Journal of European Industrial Training

Learning institution to learning organization: Kudos to reflective practitioners

Roland K. Yeo

Article information:

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Roland K. Yeo, (2006),"Learning institution to learning organization", Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 30 Iss 5 pp. 396 - 419
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590610677944
Downloaded on: 17 March 2016, At: 04:32 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2067 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Roland K. Yeo, (2005),"Revisiting the roots of learning organization: A synthesis of the
learning organization literature", The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 Iss 4 pp. 368-382 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470510599145
Darryl Dymock, Carmel McCarthy, (2006),"Towards a learning organization? Employee perceptions", The
Learning Organization, Vol. 13 Iss 5 pp. 525-537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470610680017
Kjell Gronhaug, Robert Stone, (2012),"The learning organization: An historical perspective, the learning
process, and its influence on competitiveness", Competitiveness Review, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 261-275 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10595421211229673

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:540409 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT
30,5

Learning institution to learning

organization
Kudos to reflective practitioners

396
Received September 2005
Revised April 2006
Accepted April 2006

Roland K. Yeo
College of Industrial Management,
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to explore if reflective inquiry and action learning have an
influence on job and organizational effectiveness. A reflective-action learning framework will be used
as a prior theory to illustrate its link to organizational learning.
Design/methodology/approach The case organization is a Singapore higher learning institution.
In-depth interviewing with 50 faculty members and the Deputy Director of academic affairs was
employed to find out more about the practice of reflective-action learning group (RALG) that had been
established for over three years. Additionally, ethnographic observation was used to support and
strengthen empirical evidence.
Findings Key findings reveal that RALG is closely aligned to Kolbs experiential learning cycle
where a series of learning dynamics is involved. For instance, the role of reflection motivates
individuals to shift from single- to double-loop learning, increasing their competence and capacity to
undertake greater challenges. In addition, transferring new knowledge to a modified action increases
the interaction of the learning loops. This way, triple-loop learning may be engaged to enhance the
competitive advantage of individuals and subsequently, the organization.
Research limitations/implications The study has shed light on two underlying principles that
govern the RALG framework: cognitive and behavioral perspectives. These perspectives are closely
linked to the nature of organizational learning, an area that has gained prominence in organizational
research.
Practical implications The linkage between RALG and organizational effectiveness has led to a
gamut of practical implications. For instance, the role of purposeful communication encourages the
divergence of individual learning issues and the convergence of shared thinking. In addition, the
concretization of abstract generalization derived from reflection provides opportunities for greater
team dynamics with a focus on innovation.
Originality/value This paper offers an international perspective illustrating the progressiveness
of an Asian higher learning institution with a global mindset. The study is a unique example of the
success of RALG with specific implications for organizational learning practices in a wider array of
professional contexts. It is believed that the findings will be of value to international researchers and
practitioners in the fields of organizational and human resource development.
Keywords Action learning, Interviews, Organizational effectiveness, Learning organizations, Singapore
Paper type Research paper
Journal of European Industrial
Training
Vol. 30 No. 5, 2006
pp. 396-419
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0590
DOI 10.1108/03090590610677944

Introduction
By three methods we may learn wisdom: first, by reflection, which is noblest; second, by
imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest (Confucius,
551-479 BC ).

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

In todays volatile organizational setting, it is insufficient for employees to merely

handle predictable jobs; they need to be able to manage changes brought about by
internal and external environments (De Loo, 2002; Flood and Romm, 1996). In the
above quote, Chinese philosopher Confucius points out three key ingredients necessary
for survival in these environments: reflecting, imitating and experiencing. Such are the
essences of learning which involves the transferring of tacit to explicit knowledge
through an appropriate action (Cheetham and Chivers, 1998). In the process, individual
mental models will be challenged; assumptions and values will be explicitly
articulated; inter- and intra-group learning networks will be established; and
collectively, organizational learning capacity will be strengthened (Keating et al., 1996).
Like any other setting, learning institutions are in many ways regarded as
organizations as they compete to deliver educational programs that are industry and
economically relevant (Lorange, 1996). Their core business is the provision of
competitive people development programs with other multifaceted strategic alliances
with the industry. Because of this, there has been a shift in the expectation of faculty
members. No longer will faculty members performance be solely evaluated by their
teaching effectiveness; they are required to move with changing times by initiating
industry collaboration, intensifying research through project supervision and being
involved in consultancy work. The internal structure and strategic boundary of any
emerging learning institution have also changed (Wilkins, 2002). Organizational
structure has become flatter with faculty members assuming concurrent roles,
overseeing both the academic and business side of development. Research and
commercial centers have also been established to cater to practice-oriented solutions in
the form of products and services. Hence, the business model of an emerging institution
is one that is closely aligned to a learning organization so that tacit knowledge learnt
will contribute to explicit actionable knowledge, leading to competitive advantage in
the education industry (Johnson and Fauske, 2005).
In order for a learning institution to function like a learning organization, its
constituents need to take time to reflect on their professional practice, learn from their
experiences and design new actions to keep up with the ambiguity of challenges
prevalent in volatile times. It is through the collective effort of individuals that an
organization will run faster than others over time (Ford and Ogilvie, 1996). This paper
presents an example of how a Singapore higher learning institution is gradually being
transformed into a learning organization through an initiative known as
reflective-action learning group (RALG) launched in 2001. The main purpose is to
provide a structured and nurtured platform for staff to examine various issues
associated with teaching and learning effectiveness in the hope that they will become
better teachers, researchers and administrators.
At the point of research, the institution had a total of 19 RALGs based on specific
core subject areas and led by department heads or subject leaders doubling up as
RALG heads. A faculty member will be allocated only one RALG per semester based
on his/her primary core subject identified by the most number of teaching hours per
week. RALG discussion will be held every month, often chaired by RALG heads and
supported by an identified member known as the resource coordinator in each group.

Learning
institution to
organization
397

JEIT
30,5

398

Each meeting will be based on a specific topic in line with a theme set by the Deputy
Director of academic affairs. Over the past three years, three core themes were
identified:
(1) Classroom delivery;
(2) Teaching competency; and
(3) Enhancing student experience.

