change.
Tom talks about changes in the marketplace impacting the skills needed to remain
competitive, We have to continually upgrade our skills to be competitive in the market.
And that type of learning comes from everywhere. Not only from school but from
seminars, from periodicals. Bob talked about how changes in the external environment
are linked with learning. He describes it as a chicken and egg dilemma,
145
Its a bit of a chicken and egg. Does change precipitate
organizational learning or does organizational learning precipitate
change? I would make the argument the two are inter-linked. We
can't differentiate one from the other. Organizational learning will
precipitate change and I believe change will also precipitate
organizational learning. They are very heavily entwined in my
view.
John had a different view, I think the geometrical rate at which the economic and
business climate is changing requires an organization to be a learning organization to be
successful and to stay abreast of all the technological and sociological changes that are
taking place. The vice president of sales, Al talked about Acmes public mission as a
non-profit organization. At the time of the interview, he had just shared an article from
the Harvard Business Review with the rest of the management team. The article was
about the challenges of non-profit organizations to remain competitive given the
uncertainty of public (government) funding and charitable foundations. Al described the
challenge presented by the external environment on the not-for-profit organization,
[Were] balancing what we call mission vs. market. The altruistic, non-profit, do-
everything-for-everybody-[for]-ffee\ type of approach with the market forces which are
driving us to run it more like a business. Kevin believes the competition in the free
market determines whether or not one needs to be a learning organization,
[A]nd as time goes on, any organization that isn't learning
eventually becomes non competitive to any competition out there
that is learning. And so I think, an organization that is not a
learning organization is doomed to die. Just to die as the free
market system cleanses out the inefficient, non productive capacity
of that particular organization.
146
Factors that Impede Learning
Findings in this chapter indicate the absence of cultural norms and factors that
facilitate learning, by default become the impediments or barriers to organizational
learning. For example, the absence of the willingness to share information is viewed as a
barrier to organizational learning. The same is true for the absence of open and honest
discussions or leadership support of learning. Many of the participants report barriers as
the lack of facilitating factors or the misuse of factors that when used appropriately are
actually facilitators of learning. For example, technology which was discussed as
facilitating organizational learning could also be an impediment to learning if it is used
negatively or ineffectively. John felt that technology had actually reduced conversations
between people. His view of technologys impact on learning is summed up in a single
sentence, It's hindered it [learning] because now people don't talk anymore. Edwin felt
people deliberately used e-mail to avoid talking to people, People will send an e-mail
rather than call somebody up. Toms comments often pointed to the importance of
balancing technology and human interactions, Technology can enable some of those
conversations, but there's nothing like sitting around a table and talking - whether it be a
meeting or the water cooler. Darryls comments were not atypical,
I mean, part of the challenge to the organization [is] to
maintain the human touch, the human interaction; face to face as
opposed to tube to tube. I know its like the Jetson's. Someday
we're going to be there where you're tube to tube with people. I
don't think that's necessarily the best way to go.
147
Al, had similar comments,
I get a sense that with all of this hype about the internet that
people think that they're really learning all kinds of stuif by
basically just sitting and just going out and looking at stuff and
reading it. Now, it generates ideas. But the real question is how
much time do you devote to that and how much time does it take
away from human interaction. I get ten times the number of ideas
talking to people than I do from reading a book or reading off a
computer screen.
John described a situation where the poor use of technology caused one
misunderstanding after another, Because if I send you an e-mail and you're not listening
to the inflection of my words, watching my body language, you have a much greater
[chance] of not understanding what I've said - not interpreting it properly. Okay? And
then, so you respond in an e-mail back [to me]. And so, I read your e-mail and I haven't
had the benefit of seeing your body language, word inflection . . .
The term spam is a contemporary term describing electronic junk mail. Edwin
had this to say about not being able to avoid electronic communications,
You know, it used to be you know you could always [say]
I didn't hear from you blah blah blah'. [You] don't have any of
those excuses anymore. I don't read my e-mail, but I got a
secretary, a voice mail. I can't escape. So, . . [he pauses] its like
junk mail. The technology is wonderful. Its changed things. It is
not necessarily always positive.
Kevin describes a scenario that he believes is repeated often and wastes a lot of time,
[T]he best example I could think of is, I read the e-mails
today, which is technology based where if the person is twenty feet
from me [he] wouldnt write it on a piece of paper and put it on my
desk. Why? Because of the physical act of walking twenty feet
and scribbling a note. During considering that, they'd say its not
148
important enough. But they'll send out an e-mail to every body in
the company, that says on Tuesday, four weeks from now, I'm
taking a vacation day. Would they have written out that note and
copied it 180 times and walked it around to everybody's desk
saying that they're going to take a vacation day three weeks from
now? No. But they'll certainly waste my time at an e-mail screen
informing me how an associate won't be here for one day three
weeks from now. So, did I leam from that? No. I wasted some of
my valuable life by reading that. And I call that electronic trash.
Delores was another participant who spoke about technology as being both a
potential facilitator and a potential barrier to organizational learning. Delores had this to
say about technology, I think it can [her emphasis] be a great facilitator of
organizational learning. It can also be an impediment if people think that's the solution to
learning.
Sharing was frequently cited in the last category as a facilitator of organizational
learning. The converse, not sharing, is a barrier to learning. Kevin explained it this way,
trying to protect the turf that you have; trying to be territorial, you know, like a cat that
sprays; trying to protect what you have because of fear. Kevin expounds on what he
means by fear,
Fear of going backwards, fear of having less. And that could
be less power, less prestige. Fear of being perceived as less than
fast track within Acme. So, those fears drive people to resist
change and try to maintain the train on the existing track. [A]nd
where does the fear come from? The fear comes from a general
lack of confidence that there is no mountain out there that we can't
climb or I can't climb.
In addition to poor use of technology, turfism [sic], and fear, Al talked about
149
certain personality styles as barriers to organizational learning. He felt certain
personalities might inhibit someone from sharing ideas or asking questions. He said,
There are different personality styles. Some people are very shy. There's fear. Some
people are afraid to speak up because they're afraid that they will be wrong and criticized
or humiliated. That is similar to responses that expressed fear of killing the messenger
or intolerance of new ideas as a cultural norm that impedes learning. James said,
[D]on't kill the new idea if you're going to have learning take place or a new approach.
Delores said,
Judgmental behavior of any kind where an idea that's
expressed or a question raised is criticized. Or, you know, the
public flogging thing where an experiment that fails is guaranteed
to hurt your career. Its really, I suppose, fear is what I'm getting at.
Any behavior that causes people to be afraid to explore and try
new things or to share what they've learned.
Being able to voice an opinion different from the rest of the
management team came up many times during this part of the interview.
Summary of the Interviews
In summary, the interviews yielded much more data than did the documents or the
critical incidents. The findings from the interviews support the findings from the critical
incidents in that there is a strong perception that Acme is progressing toward becoming a
learning organization. There were many more positive statements than negative. The
150
participants were much more conversant about qualities that facilitate learning compared
to factors and conditions that are barriers to learning. Nevertheless, the negative findings
are significant. The negative findings about the use of technology to share information is
cited often by the participants. Of the seven analytical categories serving as a lens and
focus for this study, indicators from all of the analytical categories were found in the
fifteen interviews.
The chart below provides another way of viewing the findings to get a snapshot of
each individual's responses to the interview questions. These are quotes taken from the
data and captured in a chart. In this chapter, the researcher does not analyze the findings.
However, it can be seen that viewed individually, some participants had indicators for all
seven categories while others only had indicators for a few categories. Looking at the
interviews collectively, the three most frequently cited indicators had to do with sharing
information, trust within the management team, and providing an appropriate
environment to facilitate organizational learning.
151
Table 3 Individual Responses to Research Questions
#1 Ethan #2 Stan #3 James
Definition of
Organizational
Learning
The ability of an
organization to carry an
experience through to
learning and then apply
that in the future;
A process by which
people and groups
within an org. become
more self-conscious of
what theyre doing and
how theyre doing it
share experiences,
and knowledge in
some sort of data
base or collected
knowledge format
that people can get to.
Perceptions
about the Impact
of O.L. During
Change
Were unsure of the
future. We didnt learn
from 6 months ago when
we went through the
same exercise.
Avoid making the same
mistake over again.
As O.L.is instilled in
organizations like
Acme, the response
to change will be
much faster.
Perceptions
about O.L. and
Systems
Thinking
there would be
learning going on
between groups
Views on O.L. as
it relates to
Individual
Learning
Youve gotta commit to

