Elaine
Secondary teacher/administrator
NSW, Australia
pet@zeta.org.au (Paul & Elaine Talbert)
-----
Host's Note: I usually don't circulate such long items as this. I'm
making an exception here because of the quality of the piece and the
references. Hope you all enjoy it.
The ERIC on-line facility ("Educational Research ....") is on the web at
-- Rick Karash, rkarash@karash.com, host for learning-org
-----
.....................................
Myths and Realities
The Learning Organization by
Sandra Kerka
1995
At least since the 1990 publication of Senge's The Fifth Discipline, the
concept of the learning organization (LO) has been promoted as a way to
restructure organizations to meet the chal- lenges of the coming century.
What are learning organizations in theory and in practice? Are they a real
solution or the latest in a series of reform fads? The myths and realities
are explored in this publication.
Getting a Grip on the Learning Organization
Of course, there is not yet a consensus on the definition of a learning
organization. Any type of organization can be a learn- ing organization
businesses, educational institutions, nonprofits, community groups. Some
authors agree that LOs start with the assumptions that learning is
valuable, continuous, and most effective when shared and that every
experience is an opportunity to learn. LOs have the following
characteristics (Calvert et al. 1994; Watkins and Marsick 1993):
They provide continuous learning opportunities. They use learning to
reach their goals. They link individual performance with organizational
performance.
They foster inquiry and dialogue, making it safe for people to share
openly and take risks.
They embrace creative tension as a source of energy and renewal.
They are continuously aware of and interact with their environment.
Senge's "five disciplines" are the keys to achieving this type of
organization: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team
learning, and systems thinking. According to Senge, the fifth, systems
thinking, is the most important and underlies the rest.
Of course, in a sense "organizations" do not learn, the people in them do,
and individual learning may go on all the time. What is different about a
learning organization is that it promotes a culture of learning, a
community of learners, and it ensures that individual learning enriches and
enhances the organization as a whole. There can be no organizational
learning without individ- ual learning, but individual learning must be
shared and used by the organization (P. West 1994). The familiar litany of
chal- lenges and changes global competition, technological advances,
quality improvement, knowledge work, demographic diversity, changing social
structures is driving organizations to adapt and change. "The ability to
learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive
advantage" (Murrell and Walsh 1993, p. 295).
The LO: Is Anybody Out There?
In theory, the learning organization concept is appealing. How- ever,
according to Watkins and Marsick (1993), "everyone is talking about [it]
but few are living it" (p. 3). We "know a lot about learning-organization
theory, but far less about how to apply it" (Calvert et al. 1994, p. 40).
Nevertheless, examples can be found of LO principles in practice in the
workplace and in schools. Johnsonville Foods in Sheboygan, Wisconsin,
appears to have been an LO long before the label was coined. In the early
1980s, the sausage manufacturer implemented several programs based on the
notion of using the business to build great people; that way, the
organization cannot help but succeed (Watkins and Marsick 1993). These
programs included (1) personnel development fund each employee is given
$100 per year for any learning activity; (2) member interaction program
employees (members) spend time "shadowing" other workers to learn how their
jobs and those of others fit into the whole; (3) resource center; (4)
Personal Responsibility in Developing Excellence (PRIDE) teams investigate
quality of work life issues; and (5) company performance share profit
sharing is based on evaluation of individual and team performance as well
as personal growth and development. According to Honold (1991), profits and
productivity are up, absenteeism and turnover down, and morale is high.
Several businesses are mentioned often in the literature as practicing LO
principles (Solomon 1994; Watkins and Marsick 1993), such as
Harley-Davidson, Motorola, Corning, AT&T, and Fed Ex. Ford's Lincoln
Continental division broke product develop- ment records, lowered quality
defects, and saved millions. At Chaparral Steel, 80% of the work force is
in some form of educa- tional enhancement at any time. They now produce a
ton of steel in 1.5 employee hours, compared to the national average of 6.
It should be a given that schools are "learning organizations." Duden
(1993) describes how Sullivan elementary school in Talla- hassee applied LO
quality principles and a vision statement to transform itself. The school's
core values include the follow- ing: individuals are valued, teachers are
professionals, parents are partners, decision making is shared. (These
values apply equally to the workplace by substituting worker, manager, cus-
tomer for individual, teacher, parent.) Due to the transforma- tion at
Sullivan, teacher approval ratings are up 20%, test scores remain high, and
parents are more involved.
The LO concept is not confined to established, permanent institu- tions.
Smith and Stodden (1994) show how it can applied to an ad hoc organization.