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

Based on each theme, a series of topics was developed to investigate pressing issues
and brainstorm solutions to overcome them. An example of a topic would be
managing large groups. At times, an RALG would undertake a project to study the
chosen topic in a more focused manner. During the RALG meeting, findings were
reported and views were shared freely.
In order to stay competitive in the education industry, the quality of professional
practices demonstrated by all faculty members must be outstanding. This naturally
hinges on the changing demands of todays educators. Not only do they have to fulfill
their core teaching role, they are required to assume such multifaceted roles as
research, project supervision, student advising and industry collaboration. The
fundamental challenge for educators is to embark on continuous learning as part of
professional growth. Through the development of RALGs, it is hoped that the case
institution will ultimately be transformed into a learning organization with the
capacity to meet rapid challenges of the internal and external environments.
Overview of the literature
The subject of organizational learning has in recent years been discussed through an
interdisciplinary approach. Cognitive and behavioral theories to a large extent
underpin a variety of frameworks in the organizational learning literature (Kolb, 1984;
Senge, 1990). It is believed that in order to study the process of learning involving the
complexity of interaction between human beings, these two perspectives are necessary
to support the theoretical and empirical logic of organizational learning research. The
theoretical framework of RALG, as illustrated in Figure 1, will serve as a prior theory
governing this research. This framework is predicated on Kolbs (1984) experiential

Figure 1.
A reflective-action
learning framework

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

learning theory supported by cognitive and behavioral theories about individuals

involved in meaningful organizational activities (e.g. sharing, formulating, testing and
executing). Experiential learning theory places emphasis on the critical role of
reflection based on a contextual experience from which something meaningful can be
learnt. However, a fundamental willingness is required to unlearn and relearn new
techniques in order to keep up with professional excellence (Argyris and Schon, 1978).
The objective of RALG is to provide opportunities for members to internalize
experiences of trials and errors from a concrete experience, and formulate new
strategies to counteract these errors. This is an important process of organizational
learning Argyris (1982) identifies as error-reduction. Of importance, is the need to
embrace change with actionable outcomes as one goes through a series of concrete
experiences (Lewin, 1951). Only then can true learning take place as the learner
questions his/her own insights, actions and personal theory to create and gain
knowledge. Such is the essence of reflective-action learning where the process of
experience creation and modification goes through an iterative cycle (Zuber-Skerritt,
2002). In this regard, the paper seeks to explore the significance of RALG by asking the
following question which forms the research problem (RP):
RP1. What is the role of RALG and how has it influenced the way faculty members
learn through reflection and action to enhance job effectiveness?
The complex and dynamic nature of learning and the transactions between the learner
and environment can be explained from the concept of learning space, which builds on
Lewins (1951) field theory and his concept of life space. This theory posits that
behavior is a function of people and environment governed by life space. This space
embraces needs, goals, beliefs, unconscious influences and social nature which are to
some degree interdependent. Only tension and force can deal with these interdependent
elements which are largely determined by both internal needs and external demands
(Kolb and Kolb, 2005). The learning space concept is further supported by situated
learning theory (Lave and Wenger, 1991) which posits that situations in learning space
are not necessarily characterized by physical boundaries but constructs of the learners
experience in the social environment. As in RALG, these situations are found in
communities of practice with distinct norms and traditions of practice. As such,
knowledge is generated not by the individual but by communities of practice.
Accordingly, learning takes place by being a member of a community of practice
through legitimate participation in a variety of ways such as reflecting, sharing,
mentoring and doing (Kolb and Kolb, 2005). According to Nonaka and Konno (1998), in
order to promote learning in a particular learning space, a sense of purpose, trust and
respect must be observed. Only then can tacit knowledge be made explicit through the
sharing of feelings, thoughts and experiences of members in the learning space.
Within the learning space of RALG, each member constructs a unique form of
learning which involves the reviewing of past experiences and designing new
professional practices to reduce inefficiency and increase effectiveness (Greenall, 2004;
Leonard and McAdam, 2001). This process is known as reflection and often described
as concepts of feedback and self-disclosure (Argyris, 1993). Through feedback loops,

Learning
institution to
organization
399

JEIT
30,5

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

400

members will tend to produce knowledge that can be put to practice if they find ways
of communicating new meanings that are embedded in this knowledge. This is a
reflective approach to learning based on the spontaneous internalization of the
individuals skilled practice and not influenced by a prior intellectual operation (Schon,
1983). In other words, reflection is catalyzed by an earlier behavioral process evident in
an experience.
What is important in a learning space is the construction of shared experience and
mental models through a series of reflective activities. Through the constant
negotiation of tension and force from iterative feedback of diverse perspectives (Kolb
and Kolb, 2005), tacit assumptions at the individual level can be made explicit (Keating
et al., 1996). This is the process where such interdependent elements within the
learning space as personal values, goals and beliefs interact to form new mental models
for further investigation and testing (Leonard and McAdam, 2001; Moon, 2004). Within
the common space of a community of practice, learning is believed to be a complex
process involving such skills as mental-mapping, use of intuition and imagination, and
problem solving. Hence, in order for RALG to succeed, it has to meet internal needs as
well as external demands. This can only be achieved by making sense of issues and
experiences, of developing insight and understanding, and of seeing patterns in their
internal and external environments. In contextualizing these theoretical concepts, the
following research question (RQ) has been formulated for this study:
RQ1. What are the critical success factors of RALG in encouraging collective
learning among faculty members?
Within the learning space of RALG, there is a strong connection between reflection and
action, which to a large extent promotes action learning. Learning from concrete
experience and critical reflection both characterize action learning (Argyris, 1982;
Revans, 1982; Zuber-Skerritt, 2002). Such learning is fulfilled by legitimate participation
(Kolb and Kolb, 2005) through group discussion, trial and error, exploration and learning
from one another. Unlike reflective inquiry, action learning is associated with experience
where an activity forms the basis of the testing of abstract conceptualizations and
generalizations that emerged from critical reflection. This activity shapes community of
practice embedded in a learning space, providing tension and force that allow goals,
beliefs and social structure to interact (Lewin, 1951). However, to encourage
co-construction of knowledge, they must first learn through reflection by questioning
their own observations and insights (Kolb, 1984; Zuber-Skerritt, 2002).
The learning space of RALG is experiential in nature. For instance, when a new
concrete experience has been developed, participants will go through another cycle of
observation, reflection, conceptualization and testing, which will lead to new action and
experience (Kolb, 1984). Learning takes place continuously in the space created within
and outside RALG where inter- and intra-group interaction will generate team learning.
With greater intersection of learning spaces between RALGs, more explicit knowledge
will be created through a wider community of practice (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). This
type of learning can be identified as organizational learning, which falls within the tenets
of behaviorist theory where learning is viewed as the process of adjusting behavior in

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

response to experience. It further suggests that if no behavioral change is recorded, then