putting in a lot of time
and effort in personal
learning.
Impact of
Technology on
Organizational
Learning
I think it has a great
potential.. . but its
terribly underutilized at
this point.
Its one thing to tell
people to go leam
those tools. The other
thing is to implement
Factors or
conditions that
facilitate O.L.
Clear, concise
communication followed
up by written call em
policies, call em memos
call em minutes - call
em something that we
could go back to.
Basic individual
commitment to the
company. . eagerness
to share insights,
observations,
criticisms, critiques
etc.,
share information
freely . . . . People
have to have access
to information. Also
learning has to be
instilled in the
organization as a
process.
Factors or
Conditions that
Impede O.L.
For whatever reason, this
organization does not
want to put things in
writing.
Its backsliding. Its
forgetting. Its not
paying attention . . not
honoring what youve
learned.
The no we cant do
that. Theres a
whole bunch of
words that stifle
learning and stifle
innovation within
organizations.
152
Figure 2 (cont) Individual Responses to Research Questions
#4 Al # 5 Edwin #6 Kevin
Definition of
Organizational
Learning
OL implies a
collective way in
which learning is a
summation of
interactions between
the learnings of the
individuals...
I define OL meaning
theres been a change in
the org. . . if youve
learned something youre
going to change and not
have that behavior again
OL is the continuous
improvement of the
understanding of the
organization on how
to be more efficient
and effective...
Perceptions
about the Impact
of O.L. During
Change
This organization has
never [his emphasis]
not been in [a state of]
significant change.
Im a believer that you
gotta do whats good for
the-organization and in the
end that will be good for
most of the employees.
Its a major process to
switch to another
track., .learning has to
take place by everyone
Perceptions
about O.L. and
Systems
Thinking
More oriented to
working together vs.
focusing on tactical
issues that not
everybody may be a
part of solving.
Views on O.L. as
it relates to
Individual
Learning
Constantly re-invent
yourself. Learning
formal/informal, is
even more critical
Impact of
Technology on
Organizational
Learning
I really think that
theres real potential
for abuse with the
internet and the access
to the internet.
I think its impacted it a lot.
Communications is much
more rapid. The advent of
e-mail. Not that I use the
damn thing very much.
Technology hasnt had
a major impact on
O.L. Most lessons
learned come from
face to face contact.
Factors or
conditions that
facilitate O.L.
Listening skills -
trying to understand
other peoples point
of view before trying
to advocate for your
own.
the ability to leam and to
take risks
The behavior is having
flexibility, open-
mindedness, the to
envision creatively, to
be innovative.
Factors or
Conditions that
Impede O.L.
Personalities. Some
people are very shy.
Theres fear..theyre
afraid they will be
wrong and criticized
or humiliated. . .
Behaviors that are
non-productive are:
stubborn, being very
rigid,
153
Figure 2 (cont) Individual Responses to Research Questions
#7 Frank #8 Delores #9 Kyle
Definition of
Organizational
Learning
The learning is the
collection of whats in
peoples heads what
theyve learned.
. its when a whole
organization is able to
do something it couldnt
do before,
In the broadest way it
is putting the lessons
learned to work and
how the organization
is run.
Perceptions
about the Impact
of O.L. During
Change
Its a matter of survival.
You have to be in tune
with your environment.
You gotta know whats
happening when its
happening and not a
year later.
.. .those organizations
that know how to leam
as a group, can share
better the experience of
the change.
. .the kind of
organization we are is
very technology
oriented. Therefore,
we are constantly
going through change
whether we want to or
not.
Views on O.L.
and Systems
Thinking
Views on O.L. as
it relates to
Individual
Learning
To be successful in
building a lifelong
career you have to stay
open to opportunities
and interests as they
emerge and allow
yourself to explore those
opportunities.
Impact of
Technology on
Organizational
Learning
I dont think it has. . . it can be a great
facilitator of
It can also be an
impediment if people
think thats the solution
to learning
Just pushing
information out
doesnt cause
somebody to.. do
anything about it
Factors or
conditions that
facilitate O.L.
Sensitivity/awareness of
your environment. The
ability to connect
things.
Openness is a
foundation for any
learning - individually
as well as an
organization.
Teamwork and [t]he
feeling that you can
have an opinion
different from the
leader or the team.
Factors or
Conditions that
Impede O.L.
The vast difference of
experiences.
Judgmental behavior -
the public flogging
where an experiment
that fails is guaranteed to
hurt your career.
Attitude..
154
Figure 2 (Cont) Individual Responses to Research Questions
#10 Darryl #11 Tom #12 Dell
Definition of
Organizational
Learning
An individual will leam
something and then share it
w/others, then others will
share and the hope is that
there is some kind of a
closed loop.
OL [is] the ability
of people within
the company to
leverage the
knowledge they
have for the
betterment of the
company.
Every [division] has to
contribute and leam
that they are part of the
total impact were
having.
Perceptions
about the Impact
of O.L. During
Change
Sometimes we end up
reworking and redoing the
same wrong thing we did
before.
I think what you
see is a lot of
people coming
together in a rapid
fashion to solve a
quick need.
As an ever changing
organization - that
[fact] should continue
to drive us to leam
from our actions and
our results.
Perceptions
about O.L. and
Systems
Thinking
Being able to commit time
and effort to help change
something which we can
then bring back into our
own programs building
competitive advantage
. . step out of your
assigned area to form
partnerships with other
groups or individuals to
advance the entire
organization.
Views on O.L. as
it relates to
Individual
Learning
Impact of
Technology on
Organizational
Learning
I think of it as an aid - a
helper.
Theres potential,
but technology is
not matured, yet.
Factors or
conditions that
facilitate O.L.
__openness and honesty.
To talk frankly and
honestly - and not be
threatened when you share
something.
I need to trust that
youre not going to
stab me in the back.
Open and clear
communications.
Willing to share and
put the things on the
table for full review
and examination.
Factors or
Conditions that
Impede O.L.
Turnover. Time to
process. Theres very little
time to step back and
evaluate the work weve
done.
Biggest one - Im
too busy. They are
not rewarded on
sharing. Theyre
rewarded on
output.
Wrestling with how to
integrate divisional
responsibilities to make
one whole organization
marching together.
155
Figure 2 (Cont) Individual Responses to Research Questions
#13 Bob #14 Brad #15 John
Definition of
Organizational
Learning
OL is when the org. as an
entity is increasing its
shared body of knowledge
in the full context of the
culture of the organization.
OL is supporting the
peoples growth;
supporting the
companys growth.
OL is the ability of
a company to grow
as it learns how
different
departments play
into one another to
be effective.
Perceptions
about the Impact
of O.L. During
Change
OL will precipitate change.
Change will also
precipitate OL.
. . trying to do the
same old thing rather
than recognize the
picture has changed.
They have to
change in order to
be successful.
Perceptions
about O.L. and
Systems
Thinking
Views on O.L. as
it relates to
Individual
Learning
You need a plan for
lifelong learning to ensure
your ability to have a
successful career.
Impact of
Technology on
Organizational
Learning
Things have speeded up in
general and technology has
made it even faster.
The phenomenal kind
of connectivity has
caused elements of our
society to become
increasingly
interdependent.
It hinders as much
as it helps.
Communication is
the key to
understanding and
learning.
Factors or
conditions that
facilitate O.L.
Senior managements
attitude and tolerance for
learning is very key.
A willingness to think
out of the box.
An atmosphere that
allows employees
take risks.
Factors or
Conditions that
Impede O.L.
What 1call core rigidities. Rigid policy. Stoic
leadership.
156
VI. Analysis and Synthesis of the Findings
Introduction
This study focused on gaining a better understanding of how managers perceive
organizational learning during periods of significant change at Acme, Inc. To ground the
study the researcher completed an extensive literature review of Organizational Learning,
Learning Organizations, and Knowledge Management. In addition to a review of the
literature, the researcher gathered data from documents, critical incidents, and in-depth
interviews. To analyze the findings, first the researcher examined the data from each data
source by analytic category - comparing and contrasting the data within each data source.
Beginning with documents, the findings for each analytic category are examined for
similarities and differences within each of the seven analytic categories. Next the critical
incidents were compared and contrasted to each other in search of similarities or
differences within each of the seven analytic categories. Then the findings from the
interviews were compared and contrasted to each other in a similar fashion.
In the second phase, the researcher synthesized the data from all sources and
compared and contrasted the data by analytic category. In other words, findings from the
literature, the documents, the critical incidents, and the interviews were compared and
contrasted to each other by analytic category looking for themes and patterns that cut
157
across multiple data sources.
As discussed in Chapter V, the findings from the data yielded the following
seven analytic categories: Organizational Learning, Organizational Learning During
Periods of Significant Change, Impact of Organizational Learning on Individual
Learning, Systems Thinking, Impact of Technology on Organizational Learning, Factors
that Facilitate Organizational Learning, and Factors that Impede Organizational Learning.
Document Analysis
The researcher used Acmes documents to provide information for the context of
the study and the history of the organization. The researcher also used data from the
documents to gain insight into Acmes philosophy and purpose. The documents proved
to be very useful in providing information that laid the foundation for further inquiry and
analysis of the status of organizational learning at Acme.
The working definition of Organizational Learning for this research is when the
organization has developed better systems for conscious error detection and correction;
changed its organizational memory by changing how it encodes data; changed its mental
models; developed cultures of inquiry and generativity; and, extracted knowledge latent
in experience which is translated into new products, services, or skills. (Senge, 1990a;
158
Marsick and Watkins, 1993). The indicators which were used to measure the presence or
absence of organizational learning were: changed behaviors, learning from mistakes,
planned learning, and understanding the perceptions related to levels of learning i.e.,
individual learning, team or group learning.
Approximately one-third of the documents used in the study contained findings
that were coded to the organizational learning category. This category was created to
capture information that would indicate how much the senior managers who participated
in the study actually knew about the concept and practice of behaviors that could be
referred to as organizational learning.
At the time of the research, several documents, including the organizations vision
and mission statement were prominently displayed at Acmes headquarters. The
documents described the goal of establishing Acme as a learning organization with an
egalitarian approach to employee participation. Consultants were hired in 1991, before
the senior management team was created, to facilitate a process aimed at building a
shared vision. The development of a new mission and vision for the organization was
included in the strategic planning process for Acme which began in 1991. According to
the data in the documents, a collaborative process were used to develop the mission and
vision statements. The process involved intense and lengthy dialogs with widespread
input from employees and external stakeholders such as board members and affiliates
from the community college and the university.
159
Organizational Learning During Periods of Significant Change
The second category addresses how learning initiatives on ail levels - individual,
team, or organization-wide - have enhanced Acmes ability to respond to changes in the
internal and external working environment. Indicators for this category included rapid
response to change, synergy across departments, employees viewed as valuable assets
(intellectual or human capital).
Nearly all of the findings for this category came from one document - Ideas,
Beliefs, Values Relating to Organizational Change and Development. Written in January
1995, the document is a collection of essays written by the senior managers, most of
whom were still part of the senior management team at the time of the research three
years later. With few exceptions, the tone of these essays is very positive. The essays
seem to convey acceptance of continuous change and uncertainty as part of the business
climate. One manager did not accept that continuously adapting to change was in the
best interest of the company or the employee. Although he was the only manager to
express his concerns in the documents, the feelings are often expressed by other
participants in other data sources. He wrote that people need constancy in
organizations to be able to connect with a culture which they can own and recognize as
part of their professional identity. Although he acknowledged the importance of being
able to adapt and leam for new opportunities, unlike his colleagues, he felt strongly that
an organizations intrinsic values and ability to attract good people lies in its consistency
with regard to specific important issues. This particular managers concern with change
160
as a destabilizing force is discussed by experts in organizational development theories.
Burke (1992) writes, Organization members experience more stress than ever due to
change and, consequently, have a desire for some stability, yet chaos is more likely to be
the new norm. (p. 21). The manager felt that some of the stress related to dealing with
continuous change could possibly be attenuated through stated principles, or by
establishing a very stable culture. In the researchers view, it is difficult to imagine a
culture that is stable and responsive to continuous change in the external marketplace. A
relatively small consulting organization needs to be flexible and permeable in order to
remain competitive. Therefore, creating an island of stability in a sea of continuous
change would appear to be a monumental challenge. It would seem easier to establish a
culture where employees leam to manage the stress caused by the destabilizing nature of
continuous change. It is noteworthy, however, that although most of the participants
essays espoused beliefs and theories idealizing the value of continuous change and being
adaptive they do not provide examples of when Acme acted according to those ideals.
There were no significant findings from the documents coded for this category to
support the researchers assumption that there is a link between change in an organization
and the desire for further self-directed learning. Indicators such as: (a) evidence of
taking responsibility for ones career management, (b) self-directed learning, and (c)
awareness of ones value to the organization were not found in the documents used for
161
this study.
Systems Thinking
This category is described in the literature as the recognition that business and
other human endeavors are systems that are bound by invisible fabrics of interrelated
actions, which ofien take years to fully play out their effects on each other (Senge,
1990a). It is the systems thinking concept described by Senge (1990a) that frames the
interpretation of findings from this category. Indicators for this category included (a)
evidence of cross-functional group learning, (b) systemic or integrated approaches to
solving problems, and (c) thinking across boundaries as exhibited by engaging in dialog
or discussions that lead to inclusive inter-departmental solutions or strategies versus 'silo'
or departmental strategies. The documents revealed that the managers and others in the
organization are well-versed in the subject of systems thinking. They placed importance
on the concept of team-building and developing cross-functional teams to facilitate
learning. The strategic plans indicated the managers at Acme wanted to be proactive in
creating processes that would enhance systems thinking through cross-functional teams.
However, notes from management retreats and town hall meetings, indicated there were
differences between the idealistic strategic plans for cross-functional team development
and the real experiences of the managers. For example, minutes from one of the
management meetings capture comments that indicated the managers' frustration with
attempting to share information across departments and develop cross-functional teams.
162
The documents indicated the managers were willing to devote time and resources to
building cross-functional team, but in practice they felt ineffective in their efforts to
implement team-building theories to support organizational learning.
This category emerged as a result of data from preliminary interviews and data
taken from the critical incidents. During preliminary interviews with managers who have
demographic profiles and management responsibilities similar to the participants, it
became evident to the researcher that the use of communications technology in the
workplace was having an important impact on the way managers shared information and
interacted with one another. Therefore, after consulting with her advisors at Columbia,
the researcher conducted a literature review on knowledge management and intellectual
capital and she added this category to capture those findings.
Data for this category emerged from the research findings based on three
indicators (a) use of e-mail and electronic communications systems to share lessons
learned, (b) use of technology to rapidly broadcast information throughout the
organization, and (c) use of technology to document, store, and retrieve lessons learned.
There were nearly a dozen references in the documents to one or more of these indicators.
The findings were widely distributed in very diverse documents unlike the previous
categories where most of the findings were clustered in three or four documents. There
was an increasing emphasis on making better use of technology in the more recent
163
documents. The researcher attributes the increase in references to using technology to the
lower cost and increased availability of sophisticated networks, more user-friendly
software, and more sophisticated computer skills among employees.
In spite of the ubiquitous presence of communications technology and its ability
to store, organize, retrieve and sort data, the documents did not explicitly reveal any data
that would indicate technology has impacted learning. The documents merely
emphasized the potential power to distribute information widely by effectively using
information technology. In reality, however, as will be seen later in this chapter, the
managers at Acme were disappointed by their inability to harness technology to facilitate
Factors that Facilitate Organizational Learning
This category was used to capture data from the documents that indicate the
organization was aware of conditions related to Acmes culture or other norms that
experts consider important to facilitating organizational learning. The researcher looked
for references in the documents that supported the indicators for this category which
included (a) behaviors and attitudes, (b) organizational culture, and (c) external
environment. There were more findings in the documents coded to this category, than
any of the other six research categories. The findings reveal managers in this organization
and others at Acme are keenly aware of the importance of creating and maintaining an
164
organizational environment that supports and promotes learning.
The documents discuss the importance of trust within the management team,
allowing mistakes, and sharing ideas as a cultural norm that facilitates organizational and
team learning. For example, the vision statement in the strategic plan states that Acme
will,
be an effective learning organization, continually improving
its skills, structures, policies and practices. It will be a champion
for the philosophy of continuous improvement. Acme will
maintain a caring, helpful and productive environment in which
employees learn, improve and achieve personal fulfillment, (p.8)
Similar ideals for interacting and creating conditions that facilitate learning are described
throughout the literature on organizational learning (Argyris, 1990; Marsick and Watkins,
1993; 1997 , Pedler et al., 1991). Given the organizations explicit goal of becoming a
learning organization, the researcher was not surprised to find numerous indicators in the
documents espousing the virtues of organizational learning.
Factors that Impede Organizational Learning
The purpose of this category was to determine whether the documents would
reveal conditions or systems at Acme that would create barriers to organizational learning
or somehow impede the learning process. The categories for capturing this data are the
same as those listed in the previous category: (a) behaviors and attitudes, (b)
organizational culture, and (c) external environment. The difference is that the researcher
165
was looking for data in the documents that would indicate the absence of conditions that
facilitated or promoted organizational learning. For example, the researcher was looking
for data that indicated a lack of trust, or not allowing for mistakes. In comparison to the
previous category which contained dozens of positive statements about conditions or
activities that facilitate learning, this category had very few findings.
Summary of Document Analysis
It is not surprising to the researcher that many of the documents espouse or quote
expert theories about organizational learning. After all, this case-study involves an
organization that is explicitly attempting to become a learning organization. One would
expect to find documents that support and in some cases idealize the qualities of a
learning organization. The researcher was surprised, however, to discover that although
it is widely recognized that one critical component of organizational learning is personal
mastery, the documents rarely discuss personal mastery and how it is relevant, in fact,
vital to successfully becoming a learning organization.
Most of the findings associated with the research are clustered in a few
documents. More than a third of the findings are captured in just three documents. That,
too, is very revealing given that those documents were created shortly after the CEO
announced his intention to lead the organization toward becoming a learning
organization.
166
There was an obvious absence of negative statements criticizing Acmes efforts to
become a learning organization. Again, this is not surprising because of the nature of the
documents. The documents were selected on the basis of their likelihood to reveal
information about the history of the organization and its philosophy. Therefore, the
selected documents were not the sort that would reveal an abundance of negative
comments about Acme. However, during the interviews and in the critical incidents, as
will be described later in this chapter, participants were much more open to discussing
barriers and impediments to organizational learning at Acme.
Critical Incidents
The two critical incident questions were formulated to elicit a positive experience
and a negative experience associated with organizational learning. See Appendix A. Data
from the critical incidents is presented in order based on the seven analytic categories that
provided the framework for the study. Coincidentally, at the time the researcher
distributed the critical incident questionnaire, the organization was approaching the end
of the fiscal year and in the midst of a significant reorganization. The divisions or major
departments at Acme were being restructured to better reflect a recently revised strategic
plan and the creation of a new division. The future for at least two senior managers
(participants in the research) was uncertain. Also, two new managers had been hired and
appointed to the senior management team.
167
The researcher was aware of the potential impact of the upcoming reorganization
and the possibility that some of the managers might be cynical or disillusioned with
regard to organizational learning at Acme. The researcher viewed this period as an
opportunity to really understand how managers viewed organizational learning at Acme
during a time of significant change - which was occurring during the research. She
expected that some participants might be more closed while others might be more
forthcoming in expressing their views because of their heightened sensitivity to how they
would fit in the new structure at Acme. It was, nevertheless, important to the research
process to attempt to establish a research environment that would encourage participants
to be candid when writing about their experiences with organizational learning in general
and at Acme.
To help alleviate the anxiety during this period the researcher phrased the
questions in such a way that managers could respond based on their experiences at Acme
or their experiences at other unnamed organizations. The primary purpose of the critical
incidents was to help shape the interview questions. Consequently, even if a participant
was particularly cynical or glowingly appreciative of learning at Acme, the data could be
used to formulate interview questions that could uncover deeper underlying views.
The researcher expected more cynical comments from older members of the
management team. As it turned out, the newer managers, because of their experiences at
other organizations, were only slightly less cynical than their peers on some aspects of
organizational learning. And, although they lacked the historical perspective of their
168
peers, the newer managers were very much aware of organizational learning initiatives at
Acme.
The participants were much more likely to describe their learning in the context of
Acme as opposed to learning outside the organization. In three different critical
incidents, participants took personal credit for transferring their individual learning to a
larger group, team, or to the organization. The process of sharing or transferring learning
is an important aspect of organizational learning especially when it leads to synergy and
generativity (Senge, 1990a, 1990b; Marsick and Watkins, 1993; Leonard-Barton, 1995).
Some managers took exception to the notion that learning was being transferred and
shared with others. For example, Edwin, wrote in the critical incident that learning
within the management team does not go beyond the management team. This directly
contradicted his colleagues who wrote about how they shared their learning with their
departmental staff. Although he never states it explicitly, Edwin did not assume
responsibility for sharing the learning or teaching his staff what he had learned as a
member of the senior management team. Stated another way, consciously or
unconsciously, he did not take the initiative for transferring what he had learned as a
member of the management team with the rest of his staff. In his written critical incident,
when he stated that learning did not get transferred beyond the individual, his tone was
cynical and blaming rather than questioning why learning was not being transferred.
169
Other managers used the critical incidents to describe or define what
organizational learning meant to them both in their experience at Acme or at other
companies. For example, some managers wrote about a time when the organization
missed an opportunity to learn because the managers were not receptive to the ideas of
others. Several managers wrote about not learning from past mistakes. On a more
positive note, managers wrote about learning to use financial data more effectively to
make management decisions. Still others wrote about the organization being very