The Restructuring through Interdisciplinary Team Effort Project involved
schools in improving outcomes for vocational special needs students. School
teams consisting of regular, special, and vocational teachers; support
staff; parents; and other stakeholders attended a summer institute to learn
how to build a team-driven learning organization in their schools. The
focus was on collaborative procedures "powerful enough to transform a
loosely bound group of interdisciplinary stakeholders into a dynamic team
of learning organizers" (p. 19) who are continually discovering how to
create and improve upon the systems in their schools.
A Blurred Vision
Theoretical support and some real-life examples notwithstanding, some
critics claim this emperor has no clothes. Despite Ford's success with LO
principles (cited earlier), the director Fred Simon "was asked to take
early retirement some say forced out by managers uncomfortable with the
learning organization" (Dumaine 1994, p. 148). Apparently, the benefits
were not explained well enough to top management, who were unprepared for
the initial chaos of building an LO; people were not willing to discuss
prob- lems openly, toppling a pillar of the LO structure. GS Technol- ogies
(ibid.) used Senge's dialogue technique to get labor and management to
listen to each other, but not spreading its use fast enough through the
company caused fear and suspicion among excluded workers.
Jacobs (1995) and W. West (1994) cite a lack of critical analysis of the
theoretical framework of the learning organization. They suggest that,
apart from anecdotes, few studies support the rela- tionship between
individual and organizational learning and there is little discussion of
how the individual benefits. West calls for research that details
conditions under which the concept is successful, types of organizations
that cannot use the model, and what happens when it is imposed on the
unwilling. Kuchinke (1995) thinks "the concept is being oversold as a
near-universal remedy for a wide variety of organizational problems" (p.
307). He states that the primary purpose of most organizations is not to
acquire knowledge/learning but to produce goods and services. He suggests
that LO advocates have not taken advantage of the findings of
organizational learning research.
On the school front, there is also a gap between myth and reality. Shields
and Newton (1994) analyzed schools partici- pating in the Saskatchewan
School Improvement Program (SSIP) using Senge's five disciplines: (1)
personal mastery SSIP focused on action, not learning, and staff
development activities were few; (2) mental models little discussion of
concepts such as school climate or leadership; (3) shared vision some
schools had a mission statement but goals were not identified and impact on
students was unclear; (4) team learning teachers paid lip service, but were
not team players; and (5) systems thinking there was more
compartmentalization, "them vs. us" attitude. Isaacson and Bamburg (1992)
also sized up schools along the dis- ciplines, concluding that "it is a
stinging experience to read about LOs and realize how few schools and
districts fit the definition" (p. 44).
Secretarial support staff in a Canadian university (May 1994) felt their
learning opportunities were restricted and learning efforts undervalued.
They had fewer opportunities, less funding, and limited time off work for
learning. Managers viewed only secretary-related courses as appropriate
professional development. This despite the strategic plan declaring that
the university is dedicated to enabling, developing, and empowering
learning for all. May concludes: "It is a sad paradox that the institutions
most clearly dedicated to helping adult learners to learn are such slow
learners themselves" (p. 47).
Even Senge himself has some discouraging words. Asked by O'Neil (1995)
whether schools are LOs, he answered: "Definitely not" (p. 20). He finds
that most teachers are oppressed by trying to conform to rules, goals, and
objectives. Schools are build on the model of passive ingestion of
information, and the educational enterprise is fragmented and stratified.
Although cooperative learning is often advocated for students, "the idea
that teachers and administrators ought to learn together really hasn't gone
too far" (ibid.).
Bridging the Gap
What barriers prevent the learning organization from becoming a reality?
"One of the barriers to the successful creation of gen- erative learning
organizations is the lack of effective leaders" (Murrell and Walsh 1993, p.
295). The learning organization re- quires a fundamental rethinking of
leadership. Leaders become designers, teachers, and stewards of the
collective vision (Senge 1990). Managers must change the belief that only
they can make decisions, and employees must change the belief that they
don't have to think on the job (Honold 1991). Leadership in an LO is the
ability to coach and teach; it is not exclusive, authoritative, or assumed,
but learned and earned. "Effective leadership may emerge anywhere true
learning is taking place" (Gratton 1993, p. 100).
Inquiry and dialogue can be threatening; people are typically not rewarded
for asking tough questions or identifying complex prob- lems (Gratton
1993). Other barriers cited by Watkins and Marsick (1993) include the
inability to recognize and change existing mental models, learned
helplessness, tunnel vision, truncated learning (incomplete transfer of
past learning), individualism, and a culture of disrespect and fear. They
assert that a learning organization cannot be created in an atmosphere of
lay- offs, downsizing, "retirement on the job," and a part-time, over-
taxed, temporary work force.