no learning can be said to have taken place (Argyris, 1982; Revans, 1982).
The theoretical framework of RALG suggests that both reflection and action are key
enablers of organizational learning when it causes participants to modify their
behavioral patterns according to the outcome of a new experience. Hence, the term
reflective-action learning (see for example Yoong, 1999) is adopted in this paper to
provide an integrative approach to the study of reflective practices in organizations.
This observation is reinforced in Argyris (1993) theory in action, which posits that
people act in order to learn, or act to produce a result. For organizational learning to
take place, knowledge has to be generalized and crafted in ways so that it can be made
actionable. According to Garratt (1987), action-learning process is closely linked to
organizational learning as it releases the energy and learning of participants in the
immediate operational cycles of business. In order to promote organizational learning,
RALG has to be an investigation of the intuition (based on an idea or feeling), and of the
connection between the insight from prior experience (cognitive) and a new set of
experience (behavioral). This theoretical proposition has led to the development of the
second research question:
RQ2. How does RALG influence organizational learning?
The relationship between RALG with organizational learning can further be discussed
by examining the collective cognition of individuals. This is best supported by the
assumption that an organization is akin to an organism where each of whose cells
(represented by individuals) contains a particular, partial, changing image (represented
by cognition) of itself in relation to the whole (organization) (Argyris and Schon, 1978,
p. 16). The changing image is the cognitive outcome of a series of learning cycles
interacting with one another. The tension and force intertwined in the RALG learning
space (Kolb and Kolb, 2005) allow single- and double-loop learning to develop. For
instance, single-loop learning is concerned with error detection within a given system
through a one-way feedback loop. This involves the achievement of existing
organizational objectives and goals within specified norms. In single loops, learning is
regarded as minimal, as participants tend to be inward-looking and reflective in nature
(Argyris, 1993). On the other hand, double-loop learning is concerned with error
detection, which involves a two-way feedback, leading to a change not only in
strategies and assumptions for better performance, but also in the very norms that
determine effective performance of the organization (Argyris and Schon, 1978). In such
a situation, there is constant reflective inquiry and action testing experienced by
individuals, which increases the complexity of learning. In double loops, participants
are concerned with internal needs and external demands (Kolb and Kolb, 2005) in order
to foster collective learning and allow the organization to remain competitive (Romme
and van Witteloostuijn, 1999).
Although the contextual responses to learning that takes place in RALG spaces are
varied, they share a common direction, that learning is an inescapable way of life
(Senge, 1990). Through reflective-action learning, participants are constant engaged in
the dynamic process of shifting from performing (What should we do?) to improving

Learning
institution to
organization
401

JEIT
30,5

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

402

(How should we do it?). As learning intensifies, participants will play out likely
outcomes, test promising ideas and replace old rules if new approaches produce more
successful outcomes in practice (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Blackman et al., 2004). Done
collectively, organizational learning will develop as contributing to organizational
effectiveness. According to Denton (1998), when collective individuals adapt and utilize
knowledge as a source of competitive knowledge, a change in the organizations
behavior and action patterns will inevitably follow. Organizational effectiveness can be
achieved if learning takes a cumulative form with dynamic interactions of feedback
loops to keep learning going on continuously (Finnegan et al., 2003). The outcome will
be a renewed connection between employees and their work, spurring the organization
to create a future for itself (Braham, 1996). It is with this emphasis that the final
research question has been developed:
RQ3. What are the implications of RALG for organizational effectiveness?
Methodology
As this study is exploratory in nature, an inductive approach to data collection was
chosen. Qualitative methods are well suited to the study of dynamic processes,
especially where these processes are constituted of individuals interpretations (Gioia
and Thomas, 1996). Convenience sampling (Henry, 1990) was employed as all the
subjects were the researchers colleagues in addition to their familiarity with the RALG
process. The primary methods employed involved three distinct stages:
(1) In-depth interviewing using a semi-structured approach with a total of 50
subjects: 21 are male and 28 are female, all with an average number of 8.2 years
working in the institution. They were divided into three key groups: 19 RALG
heads; 15 resource coordinators; and 16 lecturers.
(2) In-depth interviewing using a structured approach with the Deputy Director of
academic affairs who mooted the idea of RALG in order to provide an
organizational perspective of the initiative.
(3) Ethnographic involvement with the researcher playing the dual roles of
observer and participant over three years based on at least 27 meetings in six
different RALGs.
Qualitative interviews were chosen as they assist in the development of an
understanding of the meaning and significance of peoples experiences (Merriam,
1988). In addition, in-depth interviews encourage interviewees to share as much
information as possible in a free flowing environment, shedding rich insight into the
issues under study (Cooper and Emory, 1995). There was a structure to the
interviewing process using open-ended questions in a systematic manner to seek the
subjects views on both general and specific areas. The interview process strengthened
this study by helping to overcome the tendency in some research to pre-determine
answers (Yin, 1994). Table I illustrates the interview questions and how they were
developed based on a prior theory presented in Figure 1.

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

Key themes from the literature

review

Research problem (RP)/Research Interview protocol (total: 14

questions (RQ)
questions)

Internationalization of concrete
experiences through trials and
errors (Argyris, 1982; Lewin,
1951)

RP(a). What is the role of RALG? 1). Do you think RALG is

important to you and your
department? (Rating: Important,
moderately important, minimally
important) Why/why not?
2). Whats your RALG
experience like? Share some
examples.
3). Does RALG give you an
RP(b). How has RALG
opportunity to reflect and think
influenced the way faculty
deeply on some issues relating to
members learn through
reflection and action to enhance your work? How so?
4). What are some of the
job effectiveness?
things/initiatives that have
arisen from RALG?
5). Through RALG, do you think
you have performed your job
better now? Why/why not?
6). In the planning of RALG
RQ1. What are the critical
activities, what are some of your
success factors of RALG in
encouraging collective learning challenges?
7). How do you or your RALG
among faculty members?
Head conduct each RALG?
8). Is your RALG successful?
(Rating: Successful, moderately
successful, minimally successful)
Why/why not?
RQ2. How does RALG influence 9). Do you think that RALG has
organizational learning?
encouraged you to think and
learn more? (Rating: Optimal
learning, moderate learning,
minimal learning) Why/Why
not?
10). Is RALG a means of
promoting team learning?
11). To what extent has RALG
encouraged inter-team learning?
RQ3. What are the implications 12). Do you think RALG is in line
with the organizations vision
of RALG for organizational
and mission? Why/why not?
effectiveness?
13). Is RALG merely a gimmick
to show that the organization is
different from others? Why/why
not?
14). Is RALG effective in
contributing to organizational
growth? (Rating: Effective,
moderately effective, minimally
effective) How so?

Creation of experience from

constant modification of
behavior and thinking through
an iterative cycle (Argyris and
Schon, 1978; Zuber-Skerritt,
2002)

Lewin (1951) field theory and his

concept of life space; Community
of practice through legitimate
(Kolb and Kolb, 2005)

Theory in action (Argyris, 1993);

Behaviorist theory (Argyris,
1982); Action learning (Garratt,
1987, Revans, 1982); Reflection
(Zuber-Skerritt, 2002); Team
dynamics (Kolb, 1984)

Organization as organism
(Argyris and Schon, 1978);
Collective learning and
competitive advantage (Romme
and van Witteloostuijn, 1999);
Competitive knowledge (Denton,
1998); organizational growth
(Braham, 1996)