intentional in its efforts to become a learning organization. Generally, the managers
appeared to be very knowledgeable about organizational learning theories.
The absence of findings in the critical incidents for this category is particularly
interesting to the researcher because during the interviews this topic proved to be very
important to the managers. Although, they chose not to write about organizational
learning during periods of significant change, they spoke about it in great detail as will be
described later in this chapter. In retrospect, it was clear that the managers had very
strong opinions about the importance of learning during periods of significant change, but
they chose not to put those thoughts in writing.
There were only a few significant findings in the critical incidents for this
17 0
category. This is particularly interesting because although participants wrote about the
importance of team learning and, in some instances, the management team's failure to
pass on their learning to the rest of the organization, only one participant looked at the
reciprocal condition, that is, a managers responsibility to be a self-directed learner who
could pass his or her learning on to the rest of the team or organization. Only one person
explicitly wrote about the value of individual learning and ones responsibility to share
learning with others. Especially important for this researcher was understanding whether
the organizations mission to become a learning organization inspired or influenced
individual learning or personal mastery. In fact, there was very little evidence that the
organizations learning initiatives influenced individuals to become self-directed
learners. Those who did so, did so independent of Acmes organizational learning goals.
Systems Thinking
More than half of the participants wrote comments that were coded to the fourth
category, systems thinking. The notion of viewing the organization as an interwoven
fabric of people, teams, and departments with a long-term commitment to a vision was
communicated by several managers. One participant wrote that the organizational
development work and the ongoing development of the senior management team at Acme
helped create an attitude that supported systems thinking. He gave an example of
Acmes progress toward systems thinking when he wrote,
Through proximity, talking to each other, working on
projects together, and having common goals and metrics, . . . the
management team [has come] a long way toward a higher level of
efficiency and group skills.
171
Overall, there was a sense of hopefulness among some managers the movement
toward systems thinking was possible and occurring, albeit, slowly. A few managers
were very explicit about the organizations inability to think and work in ways that would
build on the collective capabilities of multiple departments. This was expressed in
statements like, we have not learned how to integrate development efforts into
something that results in sustainable business and top management, management
teams, program coordinators and delivery staff have yet to integrate activities to enhance
both initiatives and grow Acmes business. Throughout the research there are very
contradictory perceptions among the managers in regard to Acmes progress toward
becoming a learning organization.
There were very few findings for this category in the critical incidents, however,
the four participants who wrote about the role of technology in learning organizations did
so in a manner that was very compelling. For example, one manger felt that technology
was changing the entire work paradigm. Another wrote about the failure of the
information systems to provide the right information for decision making. Still another
wrote about using the communications network to store the knowledge and ideas of
experts. There was enough data in the critical incidents to cause the researcher to add a
question about the impact of technology on organizational learning to the interview
schedule where it proved to be very useful in gaining further insight into the role of
17 2
knowledge management in learning organizations, as will be discussed later in this
chapter.
Conditions that Facilitate Organimrinnal Learning
With the exception of two people, everyone wrote something about the conditions
or factors that facilitate organizational learning. The critical incident questions asked the
managers to write about their experiences with team learning or organizational learning.
It was overwhelmingly clear from the critical incidents that the managers most closely
related their experiences with team learning to their experiences within the senior
management team during meetings or retreats. Almost everyone had some ideas about
the conditions they believe are important for promoting organizational learning. More
importantly, they felt strongly enough about their ideas to write about them. For the most
part, the writing centered on group dynamics as experienced by the managers in the
senior management meetings. It is in these meetings that the managers practice the
behaviors associated with team learning. Three of the participants wrote extensively
about their perceptions regarding attitudes and behaviors that promote or facilitate
learning whether in teams or as individuals. The need for openness and honesty in group
discussions was a recurring theme that many managers associated with becoming a
learning organization. In general, the comments in this category reflected the managers
general agreement that it is critical to create an environment that fosters trust and
promotes open discussions. Other conditions that support learning include active
17 3
listening, sharing information, and being willing to learn. The managers mostly wrote
about ideal conditions for learning whether they occurred at Acme or elsewhere.
Conditions that Impede Organizational Learning
The findings coded to this last category are the flip side of the previous category.
In fact, participants often started out by naming a positive factor that facilitated
organizational learning but then proceeded to develop their case by writing about
negative examples of when the positive conditions werent being demonstrated.
The participants placed the blame for the lack of organizational learning squarely
on the shoulders of the managers including themselves as senior managers and other
middle managers in the organization. The participants said things like, higher
management did not view this work as important. This statement supports a top down
theory of creating change in organizations by suggesting that without leadership from the
top organizational learning cannot not happen. Senge (1990a, 1990b), often challenges
the myth of the charismatic leader as primary decision maker using traditional
authoritarian bureaucracies to make changes occur in organizations. He suggests that in a
learning organization, leaders roles differ dramatically from that of the charismatic
decision maker (Senge, 1990b). Conversely, when describing failed or disappointing
results from organizational learning initiatives, some managers said, the work should
have been delegated within the staff, rather than performed by the managers. This
statement indicates that some managers believe significant change such as becoming a
17 4
learning organization has to come from within the ranks of the organization with frontline
workers taking the lead.
Another manager described an incident where he tried to get fellow managers to
stop undermining the progress of his project with their negative comments. He called
them together to enlist their support. After the meeting, the criticisms stopped, however,
the new behaviors were less than desirable. He wrote, The result was that they restrained
their negative comments, but only minimally participated in the days work. This
behavior, although less disruptive, was still a barrier to learning. Such behaviors are not
unusual in organizations where there is distrust or where participants in groups believe
decisions have already been made and that the invitation to participate is merely a
gratuitous gesture. Still others genuinely have no interest in participative management as
a result of being socialized to respect hierarchical arrangements (Pasmore, 1994).
Several managers wrote about Acmes inability to learn from past mistakes. They
described the problem as not capturing the lessons learned. The sense of being unable
to influence peers and bosses could lead to an I told you so attitude especially among
those who get blamed for the mistake. Instead there was evidence of a norm of blaming
others which leads to further finger-pointing and covering up mistakes. The general
sentiment was that managers and others at Acme did a poor job of distributing lessons
learned to others who might benefit. According to Leonard-Barton (1995), some of the
greatest lessons learned are a result of failed projects. It appears from the research that
managers at Acme were not readily willing to share lessons learned from failure for fear
17 5
of losing credibility, public humiliation, or appearing inept.
There were several comments that alluded to the culture at Acme as not always
being conducive to learning because of a perceived lack of trust, lack of time, and lack of
interest in projects other than those that directly relate to ones own department. One
manager suggested in his critical incident that deadlines were not met because the work
of other teams was not seen as important. He wrote, It was not surprising that
assumptions made by one group impacted meeting deadlines of another group. One
important project was continually delayed because managers and their staff did not report
data that were required by a different team. The manager who was ultimately responsible
for collecting and interpreting the data wrote, . . while we are doing better, it appears the
sales and delivery staff, who are the front line contacts have not grasped the significance
of capturing this important information. This kind of finger pointing and blaming was
evident throughout the negative critical incidents.
A more subtle but important aspect of facilitating learning within a team or group
has to do with understanding and effectively managing group dynamics in order to
achieve the goals of the group. One participant, the CEO, wrote about his own frustration
with the progress of the management team in becoming a learning unit within the
organization. In the critical incident, he wrote about how he attempted to facilitate
learning by orchestrating the right mix of senior managers on the leadership team. As the
team of managers worked and grew together, he assumed a stable core of leaders could
keep the group stable and sustain the learning that had been achieved up to a given point,
17 6
thereby, lessening the loss of learning that could result from changing or adding new
team members. What he discovered was that as the teams membership changed the
intelligence of the group also changed in ways that were not predictable. The researcher
believes because of his scientific training as a nuclear scientist and mechanical engineer,
the CEO was expecting a much more predictable and manageable outcome to his social
experiment.
There were also comments about how to treat individuals in groups. For example,
one manager was adamant about the importance of listening and respecting the views of
others. He vividly remembered an incident when he made a comment that was poorly
received by the group. He wrote, I was new to the group and they jumped all over me.
As a new member, his interpretation of that experience is very revealing. In his critical
incident, he emphasized the importance of giving people the benefit of the doubt. This
senior management team had been functioning as a team for at least two years before this
manager was appointed to the team. The teams norms (whether dysfunctional or
exemplary of high performance teams) were well-established. Old timers may have
thought they were simply providing open or candid feedback. But to a newcomer, not
trained in dialogue or unaccustomed to open feedback as practiced by this team, feedback
from his new team mates was perceived as a personal attack. He was not alone in his
views, other new members made similar comments during the interviews.
17 7
Summary of Critical Incidents
The critical incident questions asked managers to write about a positive and a
negative experience related to individual, group, or organizational learning. Therefore, it
was not surprising to the researcher that most of the data from the critical incidents were
coded in the last two categories - facilitators of organizational learning and barriers or
impediments to organizational learning. The tone of several critical incidents was very
cynical or expressed frustration with trying to influence thinking and the culture at
Acme. The critical incident responses proved to be very useful for developing questions
for the study.
The critical incidents were rich in data that supported an underlying assumption of
the researcher that the same managers who are very articulate about the concept of
organizational learning seemed very frustrated by their inability to actualize these
concepts at Acme. Overall, the senior management team generally felt that they and other
middle managers were responsible for Acme becoming a learning organization. The
managers attempted to distance themselves from the senior management team when they
described failures that impacted the entire organization and they resorted to finger
pointing and blaming.
Surprisingly, very little was written about the impact of organizational learning on
individual learning. Although the participants responses demonstrated deep knowledge
17 8
about the inter-relatedness of individual learning and organizational learning, they
supplied little evidence of practicing and applying individual learning to Acme's
organizational learning goals. They appeared to know that taking responsibility for
learning in ways that can enhance the team as well as ones self is indicative of being a
self-directed and an empowered learner, and is a cornerstone of the learning organization
(Marsick and Watkins, 1993, 1996; Senge, 1990a). Personal mastery and ones
commitment to lifelong individual learning, is very important to being able to contribute
to the collective knowledge of the team. Yet, surprisingly, this team of highly educated
managers did not discuss this aspect of organizational learning in the critical incidents.
The importance of sharing information was frequently mentioned as an indicator
of true organizational learning. However, the managers wrote very sparingly about the
potential impact of technology to support learning.
In writing about factors that facilitate or impede organizational learning, the
critical incidents focused on personal and group behaviors within the senior management
team, especially, the lack of openness and trust within the team.
Participant Interviews
The interviews were conducted with all of the participants a few weeks after the
critical incidents. The anxiety that was evident at the time of the critical incidents had
17 9
subsided and most of the participants seemed relaxed. One participant in the study, after
being demoted and reduced to part-time employment, had left the organization. The
other participants had survived the reorganization and the general mood at Acme was
calm and somewhat upbeat compared to the mood a few weeks earlier.
The participants used a number of elaborate metaphors to capture the essence of
their understanding of organizational learning or what it means to be a learning
organization. Some of the participants offered specific examples of when the
organization demonstrated that it could apply what was learned in one department and
transfer the learning to other departments. Several of the managers specified that the
organization was able to apply learning gained from analyzing financial data. They also
mentioned the value of taking the time to discuss business trends as presented by the
marketing manager in order to plan for the future. An almost equal number of managers
described how Acme had failed to leam from its previous mistakes. According to a
majority of the participants, not repeating the same mistakes was evidence of
organizational learning. They gave specific examples of when the managers in the
organization had taken time to understand and recognize a negative pattern in the
financial data but did nothing to correct it - more blaming . The cultural norm of blaming
others also promoted the lack of openly sharing mistakes and failures for the purpose of
learning (Leonard-Barton, 1995).
180
Paradoxically, the same stories that were used by some participants as examples
of times when the organization had learned were used by other participants as examples
of when the organization had failed to leam. There were conflicting stones as to what, if
anything, was learned from reviewing data and discussing failed projects. Following the
management teams review of events that led up to a particular disaster or failed project,
there was no standard procedure for coming to a common agreement about the lessons
learned and the next steps. Consequently, the managers were on their own to make sense
of the data and the discussion.
There was strong evidence from the data that Acme was better at being a learning
organization than other organizations where the managers had worked. Words or phrases
like continuous improvement or Teaming from mistakes were used in positive
descriptions of learning at Acme. Conversely, words and phrases like backsliding or
stumbling over the same rock were used to describe the lack of learning or the inability
to consistently apply new knowledge.
Only a few respondents discussed self-directed or planned learning that could be
applied to changing individual or team behavior. Organizational learning and individual
learning could be viewed as two sides of the same coin. A learning organization not only
benefits the business purpose of an organization, in practice it reawakens and stimulates
the power and joy of learning in all members of the organization (Senge, 1990a). The
researcher was surprised at the lack of data indicating the impact of organizational
learning on the individuals in the organization. The participants in the study didnt speak
181
of personal satisfaction or growth as a result of being encouraged to leam.
The participants were asked to describe relationships and differences among three
types of learning: individual learning, team learning, and organizational learning. Most
of the participants, responded by defining different levels of learning. But a few
participants focused their responses on attempting to describe organizational learning
without linking it to individual or team learning. One participant said adamantly,
organizations dont leam, people leam. He went on to describe how learning went from
an individual to a group and ultimately resulted in changes in work processes for the
entire organization. Organizations leam through individuals, but only when that
learning is socially constructed, shared, and used to make a difference in larger social
units or subdivisions of the organization, or more typically in the entire organization
(Senge, 1990a; Marsick and Watkins, 1993; Kim, 1993a). There were several responses
describing the ineffectiveness of managers in diffusing learning beyond members of the
management team.
In general, the managers in the study were strong supporters of continuing the
process becoming a learning organization. One manager, spoke for many when he
acknowledged the organizations challenges and its progress. He said, While weve got
a heck of a lot more to leam, it is very clear that when I think about how weve learned to
do things better each year it gives me quite a bit of consolation.
A large number of responses were coded in this category. The researcher sought
182
to understand how the managers perceived the organizations ability to respond to
changes in the internal and external business environment. There were three indicators
for this category (a) rapid responses to change, (b) creating synergy across departments,
(c) viewing people as assets. All of the participants, except one, addressed one or more
of the indicators. Most of the responses viewed dealing with continuous change as not
necessarily desirable but certainly unavoidable. One participant told a particularly vivid
story depicting the organization as a fast moving train. He felt that change was inevitable
and to deny it would be the equivalent of a train set on a fixed course even though the
final destination no longer existed. Others told similar stories that alluded to the rapid
pace of change and the inevitability of change. There was an overall tone of get on board
the train and make sure the train is on the right track or youre doomed. In the words of
the interviewee,
I look at an organization in this context - 1look at it like a
train on a railroad track. And the train is going down the track and
its on a certain vector. Its going to take you to a certain city . . .
And when you conclude that thats really not the city that you want
to end up at, then you have to go through a lot of change to take
that train off that specific track and put it on another. And when
youre going youve got that momentum, and its a major process
to switch it to another track and it is the learning that has to take
place by everyone over whats really the new track to be on. The
new vector to be on. The faster thats accomplished the faster the
train is removed from the one track and put on the other. If it takes
too long to switch the train to the new track, it generally derails.
The image of a fast moving train supports theories that managers in organizations
are being taxed to their mental limits with information from the internal and external
183
environments. They are expected to have knowledge that is both deep in at least one
discipline, for example, marketing or finance, and they are expected to have a wide
enough breadth of knowledge across disciplines to be able to make critical strategic
decisions very quickly (Leonard-Barton, 1995).
Managers are being bombarded with information at a rate that would be humanly
impossible to absorb, critically reflect upon, and act upon with a consistently high degree
of reasonableness because of the sheer magnitude and complexity of the data. One
participant felt that it was asking a lot of managers to undertake a whole bunch of things
that you're doing at the same time. Whether real or perceived, the managers in this
study believed, and many experts would agree, organizational systems including learning
systems are unwittingly making demands on the minds and mental capacity of managers
beyond what can be considered reasonable (Kim, 1993b; Kegan, 1994; Pasmore, 1994;
Prusakand Davenport, 1998; Davenport, 1997 ; Zuboff, 1988).
The research participants expressed varying degrees of concern with the amount
of staff internal changes and movement of people within departments and to new
departments in the organization. One participant described Acme as a fluid environment
with a structure that shifts. Some viewed the fluid environment as a positive condition
others saw it as a barrier to building effective teams because the team members are
always changing.
Another indicator for assessing how the organization is learning during periods of
184
significant change, is to understand managers' perceptions as to whether synergetic
activities utilizing cross-functional resources occurred more frequently as a result of
organizational or team learning initiatives. The managers at Acme expressed a point of
view underscoring the importance of sharing knowledge and information across
departmental boundaries. Nearly two-thirds of the participants made positive comments
about the collective intellect of the organization. One manager, for example, referred to
growth in the collective knowledge of the organization. Another manager talked about
the wealth of knowledge in the collective experiences of employees at Acme. He knew
that certain highly specialized capabilities existed in the organization, but he was unable
to access those capabilities if they existed outside of his department. Many of the positive
comments about systems thinking and collective intelligence were, in fact, idealistic
descriptions of what could occur at Acme versus what actually exists at Acme.
One manager talked about the importance of learning from each other in informal
ways. He viewed business experience as just one aspect of the larger set of experiences
that contribute to ones knowledge. He expressed his fear that the business units are not
going to leam from each other because there is no mechanism or system, formal or
informal, for sharing life experiences. Managers and others need to find ways or
mechanisms and time to talk to each other.
Some managers used a familial tone when speaking about their staff. For
example, one manager talked about the importance of taking care of those personnel.
A statement like that could be viewed as the antithesis of empowerment. The statement
185
indicates the manager did not view his employees as self-directed adults who should be
enabled to take care of themselves. Similarly, another manager, expressed his
commitment to his staff but sounded as though he was referring to children who need to
be humored. He said, theyre not idiots, they want to do a good job. They at least need
to be listened to. His somewhat patronizing comment indicated that even if senior
managers didnt plan to be genuinely responsive to their employees, they should at least
have the common courtesy to hear them out. Incidentally, this comment was may by the
same manager who described how he was attacked when he tried to present his point of
view at his first meeting with the team of senior managers. The familial caring tone went
as far as some participants in the study implying that employees should be kept at the
company whether they performed according to expectations or not because it wasnt the
employees fault that things kept changing.
The CEO, Stan, expressed in the interview concern about his colleagues reverting
to a style of management that judged an employees performance solely on the basis of
quantitative data in one domain without regard for other ways in which a person could
make meaningful contributions in other areas of the organization. He suggested in the
interview that organizational systems require more complex analysis than just measuring
revenue generation. He said, the fact of the matter is you also have a store of human
capital within the organization that is more difficult to replace than just finding another
manager.
186
Personal mastery is one of the critical building blocks of the learning organization
(Senge, 1990a, 1990b). Given that organizations leam only through individuals who
leam it was important to the researcher to explore whether individuals were inspired to
become self-directed learners. Indicators for this category include: (a) awareness of the
individuals value to the organization, (b) responsibility for career management, and (c)
self-initiated and self-directed learning.
The continuously changing landscape of the workplace can be seen as a
compelling reason for individuals to seek opportunities for self-improvement through
learning new things or learning to reflect on past experiences in ways that yield new
ideas. One participant in the study described learning as a necessary process of renewal,
and that,
one has to constantly be renewing ones view and
appreciation for what its like to work in an extremely diverse
culture or group with all different kinds of people with all different
kinds of assets, skills, and attitudes.
The participants, generally agree that view continuous change is increasingly
common in modem organizations and with few exceptions they believe in the importance
of lifelong learning and being adaptable. There was, however, some disagreement about
how much change and how much learning is manageable. For example, even as some
managers appeared to embrace the need for individual learning and organizational
187
learning, other managers were cautious about reaching the limits of what any individual
can handle. Given the number of managers in the study who hold multiple advanced
degrees, one can assume that the managers respect the value of learning. But the
interviews revealed defensiveness and cynicism about why learning is important. The
managers often associated learning with survival rather than learning for the good of the
organization or simply because one enjoyed learning. The managers remarked about the