The LO in Sight
It seems that the concept of the learning organization is clear enough to
some to be putting it into practice; to others, it is fuzzy and amorphous
and needs critical attention. However, use- ful insights can still be drawn
from theory and practice. The learning organization is best thought of as a
journey, not a destination (P. West 1994), a philosophy, not a program
(Solomon 1994). Few would argue that bureaucracy, Taylorism, or passive
learning are the best ways to work and learn in the world today. The LO has
a lot to offer to the reform and restructuring of organizations, but
building one is clearly an enormous task. However, one can begin with the
attitude that learning is "a sustainable resource, not a limited commodity"
(May 1994, p. 53) and work on developing the mindset of a culture of
learning. It must be recognized that the visioning process is ongoing, not
a one-time event (O'Neil 1995).
The learning organization myth or reality? "There is no such thing as a
learning organization. . . . It's a vision that sees the world as
interdependent and changing. A learning organi- zation is always evolving"
(Solomon 1994, p. 59). "You never arrive. . . . You can never say `We are a
learning organization'" (Hammond and Wille 1994).
References
Calvert, G.; Mobley, S.; and Marshall, L. "Grasping the Learning Organization."
Training 48, no. 6 (June 1994): 38-43. (ERIC No. EJ 484 475) Duden, N. "A
Move from Effective to Quality." School Administrator 50, no. 6 (June
1993): 18-21. (ERIC No. EJ 465 273)
Dumaine, B. "Mr. Learning Organization." Fortune 130, no. 8 (October 17,
1994): 147-157. (ERIC No. EJ 490 452)
Gratton, M. "Leadership in the Learning Organization." New Directions for
Community
Colleges 21, no. 4 (Winter 1993): 93-103. (ERIC No. EJ 479 918) Hammond,
V., and Wille, E. "The Learning Organization." In Gower Handbook of
Training
and Development, 2d ed., edited by J. Prior. Brookfield, VT: Gower, 1994.
Honold, L. "The Power of Learning at Johnsonville Foods." Training 28, no.
4 (April
1991): 55-58.
Isaacson, N., and Bamburg, J. "Can Schools Become Learning Organizations?"
Educational
Leadership 50, no. 3 (November 1992): 42-44. (ERIC No. EJ 454 329) Jacobs,
R. L. "Impressions about the Learning Organization." Human Resource
Development Quarterly 6, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 119-122. Kuchinke, K. P.
"Managing Learning for Performance." Human Resource Development
Quarterly 6, no. 3 (Fall 1995): 307-317. May, S. "Beyond Super Secretary'
Courses." Canadian Journal of University Continuing
Education 20, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 45-54. (ERIC No. EJ 495 823) Murrell, P.
H., and Walsh, J. P. "Leadership Development at Federal Express
Corporation." Human Resource Development Quarterly 4, no. 3 (Fall 1993):
295-302.
(ERIC No. EJ 473 917)
O'Neil, J. "On Schools as Learning Organizations." Educational Leadership
52, no. 7
(April 1995): 20-23. (ERIC No. EJ 502 905) Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline.
New York: Doubleday, 1990. Shields, C., and Newton, E. "Empowered
Leadership." Journal of School Leadership 4,
no. 2 (March 1994): 171-196. (ERIC No. EJ 483 293) Smith, G. J., and
Stodden, R. A. "Restructuring Vocational Special Needs Education
through Interdisciplinary Team Effort." Journal for Vocational Special
Needs Education
16, no. 3 (Spring 1994): 16-23. (ERIC No. EJ 482 768) Solomon, C. M. "HR
Facilitates the Learning Organization Concept." Personnel Journal
73, no. 11 (November 1994): 56-66.
Watkins, K. E., and Marsick, V. J. Sculpting the Learning Organization. San
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1993.
West, P. "The Learning Organization: Losing the Luggage in Transit?" Journal of
European Industrial Training 18, no. 11 (1994): 30-38. (ERIC No. EJ 497
198) West, W. "Learning Organizations: A Critical Review." In Proceedings
of the Midwest
Research-to-Practice Conference, edited by L. Martin. Madison: University
of Wisconsin, 1994. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378 359)
Developed with funding from the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, U.S. Department
of Education, under Contract No. RR93002001. Opinions expressed do not
necessarily reflect the
position or policies of OERI or the Department. Myths and Realities may be
freely reproduced.
-- pet@zeta.org.au (Paul & Elaine Talbert)