Learning
institution to
organization
403

Table I.
Development of the
interview protocol for this
research

JEIT
30,5

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

404

As the researcher was deeply rooted in the research context, an ethnographic approach
was used to gather rich and thick data, providing a more multidimensional
interpretation of the meanings of the issues under investigation (Geertz, 1973). The
researcher had the opportunity of observing the subjects behavioral patterns in a
number of RALG meetings. In addition, triangulation of data collection was conducted
through:
.
the analysis of meeting notes such as minutes, training plans, and reports on
project implementation and evaluation;
.
RALG heads observation of their members work attitude; and
.
teaching evaluation results of the faculty members.
Overall, the triangulated data played a crucial role in reinforcing the themes and
meanings that had emerged from the primary stage (Abraham, 1997).
Data were analyzed using the content analysis technique by organizing, and
breaking them into manageable units based on themes identified through key words
and phrases. Subsequently, through a funneling process, the data were further
synthesized to search for more specific patterns and the researcher had to make a
decision as to what was important and what was not. This was done objectively by
referring to the research problem and questions regularly to ensure that the
classification of information remain in focus. Besides, having a clear understanding of
the theoretical underpinnings of the study (Figure 1) helped the researcher to identify
conceptual convergences and divergences for theory generation. The constant
comparative method originated by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is recognized as the most
effective means of content analysis.
The researcher first defined the categories of classification and observed objectivity
in evaluating each item if it belonged to a particular category. This was not an easy
task as the interviews were laced with personal talk with regard to individual feelings
about the topic. In order to overcome this difficulty, the researcher quantified the data
by counting the number of important issues raised by each respondent with constant
reference to Table I. Calculation was initially satisfied by examining each unit of
analysis through each paragraph as it is more appropriate than word count in drawing
inferences from the narrative statements. This was subsequently followed by
examining the amount of disclosure by counting the frequency at both the category
and item levels. The overall index was further calculated based on the total amount of
information disclosed with disclosure index being calculated for each category
(Guthrie and Matthews, 1985).
To enhance the reliability of the data, three levels of analysis were considered:
stability, reproducibility and accuracy (Krippendorff, 2004). A colleague was invited to
be an independent coder to evaluate if the selection of disclosure categories was in line
with the theoretical proposition (Figure 1) of this study and that these categories were
defined by the relevant literature. Secondly, the independent coding was to rectify any
ambiguity of the coding instrument and the specification of the disclosure categories
(Guthrie and Mathews, 1985). The overall data were analyzed using the NUD *IST
(Non-Numerical, Unstructured Data Indexing, Searching and Theorizing) software as it

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

helped to categorize ideas in meaningful patterns. This program was chosen as it is

appropriate for search patterns, features or ideas in unstructured qualitative data
apparent in long interviews and haphazard observations as encountered in this
research (Carson et al., 2001).
In the presentation of data, quotations from the interviews will be used in support of
conceptual themes and patterns that have emerged. However, anonymity is strictly
observed as the respondents will be coded with RH1-19 for RALG heads, RC1-15 for
resource coordinators and LR1-16 for lecturers.

Findings
The general perception of RALG by the three groups of respondents is illustrated in
Table II. Based on the quantitative data captured from questions 1, 8, 9 and 14 of the
interviews, it can be seen that there are different reactions to the various aspects of
RALG represented by the research problem (RP) and research questions (RQ).
Based on reactions to the RP, the majority of the RALG heads n 13 and
resource coordinators n 6 viewed RALG as important to the organization but
only a minority of lecturers n 3 viewed it as such. Most of the lecturers could
not see the immediate effects of RALG, finding it an added responsibility to their
daily work. This can be seen in their reactions to RQ3 with the majority n 13
rating RALG as being minimally effective to the organization. They cited peoples
resistance to change as a stumbling block to RALG. Interestingly, all three groups
felt that the conduct of RALG had been successful, according to reactions to RQ2.
All respondents attributed the success of RALG to the systematic structure and the
climate of openness given to the sharing of experiences. In response to RQ2, there
was a consistent perception that RALG does promote an optimal learning culture
within the organization, although a fairly large representation of RALG heads
n 7 felt that the notion of learning is subjective as everyone learns at a different
pace. An equal number of lecturers n 6 perceived RALG as contributing to
organizational learning in varying degrees.
One of the underlying issues that emerged hinges on the paradox of the nature of
RALG encouraging spontaneity and freedom in the sharing of learning experiences
in a structured and monitored space of an RALG meeting. However, as most agreed in
their response to RQ2, the wider implication of RALG should be perceived in the
context of an enlarged learning space constructed through a community of practice
(Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Lewin, 1951). To many, intrinsic learning stems from the very
nature of reflective inquiry where new experiences are created to put learning into
action (Argyris, 1993; Kolb, 1984).

Success factors of reflective-action learning group (RALG)

Questions 6-8 of the interview protocol (Table I) corresponding to RQ1 What are the
critical success factors of RALG in encouraging collective learning among faculty
members? have yielded the following insights.

Learning
institution to
organization
405

Table II.
Reactions of RALG from
the three groups of
respondents

RP1: Role of RALG and its effect on Important n 13: Useful initiative;
a form of gradual stocktaking of the
people
departments progress
(Q1)
Moderately important n 4:
Intent is noble but hard to sustain;
main difficulty in garnering support
from team members
Minimally important n 2:
Merely do as told; regarded as part
of job
RQ1. Success of RALG
Successful n 8: Good
(Q8)
attendances; each meeting follows a
specific topic to address need issues
Moderately successful n 6:
Difficult to generate topics according
to given themes; fairly insightful
discussions
Minimally successful n 5:
Insufficient time for research about
topic; difficult to engage members

RALG heads n 19

Lecturers n 16

Important n 6: Quest towards

excellence; opportunity for dialogue
Moderately important n 5: Not a
short-term measure; builds good
practices through endurance
Minimally important n 4:
Information overload; too much to
deal with in addition to usual
workload

Important n 3: Part of
professional development; solidarity
building
Moderately important n 7:
Applications of RALG useful to
some extent; added responsibility
and additional workload
Minimally important n 6: Too
many groups involved; some ideas
not practical to actual contexts
Successful n 5: Very structured Successful n 9: Good
attendances; well-structured
based on topic and theme;
discussions based on needs analysis Moderately successful n 2:
Moderately successful n 7: Not Opportunity for members to share
views openly but some preparation
all issues adequately discussed in
each meeting; some resources may required; views could be better
substantiated with facts
not be available
Minimally successful n 4: Too Minimally successful n 5: Very
much to deal with as there are too time-consuming as hours need to be
recorded; confusing at times as one
many groups involved;
is involved in at least two groups
time-consuming
(continued)

Resource coordinators n 15

406

Research emphases

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

JEIT
30,5

Optimal learning n 6: Good

opportunity to unlearn old habits;
feedback motivates reflection and
inquiry
Moderate learning n 6: Not quite
easy to build learning into work
routines; sharing of experiences can
promote best practices
Minimal learning n 6: RALG is
too rigid for spontaneous people;
learning although structured inhibits
creativity and spontaneity
Effective n 4: Training needs
better defined, increasing
competences of employees
Moderately effective n 3:
Systems more streamlined but lots of
fine-tuning still required; constant
changes are good but may paralyze
stability
Minimally effective n 9: Difficult
to balance expected outcomes of
RALG; although RALG is a building
block, people with resistance to
change are the stumbling block