importance of being prepared for the worst by keeping ones skills current thereby
increasing ones job options. This kind of survivalist thinking supports Diamonds
(1986) argument that psychological resistance to change and therefore to learning is
deeply rooted in contradictory motives and defensive actions.
In consulting organizations like Acme, where products and services are heavily
dependent on knowledge and innovations, senior managers are expected to keep current
with changes in the internal and external business environments. Given the rapid
advances in new technology, to keep pace with the industry, one would certainly need to
be a self-directed learner. Several managers, sounding like survivors of a downsizing,
described the importance of making yourself indispensable to the organization through
gaining valuable skills and knowledge. Yet, other managers sounded burdened or
inconvenienced by the expectation that they need to continue their development and the
development of their staff. In the words of one manager, this is extra work. He said
people in the organization have to recognize that they have to make resources available
for people to engage in this learning experience if they want it to happen. He was
188
blaming unnamed person(s), they for putting the additional burden on senior managers'
to accept continuous learning as a condition of being employed in a learning
organization. Another manager sounded a cautionary alarm indicating there are limits to
what an organization can handle and learning those limits should be one outcome of
organizational learning. He said, I think, this whole issue of organizational learning and
how we become more effective in the organization is understanding how many balls we
can handle at one time.
Systems Thinking
The interview questions associated with the fourth category, systems thinking,
were specifically designed to gain a better understanding of the managers perceptions
related to thinking across traditional departmental boundaries and making decisions that
encompass the whole organization as a system. Embracing a systems view of the
organization requires more than a superficial awareness of different business units that
comprise the organization. Systems thinking requires that managers not only understand
the departmental interdependencies, they also need to be able to facilitate better
interactions among individual business units. There is growing recognition at Acme that
individual business units are poorly equipped to independently deliver a set of products
or services to meet the customers growing demands. Therefore, managers need to rely
on their understanding of different business functions and their ability to foster
relationships that offer more holistic solutions for Acmes customers.
189
Impact of Technology On Organizational Learning
The impact of technology on organizational learning was included as a category
in this study after the field test interviews indicated there was a need for understanding
how managers in learning organizations use technical systems to support learning and
diffuse actionable knowledge. One of the compelling reasons for improving the
knowledge management systems at Acme is the local labor market where it is nearly
impossible to hire enough smart and experienced people fast enough to keep up with the
demand for consulting services. Other drivers impacting Acmes demand for better
knowledge management systems include those noted by ODell and Grayson (1998) such
as, globalization, mass customization, cost cutting and downsizing, and business process
complexity. The indicators for this category included (a) communications systems such
as e-mail, internets, intranets, voice mail, (b) documenting, storing, and retrieving
lessons learned, and (c) dissemination of knowledge for the purpose of applying it.
The potential power and availability of technology to support the flow of
information was widely acknowledged by the participants. There were as many positive
comments as there were negative comments, but there was overwhelming agreement that
the technical systems dont live up to the expectations of those who must use them to
share or store information. There were a few complaints about systems that never got
implemented. Several participants made comments about the future potential of
information systems but believe that the use of IT [information technology] to support
knowledge management is still at a very, very primitive stage.
190
Some participants applauded the ability to use the technology to keep in touch
with people. There was general agreement with one manager who said, if we dont learn
the technology . . .were not going to be able to survive as an organization. According
to another manager, the widespread availability of technology has changed the entire
work paradigm because everything is inter-linked. Still other participants mentioned
that technology is a great facilitator of organizational learning and has tremendous
ability to distribute information but those same participants frequently tempered their
remarks with statements acknowledging that part of the challenge to the organization is to
maintain the human touch, the human interaction.
On the other side of the coin, there were those who felt they get ten times the
number of ideas talking to people than I do from . . . a computer screen. Along those
same lines, some participants felt the technology was misused and generated electronic
trash that was a waste of valuable time. One manager cautioned against technology
being mistaken as a substitute for intellectual capability. Another manager felt that
communications technology, especially e-mail allows people to avoid unpleasant face to
face interactions.
The participants in the study, recognized the power of technology for sharing their
learning and innovations as well as its ability to create an environment characterized by
abstraction and social isolation. Overall, the participants in the study have a positive
view of technology similar to Zuboff s (1988) description of the technological milieu as a
resource from which are fashioned innovative methods of information sharing and social
191
exchange. (p. 7 )
Factors or Conditions that Facilitate Organizational Learning
Understanding conditions or factors that facilitate organizational learning was
central to understanding how managers at Acme viewed learning during periods of
significant change. The findings for this category yielded more data than any other
analytic category. There were three sub-categories each with its own indicators. The first
sub-category was (a) behaviors and attitudes with the following indicators: openness,
innovation, trust, willingness to leam or adapt and cooperative sharing among individuals
and departments. The second sub-category was (b) organizational culture with the
following indicators: reward systems, leadership, inquiry and advocacy, time and
resources allocated for learning. The third sub-category was (c) external environment
with the following indicators: changes in customers, customers demand different
services, and economic recession or expansion.
In summary, talking openly and honestly and respectfully was by far the most
important behavioral facilitator of organizational learning according to the senior
managers at Acme. The concept of talking openly is a behavioral norm that is supported
by Leonard-Barton (1995) who writes, managers candid reflection on what they have
learned from missteps are often more revealing than post- project rationalizations about
successes. (p. xiv). The senior managers at Acme come from diverse social and
economic backgrounds and have varying degrees of comfort with challenging authority
192
in an open setting. Talking openly and honestly as a norm for a learning organization is
not a risk-free endeavor no matter how skilled one might be in applying the principles of
dialog. Talking openly about sensitive issues in public forums with peers and supervisors
can go against decades of upbringing and socialization. Marsick and Watkins (1993)
write about the skills needed to leam, Learning involves the way people think, which
ultimately means who they are and the feedback they have received all their lives about
themselves and their intelligence. (p. 57 ). To some degree fear of failure or fear of
showing ignorance and of accidentally hurting others through inappropriate candor and
behavior is certainly normal. In fact, Senge writes, If people believe they have no fear,
they are probably very good at denying their own emotions. (Senge in Kleiner et al.,
1999, p. 243). While some managers criticized the lack of openness, others felt they
were already practicing openness in the management meetings. The challenge at Acme,
similar to other learning settings, is to discern the level of fear and anxiety exhibited by
individuals and being responsive to different levels of comfort or, as Senge puts it,
allowing people the opportunity to grow their own capacity for openness. (Kleiner,
1999, p. 243)
The managers in the study used terms like active listening and open-
mindedness to describe the behaviors that foster an environment that builds trust and
evokes open communication within the organization. They made several comments about
consciously trying to understand anothers point of view. Some of these comments
came from managers who felt they practiced the effective listening skills. The same type
193
of comments came from managers who felt theyd been verbally attacked in meetings
when they presented new ideas. Most of the managers at Acme were very much aware of
how information and ideas get filtered by the listener because most of them had received
training in how to engage in skillful dialog. They were trained by external consultants
and had read articles by Senge, Argyris, Kim, and others on the art of skillful discussions
versus dialog, developing mental models, and suspending judgement during
presentations. The older managers were somewhat skilled at not jumping to conclusions
and they openly challenged assumptions when their colleagues made unsubstantiated or
fact free comments. In other words, the senior managers at Acme recognized the
symptoms when someone was climbing up ladder of inference (Senge, 1990a; Kleiner
et al., 1994). Several managers, as part of their executive development training, had been
taught to put their ideas out on the table for open for discussion. To facilitate learning
and invite critical reflection, they had to leam not to be personally offended when their
ideas were critiqued. Yet, these same managers were disappointed by their colleagues
when it was brought to their attention that the newer employees felt threatened by the
groups discussion style. The managers had forgotten their own first impressions of open
dialog and when they had felt verbally attacked. Now, they routinely and explicitly
demonstrated that they do not just receive new knowledge passively; they interpret it
actively to fit their own situation and perspective. The consultants have coached them to
adopt an attitude that it is a managers responsibility to uncover conflicting
interpretations and redirect any confusion toward purposeful knowledge creation. The
194
data indicated that although clearing up confusion through generative inquiry may be a
worthy endeavor, it is often not well received by those who are unaccustomed to the
process.
The managers were also concerned that older team members, who were very
much aware of the groups stated norms, took advantage of the newer members by not
honoring the agreed upon norms.
Factors or Conditions that Impede Organizational Learning
It is interesting that very little was said about impediments to learning except as
the absence of conditions that facilitate learning. In other words, the participants
described their feelings that resulted from not being listened to instead of indicating that
poor listening skills are a barrier. There was evidence that managers who were excellent
or very knowledgeable in one domain were unreceptive to ideas from others. Dorothy
Leonard-Barton, a noted author from MIT, believes the unwillingness to listen to others
ideas and to collect only certain kinds of knowledge at the expense of others is often
echoed at various levels of an organization resulting in political fiefdoms. She writes,
These islands of knowledge (and the political fiefdoms that grow up around and
support them) are potent barriers to the shared problem-solving activities.. . (Leonard-
Barton, 1995, p. 59).
During the interviews, some examples of barriers to organizational learning were
195
communicated as descriptions of how managers felt during the management meetings.
The newer managers were more likely to describe the meetings as negative experiences.
For example, one manager said he felt it was important not to be threatened in a
conversation when you share something.' In referring to the management meetings,
another manager said that shields need to come down. Comments like these and one
managers claim that there are too many secrets and people get snuck up on during
meetings are clearly not desirable conditions conducive to learning.
Several newer team members said they were attacked, figuratively speaking, in
meetings when, perhaps, they were simply unprepared for the onslaught of questions and
challenges that followed their well-prepared presentations - presentations that were often
filled with elaborate tables and graphics and were developed without input from anyone
else on the team. These comments about being attacked came from managers who had
been appointed to the team months or even years after the team had gone through
extensive training in how to conduct skillful dialog. This is another example of managers
at Acme having opposite views of the same experience. In this case, the experience is the
impact of open discussions on sensitive issues and practicing critical reflection. The old
timers would not consider themselves good managers or active listeners if they passively
accepted the information in a presentation without questioning the presenters meaning
making or underlying assumptions. They regularly challenged presentations and
expected the presenter to accept those challenges as opportunities to provide more
information or reformulate the information for further analysis. Unfortunately, the
196
managers, who were practicing their organizational learning skills, did so automatically
and with very little thought as to how the presenter was handling all the enthusiastic
feedback. The presenters that were newcomers to the senior management team did not
know that most of their team mates had been trained to search for deeper meaning
through generative inquiry. The newer members of the team were also not aware that
older team members, without sensitivity to the presenters feelings, were simply
practicing their critical thinking and critical reflection skills which for them meant
demonstrating their awareness of the way they filter data and how they interpret what
they hear. Those skills are also important to becoming effective learners and teachers in
learning organizations. But for untrained newcomers, judging by their responses in the
interviews, this behavior was threatening. They viewed the litany of questions that were
intended to reveal their underlying assumptions and the protracted discussions that their
team mates called dialog, as undeserved criticisms of their carefully crafted
presentations and challenges to their professional competency. They were often stunned
into silence and for weeks afterwards they participated in the meetings only marginally.
The researcher, as a member of the team, witnessed this behavior on several occasions.
Even though observing managers in groups was not a data source for this study, when the
participants talked about the teams behavior during meetings, the researcher recalled
several such incidences as those described during the interviews.
197
Summary of Interviews
The overwhelming results of the interviews suggest that the most significant
organizational learning at Acme occurred in the aftermath of a crisis. There was an
emerging theme associating learning with failures or situations that required correcting
problems or avoiding future mistakes.
Each manager is not only conscious of the demands being made on his or her own
time, but the added demands of sharing resources requires the manager to consider
whether his or her staff is also being overburdened by the goal to become a learning
organization. Some managers seemed to handle the load better than others and saw the
additional need for sharing information and learning as a welcomed challenge that could
be facilitated by more effective use of knowledge management systems while others felt
burdened by the prospect of having to leam continuously.
The use of technology as a facilitator of learning was widely acknowledged. At
the same time, the managers acknowledged the inherent danger of technology because of
its tendency to promote social isolation. Some managers were concerned about their own
intellective abilities as well as those of their employees to effectively work with the
volumes of computer generated information. Similar to the workplace described by
Zuboff (1988), the managers at Acme viewed the learning organization as a means of
directing their resources toward creating a work force that can exercise critical judgement
as it manages the surrounding machine systems.
198
The participants in this study were managers but they were also learners. They
were practicing their own newly acquired facilitation skills, dialogue and critical
reflection skills, and coaching each other. They were, simultaneously, teachers of fellow
team members and other middle managers in the organization. Some participants felt
strongly that every time new team members were appointed to the management team, the
personality and skills of the team changed in ways that were unpredictable and not
always positive. Clearly, one of the ongoing challenges faced by the senior managers as
they continually positioned themselves for growth was how to maintain the continuity of
knowledge that is developed over a period of years.
Overall, the interviews were very comprehensive in that they offered findings
related to individual behaviors, organizational norms, and technical systems that facilitate
learning at all levels.
Synthesis of the Findings
In combining the findings from all of the data sources, the researcher is able to
interpret and analyze for deeper meaning as compared to analyzing data within a single
data source (Patton, 1990; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Marshall and Rossman, 1989).
Making sense of the data or lack of data by triangulating, comparing and contrasting all
of the data sources is a distinguishing characteristic of the data analysis process in
199
qualitative research. When analyzing the findings, in qualitative research, it is important
to note that the quantity of data associated with a particular category is not necessarily an
indicator of the importance or lack of importance of those findings. In qualitative
research, the absence of findings in a particular category can prove to be as important as
an abundance of findings in a different category. Qualitative research goes beyond how
much there is of something to tell us about its essential qualities (Patton, 1990; Miles and
Huberman, 1994).
The framework for this study was based on the concepts of organizational
learning as it is characterized by the principles of Senge (1990a), and the action
imperatives described by Marsick and Watkins (1993). Compared to the data from
critical incidents and interviews, the documents proved to be less valuable in shedding
light on perceptions and general beliefs about organizational learning at Acme. The
documents primarily espoused the benefits of becoming a learning organization and
supported Acmes public rationale for building systems that support organizational
learning. By contrast, the critical incidents, were more likely to describe the importance
of organizational learning at Acme as a desirable goal that had not yet been achieved. The
comments from the managers made during interviews offered the most data. Senior
managers believe in the importance of organizational learning at Acme as a desirable
goal, but have very disparate views as to how well the organization is progressing toward
200
achieving that goal.
In their written and verbal descriptions of organizational learning, the managers
appeared to be well-read on the subject of learning organizations and the processes and
systems that support organizational learning. They were enthusiastic in presenting their
views on how the experts theories could be applied at Acme. They were supportive of
the concept of organizational learning and seemed to embrace it as a desirable quality in
organizations that compete in a global marketplace. They perceive Acme to be an
organization that needs to be globally competitive and therefore needs to be a learning
organization. Newer team members and older members alike, had somewhat cynical
views about organizational learning because of the time it takes and the continuous
changes going on in the organization. Marsicks and Watkins (1996) recent case studies
of emerging learning organizations, revealed similar concerns about changes within the
organization upsetting progress toward becoming a learning organization. In addition to
establishing structures and systems to ensure that knowledge is captured and shared as
part of the organizations memory, Marsick and Watkins believe organizational learning
must lead to transformation as a means for effectively managing continuous change in
organizations.
More recently, Senge expressed his frustration with how few companies have
made significant progress in becoming a learning organization (Webber, 1999). He
believes the reason for the dearth in the number of learning organizations is not time,
intelligence, or resources. Senge believes, the failure is due to managers viewing human
201
institutions as machines rather than seeing them as embodiments of nature and, therefore,
taking a more naturalistic view of the organization versus a mechanistic view. Senge
believes organizations evolve over much longer periods of time and that learning is
incremental rather than transformational.
In general, the senior management team is in agreement with those who believe
organizational learning systems and initiatives must be driven by the top management
and then spread throughout the organization. Marsick and Watkins (1993; 1996)
emphasize the importance of leadership modeling learning, but Senge disagrees with the
pattern of the CEO as the leader of the transformation of an organization. He believes the
cult of the hero-leader leads to a culture of compliance thereby undermining the
commitment of teams and communities of practice (Senge, 1990a; 1996).
Unplanned or unintentional learning occurs naturally in organizations, but in a
learning organization intentional processes and systems are created specifically for the
purpose of diffusing knowledge across the organization (Kline and Saunders, 1993;
Marsick and Watson, 1997 ). The third category, impact of organizational learning during
periods of significant change, sought information as to whether managers perceived that
learning initiatives, whether individual, group, or organization-wide, have influenced the
ability of the organization to respond to changes in the internal and external working
environment. Typically, these are periods when learning and implementing new business
strategies based on the new learning is most needed. Ironically,.in many organizations, it
202
is during these periods that planned learning activities are temporarily suspended because
they may be viewed as distractions which take attention away from dealing with major
changes going on in the organization.
The documents and the critical incidents yielded very little data for understanding
managers perceptions about organizational learning during periods of significant change
as it relates to rapid response to change, synergy across departments, intellectual or
human capital. Interviews, on the other hand, produced significant data for this category.
In general the managers agreed that Acme is constantly re-inventing itself in response to
the marketplace and therefore needs to be able to leam from internal as well as external
resources. The managers at Acme alluded to constant change as a norm at Acme. While
some felt frustrated and ineffective in such an environment, others expressed nonchalance
or resolve that continuous change is the norm everywhere, therefore why should Acme be
an exception. Still others were convinced that the organization should seek a niche
market and focus on that market and, presumably, rise above the chaos of continuous
change. Acmes senior managers generally agree that constant changes require constant
searches for new and innovative products and services requiring new and more highly
skilled human resources. They are challenged by the need to leam more and more; faster
and faster. In fact, most felt such learning could occur only with more effective
knowledge management systems.
Bringing in new people is a way of invigorating the organization and stimulating
new approaches to solving old problems by introducing new ideas. Nevertheless, in fast
203
paced organizations, there are major challenges with finding the time to honor a lengthy
process (assuming such a process exists) for smoothly transitioning new people into
existing teams. Some team members, and this was certainly the case at Acme, may feel
they are sacrificing hard won gains in dialog skills and inter-personal relationships every
time the membership changes. Other team members, reluctantly acquiesced to the new
member but they too felt they needed to slow down, regress, or dumb down their work to
accommodate new members. The danger inherent in foregoing formalized orientation or
mentoring for new members is the risk of invoking feelings of isolation, defensiveness,
marginalization, or even animosity.
This category revealed whether the organizations goal of becoming a learning
organization had any influence on self-directed learning activities among individual
managers at Acme. Personal mastery and self-directed learning are touted by most
organizational learning theorists and adult educators as an important indicator of
commitment to learning at all levels - individual, team, and organization (Senge, 1990a;
1990b; 1994; Marsick and Watkins, 1993; 1996). The researcher was looking for
evidence that individual managers sought higher levels of personal mastery through self
directed learning activities that could also benefit the organization. There was very little
evidence in any of the data sources to indicate that managers at Acme make a strong
connection between personal learning and team or organizational learning.
204
The managers discussed their frustration with the slow incremental learning at
Acme and disregarded the connection between the design of the learning systems at
Acme and their own learning norms (Shrivastava, 1983). The results of this research
indicate managers view organizational learning solely as a means of implementing the
organizations business strategy. As individuals, the participants in this study did not
connect learning in the workplace with their own self-development. Generally, learning
was viewed as a corrective tool for solving a problem or improving a business process.
Acmes managers seemed unaware of a possible link between their own lack of self
directed learning and the organizations stalled learning progress. Contrary to the views
of adult educators who view self-directed learning as a sign of an educated person, the
managers viewed personal learning as a defensive tool; a means of self-preservation
rather than a process for achieving organizational goals or giving meaning to the human
experience (Pasmore, 1994). This is not to say that these managers dont participate in
any learning activities. However, they dont intentionally link or transfer their personal
learning, especially learning that takes place outside of the organization, to their work
environment.
Systems Thinking
This category examines how well Acme creates organizational synergism through
sharing ideas and best practices within and across divisions or departments. Senge, 1990,
describes systems thinking as the conceptual framework of organizations where people
205
and processes are like interwoven fabric joined by relationships and interrelated actions.
Of the three data sources, the documents provided slightly less data than did the critical
incidents and the interviews. The findings from all data sources were less than the
researcher expected given the emphasis experts place on systems thinking in learning
