Measuring Organizational Learning

Lorraine S. Nemeth

FucuZty of E d u ~ ~ t i ~ n

Submitted i n partial fulfilment

of

the requirements for the degree of

Muster of Education

Fmlty of Qduate Studies The University of Westem O n t a r i o

London, Ontario

March 1997

Cop~ngh: Lorraine S.

Nemeth 1997

National Library

du Canada

BibliothMue nationale

Acquisitions and Bibliographic Services

Acquisitions et services bibliographiques

T h e author has granted a non. exclusive licence allowing the National Library ofCanada t o reproduce, loan, distriiute or sell copies ofhismer thesis by any means and in any form or format, making this thesis available to interested
perso-.

L'autem a accord6 une licence non exc1Ilsk pennettant la Bibliothnationale du Canada de f e p r a , ptetef, distrr'buerou venQt des copies de sa tMse de p i q u e nmi&reet sous cpelqye f m e qye ce soit pour metke des exemplaires de cette th&e a la disposition des personnes int&ess&s.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in his/her thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantiat extmcts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced with the author's permission.

L'auteur conserve la prop.i&6du b i t d'autem qui pmtkge sa these. Ni la t h k ni des d t s substantiek de celle-ci ne doivent &re hprh6s ou

The growing body of Organizational Leaming (OL) research introduces a perspective

chat learning is not only the capability of individuals; learning can also happen on a
6

group level and is facilitated by an organizational climate that provides the conditions

and motivation for learning. This perspective challenges educators to accept a broad
definition of individual leaming and also challenges us to understand leaming as a group

and organizational level phenomenon. The thesis of the research was that educators can
benefit from developing a pragmatic knowledge of OL and that a measurement
instrument can be a catalyst to helping us tindemand how to improve organizational effectiveness through better leaming processes and abilities. The paper includes an extensive theoretical discussion of OL and the analysis of results f r o m applying an instrument that can help diagnose perceptions of existing leaming patterns and beliefs about leaming in organizations. The theoretical discussion and empirical results were highly suggestive that OL is more than the leaming that individuals do and that the OL research provides valuable insights for educators . The ability to measure perceptions of leaming patterns provides data that can add to our understanding of how to invest resources to improve organizational effectiveness through improved leaming patterns.

Keywords: Organizational Leaming, Leaming Assessment tool, Learning Patterns,

Leaming Organization, Training and Development.

Table of Contents
Page
Cemficate of Examination
It

..

Abstract

iii

Table of Contents One: Introduction

iv

Two: Literature Review

Three: Theoretical Framework
Fourc Research Procedures
Five: Results
Six: Conclusions

Appendices Appendix 1: Learning Assessment Map Appendix 2: Results

Evidence of Ethical Approval

Bibliography

Vita

Introduction
Within the last decade, corporate educators have been introduced to the idea of facilitating and managing organizational leaming (OL) as one way to help their organizations remain competitive. Business writers tafk about an organization's ability to leam as a key requirement for innovation and strategic renewal. A recent Conference Board of Canada publication states: For organizations in the 1 9 9 0 ~ leaming ~ makes the critical difference. Through leaming, organizations adapt to environmental constraints, avoid the repetition of past mistakes and retain critical knowledge that might otherwise be lost...As the rate of learning becomes a more critical element in gaining competitive advantage, it is generally recognized that organizations must

become more "intentional" about their own leaming processes.... Many of the
critical problems our organizations face are problems of leaming. The ability to implement a strategic change, to respond to a competitive challenge, to move critical knowledge across divisional boundaries all are closely tied to the organization's ability to learn. (Dixon, 1993, p.3)
As an educator in a corporate Learning and Development division, Ibegan

exploratory research into organizational leaming m find evidence of a need for organizations to take a broad look at leaming and understand organizational leaminq. Initially, I turned to scholarly work on the subject and found a broad body of literature that convincingly argued the need to understand and execute organizational learning.

The growing body oOL research introduces a perspective that learning is not only the
capability of individual; learning can also happen on a group level and is facilitated by an organizational climate that provides the conditions and motivation for learning. T h i s

perspective challenges educators to accept a broad definition of individual learning and

also challenges us to undernand learning as a group and organizational level phenomenon.