Optimal learning n 8: Learn best

from rich resources and peer
sharing; useful follow-up training
Moderate learning n 4: Some
learning but motivation is low; good
to learn from other members
experiences
Minimal learning n 3: Too
bogged down with work and RALG
responsibility; can only learn
through actual practice but often
lacks confidence to try new things
Effective n 7: Everyone speaks
the same lingo on this model of
excellence; people are aware of the
long-term benefits
Moderately effective n 2: More
projects pioneered creating some
diversity for professional practice;
value of projects should be closely
linked with organizational objectives
Minimally effective n 6: A slow
process to see growth of the
organization; other demands
compete with importance of RALG

Optimal learning n 9: Part of

continuous learning; members more
reflective
Moderate learning n 3: Good
opportunity for learning but lacks
time to progress well; diverse views
provide many learning points, but
hard to materialize
Minimal learning n 7:
Expectation of members cannot be
too high as everyone is busy; hard to
measure as people learn at different
pace
Effective n 5: Work groups are
more productive; better customer
service achieved
Moderately effective n 11:
Professional practices may have
improved but exchange of
inter-group dynamics is still lacking
Minimally effective n 3: Good
customer service need not be
equated with good quality of work
produced; longer time needed to
define this

RQ2. Influences of RALG on

learning
(Q9)

Note: Interview questions are indicated as Q1, Q8, Q9 and Q14

RO3: Influences of RALG on

organizational effectiveness
(Q14)

Lecturers n 16

Resource coordinators n 15

RALG heads n 19

Research emphases

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

Learning
institution to
organization
407

Table II.

JEIT
30,5

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

408

Conversational spaces
A key factor in the facilitation of RALG discussion is the role of meaningful
conversation. This involves a dynamic exchange of views through dialogue and
feedback, an important process in organizational learning (Marquardt, 1999; Senge,
1990). In order for meaningful conversations to develop, sufficient space including
physical, psychological, cognitive and cultural influences must be created. This space
needs to hold both the reflective voice of listening and silence, and the active voice of
speaking (Sense, 2005).
Based on the researchers ethnographic participation in RALG meetings, it was
found that the level of psychological and emotional engagement with the issues under
discussion was always overwhelming. Immediately, a space was created for these
faculty members to examine real issues that had an impact on their teaching
methodology rather than another intellectual debate. In addition, the space provided
them a sense of bonding and ownership of the teaching subject as it was a
convergence of shared interest and concern (Kolb and Kolb, 2005). It was interesting to
observe that these two words were mentioned repeatedly in the interviews. As
reinforced by RH3, when we speak up [on certain issues], we know that others also
face similar problems so that we can all go and find [the] possible solutions together.
With reference to Figure 2, it is through the maximization of conversational spaces
that intuitive actions can be formulated. Such spaces are subsumed under each RALG
and illuminate themselves when there is a robust exchange of contexts and paradigms
through the sharing of experiences (Farvinen and Poikela, 2001). In each space,
participants feel safe to explore issues with others, and encourage partnership and
imagination to develop trust between them, fueling the conversation process. Learning
comes into play when differences between parties stimulate diversity of thought, and
approaches and expressions of ideas and values (Sense, 2005; Yoong, 1999). As a
stimulus to conversation, participants need to take time to reflect both at the personal
and group level. As pointed out by RC12, [The] RALG discussions help us to
internalize and put things in the right perspective; [for] example, are we on the right or
wrong track? [They] also [serve] as reminders that we must put our suggestions into
practice. It is through such a reflective-conversational practice that a space for
humility is created for the collaboration and exploration of difficult issues where
existing norms and behaviors are challenged (Moon, 2004; Sense, 2005).
Reflective spaces
In RALG, participants typically reflect on certain issues individually based on recent
practices before attending the monthly meeting. The framework in Figure 2 illustrates
two key components: the experience and reflective activity based on that experience.
Essentially, after the experience, a processing phase takes place and this is the space
for reflection, allowing participants to think [through] deep-rooted issues relating to
our professional practice, in our case, teaching (LR9). As a catalyst to learning,
reflection allows participants to recapture their experience, reconsider it in a wider
context and evaluate it in the light of the worst possible situation (Yoong, 1999).
Argyris (1982) identifies this as the error-reduction process where new strategies will

Learning
institution to
organization

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

409

Figure 2.
How reflective-action
learning works

be formulated to test a familiar situation. It is an iterative cycle where the reflective

space is maximized to take into consideration new experience for the production of
subsequent new action.
Even though the RALG discussions were informally conducted, many participants
mentioned that the dialogue was intense and engaging because everyone of us always
makes an effort to share issues we have thought about [for some time] (LR2). This was
also reinforced in the researchers observation of their behavioral pattern which is one
of attentive listening, fearless voicing of opinions and dynamic body movements when
emotional engagement of pertinent issues intensifies. This observation is certainly
celebrated by the Deputy Director of academic affairs as one of the primary aims of
RALG is to develop staff who are reflective and empathetic, who believe teaching is
from the heart, not from the mind. Without reflection, it is impossible to understand
the feedback, assessment and evaluation activities that go on in RALG. A large
percentage of the interviewees felt that the constant raising of questions in their minds
is part of a meaningful reflective practice. Subsequently, when feedback is shared,

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

JEIT
30,5

interpreted and processed as a consolidated exchange of individual reflective thoughts,

it will be refined into a form of assessment knowledge that expresses quality and
appreciation, facilitating collaborative decisions (Ashcroft and Foreman-Peck, 1996;
Farvinen Poikela, 2001).

410

Spaces for learned action

The utilization of the framework (Figure 2) lies in the experience of an action or a set of
actions that has been put to public test. This action has gone through a learned
process where the iteration of reflection and dialogue operates. The significance of this
learned action is that no matter how large or small and complex or simple this action
is, execution of solutions, production of new strategies and evaluation of the
effectiveness of the solutions and strategies are necessarily required (Schon, 1983).
Here, the role of reflection should be contextualized within the fundamental goals of the
organizational learning endeavor, that is, as a human technology for immediate
reaction with an action (Bokeno, 2003).
Through the interviews and observations, it was found that a number of actionable
RALG projects had been carefully planned and successfully executed. According to
RC7, I was able to implement [the fruits of] some of the suggestions in my classes and
they worked rather well for me. LR13 reinforced, Although I tried some techniques
but not always successful, I found [that] I was building my confidence. It was quite a
challenge to try new things [from time to time]. A large number of RALG heads
agreed that the reflective-action learning discussions had led to a series of meaningful
teaching practices, something that did not happen before. Even the Deputy Director of
academic affairs was pleased with the outcomes for the past three years.
According to Aryris and Schon (1978), for any reflective-action learning framework
to succeed, it must be governed by a set of values for organizational members to
determine the appropriate action strategies. Underpinning the RALG framework are
theories of action where members assume the role of designers. They create, store, and
retrieve designs that advise them to act and achieve their intentions which are
consistent with their governing values (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Schon, 1983). In
addition, what motivate these learned actions are a supportive organizational system
and the cooperativeness of all members through a community of practice evident in the
learning space (Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Lewin, 1951). With a mindset of continuous
learning, individuals will make a direct impact on the organization (Marquardt, 2004).
RALG as part of organizational learning
The theoretical contribution of this study is the exploration of a possible relationship
between reflective-action learning and organizational learning. Data derived from
questions 9-11 of the interview protocol (Table I) have helped shed light on RQ2 How
does RALG influence organizational learning? Illustrated in Figure 3, the dynamics of
reflective practitioners engaged in the RALG process have led to an enlargement of
learning loops, characterized by the extent and depth of inquiry and knowledge
application. Through the three-year research, it is evident that reflective practitioners
have increased their competence in professional practice, capacity to undertake greater