organizations. Marsick and Watkins, 1990 and 1996, advocate the establishment of
systems that promote consideration of long-term consequences and the impact on the
work of others. Similar to Senge, (1990a) Marsick and Watkins, (1993; 1994; 1996)
believe in the importance of establishing networks to support collective learning at all
levels in an organization. Unlike Senge (1990a) Marsick and Watkins (1993; 1996)
emphasize the importance of extending the community of learning to the external
community. The ideas of the senior managers at Acme were more aligned with those of
Marsick and Watkins, in that they were keenly aware of the importance of learning from
the outside environment. Although collaborative systems and sharing ideas and
information across departments were viewed as a highly desirable norm for the
organization, Acmes senior managers dont think it is happening very effectively. There
were, however, some impressive examples of progress in systems thinking. For example,
a process was established wherein managers reviewed the progress of different divisions
in achieving their goals. If it appeared that a department was not meeting its plans, the
managers discussed options and new strategies for that department. During these project
review meetings, senior managers openly discussed the strengths and weaknesses of new
or emerging ideas. All of the participants were involved in this process of group problem
206
solving and it received mixed reviews in the interviews and the critical incidents. Some
managers welcomed input from the other managers while other managers felt they were
being blamed or unduly criticized. A culture of blaming and finger pointing was
described by some, while other seemed to think the group's problem solving process
facilitated learning albeit mostly in the aftermath of a crisis (Leonard-Barton, 1995).
There was concern by one manager, expressed in the critical incidents and in his
interview, that as new personalities were brought into the senior management team, the
change in the groups dynamics resulted in significant setbacks in the teams synergism
and collective intelligence. The other managers alluded to continuous changes in the
organization and in the team as causing instability and leading to blaming and finger
pointing. During the interviews and in critical incidents, they expressed great frustration
with the lack of support from their colleagues on the senior management team for new
ideas. Sometimes referred to as the NIH (not invented here) syndrome, the managers felt
their ideas or recommendations for solving problems were arbitrarily rejected by others
because the ideas came from outside their own department. This view of feedback as an
attack was expressed by the newer members of the team. It didnt occur to the new
members that their colleagues were being genuine in critiquing their ideas and
questioning their assumptions in an effort to improve everyones thinking. Conversely, it
didnt occur to older team members that there is a learning curve in developing effective
dialogue skills and that they needed to coach their newer colleagues. Instead, they felt the
collective intelligence of the group declined as a result of bringing in new members.
207
There is evidence of a culture at Acme where coaching and mentoring others as well as
acknowledging the contributions of others does not occur naturally. The less than
favorable views regarding the management teams interpersonal behavior may be
indicative of a degree of internal competition among these managers that undermines
collaboration and promotes defensiveness and dysfunctional behavior (Argyris, 1990).
As evidenced primarily from data in the interviews, senior managers at Acme
have a very strong awareness of the intersection between knowledge management
systems, intellectual capital and organizational learning. In recent years, much has been
wntten about the role of information technology and communication systems in helping
organizations improve their processes and increase productivity (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995; Stewart, 1997 ; Davenport, 1997 ; ODell and Grayson, 1998). Among the
participants in the study, the majority hold advanced technical degrees and several have
information technology and computer science degrees. As a group, they have a very deep
and broad knowledge of computer science and information systems. They expressed in
the interviews and in the documents the importance of creating knowledge repositories or
intellectual assets that can be re-deployed independent of its original source. In the
minds of most of these managers, technology was viewed as a means for moving
knowledge without necessarily having to move people.
The participants in this study acknowledged the role of the organizations culture
208
in supporting the use of information technology as a means of managing knowledge.
Establishing a culture that routinely collaborates and shares information was viewed as
the primary purpose of a knowledge management system. The knowledge management
system, in the minds of Acmes senior managers, is primarily a technical system of
hardware and software versus a collection of human processes and relationships.
Information overload, real or perceived, could lead to a condition described by
ODell and Grayson (1998) as organizational paralysis - a disease that occurs when a
swelling amount of information is chasing a shrinking number of brains. (p. 86).
Although they are not Luddites, fearful of being replaced by smart machines, they are
concerned about managing and making sense of the vast amounts of information
available to them in their daily routines. During the interviews, the senior managers at
Acme expressed growing concern about the volume of information they are expected to
access, analyze, understand, and convert to actionable knowledge for business purposes.
The recent documents use terms like knowledge management and intellectual
capital as did the managers during the interviews. Although managers did not write
much about the use or impact of technology in learning organizations, they discussed it
quite often during the interviews. The documents spoke of the effective use of
technology as a tool in contrast to the managers who spoke about the abuse of technology
to avoid human interactions or as a poor substitute for cognitive ability. The interviews
revealed the managers concern about the push for more and more instant information
leading to the transmission of wrong, unqualified, or unsubstantiated information or
209
dysinformation requiring damage control and corrective action. Conversely, the
documents looked at technology in a more or less ideal environment, and did not address
the problem of dysfunctional behaviors and misinformation being widely distributed at
the speed of light.
Equally interesting, because of their technical expertise and familiarity with the
potential power of information systems, managers at Acme have a heightened sensitivity
to the appearance of dysfunctional behaviors fostered by technology. In the interviews,
the managers described other managers who have exhibited uncharacteristically
aggressive communication styles when using e-mail or voice mail as compared to their
usual face-to-face communication style. They talked about managers who use
technology as a means to avoid interpersonal communication in an environment that is
increasingly dependent upon relationships for sharing information and improving ideas.
Behaviors such as hoarding information in data bases, only communicating via e-mail, or
never communicating via e-mail are evidence of technology-fostered dysfunctional
behavior. These types of behaviors are sometimes referred to as information politics or
behaviors that could lead to a feudal information environment (Davenport, 1997 ;
Leonard-Barton, 1995). Knowledge management systems and information technology
can be strong facilitators of organizational learning in a culture where there is willingness
to share information across organizational boundaries, disclose it internally and
externally, and capitalize on it in their businesses (Davenport, 1997 ).
There was concern expressed about the ability of Acmes knowledge management
210
systems to take knowledge that is held in peoples minds or embedded in their skills and
capabilities and use that knowledge independent of that person. The researcher is not
implying that a mechanistic approach to converting all tacit knowledge to explicit
knowledge is possible or even desirable (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Stewart, 1997 ;
Davenport and Prusak, 1998); the researcher is suggesting, however, that there is growing
anxiety among managers, caused by the pace and complexity of the business
environment, about their ability to keep up with the demands of the organization. Their
anxiety is further fueled by the lack of available and affordable people. That is, people
with the requisite intellectual capacity and experiential knowledge to deliver globally
competitive goods and technical consulting services with a minimal amount of coaching
and mentoring. Nevertheless, when all the data are reviewed, findings in the literature,
documents and interviews indicate widespread belief that the potential exists for
technology-driven knowledge management systems to be a strong facilitator of
Factors that Facilitate Organizational Learning
All data sources, offered findings for better understanding the factors that
facilitate organizational learning at Acme. The documents espoused organizational
norms as well as individual behaviors that experts believe are important to instilling the
values that lead to individual, team, and organizational learning. The critical incidents
offered descriptions of ideal behaviors among managers for building trust, and openness
211
during meetings to facilitate learning within the management team. Being able to
discuss failures is an important element in learning organizations because managers need
to be candid about what they have learned and not fear they are risking their careers or
credibility (Argyris, 1990; Leonard-Barton, 1995). The conditions that facilitate learning
are also understood as the opposite of those conditions described below as impediments
to learning.
Factors that Impede Organizational Learning
Experts often describe the conditions that cause participants in groups to
disengage and stop contributing to discussions if they feel threatened by speaking out
(Argyris, 1990; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Senge, 1990a, 1990b; Marsick and Watkins,
1993; 1996). The lack of trust, the lack of good listening skills, and fear of reprisal are
impediments to learning. Chris Argyris, 1990, writes about dysfunctional organizations
where certain topics are off limits or undiscussable further exacerbating the dysfunction.
Senge, et al. 1996, describe similar conditions that inhibit open and frank discussions or
skillful dialog. In looking at factors that impede organizational learning, the minutes from
a management retreat provided the only source of negative data from Acmes documents.
To the contrary, the critical incidents were particularly useful in getting managers to be
explicit about personal experiences with conditions or behaviors that impeded learning on
any of the three learning levels: individual, team, and organizational learning. Because
the critical incidents invited managers to write about negative experiences, many of them
212
used the writing exercise as an opportunity to express feelings about times when the
organizations espoused theories contradicted theories in practice.
In the interviews, the managers were much less direct than they were in their
written descriptions of barriers to organizational learning. The managers often used
stories or metaphors during the interviews to describe what happens when the
organizational norms or individual behaviors create barriers to learning. The stories and
metaphors for describing the barriers to organizational learning were vivid and varied
widely - ranging from sports, to gardening, to war. Senges recent position, in the article
Beyond the Learning Organization, encourages managers to think of themselves as
gardeners or biologists (Webber, 1999). He believes the conditions that facilitate
learning are rooted in managing the process of transformational change which require a
sense of openness, a sense of reciprocity, even a kind of vulnerability. In his interview
with Webber, Senge says, The most universal challenge that we face is the transition
from seeing our human institutions as machines to seeing them as embodiments of
nature. (p. 180).
Summary
Although the documents were primarily used to establish the context of the study,
they proved to be very valuable in understanding how the managers in this organization
came to be so committed to organizational learning practices at Acme. Their knowledge
in this subject area encouraged their candor and confidence during the interviews. The
213
data from the interviews proved to be the richest source of data for this research. It is
interesting, however, to note that some strong ideas and opinions held by the managers
that were expressed during the interviews were not mentioned at all in the critical
incidents. Certainly, that was partly due to the nature of the critical incident question,
but there was also evidence of hesitancy on the part of the managers to put negative
views about the organization in writing.
Especially, important to this research were the ideas that emerged describing the
role of information and communications technology in learning organizations. The
literature that was reviewed in the early stages of this research made little mention of the
intersection between knowledge management systems and organizational learning. As
the research progressed, the intersection between these two domains emerged as critical
to understanding how managers perceive organizational learning in organizations driven
by the need to constantly adapt to changes in the marketplace and changes in the
technology that support their work. There is a growing body of literature, much of it
available on the internet, that explores the impact of effective knowledge management
systems on an organizations ability to leam collectively.
214
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
There were seven questions that emerged from the literature and the field tests
that framed the research: What are the managers perceptions about organizational
learning? What are managers perceptions about continuous learning in organizations:
positive, negative, insecure, hopeful? How do the managers view the impact of
organizational learning on themselves individually? How do the managers view the
relationship of their own individual learning to organizational learning? How do the
managers view the impact of technology on organizational learning? What are the factors
that facilitate organizational learning? What are the factors that impede organizational
learning? In this chapter, the researcher draws conclusions from the research data
related to each question. Following a discussion of each conclusion, the researcher offers
recommendations for the organization, recommendations for the field of adult education,
and recommendations future research.
After the discussion of the conclusions and recommendations, the researcher
examines the assumptions she held going into the research project and discusses how the
findings influenced those assumptions. The chapter ends with the researchers closing
remarks regarding organizational learning at Acme.
215
Conclusions for Acme
1. Based on the data from the interviews and the critical incidents, the participants in
this study are well-versed in organizational learning theories and thev agree that
becoming a learning organization is essential for anv dynamic organization that
expects to thrive in todays economy. However, their frequent comments about the
absence of open and honest dialog lead the researcher to conclude that some of their
espoused theories about organizational learning are not routinely practiced.
Collectively, the managers stories represent a solid pattern of progress in
becoming a learning organization. According to the data from the interviews, all of the
participants in the study believe competitive organizations need to be learning
organizations. That is, the organization needs to systematically leam from the collective
experiences of the employees. The findings associated with conditions that facilitate or
impede organizational learning overwhelmingly indicate that the participants value open
and honest communications as essential to learning and sharing information. The
anxious or cautious comments from some participants, especially newer members of the
management team, indicate that they suffer from a crisis of conscience brought to bear by
conflicting social messages imbedded since childhood - messages that strongly advise
against challenging superiors in public settings even when such challenges could result in
significant learning (Srivastva and Cooperrider, 1990; Pasmore, 1994). Judging by their
responses in the interviews, the newer members of the group felt very uncomfortable with
the openness and frankness of the discussions. Some even felt threatened and worried
216
about retaliation. Conversely, the managers who had been meeting together for several
years, were relatively comfortable with openly discussing issues that newcomers
perceived as sensitive issues. The differences in how newcomers experience their role in
a group are addressed in the literature on organizational theory. Louis (1980) writes, in
Classics of Organization Theory, newcomers often attach meanings to action, events,
and surprises in the new setting using interpretation schemes developed through their
experiences in other settings (cited in Ott and Shafritz, p. 450). Marsick and Watkins
(1993) write, continuous learners ask questions and challenge the beliefs of others in a
way that may be misperceived as threatening. (p.44). These behaviors were certainly
revealed in the study at Acme. It is interesting to note that while one would not expect
students or employees to perform complex technical tasks without receiving extensive
training, students and employees, in the interest of learning, are routinely expected to
disregard decades of social acculturation and professional norms associated with taking
orders and demonstrating respect for social hierarchy and chains of command. Or, as
stated by experts in the field, people who have grown used to taking orders do not
become proactive overnight (Marsick and Watkins, 1993).
2. The data indicate that while many participants readily acknowledge the progress
Acme has made in conducting effective meetings, others believe that instead of
learning from mistakes through careful examination and dialog there is a tendency to
sweep mistakes under the rug and focus on the current crisis or upcoming
opportunities.
217
During the interviews, when providing examples of how they defined organizational
learning, the managers at Acme indicated they were often repeating the same mistakes
over and over. In some cases, the participants perceived that organizational learning was
not occurring because they felt time and resources could not be set aside for learning
initiatives. Interestingly, while some managers stated that crisis management did not
allow for time and resources to be allocated to learning initiatives, others said learning
only occurred during a crisis or in the aftermath of a crisis because the situation forced
them to improve their business practices. Leonard-Barton (1995) suggests managers
establish a way of thinking that allows them to separate intelligent failure from
unnecessary failure, in both language and managerial response, and that managers
recognize the role of failure in building knowledge. Leonard-Barton (1995) also
indicates that organizations generally underestimate the role of failure in building
knowledge essential to success. She discusses four reasons that emerged from research
conducted by Van de Ven and Polley that could explain why learning disabilities like
those described by the managers at Acme occur, (1) Impression management through
overly optimistic presentations; (2) setbacks not detected as errors that could provide
learning; (3) proliferation of interdependent activities that distracted from a real
evaluation of the core idea; and (4) transitory project membership, leading to
organizational forgetting. (p. 118).
3. As evidenced bv data from the documents and data from the interviews, managers at
Acme were more focused on managing and measuring outcomes than on developing
218
and managing their individual and collective learning processes in wavs that could
impact the organizations learning or their own learning.
Data from the documents and interviews indicate the managers expectation that their
information technology and knowledge management systems will grow to accommodate
the increasing demands of internal and external customers. Those same systems are also
expected to support them in staying ahead of the learning curve. Unfortunately, based on
the data, the critical link between the information technology and knowledge
management systems and the organizational learning systems is not clear. The ability of
the these two organizational functions to collaborate on delivering services to internal
customers, i.e., the employees at Acme, is essential to becoming a learning organization.
This becomes even more important when the HR staff are seeking ways to provide
training for managers and employees who are not on-site but who telecommute. Speed
and convenience as well as quality and relevance require that the technical staff work
closely with those responsible for creating the content for internal courses or training
seminars.
The data from the documents describe plans for measuring and monitoring the
organizations progress in meeting goals using quantitative measures such as gains in
revenue. The interviews provide significant data relevant to increasing the use of market
data and trend analysis to make better decisions. Interestingly, except for the documents
that indicate the importance of a learning culture, there was very little data describing
how individual learning efforts would be measured or how changes in the culture would
219
be monitored. The participants in the study were trying to manage the senior
management team's transformation and the organizations transformation by using
familiar management tactics: structural changes, redirecting responsibilities, quantitative
measures for learning, etc. Monitoring the social context that promotes and sustains
learning is as important to learning as are more readily measured business outcomes. The
organizations culture as well as its ideology can shape how learning occurs and how it is
distributed. The literature indicates values and beliefs define what is considered to be
important, and hence, that to which organizations attend and respond (Marsick and
Watkins, 1992). Chawlas and Reneschs (1995) collection of articles from many
organizational learning experts often sites examples that support the importance of
emphasizing the relationship between the organizations culture and the learning process.
In one article, Schwandt writes, change in the social system itself occurs only through
the learning process, not the performance process. It is related to the basic assumptions
held by the organizational culture. (p. 368).
4. Based upon the lack of data linking individual learning to organizational learning, the
researcher concludes that managers at Acme did not acknowledge the relative
importance of linking their personal pursuit of learning on and off the job to the
organizations goals.
The managers did not indicate that their personal interest or appetite for learning was
piqued by the organizations effort to become a learning organization. Very few
managers were able to give accounts of how their experiences with Acmes learning
220
initiatives resulted in personal growth. The participants generally associated
organizational learning to those specific skills and practices that could be directly linked
to a business activity. As such, they often referred to the need for other people to leam
and generally viewed themselves as managers of the learning process. Judging by the
lack of data on the importance of individual self-directed learning, the concept of
personal mastery were not seen as important by most of the managers. The apparent lack
of interest in self-directed learning is a cause for concern given that personal mastery is
one of Senges five disciplines and is frequently mentioned in the literature as an
important component of organizational and team learning (Senge, 1990a; Marsick and
Watkins, 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Pasmore, 1992). On the few occasions when
the managers described their personal learning pursuits, they enthusiastically talked about
connecting their independent personal learning to their practices on the job. The
exceptions, described in chapter five, were independent learning efforts described by two
of the participants who explicitly sought learning that could be applied to their work and
shared with the management team. The high level of education among this management
team and the literature led the researcher to expect a team of proactive self-directed
learners who would readily seek further learning which could then be purposefully shared
with their colleagues on the senior management team and throughout the organization.
The data from the research proves otherwise. The literature on organizational learning
emphasizes the importance of everyone, including the senior managers, becoming self
directed learners who proactively share their learning within the organization. The
221
findings in this study are consistent with Argyris article (1991) on teaching smart people
to leam. He cautions that members of the organization that many assume to be the best at
learning are, in fact, not very good at it.
Recommendations for Acme
1. Although the senior management team is well-versed in the theories of organizational
learning, the management practices and culture of the organization indicate the
management team needs to recognize the need to implement specific programs aimed
at aligning espoused theories with theories in practice.
There are several actions that can be taken to improve the integration of new
members into the management team. For example: The organization could establish a
mentoring and coaching program for new managers. Learning the skills associated with
high performance teams and effective dialog requires continuous practice. When sharing
information from management journals, a common practice at Acme, the managers could
be given explicit instructions to read the articles in preparation for in-depth discussions;
then, following training in how to facilitate and participate in dialog, the managers should
use the articles as the basis for discussion and practice fields for effective dialog.
Creating these homework assignments reinforces the importance of organizational
learning and sends a message that journal articles should be carefully selected for that
purpose. Using articles from business journals as the stimulus for dialog, Acmes
managers will have the opportunity to practice facilitation and dialog while further
222
developing their own ideas by reflecting on the ideas of external experts.
2. To address the issue of repeating mistakes and variations in perceptions about when
the organization has learned, the senior management team needs to implement
processes for reviewing successful as well as failed ventures or experiments similar to
the after action review process used bv the military to routinely review successes and
failures for the purpose of capturing anv significant lessons learned. Equally
important the senior management team needs to examine rewards or punishments
that exist in the organizations systems which may encourage impression
management and overly optimistic presentations
The same stories that were used by some participants in the study as examples of
times when the organization had learned were used by other participants as examples of
the organizations inability to leam. For example, according to data from the interviews
and the critical incidents, several years ago, the senior managers did not heed warning
signals that revenue for the year was going to fall far short of projections. While some
managers felt the organization learned a lot in the process of recovering from the
shortfall, others felt not heeding the warning signals were indicative of not learning from