I n education, whether it is public, private, or corporate education, we are

primarily concerned with developing the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values of

individual. The development of knowledge and skills usually takes place through planned, programmed instruction and is assessea on an individual basis. Scheffler (1973)
states,

"thegoal of education should be nothing short of the fullest possible development

of the human organism....educational theory starts from this fkct.... (including) goals such
as (developing) individuality, imagination, integrity, autonomy and sensitivity." (p.167)

Learning is most commonly understood to be a deliberate effort to increase one's knowledge and cognitive ability or t o consciously change behaviour. Individuals come into a learning environment, insuuctional activity takes place, and the knowledge gained is measured through some type of assessment on an individual basis. Often leaming is conceptualized as a transfer of knowledge from an expert (teacher) to the learner (student). Events such as taking a course at school,u s i n g a self-learning book to learn a
new s o b r e program, and practicing a golf swing am examples of this type of leaming.

Educators have at our disposal, a vast and growing body of knowledge about the
development of the skills and abilities of individuals in educational settings. The OL

literature is less concerned with leaming evencs and focuses on leaming that can take place daily as people are faced wid;-&iliar situations and information, interact with

other people, problem-solve, and respond to daily events.

The emphasis is on learning

that involves consciaus and unconscious change and l e a r n i n g that may or may not be intentional, observable or measurable. h OL theories, learning is also not necessarily only an expectation of individuals. Dixon's (1993) description of learning and work helps
to illustrate the perspective on learning held by organizational leaming theorists:

We normally think of learning and work as separate activitie s . . . leaming is

frequently a pan of the task itseK Most jobs now require interpre~g, analysing and synthesizing information, tasks that were formerly =petted only of managers...The terms interpretation, analysis and synthesis, which are o h used to describe the new work, are aspects of learning; thus leaming and work have become synonymous terms. Rather than leam in preparation for work, employees must leam their way out of the work problems they address. ...the behaviours that define leaming and the
behavioua that define being productive are one and the same. (p. 3)

In order lor educators to leverage this perspective to increase the effectiveness of

h i n g s : fiat, we need to be our organizations, we need to develop the ability to do three t

able to visualize our organizations as leaming organizations. This requires us to challenge

our beliefs about learning and develop skills and knowledge to recognize and describe

how our own organizations would hction as learning organizations. Second, we need to

be able to diagnose and describe the leaming processes and capabilities that currently
exist in our organizations. Finally, we need to develop methods and abilities to close the gap between where the organization is today and where it needs to be as a leaming organization. This research provides insights that can be used by educators to expand our repertoire of educational practices and perform these three functions.

The thesis ofthe research is that educators can benefit from developing a
pragmatic knowledge of organizational learning and that a measurement instrument can be a catalyst to helping us understand how to improve organizational effectiveness

through better learning processes and abilities. Two research questions support the study:

1. What is the difference between organizational learning and the learning of

individuals who are participants in the organization?

2. If we can substantiate organizational leaming theoretically, can it be identified,

diagnosed and leveraged?

The research involves an extensive literature review and an analysis of a

framework for organizational learning.

The research then goes beyond the theoretical

treatment to apply an i n s t r u m e n t that may help diagnose perceptions of existing leaming patterns and beliefs about learning in our organizations. The analysis of information gathered with the measurement instrument can help to idennfy points of intervention to help close the gap between how the organization h c t i o n s today and how
it could h c t i o n with improved leaming abilities.

The use of the instrument, which is

currently in formative stages, allows us to assess its utility to provide insight into the
value- added, to educators, of OL research. The measurement instrument used in this study is called the "Learning Assessment Map". It is one of eighteen assessment instruments described by Van Buren

r a i n i n g and Development and Lucadamo (1996) in a recent American Society for T

(ASTD) survey of learning organization assessment instruments. The Learning
Assessment Map has been developed on a foundation of a decade of research by a group

of researchers at the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western

Ontario.

The instrument has demonstrated strong reliability and validity in terms of

measuring perceptions of leaming patterns on three levels: individual, group, and

organization. It reveals differences in learning at the three levels, f l o w s of information between the levels and differences in learning cognition and behaviours. Some of the questions the instnunem helps to answer are:

How well developed is each level of learning in the organization?

Are the current panems of learning bringing the results we need?

Do our employees believe that our organizational culture facilitates learning?

Is new knowledge institutionalized! Are systemic organizational elements seen to be blocking the leaming of
individuals and groups? How can we leverage the resources available to enhance our organizational

leaming?