Learning
institution to
organization
411

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

Figure 3.
Dynamics of learning for
reflective practitioners

tasks and competitive advantage to meet the changing demands of the internal and
external environments.
Based on Figure 3, three areas of outcomes have been identified in this study.
Through RALG, it is clear that faculty members have improved their functional
competence as they have become better teachers. The teaching effectiveness
evaluations conducted over the three years have shown an increase of 1-2 percent in the
overall effectiveness of the faculty members. RALG heads also commented that their
members approach to problem solving has also changed. They have demonstrated a
shift from single- to double-loop learning as they move from simply performing to
improving daily tasks. Double-loop learning is developed when people not only
reference predetermined rules, they constructively challenge rote responses as well
(Blackman et al., 2004). This is also reinforced in the researchers observation of his
colleagues behaviors over the years, and the triangulated data from performance
appraisals and project documents testify to this observation. Learning in single loops is
regarded as minimal as members tend to be inward-looking merely performing tasks
as part of their routine (Argyris, 1993). On the other hand, double-loop learning
develops when members not only reference predetermined rules, they constructively
challenge rote responses as well (Blackman et al., 2004).
Double-loop learning contributes to organizational members capacity to enlarge
their responsibilities, enhancing their responsiveness to things around them in turn.
They construct alternative scenarios in anticipation of likely outcomes, test potential
ideas and replace old rules with new ones (Blackman et al., 2004). Consequently, they
enhance their personal and meta-competences by being more confident in the way they
relate to people, and being more creative in the way the approach problems (Cheetnam
and Chivers, 1996). The capacity to learn and perform is largely motivated by the
alignment between personal values and organizational vision. Hence, a shared vision
facilitated through systems thinking best explains why reflective practitioners in this
case study yearn to make an impact on the organization (Senge, 1990). For instance, if
members perceive that their behavior will lead to a certain outcome (system
expectancy) and subsequently value that outcome, they will attempt the performance
knowing that they can perform the desired task (self expectancy). Such is the basis of

JEIT
30,5

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

412

expectancy theory (Roy and Dugal, 2005) which further explains the linkage between
double-loop learning and capacity (Figure 3).
Increasing in competitive advantage in organizational members requires an
increased learning power, which will necessarily extend double- to triple-loop learning.
In order for this higher learning order to take place, members need to be adaptive in
their learning approaches where reflection is the catalyst (Senge, 1990). This is when
processes become more complex but never allowed to proceed unquestioned. The trust
in existing knowledge and action should be challenged to ensure that their reliability
and relationship with the strategic focus of the organization remain undivided
(Blackman et al., 2004). The outcomes of this competitive advantage are an enhanced
trust, commitment, and awareness of organizational goals and organizational
development initiatives (Roy and Dugal, 2005). In addition, triple-loop learning relies
on the assumption that members produce outputs that contribute to operational
efficiency and strategic effectiveness. This is demonstrated through their adaptiveness
to learning and problem-solving approaches with an emphasis in reflective action
(Romme and van Witteloostuijn, 1999). Together, competitive advantage of individuals
can be achieved through the participation of the various double-loop reflective-action
units interplayed by the unifying organizational vision (Finnegan et al., 2003).
RALG as contributing to organizational effectiveness
Answers to questions 12-14 of the interview protocol have illuminated RQ3: What are
the implications of RALG for organizational effectiveness? The outcomes of RALG
are in many ways related to organizational competence and performance. For instance,
the potential of RALG can only be realized at the integration point (x in Figure 4)
where reflective learning intersects with action learning. Reflection without action is

Figure 4.
An integrative model of
organizational learning

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

regarded as learning paralysis in which new knowledge acquired cannot be fully

demonstrated to test its effectiveness. In other words, the embedded elements of
critique and emancipatory intent, which are characteristic of reflection, cannot be
realized (Bokeno, 2003; Gregory, 1994). Illustrated in Figure 4 is the strategic emphasis
of organizational learning achieved through RALG. The three levels of organizational
effectiveness identified as the anticipated outcomes for this case organization hinge on
two core competencies associated with education, i.e. teaching and project supervision,
and the functional competency of administrative know-how associated with
managerial skills.
Although organizational effectiveness does suggest other aspects of strategic
outcomes, the core has to do with organizational survival. Survival requires the
organization to attract the relevant resources from the environment to produce a
desired outcome (Alavi and McCormick, 2004; Marquardt, 2004). In this study,
resources can be interpreted as collective effort, skills, competencies and
commitment required to develop innovative and multi-faceted teachers of tomorrow.
Incidentally, these key words were repeated at least 36 times in the 50 interviews.
Ultimately, the ability to survive is the measure of effectiveness (Roy and Dugal, 2005).
According to the Deputy Director, Enhancing students learning experience is our
[the institutions] key competitive advantage. He added, Students are our customers
and they need to be well served to bring out the best in them. [In the long run], they will
bring the glory back to us if they succeed in the real world. Clearly, competitive
advantage envisioned by this case institution involves three levels: constituent, process
and systems resource (Connolly et al., 1980). Constituent refers to the collective
efficiency brought about by people within the organization to fulfill a shared goal. For
instance, a large percentage of the lecturers interviewed agreed that the effectiveness of
the organization is largely determined by the quality of its staff. According to LR16,
The institutions reputation depends on what we [faculty members] can offer to the
students and the society. The impact of the constituent factor seems to have far
reaching sociological implications than just restricted to the organization itself.
Secondly, process refers to the exploration of shared goal through work efficiency
supported by structural redesign, evaluation prerequisites, criteria development, and
evaluation design and implementation (Appelbaum and Gallagher, 2000). According to
RH8, One of the [primary] aims of RALG is to be sensitive to issues (feel the pulse of
the ground) so that new plans, policies and strategies can be rolled out. As also
reinforced by a great many participants in the RALG meetings observed over three
years, the emphasis seems to be concerned with a better way of doing things with
greater impact, a phrase that cropped up a number of times in the 50 interviews.
However, one of the concerns of process management is the measurement of its
effectiveness through some form of evaluation. This has led the Deputy Director in
consultation with the RALG heads to formulate new evaluation criteria for measuring
teaching, project supervision and administrative effectiveness of their members.
Lastly, systems resource refers to the bargaining position of the organization to
exploit its environment in the acquisition of scarce and valued resources including the
way resources are utilized (Appelbaum and Gallagher, 2000; Connolly et al., 1980). In