previous experiences and in fact that was the cause of the shortfall. By following an
established set of guidelines to review failed initiatives or ventures, the failed ventures
become intelligent failures which, similar to successful ventures, could provide guidance
for other activities.
If dysfunctional learning is associated with managers repeatedly presenting data that.
223
in retrospect, were too good to be true the senior management team needs to ask itself
what rewards or punishments exist in the organizations systems that encourage
impression management and overly optimistic presentations. If the problem is systemic,
the culture or systems of rewards and punishments should be changed. If the problem is
localized to one manager or one team, the problem should be addressed at that level.
3. Establish a team comprised of senior managers from the information technology
department and the human resources or organizational development department to
collaborate on how to more effectively use information and knowledge management
systems in the design and delivery of internal education and training programs.
To facilitate more open and honest dialog and to develop better systems to capture
learning from the organizations multiple communities of learners, the senior
management team should seek guidance from consultants who have expertise in
facilitating communication among teams that telecommute and rely heavily on
knowledge management systems. Then, an internal education program can be readily
accessed and updated to meet the organizations current business requirements.
The growing complexity of organizations with multiple and layered communities of
learners pushes managers and adult educators to the limits of their understanding
regarding what and how managers and virtual teams leam. For example, whether teams
telecommute or reside in the same building, it is common for membership on teams to
change frequently as tenure in organizations shorten and expertise needs to be shared
across departments. Therefore, organizational learning systems need to be less
224
vulnerable to the participation of specific individuals and focus more on implementing
systems and processes that facilitate learning. Acme could begin by identifying
communities of practice that already exist and naming others that need to be established.
By identifying existing communities of learners who work together at developing their
skills and sharing experiences, the organization can begin to gain a better understanding
of how knowledge is generated and diffused throughout the organization. By requiring
physical attendance at a minimum number of meetings involving all senior managers the
organization would gain better alignment of expectations and perceptions between senior
managers who telecommute and those who are physically present at Acme.
4. The senior managers should lead the organizational learning effort bv demonstrating
how their individual learning is enhanced and then transferred to the team and to the
organization.
Even though the managers think of themselves as the appropriate change agents for
leading organizational learning, they rarely linked their own learning as individuals to
Acmes organizational learning efforts. Individual development plans, that include self
directed learning initiatives, should be routinely reviewed during the managers
performance review. Those plans should include professional development as well as
personal development plans that may impact the quality of work life.
Conclusions for the Field of Adult Education
1. The data from this study indicate there is often disagreement within groups of
learners on what constitutes learning leading the researcher to conclude that learning
225
is often defined and assessed very subjectively based on individual experiences.
According to the literature, the findings at Acme were not very different from other
organizations where managers and change agents feel frustrated in regard to becoming a
learning organization (Senge 1990a, 1990b, 1991, 1993; Marsick and Watkins 1991,
1993). Taken individually, each manager was able to point to examples where the
organization demonstrated progress toward becoming a learning organization. However,
each manager seemed to think there was much more to be achieved and that Acmes goal
to become a learning organization was far from being a fait accompli.
The literature indicates both information and knowledge are context-specific and
relational in that they depend on the situation and are created dynamically in social
interaction among people (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). This study revealed that the
multiple interpretations of lessons learned at Acme validates the literature. Many of the
managers gather data from their field agents who rarely come to the office and who
measure success and failure project by project. In isolation, success or failure of a single
project may have minimal significance as compared to a more global view of how a
collection of individual projects impact the whole organization. Senior managers should
certainly be able to aggregate data from multiple projects for the purpose of developing a
more meaningful interpretation of the data. However, other individual or systemic
dynamics prevented a more cohesive analysis of data for shared meaning making.
2. In an effort to promote egalitarian management practices and to facilitate learning.
226
management consultants and adult educators should become fully aware of the
managers or students personal or professional risks associated with public openness
and honesty.
Adult educators and management consultants need to establish risk free learning
environments in business settings and take more responsibility for what happens after
they leave the learning setting. The literature on organizational learning indicates that
learning initiatives and activities designed to promote self-development and
organizational learning at Acme could fail if dysfunctional conditions exist and are left
unresolved. Shrivastava (1983) suggests that the development of learning systems
without adequate examination of socio-cultural learning norms may explain the frequent
failure of designed learning systems. Senge (1990a) conceptualizes organizational
learning environments as places where people continually expand their capacity to
create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are
nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually
learning how to leam together. (p.3). The organization needs to give constant attention
to social dynamics and relationships that provide the context for learning in teams.
3. Most organizational learning efforts assume a high degree of constancy both in
systems and in people. While not all of the participants were concerned with changes
in the organization, the data from the critical Incidents more than the other data
sources revealed some managers were concerned about the organizations structural
changes and the constant search for new product and service offerings.
227
In the interviews a few managers mentioned their preference to stick to what they
know best and not venture into new areas. Still others were concerned about people
joining and leaving the organization. There was clear evidence that some thrived on the
prospects offered by a dynamic environment while an equal number of others preferred
stability or constancy. Such constancy is no longer the norm in the business world nor in
academia. Employees are much less likely to spend five years in a single department or
organization than they were just a few years ago. Senges work (1990a) did not address
how to sustain learning in teams where membership is in constant flux. Because of this
constant movement of employees in and out of organizations or teams more recent
research indicates that systems need to be put in place that will help the organization
sustain its learning. Marsick and Watkins (1996) write, without changes to the structure,
learning infrastructure, and culture, the organization itself does not change. (p. 10). The
constant movement of people within organizations also adds to the frustration associated
with measuring learning. Teams and business systems change faster than our timelines
for measuring learning. By the time the educators or consultants begin to measure
progress, the learners have changed and, often, so has the business goal.
Recommendations for the Field of Adult Education
1. Educators need to assist managers and adult learners bv developing tools and
interventions that assess the gap between what specific employees need to know and
228
what is available within the organizations knowledge repositories.
To help managers facilitate learning within organizations, educators will need to
become conversant and knowledgeable about computer systems and networks that could
support learning. The results of focused assessments could be used in the development of
individualized learning plans that identify the internal resources available to address the
skill or knowledge gap. While the information technology systems make it possible for
learners to better manage their own learning, the same systems allow the human
resources department to continuously monitor the skills available in the organization as
compared to the skills needed to meet the organization's business goals. To address
organizational forgetting, adult educators need to look at how to facilitate team learning
and how to capture learning in organizations where team members change frequently or
are not physically located in the organization i.e. telecommuters.
2. Educators and consultants need to train managers in. not iust the importance of
environments that are risk free for learners, but in how to establish and maintain
safe environments for open and honest dialog. Educators also need to develop
interventions to help organizations implement learning initiatives aimed at improving
the self-esteem and assertiveness of managers who, without questioning their
underlying assumptions, acquiesce to the will of others.
Educators and consultants often set the stage for open and honest dialog by
establishing ground-rules and reviewing the principles for engaging in meaningful dialog.
These safe spaces should not be so artificial, inauthentic, or academically technical that
229
they cannot be sustained without the assistance of behavioral theorists and business
consultants. Occasionally, educators or consultants impose elaborate or complex
processes on a group to help draw out reluctant participants or to surface sensitive or
difficult issues. In those instances, the group may become too dependent on external
facilitators and avoid difficult discussions when the facilitators are not there. Or, the
group may question and discredit the value of conversations and dialog that occur in
artificially created environments.
It is not enough that organizations become aware of the cultural norms that prevent
openness and forthright discussions, managers need to challenge ingrained patterns of
behavior in themselves and others - behaviors that are obsequious or overly deferential in
nature consequently limiting the flow of ideas. Adult educators and managers need to
uncover the underlying source driving these behaviors; whether they are the result of
social and cultural development, anxiety induced by organizational norms, or
dysfunctional relationships between individuals.
3. Constancy in team membership and business routines is not typical in organizations
like Acme, therefore educators need to address how to sustain learning without
sacrificing previous gains or slowing the groups learning momentum when
membership in the team or the organization changes.
As businesses continue to look for ways to share intellectual resources, employees are
often shifted from one team to another to distribute and leverage skills, knowledge, and
valuable lessons learned throughout the organization. If organizations expect these
230
dynamic teams to be high performers, managers and team leaders need sophisticated
facilitation skills to maximize learning in teams that have virtual members and transitory
members.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research
1. Based on the findings from this study, the researcher concludes that there is a lack of
connection between the various levels of organizational learning at Acme and the
organizations knowledge management systems.
As a tool for facilitating learning, the managers in this study were both critical of and
impressed by the voluminous data available from their knowledge management systems.
They were critical because they often didnt trust the quality of the data; but, they were
impressed because they believed their knowledge management systems have the potential
to provide valuable information that could facilitate continuous improvement in their
business practices and organizational learning.
Several participants mentioned that an outcome of the widespread availability of
communications and information technology is that more and more networks are linked
to other networks. They alluded to their frustration with being able to remain current in
their own areas of expertise while also staying abreast of emerging opportunities. Experts
believe the pressure to acquire vast amounts of information just because of its availability
is becoming an end in itself - essentially disregarding the quality of the information in
231
those repositories. The findings from this study indicate the senior managers at Acme
generally agree with experts in the field who argue that computers are merely tools,
however great their information-processing capabilities may be. One participant felt that
information technology has basically been captured by the financial people. In his
words, the information technology was still at a very primitive stage as far as being a
tool for knowledge management.
2. Based on the lack of findings related to self-directed learning for the purpose of
advancing the collective knowledge of the organization, the researcher concludes
that these highly educated senior managers, most of whom have engineering and
technology backgrounds, view themselves as managers of other peoples learning
rather than viewing themselves as learners in a learning organization.
In this study, failure to leam was often associated with not having access to how
others solved a problem or lack of corporate memory. The lack of sharing information
face to face and through effective use of knowledge management systems was blamed
more often than not as the reason for repeating mistakes. Research has shown that
structures and systems must be created to ensure that knowledge is captured and shared
for use in the organizations memory (Watkins and Marsick, 1996).
Generally, participants in this study all agreed that organizational learning was
heavily dependent upon creating an environment where individual and team learning
could be dispersed throughout the organization. Nevertheless, there was overwhelming
evidence that members of the senior management team were frustrated or disappointed by
232
the slow progress or lack of progress toward becoming a learning organization. Perhaps,
Carol Dweck's research on learning across the life span (1999) and her theories (1998)
about how human character traits influence the way people make decisions and use
information could provide insight into why the adults in this study appeared to make poor
decisions in light of the information available - decisions that some felt led to repeating
the same mistakes over and over.
As indicated by the data from the interviews, at the time of the research, the
managers at Acme were experiencing frustration with the time it takes to develop their
own internal human resources in a very dynamic marketplace. In the responses to the
questions about the impact of organizational learning on individual learning, they
expressed concern that organizational learning takes a lot of time and practice. The data
also revealed a lack of interest in self-directed learning that could benefit the
organization. Only two participants could describe situations where they had
intentionally set out to leam something that could be shared with the rest of the
management team. The managers were, however, strong advocates of learning and
providing others with the opportunity to grow and develop for the benefit of the
organization.
The data also revealed that the managers believed an individual's or team's
learning goals can be a moving target. That is, the learning goals required to achieve
business goals often change before the impact of the current learning initiative can be
determined. Consequently, managers were increasing their dependence on their
233
information technology and knowledge management systems to make up for the shortfall
in human ability to implement new learning and adapt continuously to changes.
3. As a result of the increasing use of e-mail and the lack of face-to-face meetings that
help provide the common context for understanding the organization, there are
unacknowledged teams of learners who informally share ideas and information
separate from the main organization. These informal virtual teams have a culture of
their own.
About one-third of the managers in the study do not work at the headquarters on a
regular basis. They dont see each other on a daily basis, and often remain at their desks
when they are in the building. Some managers rarely come to the headquarters. In
addition to offering flex time, the organization has offices at the university, the
community college, and two managers work in distant cities although they dial in daily to
connect with the organization via e-mail and voice mail. The managers operate in an era
of telecommuters and geographically dispersed teams. One participant said, part of the
challenge to the organization is to maintain the human touch, the human interaction. . .
The lack of collaboration and esprit de corps also exists among managers who are
co-located in the building but who manage different departments. Without exception, the
managers expressed interest in building a more cohesive and collaborative management
team. However, in the interviews, the managers described cultural differences between
departments that created barriers to collaboration and systems thinking. The managers,
as department leaders, had created very distinctive cultures within their respective
234
departments that some felt were not in keeping with the overall culture as described in the
mission and vision statements of the organization.
The literature is just beginning to address how to facilitate learning involving
virtual teams and communities of practice that have no physical presence in the
organization (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; ODell and Grayson, 1998; Davenport, 1997 ;
Negroponte, 1995). These invisible teams have learning dynamics that are just beginning
to be acknowledged - much less understood.
As a result of these three conclusions the researcher makes the following three
recommendations:
1. Future researchers need to answer questions related to how learning is enhanced nr
impeded bv the proliferation of knowledge management systems which are critical to
sharing information and lessons learned within the organization.
As the pace at which new products and services are introduced, so will the need to
generate and diffuse knowledge, deliver training, and share information. It is not known
whether education programs that are delivered over the internet or a corporate intranet are
effective. Future researchers will need to answer questions such as, how effective is
technology in delivering information anywhere anytime to adult learners in a business
setting? In consulting organizations where relationships are key success factors how can
managers leverage those relationships among their colleagues if they are members of
virtual teams? How can managers be assured that their knowledge or business
practices are similar to the best practices of their colleagues when they rarely see those
235
colleagues?
Managers in learning organizations need to understand how learning in transferred
and retained when employees who primarily telecommute must rely on computer
simulations or intemet-based training for skill development. Managers need a tool or
process that measures the gap between knowledge and expert skills routinely practiced in
the workplace as compared to what is being captured in the information systems that
store and distribute knowledge. Then, educators and consultants can more effectively
address methods for closing the gap between employees best practices and lessons stored
in knowledge management systems.
The quantity of information available at ones desktop or laptop computer is virtually
immeasurable. The growing use of corporate intranets - internal knowledge and data
sharing systems that make it possible for employees to dial into their companys
computer network from almost any location at any time to retrieve or input information
are examples of the proliferation of modem information repositories. Information in a
data base or knowledge repository will require structuring and handling by educators to
make it useful as a source of learning. Managers will need curriculum designers and
other education specialists to convert raw information to a teachable format in flexible
modules or short courses that are readily adaptable to learners who are typically not in a
classroom.
Researchers need to seek answers regarding the implications for organizational
learning and the culture of the organization when people have continuous access to the
236
knowledge systems via e-mail, voice mail, cell phones, pagers, and all the emerging
communications networks such as internets, intranets, and extranets.
2. Future researchers could conduct a more narrowly focused study that sheds light on
organizational learning and knowledge management in specific types of organizations
e.g.. expert organizations, or engineering consulting firms.
As this study progressed, some of the attitudes related to personal mastery and
individual learning raised questions about how managers who are trained as engineers
view life-long learning. For example, is there a culture among engineers with deep
technical knowledge that limits their interest in more broad-based self-directed learning?
Does years of training in a highly specialized discipline influence attitudes and behaviors
related to sharing information and knowledge across disciplines? Is there an unspoken
professional culture among engineers and other experts that values performance over
learning? If so, how does it influence personal judgement and organizational learning?
In a globally competitive world where customers have come to expect almost
instant gratification, managers are desperate for faster and better solutions from their
employees and, especially, their knowledge management systems. However, managers
are quickly realizing that even the best knowledge management systems are only as
effective as the organizational culture and human relationships that create and sustain
those systems. What is known and practiced by the managers and employees is often very
different from what is known and captured in the information systems.
237
3. People who primarily communicate with their colleagues via e-mail, do not
experience the culture of the organization in the same wav as their colleagues who are
physically located in the organizations building or facility.
Future researchers need to answer how organizational learning occurs in
organizations where the employees do not share a common space? What are the
implications for learning in teams where the participants rarely see each other, but are
highly dependent on each other for specific expertise or engagements with the customer?
As more and more organizations are looking to develop multimedia learning
systems for their internal learning needs, educators need to improve their understanding
of how adults learn in virtual learning environments that are physically isolated from the
organizations. Multiple coexisting learning communities are becoming commonplace
within organizations - virtual learning communities populated by people who typically
meet and interact in cyberspace; communities of practice populated by people with
similar skills; and, traditional formal and informal learning communities populated by
people who share ideas face-to-face in meetings, standing around the coffee machine, or
at lunch. All communities of learners could potentially contribute to organizational
learning, but they dont always share a common context for learning as it relates to how
they experience the culture of the organization.
The effectiveness of teams who collaborate on projects and leam from each other
often depends on the quality of the relations among and between team members. The
very idea of some people being in the organization while others are outside implies
238
differences in the type and quality of their relationships. To facilitate individual and
organizational learning, educators need to understand the dynamics of these types of
relationships.
Assumptions
The researcher had several assumptions going into the research that shaped the
research questions. The researcher assumed that in organizations undergoing significant
change, educators need to facilitate and accelerate the adjustment of managers in order to
optimize their performance. That assumption proved to be partially substantiated as a
result of this research. First, it was true that managers perceived themselves as not fully
prepared to handle the speed and volume of change that occurs in organizations.
Nevertheless, the researcher was surprised to discover that most of the managers
perceived significant change as a constant condition in most organizations. Contrary to
the researcher's assumption that it is important for educators to accelerate the adjustment
of managers in order to help them effectively cope with significant change, the managers
prefer to rely more on technical systems than their intellectual ability or emotional
stability to cope with change. They did not perceive themselves as needing help as much
as they perceived that technology needed to be deployed in such a way that they could
rely on knowledge management systems to offset weaknesses in human resources.
The researcher assumed the managers would view their organizational learning
experiences at Acme different from their experiences in large fortune 500 organizations.
239
In describing organizational learning at Acme, several participants recalled the flavor-of-
the-month syndrome that was typical at larger organizations, but most felt Acme was
genuinely trying to become a learning organization.
It was also assumed that corporate educators can make a difference by designing
and delivering programs that take into consideration managers perceptions about
learning organizations. That assumption still holds true in the mind of the researcher, and
is further substantiated by recent events at Acme that are described later in this chapter.
Finally, it was assumed that there were some norms and conditions that would
support organizational learning as well as conditions that would interfere with achieving
the learning goals of the organization. That assumption was affirmed by the participants
in this study. The managers responses to the critical incidents and in the interviews
described numerous behaviors that facilitate learning as well as behaviors that impede
organizational learning at Acme.
Closing Remarks
Similar to many consulting firms, Acme is in a constant state of change as it
attempts to be responsive to the changing needs of its customers. Organizational learning
that leverages the power of knowledge management systems is critical to Acmes growth
and development. The ubiquitous nature of communications technology and its power to
facilitate as well as impede human interactions makes this research important for those
240
who want to better understand the intersection between organizational learning and
The experiences that shape the findings in this study are specific to a group of
managers in one organization. The participants in the study were a team of very well-
educated and experienced managers with a concentration of highly technical engineers,
and scientists. Most of the participants were relatively well-versed in organizational
learning theories and knowledge management systems. As such, their contributions were
not only very articulate as compared to a random group of managers, but also their ideas
on how to apply knowledge management systems are influenced by their backgrounds in
technical fields. The researcher believes there are many small organizations (less than