The Learning Assessment Map was selected for use in this mdy for three reasons;
fim, it was the only instrument inventoried by the ASTD that can provide results of
tests to show reliability and validity of the instrument; second, the opportunity was

available to work directly with the expem developing it; and third, it is built on a robust

conceptual framework.

The conceptual framework helps us to create a unique vision of

our organizations as learning organizations. In chis research, the Learning Assessment

Map is used to investigate the perceived Learning patterns and cognition in a service
organization with 175 employees.

The research document includes six chapters. In chapter two, a review of

Literature is presented and discussed in the context of creating models of performance for learning organizations. I n chapter duee, the Learning Matrix is presented. Chapter four

coven the procedures followed to apply the measurement instrument and chapter five
presents the analysis and interpretation of results. Fin&,
in chapter six, conclusions are

drawn about the necessity of educators to pay attention to Organizational Learning and

the utility of the measurement instrument for helping us to operationalize OL.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

The goal of the literature review is to provide an understanding of the knowledge
required to articulate a vision for our organizations as learning organizations. The review

begins with a look at selected definitions of organizational learning (Table 1.1)-

Table 1.1 Definitions of Organizational Leaming

Learning Organizations are organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspirations are set free and where people are continually learning how to learn together. (SMge, 1990, p.3)

A Leaming Company is a n organization that Olcilitates the leaming of all its members and continuously transforms itself. (Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell, 1991.
p.12)

Organizational Learning is a process in which members of an organization detect errors or anomalies and correct it by restructuring organizational theory of action, embedding the results of their inquiry in organizational maps and images. (Argyris, 1977, p 11 6 . )

A Leaming Organization is a n organization skilled in creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights. (Garvin, 1993, p.80)

The capacity or processes w i t h i n an organization to maintain or improve

performance based on experience. (Nevis, 1995, p.73) Organizational Leaming means the process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding. (Fiol and Lyles, 1985, p.803 )

Organizations are seen as learning by encoding inferences from history into routines that guide behaviour. (Levitt and March, 1988, p. 319)
Organizational Leaming is a process by which knowledge about action outcome relationships between the organization and the environment is developed. (Daft and Weick, 1984, p.285)

There are some common themes in the set of definitions in Table 1.1: new knowledge can improve performance, learning needs to be shared with all who can take advantage of it, a changing environment necessitates learning, and OL can facilitate change and improved performance. Some researchers define the phenomenon as a continuous process and use the terms "Organizational Learning" and "Learning within Organizationsn. They are looking at how learning occurs; the processes of creating and using knowledge. Others define the phenomenon as a noun or a destination; the

"Learning Organizationnor the "LearningCornpad. These researchers describe

characteristics of organizations that learn The belief in a process or a destination has implications for the v i s i o n of organizational learning one is t y i n g to establish to guide

the efforts of the organization and will be discussed further in chapter three. Theorists
o f f e r varying perspectives on three additional dimensions including: the levels within an

organization in which Learning occurs (individual, group or the organization itself), the

definition of leaming (beyond the perspective of learning established in the introductory

chapter), and the essential structures, competencies andlor practices for the leaming organization.

The discussion of the OL literature is b e d in this chapter using the three

dimensions. The literature is presented as it relates to theorist's views of OL within each

dimension and how educators can benefit from an understanding of the different views on
howledge and leaming.

Levels o f Learning
Organizational leaming theorists discuss and debate the levels at which leaming

takes place and on the level of leaming &at is most meaningful to study. Some believe

that learning happens on three levels: individual, group and organization. A few believe,

as most educators would, that the individual is the only e n t i t y capable of learning.

Others believe that leaming occurs an two levels, individual and group.

Dogson (1993) articulates the belief that individual level learning is the most

meaningful: "Individuals are the primary leaming e n t i t y in firms and i o individuals which
create organizational forms that enable learning in ways which hcilitate organizational d o r m a t i o n s . " (p.377 )

Other researchers argue that the two additional entities w i t h i n the organization:
groups and the organization itself, influence learning and make it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to have purely new thoughts and act on them without the influence of past organizational learning. The group and organization levels influence individual leaming because structures for interpretation, structures for knowledge
sharing, and memories exist at these levels. Glynn, Lant and Milliken (1994) state that "newer perspectives on learning focus on the more emergent nature of learning;

information to be learned is constructed through the ongoing interactions among organization members' (p. 55). Nicolini (1995) argues that considering leaming only on the individual levei is too narrow a focus. His belief is chat group and organization level learning are the most
important to understand.