Learning
institution to
organization
413

JEIT
30,5

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

414

this case, new systems such as technology, information management and

communication have played a critical role in enhancing organizational effectiveness.
In a comment by RC14, The constant upgrading of our computer systems (IT
infrastructure) has increased our capacity to juggle with more things. For example,
internet connection is faster. . .we can use different software [programs] to handle
complex data. . .online resources are also convenient to use. Agreeing with the general
sentiments of these members, the Deputy Director believes that it is important to
deploy our resources correctly. . .so that we can increase the effectiveness of our staff
and the organization [in due time].
Implications for practice
Data derived from the overall interview protocol have led to a series of practical
answers to the research problem: What is the role of RALG and how has it influenced
the way faculty members learn through reflection and action to enhance job
effectiveness? As encapsulated in Table III, the implications for practice are not
limited to learning institutions aspiring to be learning organizations; they are relevant
to all other emerging organizations.
As seen in Table III, RALG is closely aligned to Kolbs (1984) experiential learning
cycle as it involves the core elements of conceptualizing ideas (stage 1), formulating
strategies (stage 2), executing strategies (stage 3) and reflecting on concrete
experiences (stage 4). In essence, RALG promotes team dynamics leading to
organizational learning with teams trying different things, exploring new work
processes, and looking to improve the manner in which work gets accomplished
(Gilson et al., 2005). The convergence of individual experiences through common
learning issues and the divergence of shared experiences through the expansion of
these learning issues are characteristic of organizational learning processes. Of
importance is the escalation of learning from single loops (stage 1) to double loops
(stage 2). As Senge (1990) expounds in his fifth discipline, team learning can only
succeed if personal mastery is challenged and individual mindset strengthened.
Another pertinent implication of RALG is the recognition of individuals with
different expertise, knowledge and experience as a key source of collective learning
(Hosley et al., 1994; Nonaka and Konno, 1998). RALG encourages members from
diverse backgrounds to converge and discuss shared concerns through a common
learning space. It is believed that interaction with dissimilar others promotes
learning and innovation by exposing individuals to new paradigms and
perspectives, and by enabling the cross-fertilization of ideas (Van Der Vegt and
Bunderson, 2005). Given the dynamic and ambiguous environment in which many
organizations operate, it is essential that members challenge their individual
mindsets by focusing on the shared vision articulated at the organizational level
(stage 3). Through systems thinking, team synergies will be enhanced and
personal mastery expanded to undertake greater challenges where triple-loop
learning is engaged (stage 4). Only then will organizational members be
encouraged to innovate and increase their productivity through a wider community
of practice (Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Senge, 1990).

Harnessing collective morale through

inquiry and dialogue;
Increasing collective planning and
goal-setting skills;
Recognizing value of human resources
Increasing customer service;
Promoting flexibility and adaptability to
handle changing environments;
Deploying human resources strategically;
Reinventing innovation to enhance work
processes
Communicating alignment and shared
purpose;
Focusing on strategic direction of
organization;
Improving productivity;
Improving quality of output;
Increasing sense of urgency to meet
changing needs

Unleashing team dynamics for maximum

shared learning;
Diverging team learning issues;
Narrowing single-loop learning;
Expanding double-loop learning
Reinforcing team learning skills;
Extending double-loop learning;
Experiencing triple-loop learning;
Building an innovative and learning
culture;
Challenging mindsets;
Promoting systems thinking
Encouraging shared goals, mission and
vision;
Building renewed connections with larger
organizational systems;
Strengthening double-loop learning;
Extending triple-loop learning;
Testing personal mastery;8Formalizing
team synergies

Note: Interview questions are indicated as Q1-14 in the brackets above

Increasing staff motivation;

Maximizing information management;
Promoting purposeful communication

Implications on organizational
effectiveness (Q12-14)

Converting individual learning to team

learning;
Converging individual experiences
through common learning issues

Critical success factors of reflective-action Organizational learning implications

learning (Q6-8)
(Q9-11)

Strategically-planned schedule;
1: Preparation of
dialogue and sharing Review of previous session
Captivating discussion theme;
session
Appropriate agenda;
Communication to relevant employees
Moderated/controlled facilitation;
2: Discussion and
Constructive feedback and discussion on
open sharing based
a variety of issues;
on chosen theme
Strategic alignment of topics and issues
to practice;
Formulation of strategies for practice;
Determination of action plans
3: Execution of new Employees empowered to try new ways
concepts, techniques of doing things;
Provision of appropriate support and
and methods
counsel for employees;
discussed in the
Accountability of new practices by
sharing session
considering job performance indicators;
Reward and recognition built into
performance appraisal
Identification of personal strengths and
4: Reflection of the
weaknesses
learned experience
and conceptualizing Identification of training opportunities for
self-improvement;
learning points for
next sharing session Alignment of personal and shared vision;
Evaluation of the tried practices;
Recommendation of resources and
relevant support;
Consideration of long-term impact for
personal and organizational development

Stages in RALG
(Q1-5)

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

Learning
institution to
organization
415

Table III.
Implementation of
reflective-action learning
groups in an organization

JEIT
30,5

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

416

Conclusions
This paper proposes that reflective-action learning is an important aspect of
organizational learning; the outcome of which is an emancipated behavior on the part
of organizational members, predicated upon an unrestricted and critically reflective
interaction with contexts and experiences. Importantly, it is the constant dynamics of
dialogue and feedback demonstrated through double- and triple-loop loops that are
able to produce ideal communicative actions beneficial to the organization (Argyris
and Schon, 1978). Although this paper distils the positive side of RALG as an
organizational learning enabler in a Singapore higher learning institution, it does not
ignore the frustrating challenges members have to go through to make RALG work.
Some of the complaints raised during the interviews include increase in paper work,
staff going through the motion when dealing with new work practices, staff too
overloaded with other responsibilities, staff afraid to rock the boat and do as they are
told, blindly and staff refusing to unlearn old habits. The core of these grouses may
be aggravated by competing interests and demands; still, RALG has proven to be a
relatively successful initiative over the three years.
Through this research, the case institution has begun to realize that the next step
will be to look into improving the competencies of staff and upgrading their skills
further through retraining and other self-renewal programs. The limitation of this
study therefore lies in the lack of periodic data collected throughout the three years to
support the research questions, disqualifying it to be a longitudinal study. Although
the ethnographic observation conducted over the three years provided the researcher
with sufficient qualitative data on the RALG members behavioral patterns, what went
on in their thinking was very much left unexplored along the way. Perhaps a mixture
of quantitative techniques could be utilized during intermittent data collection phases
to ascertain possible relationships between variables. In some ways, to strengthen an
exploratory study of this nature, a more integrative approach should be undertaken.
An underlying discovery of this study is the observation that this case institution
has come alive through the thoughts and actions of individuals acting as
organizational agents. As a whole, they create the organizational behavioral world
in which work gets done (Argyris, 1993).
References
Abraham, S. (1997), Exploratory Action Research for Manager Development, ALARPM Inc.,
Toowong.
Alavi, S.B. and McCormick, J. (2004), A cross-cultural analysis of the effectiveness of the
learning organization model in school contexts, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 408-16.
Appelbaum, S.H. and Gallagher, J. (2000), The competitive advantage of organizational
learning, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 40-56.
Argyris, C. (1982), Reason, Learning and Action, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Argyris, C. (1993), Knowledge for Action, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