2S0 employees) that are heavily dependent on knowledge management systems for which
this research could be valuable in gaining insight on organizational learning processes
during periods of significant change.
As an organization, Acme is currently challenged to overcome barriers to learning
that are deeply embedded in the cultural norms of the organization. However, challenges
not withstanding, based on the data and the perceptions of the managers, Acme is
performing and behaving more like a learning organization in 1998 as compared to 1992
when the senior managers began their journey. Today, Acme routinely shares detailed
information about financial data and external factors influencing the direction of the
organization. Acme has specific goals related to becoming a learning organization in the
strategic plan. Progress toward meeting those goals are monitored at the highest levels of
241
the organization on a quarterly basis and shared at town hall meetings. With varying
degrees of success, the managers are working with consultants who have developed a
mentoring and coaching program. There is a fledgling program being implemented
aimed at orienting new members to the management team. Unfortunately, the pace of
change and the attention to the bottom line, still leaves little time for managers to practice
and critically reflect on the ideas contained in the articles that they routinely share with
each other.
The membership of the team has stabilized, but some members are still referred to
as the newcomers. There has been no effort made to teach the skills of effective dialog to
the newer managers and some managers still make jokes about being attacked in
meetings when they present new ideas. Although there have been no discussions about e-
mail etiquette, there is strong evidence of increasing the use of telecommunications
technology to promote learning and to share information without sacrificing personal
interactions and relationships. The organization is creating an intranet to further support
and promote learning. The senior managers are playing a pivotal role in implementing
many of these new initiatives. In the words of the CEO, Acme is getting critical mass in
purposeful motion - moving steadily up the organizational learning curve.
The data indicate that managers at Acme have more than a superficial
understanding of what it means to be a learning organization. More importantly, they
recognize the learning imperative for contemporary organizations. They support the
notion of an organic view of the organization as a living, breathing entity versus the more
242
traditional view of organizations as a collection of people interacting with technology
and data to achieve measurable results based only on revenue generation. The vice
president of one division used a metaphor for the learning organization that underscores
Senges recent views that managers need to think less like managers and more like
biologists (Webber, 1999). In closing, the researcher wants to caution educators and
managers to take special care with introducing new students or employees into their
learning communities. In describing the experience of new people being hired into a
learning organization, one manager referred to them as seeds,
If you bring in new people to the organization you are
bringing in seeds. So some of them may grow which may add
learning to the organization. Some of them may not because they
fall on ground thats hard and doesnt get as much moisture, or
gets too much sun, or too little sun and that sort of thing. Whereas,
if you now have a conscious effort to improve the learning in the
organization then, if you have a culture and you have a
management [team] that makes a conscious effort to encourage
learning in the organization then you go out and say now were
going to apply fertilizer; were going to cultivate; were taking
away the weeds; the roadblocks; were going to do some things to
try to insure that when we bring seeds in that you can get a healthy
final results. They grow faster. More of them survive to adulthood.
243
Bibliography
Alavi, M., Yoo, Y. and Vogel, D. Using Information Technology to Add Value to
Management education. Academy of Management Journal, 1997 ,40, 1310-
1333.
Argyris, C. Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning.
Needham Hts., MA: Simon and Schuster, 1990.
Argyris, C. Teaching Smart People How to Learn Harvard Business Review, 1991,99
-109.
Argyris, C. Knowledge For Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational
Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Argyris, C. Good Communication That Blocks Learning. Harvard Business Review.
July/Aug 1994.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. San
Francisco: Jossey - Bass, 197 8.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. Organizational Learning II: Theory. Method, and Practice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996.
Bennis, W. On Becoming a Leader. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1989.
Bicklen, S. and Bogden, R. Qualitative Research for Education. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, 1982.
Blickstein, S. Does Training Pay Off? Across the Board, June 1996 v33 n6 pi6 (5).
Bogden, R. and Bicklen, S. Qualitative Research for Education. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, 1982.
Boydell, T. Burgoyne, J. and Pedler, M. The Learning Company: A strategy for
Sustainable Development London: McGraw Hill, 1991.
Brooks, A. K. Critically Reflective Learning Within A Corporate Context. Unpublished
Dissertation, Columbia University, 1989.
244
Brookfield, S. D. Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1986.
Brookfield, S D. Developing Critical Thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987 .
Brookfield, S.D. Using Critical Incidents. Unpublished paper. Columbia University,
1990.
Brookfield, S. D. The Development of Critical Reflection in Adulthood; Foundations of
a Theory of Adult Learning. New Education, 1991, 13/1.
Brookfield, S. D. The Getting of Wisdom: What Critically Reflective Teaching is and
How it Happens, in Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1995.
Brookfield, S. D. Using the Literature of Critical Reflection, in Becoming a Critically
Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.
Burgoyne, J., Pedler, M. and Boydell, T. The Learning Company: A strategy for
Sustainable Development. London: McGraw Hill, 1991.
Burke, W. Organization Development: A Process of Learning and Changing. 2ndEd.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1992.
Burke, W. and Litwin, G. A Causal model of Organizational Performance and Change
Journal of Management, 18, 1992,523-545.
Burke, W.W. Organizational Development: A Process of Learning and Changing.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1994.
Caffarella, R. S. and Merriam, S. B. Learning in Adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1991.
Chawla and Renesch
Choo, C. W. Information Management for an Intelligent Organization: The Art of
Environmental Scanning. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 1995.
Choo, C. W., 1991. Towards an Information Model of Organizations. The Canadian
Journal of Information Science 16, no. 3 September, 1991 32-62.
Choo, C. W. and Auster, E. Scanning the Business Environment: Acquisition and Use of
Information by Managers, in Annual Review of Information Science and
245
Technology. Editor, M. E. Williams. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
1993.
Collins, M. Critical Adult Education: Outlines of a Transformative Pedagogy, in Adult
Education as Vocation. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Cooperrider, D. L. and Srivastva, S. The Emergence of the Egalitarian Organization.
Human Relations, 1986,39,683-7 24.
Cooperrider, D. L., Srivastva, S., and Associates. Appreciative Management and
Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
Cranton, P. Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1994.
Cusack, P. A Study of Life and Job Experience and the Ability to Adapt to Change in the
Workplace. Unpublished dissertation, Columbia University, 1991.
Cyert, R.M. and March, J. G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1963.
Davenport, T. H. Information Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997 .
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What
They Know. Boston: Harvard Business school Press, 1998
Dechant, K. Managing Change In The Workplace: Learning Strategies Of Managers.
Unpublished dissertation, Columbia University, 1989.
De Geus, A. Planning as Learning. Harvard Business Review. 1988 (2), 7 0-7 4.
De Geus, A. The Learning Company. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997 .
Dewey, J. Experience and Education. New York: The McMillan Company, 1938.
Diamond, M. Resistance to Change: A Psychoanalytic Critique of Argyris and Schons
Contributions to Organization Theory and Intervention. Journal of Management
Studies. 23:5 September 1986, 543 -561.
Drucker, P. F. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York:
Harper and Row, 1985.
246
Dumaine, B. What the Leaders of Tomorrow See. Fortune, 120 (1), July 1989,48-62.
Dweck, C. Motivation and Self-Regulation Across the Life Span. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1998
Dweck, C. Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation. Personality, and Development.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, 1999.
Finger, M. and Woolis, D. Organizational Learning, the Learning Organization and
Adult Education, in Hyams, M., Armstrong, J. and Anderson, E. (Eds).
Proceedings from the 35th Annual Adult Education Research Conference.
Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, 1994.
Fiols, C. and Lyles, M. Organizational Learning. Academy of Management Review, 10
(4), 1985, 803 -813.
Flanagan, J. The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51 (4), 1954, 327
-358.
Garvin, D. A. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review, July -
August, 7 8-91.
Grayson, Jr., C. J. and ODell, C. If Only We Knew What We Know. New York: Free
Press, 1998.
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation
Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1981.
Hagel, J. and Armstrong, A. Net Gain: Expanding Markets Through Virtual
Communities. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1997 .
Harvard Business Review, Special Issue Knowledge Management, July - August 1997 .
Huberman, A. M. and Miles, M. B. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd Edition. Thousand
Oaks: Sage, 1994.
Jarvis, P., Adult Learning in the Social Context. London: Croom-Helm, 1987 .
Jorgensen, D. L., Participant Observation: A Method for Human Studies. Newbury Park:
Sage, 1989.
Kegan, R., In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modem Life. Cambridge:
247
Harvard University Press, 1994.
Keough, M. and Meen, D. E. Creating the Learning Organization: An Interview With
Peter Senge, in the McKinsey Quarterly, 1992 No. 1.
Kim, D. A Framework and Methodology for Linking Individual and Organizational
Learning: Application in TQM and Product Development. Unpublished
Dissertation MIT Sloan School of Management, 1993.
Kim, D. The Link Between Individual and Organizational Learning. Sloan
Management Review, Fall 1993, Volume 35, Number 1. 3-50.
Kim, D. Toward Learning Organizations: Integrating Total Quality Control and
Systems Thinking. Unpublished manuscript, Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 1990.
Kim, D. Total Quality and System Dynamics: Complementary Approaches to
Organizational Learning Systems Thinker, 1990.
Kleiner, A. et al. The Dance of Change: The Challenges of sustaining Momentum in
Learning Organizations. New York: Currency Doubleday, 1999.
Kline, P. and Saunders, B. Ten Steps to a Learning Organization. Arlington, VA: Great
Ocean Publishers, 1993.
Knowles, M. The Modem Practice of Adult Education. 2nd ed. Chicago: Associated
Press, 1980.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of
Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test. Organization Science, 6 (I),
1995,67 -92.
Kolb, D. Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences, in The Modem American
College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.
Kolb, D. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.
Lant, T. and Mezias, S. Managing Discontinuous Change: A Simulation Study of
Organizational Learning and Entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal,
11, 1990, 147 -17 9.
Lekan, D. F. Outplacement Programming: The Facilitation of Adult Learning During
248
Career Transition. Unpublished Dissertation, Columbia University, 1993.
Leonard-Barton, D. Wellsprines of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of
Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1995.
Levitt, B. and March, J., Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14
(3), 1988,319-340.
Lincoln, Y. and Guba E., Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation
Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1981.
Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1985.
Linstone, H. and I. Mitroff. The Challenge of the 21st Centurv: Managing Technology
and Ourselves in a Shrinking World. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York
Press, 1994.
Louis, M.R. A Cultural Perspective on Organizations. Paper presented at the Fortieth
annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 1980, cited in Ott and Shafritz,
1996.
Macaulay, B. A. Perceptions of Effective Adult Learning: A Case-Study Emphasizing
the Views of Part-time Faculty. Ed.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1995.
March, J. G. and Olsen, J.P. The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning Under
Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 5,197 5, 147 -17 1.
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Norway
Universitetsforlaget, 197 6.
March, J. G. and Levitt, B. Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14
(3) 1988, 19-340.
March, J.G. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organizational
Science, 2(1), 1991,7 1-87 .
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. Designing Qualitative Research. Sage: Newbury Park,
CA. 1989.
Marsick, V. The Learning Organization: An Integrative Vision of HRD. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Winter 1994.
249
Marsick, V. and Watkins, K. Sculpting the Learning Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1993.
Marsick, V. and Watkins, K. In Action: Creating the Learning Organization. Volume I.
Alexandria, VA: ASTD, 1996.
Marsick, V. and Watkins, K. Organizational Learning: Review of Research.
Unpublished manuscript, 1997 .
Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1954.
McMillan, J. and Schumacher, S. Research in Education. 3rd Edition. Harper and Collins:
New York. 1993.
Meen, D. and Keough, M. Creating the Learning Organization: an Interview with Peter
Senge. in the McKinsey Quarterly, 1992, No. 1.
Meister, J. Corporate Universities: Lessons in Building a World-Class Workforce. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1997 .
Merriam, S. B. Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988.
Merriam, S. B. and Caffarella, R. S. Learning in Adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1991.
Mezias, S. and Lant, T. Managing Discontinuous Change: A Simulation Study of
Organizational Learning and Entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal,
11,1990,147 -17 9.
Mezirow, J. How Critical Reflection Triggers Transformative Learning, in J. Mezirow
and Associates, Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1990a.
Mezirow, J. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1990b.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd Edition. Thousand
Oaks: Sage, 1994.
Negroponte, N. Being Digital. New York: Knopf, 1995.
Newton, R. and Rudestam, K. Surviving Your Dissertation. Newbury Park: Sage, 1992.
250
Noer, D. M. Healing The Wounds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Nonaka, I. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization
Science, Volume 5 February 1994, 14-37 .
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford,
1995.
Nussbaum, D. For Many Small Businesses, the Labor Is Shallow. New York Times,
August 24, 1997 , pg. FI 1.
ODell, C. and Grayson, Jr., C. J. If Only We Knew What We Know. New York: Free
Press, 1998.
Olsen, J. P. and March, J. G., The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning
Under Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3, 197 5, 147 -17 1.
Olsen, J. P. and March, J. G., Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Norway
Universitetsforlaget, 197 6.
Ott, J. S. and Shafritz, J. M. Classics of Organization Theory. Fourth Edition, New York:
Harcourt Brace, 1996.
Pasmore, W. Creating Strategic Change: Designing the Flexible High-Performing
Organization. New York: Wiley, 1994.
Patton, Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Second Edition, Newbury
Park: Sage, 1990.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. The Learning Company: A Strategy for
Sustainable Development. London: McGraw Hill, 1991.
Pinchot, G. Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper and Row, 1986.
Pinchot, G. and Pinchot, E. The End of Bureaucracy and the Rise of the Intelligent
Organization. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, 1994.
Prokesch, Steven E. Unleashing the Power of Learning: An Interview with British
Petroleums John Browne. Harvard Business Review September - October, 1997
147 -168.
Prusak, L. and Davenport, T.H. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What
251
They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998.
Quinn, J. B. Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for
Industry. New York: The Free Press, 1992.
Quinn, S. Deep Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Rifkin, J. The End of Work. New York: Tarcher and Putnam, 1995.
Rogers, R. W. The Psychological Contract of Trust. Executive Excellence. July 1994.
Rossman, G. and Marshall, C. Designing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage, 1989.
Rudestam, K. and Newton, R. Surviving Your Dissertation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
1992.
Schein, E. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd edition. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1992.
Schumacher, S. and McMillan, J. Research in Education. 3rd Edition Harper and Collins:
New York. 1993.
Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
New York: Doubleday Currency, 1990a.
Senge, P. M. The Leaders New Work: Building Learning Organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 52(1), 1990b, 7 -23.
Senge, P. M. The Learning Organization Made Plain: An Interview With Peter Senge.
Galagan P.A. (Ed.). Training and Development, October, 1991,37 -44.
Senge, P. M. Building Learning Organizations. Journal for Quality and Participation,
March 1992.
Senge, P. M. You Cant Get There from Here: Why Systems Thinking is Inseparable
from Learning Organizations. April 1992.
Senge, P. M. Personal Transformation. Executive Excellence. Jan. 1994.
Schein, E. Organizational Culture and Leadership 2nd Edition San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1992.
252
Schein, E. Process Consultation Vol. I Its Role in Organization Development. Reading
MA: Addison-Wesley, 1988.
Shafritz, J. M. and Ott, J. S. Classics of Organization Theory. 4th Edition, New York:
Harcourt Brace 1996.
Shrivastava, P. A Typology of Organizational Learning Systems. Journal of
Management Studies, 1983,20, 7 -29.
Shrivastava, P. Internet Pedagogy and How to Convert Your Courses for the Internet.
at http://www.environmentalintel.com/socrates, 1997 .
Shrivastava, P. Critical Mass Benefits of Web-Based Teaching Paper to be presented
at the Stop Surfing - Start Teaching National Conference, University of North
Carolina, Myrtle Beach, February 22-25, 1998.
Srivastva, S., and Cooperrider, D. L. The Emergence of the Egalitarian Organization.
Human Relations, 1987 , 39, N8 683-7 24.
Srivastva, S. and Cooperrider, D. L. and Associates. Appreciative Management and
Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
Stewart, T., Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. New York:
Doubleday, 1997 .
Sveiby, K. E., The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge
Based Assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1997 .
Takeuchi, H. and Nonaka, I. The Knowledge Creatine Company. New York: Oxford,
1995.
Tapscott, D., The Digital Economy. New York: McGraw Hill, 1996.
Venkatraman, N. IT-Enabled Business Transformation: From Automation to Business
Scope Re-definition. Sloan Management Review, 1994,35,2,7 3-88.
Waddell, J. R. Too Close for Comfort? Supervision, July 1995.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. Sculpting the Learning Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1993.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. In Action: Creating the Learning Organization. Volume I.
253
Alexandria, VA: ASTD, 1996.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. Organizational Learning: Review of Research.
Unpublished manuscript, 1997 .
Webber, A. Interview with Peter Senge: Beyond the Learning Organization. Fast
Company, May 1999. 17 8 - 186.
Weick, K. The Teaching Experience as Learning in Public. In R. Andre and P. Frost
(Eds.) Researchers Hooked on Teaching. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,
1997 .
West, P. The Learning Organization: Losing the Luggage in Transit? Journal of
European Industrial Training, 1994, vl8nl 1. 1993.
Wheatly, M. Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1992.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management.
Academy of Management Review, (14), 361 - 383.
Yin, Case Study Methodology: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984.
Zander, U., and Kogut, B. Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of
Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test. Organization Science, 6 (1),
1995, 67 -92.
Ziegler, M. F. The Learning Organization: Awakening. Unpublished dissertation.
Columbia University, 1995
Zuboff, S. In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York: Basic Books, 1988.
254
Appendices
A. Critical Incident Questions
1. Think back to a particular problem or opportunity that which resulted in
significant learning for you as an individual as well as the management team
and/or the organization. Briefly describe how your learning was transferred to
the group and/or the whole organization.
Write down, in no more than half a page, a brief description of the incident.
Make sure you include the following details: (1) when and where it occurred, (2)
who was involved (roles and job titles rather than personal identities may be
given here), and (3) what were the conditions that facilitated or promoted the
individual learning as well as the team and organizational learning.
2. Think back to a particular problem or opportunity that resulted in significant
learning for you but no significant learning for the team and/or the organization.
Write down, in no more than half a page, a brief description of the incident.
Make sure you include the following details: (1) when and where it occurred, (2)
who was involved (roles and job titles rather than personal identities may be
given here), and (3) what were the conditions that prevented or impeded the team
learning or organizational learning. You may use the back of this page.
B. Interview Schedule
255
1) How do you define or characterize organizational learning ? [Probe: Give an
example of organizational learning.] Can you describe an example of
organizational learning, that has occurred at this company?
2) Acme, is developing teams throughout the organization. How do you
distinguish team learning from organizational learning.
3) True or False: All organizations need to be learning organizations. Explain
your reasoning.
4) In a company like Acme, what are the implications of organizational learning
during times of significant change? Put another way, does organizational
learning effect the company during times of significant change? If so, how?
5) What kinds of behaviors support or impede organizational learning?
6) We hear so much about change in the workplace, re-engineering, downsizing,
continuous learning, flexibility, adaptability etc. Reflecting back on your own
professional career, how would you advise a young person just embarking on
a professional career if you were asked how can I assure a solid and
rewarding career with my new company?
Is that the same advice you would have given 5 years ago?
7 ) My last question: How could this organization stimulate a learning
environment that helps managers deal with significant change?
Thank you. Let me know if you would like a copy of the transcribed interview.
256
C. Document Summary Form
Document # __________
Date received or picked up:_________
Name or description of document:
Event or contact, if any, with which document is associated:
Significance or importance of document:
Brief summary of contents:
If Document is central or crucial to a particular contact (e.g. a meeting agenda,
newspaper clipping discussed in an interview), make a copy and include with write-up.
Otherwise, put in document file.
D. Participant Profile Data Collection Tool
Name
257
Demographics:
1.Gender
a. Female
b. Male
2. Age
a. 32 or under
b. 33 - 39
c. 40-46
d. 47 -53
e. 54-60
f. 61-66
g. 66 - or over
3. Race or Ethnicity_
Job History:
4. Current job title
5. Number of years in current position :
. Department _
In Company On CLC
Educational Background: (check all that apply)
6. Associates
Bachelor _
Masters _
Maters
Doctorate
Field of Study
Field of Study.
Field of Study
Field of Study
Field of Study
Other:
258
E. Organization Chart of Participants in the Study
Figure I
Vice President, Director and
Manager
Participants #9, #14, #15
Electronic Commerce
Division
Director and Manager of
Operations
University-Based Applied
Research and Automated
Equipment Division
Participants # 5, #7
Vice Presidents and Div. Mgrs
Sales Division and
Manufacturing, Environmental,
and Plastics Consulting Services
Participants #1,#3,#4, #10
CEO, CFO, Directors of Information Systems, Marketing,
Human Resources, and Public (Govt) Relations
Participants # 2, #6,#8, #11,#12, #13,
Corporate Operations
F. Review of Literature
Author:
Date
Title
Publisher
Pages
Key points or Theory
G. Types and Sources of Information Needed
260
Table 4
Literature
Review
Inter
view
Critical
Incident
Document
Analysis
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ABOUT ACME, INC.
History of the Acme, Inc. X X X
Profiles of participants, roles, and
responsibilities.
X X X
Products, services, and customers. X X
Systems for promoting learning in the
organization.
X X X
Organizational learning
Differentiating individual, team and org.
learning.
X X X
Why organizations need to learn -
general/specific.
X X X
Goals of learning organizations. X X X
Factors that enhance or impede organizational
learning
X X X X
Transferring Learning from individual to Group
to Org.
Factors that facilitate or impede transfer of
learning from one holder to another.
X X X X
Managers perceptions about the impact of
X X X
Systems for developing and sharing intellectual
capital.
X X X
261
H. Participant Consent Form
I hereby consent to participate in this study which I understand to be a part of a
dissertation to be submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY
I understand that the information provided by me will be limited to this use or
other research-related usage authorized by Teachers College, Columbia University.
If I have any additional questions, I will contact the researcher or his faculty
advisor at Teachers College, Columbia University whose name and address has been
provided to me.
I am aware that my opinions may be utilized for research purposes but that I will
not be identified by name or employer in this or any other research to which I have
contributed.
I understand that my participation is voluntary and I may discontinue
participation at any time. I have the right to express my concerns or complaints to the
Institutional Review Committee at Teachers College, Columbia University.
Participants Name (Print)
___ Date:
Signature
Researcher
Advisor: Dr. Philip Fey 212-67 8-37 60
Department of Organization and Leadership
525 West 120th Street, Box 50
New York, NY 10027
I. Participant Interview Response Coding Matrix
Table 5 Participant Interview Response Coding Matrix
262
Code
Participant
I
Org. Lm
II OL&
Change
ill
Sys
Thnk
IV
OL&
ind
V
Tech
VI
Aids
VII
barrier
1. 7 7 / 7 ' 7
7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7
13
2. 7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 / 7
7 7 7
7
7 7 7
7 7 7
7 7 7
7
\77'77~
7777
7777
77
33
3. 7777 7 7
7 7
7

7 7 7

7 7 7
7 7
77s7
7777
7 7 7 7
7 7
29
4. 7 7 7 7 7 7
7 7 7
7 7 "

7 / 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7
31
5. 7777
7 7 7
777
7
7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7777
7777
7777
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
36
6. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7
7777"
7777
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7
34
7. 7 7 7 7 7 "
7 7 7 7
7 7
7 7 7 /
7 7 7 7
7 7
15
8. V ' 7 7 7~ 7 7 "
7
7 7777"
7 7 7
'7777"
777
17
9. / 7777
7777
~7777~
7777
14
10. 7 TVS
7 7
7
7 7777
7
7777~
7
19
U
7777
7777
777
~7777~
7 7 7 7
7 7 7
21
12 7 7 7
777' 7 7 7 15
13 7 7 7 7 "
7 7 7 7
7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7
7
14 7 77 ' 7 7 7 7
7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7
19
15 7 7 / 7 7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7
7777"
7777
7777
7
37
263
J. Document Coding Matrix
Table 6 Document Coding Matrix
Code
Document Title
1
Org
Lm
ii
OL
&
Cha
nge
III
Sys
Thnk
IV
OL&
ind
V
Tech
VI
Aids
VII
barrie
r
1. Feedback from Acme
Associates All Hands Meeting,
Tuesday January, 1993.

2. Strategic Goal #5
Organizational Development:
Implementation Proposal, VP
Operations 3/4/93

3. [Training Proposal]
Background Perspective, 11/93
y
4. Lighting the Manufacturing
Leadership, Acme Strategic
Plan, 1993 - 94
V
5. Celebration - A 10 Year
Anniversary Retrospective,
1993 -94 Annual Report
6. Charter Acme Operations
Group, January 17 1995
7. Acme Operations Group -

Ideas, beliefs, Values Relating
to Organizational Change and
Development, January 25, 1995
8. Minutes from Management

Team Retreat, September 1995

9. Acme's Organizational
Philosophy, Author Not
Indicated, 1992.

10. Acme Council [Board of

Trustees] Strategic Input,
October 20, 1995

11. Acme Company Operations
Group Norms, August 1995
12. Company Operations Group

Meeting Output, High
Leverage Norms [e-mail]
February 6, 1996

Meeting, and Mini Retreat,
Current State of Company
Operations Group March 26,
1996
~77

Meeting Output, March 5,
1996.
264
Appendix J (cont) Document Coding Matrix
Document Title I
Org.
Lm
II
OL
&
Cha
nge
in
Sys
Thnk
IV
OL &
ind
V
Tech
VI
Aids
VII
barrier
15. Acme Strategic Plan, 1995-
96

16. Annual Report 1997,
Introduction.

17. Acme Key Objectives for
January 1- January 30, 1997

18. Knowledge Management for
Smaller Manufacturers,
Works In Progress, 1998

19. Knowledge Management and
Organizational Learning,
Works In Progress, Author
Anonymous. 1998
20. Acme, Inc.: A Learning

Organization, Works In
Progress, 1998
T " S7"
21. Vision - Acme Operations

Group
~7~'
Total
15 10 9
2
10 37 4
K. Critical Incident Response Coding Matrix
Table 7 Critical Incident Response Coding Matrix
265
Critical
Incident #
II OL&
Change
VII
hairier Org. Lm Tech Aids Sys
Thnk
OL &
ind
7 7 7 7 7 7 7

7 7 7
7 7 7 7 7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7 ----7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
L. Final Analytic Categories and Indicators
266
1. Organizational Learning (OL)
1.1. Changed Behavior
1.2. Not repeating same mistakes
1.3. Learning from mistakes (planned learning)
1.4. Intentional/planned learning
1.5. As distinguished from individual or team learning
2. Impact of OL during significant change
2.1. Rapid response to change
2.2. Synergy among departments or divisions
2.3. People viewed as assets
3. Impact of OL on Individual Learning
3.1. Awareness of value to organization
3.2. Responsibility for career management
3.3. Self-initiated, self-directed learning
4. Systems thinking
4.1. Cross-functional group learning
4.2. Integrated approach to problem solving
4.3. Thinking across organizational boundaries
5. Technology and Knowledge Management Systems
5.1. E-mail
5.2. Intranets
5.3. Voice Mail
5.4. Documenting, Storing, Retrieving lessons learned
5.5. Rapid or efficient dissemination of lessons learned
6. Facilitators of OL
6.1. Behaviors and attitudes (present or lack of)
6.1.1. Openness
6.1.2. Innovation or creativity
6.1.3. Willingness to learn or adapt
6.1.4. Trust
6.1.5. Cooperative/sharing among individuals and departments
6.2. Organizational Culture
267
6.2.1. Reward system
6.2.2. Leadership demonstrates/supports learning
6.2.3. Balance inquiry and advocacy
6.2.4. Time and resources allocated
6.3. External environment
6.3.1. Changes in customer base
6.3.2. Customer demand different type of service
6.3.3. Economic recession/expansion
7 . Barriers OL (Indicators of Lack of following Behaviors)
7 .1. Behaviors and attitudes (present or lack of)
7 .1.1. Openness
7 .1.2. Innovation or creativity
7 .1.3. Willingness to learn or adapt
7 .1.4. Trust
7 .1.5. Cooperative/sharing among individuals and departments
7 .2. Organizational Culture
7 .2.1. Reward system
7 .2.2. Leadership demonstrates/supports learning
7 .2.3. Balance inquiry and advocacy
7 .2.4. Time and resources allocated
7 .3. External environment
7 .3.1. Changes in customer base
7 .3.2. Customer demand different type of service
7 .3.3. Economic recession/expansion

Out 5 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Out 5 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

Youve gotta commit to

7. Acme Operations Group -

8. Minutes from Management

10. Acme Council [Board of

12. Company Operations Group

14. Company Operations Group

20. Acme, Inc.: A Learning

21. Vision - Acme Operations

You might also like