Ashcroft, K. and Foreman-Peck, L. (1996), Quality standards and the reflective tutor, Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 17-25.
Blackman, D., Connelly, J. and Henderson, S. (2004), Does double loop learning create reliable
knowledge?, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 11-27.
Bokeno, R.M. (2003), The work of Chris Argyris as critical organization practice, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 633-49.
Braham, B.J. (1996), Creating a Learning Organization, Kogan Page, London.
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Gronhaug, K. and Perry, C. (2001), Qualitative Research in Marketing,
Sage, London.
Cheetham, G. and Chivers, G. (1998), The reflective (and competent), practitioner: a model of
professional competence which seeks to harmonize the reflective practitioner and
competence-based approaches, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 22 No. 7,
pp. 267-76.
Connolly, T., Conlon, E.J. and Deutsch, S.J. (1980), Organizational effectiveness: a multiple
constituency approach, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 211-7.
Cooper, D.R. and Emory, C.W. (1995), Business Research Methods, 5th ed., Irwin, Chicago, IL.
De Loo, I. (2002), The troublesome relationship between action learning and organizational
growth, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 245-55.
Denton, J. (1998), Organizational Learning and Effectiveness, Routledge, London.
Farvinen, A. and Poikela, E. (2001), Modelling reflective and contextual learning at work,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 13 Nos 7/8, pp. 282-9.
Finnegan, P., Galliers, R.D. and Powell, P. (2003), Applying triple loop learning to planning
electronic trading systems, Information Technology & People, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 461-83.
Flood, R.L. and Romm, N.R.A. (1996), Contours of diversity management and triple loop
learning, Kybernetes: International Journal of Systems & Cybernetics, Vol. 25 No. 7,
pp. 154-63.
Ford, C.M. and Ogilvie, D. (1996), The role of creative action in organizational learning and
change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 54-62.
Garratt, B. (1987), The Learning Organzsation, Fontana, London.
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Gilson, L.I., Mathieu, J.E., Shalley, C.E. and Ruddy, T.M. (2005), Creativity and standardization:
complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness?, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 521-31.
Gioia, D.A. and Thomas, J.B. (1996), Identity, image, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41,
pp. 370-403.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine, New York, NY.
Greenall, P. (2004), Managerial process: the reflective practitioner, Leadership in Health
Services, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 8-12.
Gregory, M. (1994), Accrediting work-based learning: action learning a model for
empowerment, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 41-52.
Guthrie, J. and Mathews, M.R. (1985), Corporate social accounting in Australasia, Research in
Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 251-77.
Henry, G.T. (1990), Practical Sampling, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Learning
institution to
organization
417

JEIT
30,5

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

418

Hosley, S.M., Lau, A.T.W., Levy, F.K. and Tan, D.S.K. (1994), The quest for the competitive
learning organization, Management Decision, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 5-15.
Johnson, B.L. Jr. and Fauske, J.R. (2005), Organization theory, educational leadership and
educational research, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 5-8.
Keating, C., Robinson, T. and Clemson, B. (1996), Reflective inquiry: a method for organizational
learning, The Learning Organization, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 35-43.
Krippendorff, K. (2004), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, 2nd ed., Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Kolb, A.Y. and Kolb, D.A. (2005), Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential
learning in higher education, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 193-212.
Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Leonard, D. and McAdam, R. (2001), Grounded theory methodology and practitioner reflexivity
in TQM research, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 180-94.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Lorange, P. (1996), A business school as a learning organization, The Learning Organization,
Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 5-13.
Marquardt, M.J. (1999), Action Learning in Action: Transforming Problems and People for
World-Class Organizational Learning, Davies-Black, Palo Alto, CA.
Marquardt, M.J. (2004), HRD in the Age of Globalization: A Practical Guide to Workplace Learning
in the Third Millennium, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Merriam, S.B. (1988), Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Moon, J.A. (2004), A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice,
Routledge-Falmer, London.
Nonaka, L. and Konno, N. (1998), The concept of ba: building a foundation for knowledge
creation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.
Revans, R.W. (1982), The Origins and Growth of Action Learning, Chartwell-Bratt, London.
Romme, A.G.L. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (1999), Circular organizing and triple loop learning,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 439-54.
Roy, M.H. and Dugal, S.S. (2005), Using employee gain-sharing plans to improve organizational
effectiveness, Benchmarking, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 250-9.
Schon, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books,
New York, NY.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Century Business, London.
Sense, A.J. (2005), Facilitating conversational learning in a project team practice, Journal of
Workplace Learning, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 178-93.
Van Der Vegt, G.S. and Bunderson, J.S. (2005), Learning and performance in multidisciplinary
teams: the importance of collective team identification, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 532-47.

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

Wilkins, R. (2002), Schools as organizations: some contemporary issues, International Journal

of Educational Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 120-5.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yoong, P. (1999), Making sense of group support systems facilitation: a reflective practice
perspective, Information, Technology & People, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 86-112.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002), The concept of action learning, The Learning Organization, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 114-24.
Further reading
Brockbank, A. and McGill, I. (1998), Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education, SRHE
and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Schon, D.A. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and
Learning in the Professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Corresponding author
Roland K. Yeo can be contacted at: yeokkr@yahoo.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Learning
institution to
organization
419

Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 04:32 17 March 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Robin Snell, Jacky HongOrganizational Learning in Asia 635-658. [CrossRef]
2. Tam T. Phuong, Hang B. Duong, Gary N. McLean. 2015. Faculty development in Southeast Asian
higher education: a review of literature. Asia Pacific Education Review 16, 107-117. [CrossRef]
3. Kala S. Retna, Deborah Jones. 2013. The learning organisation and Singapore culture. The Learning
Organization 20:4/5, 338-351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Roland K. Yeo. 2013. Building commitment through reflective practice: an insideout approach. Industrial
and Commercial Training 45:1, 3-11. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Nathan S. Hartman, Thomas Conklin. 2012. A thematic analysis of a leadership speaker series. Journal
of Management Development 31:8, 826-844. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Meredith A. Atwood, Jordan W. Mora, Abram W. Kaplan. 2010. Learning to lead: evaluating leadership
and organizational learning. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31:7, 576-595. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
7. Artras Kaklauskas, Dilanthi Amaratunga, Richard Haigh. 2009. Knowledge model for postdisaster
management. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 13, 117-128. [CrossRef]
8. Martin Schieg. 2009. Model for integrated project management. Journal of Business Economics and
Management 10, 149-160. [CrossRef]
9. Carlene Boucher. 2007. Using reflective practice as a management development tool in a Victorian Health
Service. Reflective Practice 8, 227-240. [CrossRef]
10. 2007. A little more conversation. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal
21:2, 23-25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Jennifer Calhoun, Alecia DouglasAn Analysis of Hospitality and Tourism Research: 359-381. [CrossRef]