Concentrating on individual leaming does not explain how an interpreted,

h i s reaffirms the communicabie, consensual knowledge can be developed.. .t

importance of taking the organization and its structure as the agent of the

process....Only learning embedded in the standard operating procedures, mehods of communication and co-ordination and s h e d undemanding about
tasks have a persistent effect. ( p. 734)
I

Seely-Brown (1993) articulates the belie6 of theorists who argue that it is essential to understand learning on the group level as distinct fiom learning on the individual level.

Learning is a social or community phenomenon. Understanding the process

through which groups learn, how they combine individual knowledge and
beliefs into shared cognitive structures, and take co-ordinated action is

important. Indeed a sense of community, the desire to belong, may be one of

the fundamental motivations for learning. (p. 94) Seely-Brown introduced the concept of "communitiesof practice" to illustrate the importance of understanding chat learning happens in groups. He argues that organizations can benefit fiom the howledge and insight created within communities of practice by recognizing they exist and allowing them to thrive. Stewart (1996) makes this observation:

That's an insight with huge and problematic implications for managers. Not
every group learns. You can't take a dozen people at random,give them a pot of
coffee and a box of doughnuts and expect them to leam something. Groups that

learn, communities of practice, have special characteristics. They emerge of their

own accord... They collaborate directly, use one another as sounding boards, teach each other. You can't m a t e communities like t h i s by fiat and they are easy to destroy.

... Communities of practice ace the shop floor of human capital... the

enterprise involves learning. ( p. 175)

Seely-Brown (1 993) tells the story of copier repairers who exchange tips at the water cooler. They leam more through these informal exchanges than in the programmed instruction provided by their organization ( p. 96). People join communities

of practice such as this one because they can benefit from and conmbute to the learning
of the group. Educators should pay attention to the implications that arise from the learning chat happens in informal groups. If we can recognize the groups, and diagnose

what they leam, we can search for methods and tools to leverage the learning. We may

also be able to put people in touch with each other who may be duplicating each other's
efforts or who may, together, tackle something that would be too daunting for an
individual to achieve. On the other hand, we may be able to uncover and disband groups that learn w i t h destructive outcomes, The need to recognize the third level of learning as distinct from group or individual level learning is revealed by a number of researchers (Crossan, White and Lane

1993; Simons 1995; Nevis, DiBella and Gouid 1995; ECLO 1995; Fiol and Lyles 1985,
Nicolini, 1995). Fiol and Lyles (1985) describe the capacity for organization level learning: "Organizations, unlike individuals, develop and maintain learning systems that not only influence their immediate members, but are then transmitted to others by way of

or,aanization histories and norms.... Organizations do not have brains but they have cognitive systems and memoties". (p. 804).

The organization has the ability to preserve attributes such as certain behaviwrs,
mental maps, norms and values over t i m e . Members of the organization share these
attributes and use them to understand and interpret their environment. These attributes

thus become the foundation for new learning. This is so because "all leaming takes place
in the context of prior learningn (Driver, 1993, p. 122). A metaphorical "cognitive

system" develops at the level ofthe organization drat may be different from the cognitive

systems of its individual members and may influence leaming more than the individual
systems.

Robert-JanSimons (1995) sums up the beliefs of researchers who believe leaming

occurs on all three levels:

In studying leaming in organizations, one soon discovers that there are three
levels of leaming: individual learning, group learning and organizarional
learning.... There is no organizational leaming without individual leaming

and individual learning needs organizational assistance and contexc to be

effective... It is the combination and co-ordination of the three kinds of leaming that makes an organization a leaming one. (p. 277) Nevis, DiBella and Gould (1995) go even hrther and suggest the most meaningful level of analysis is the organization itself: "Learningis a system-level phenomenon
because it stays with the organization even if individuals changen(p.

73). The argument

this trio of researchers presents is difficult to defend because organizations tend t o

e-wperiencea loss of knowledge when key people leave. The organization would never able to sore in its memory aLl the relevant knowledge held in the minds of individual
members.
I

As illustrated in this brief review o f literature, the organization is a social

community. Leaming takes place in the context of individualt cognitive schema and also
in the context of the beliefs and understanding of co-workers. The organizational culture,

embedded rules and norms, strategy and structures are a storehouse of learning at the level
of the organization and has great impact on Learning at the other levels. Group level
leaming and organizational level learning are more clearly conceptualized in the discussion of the Learning Matrix and the Learning Assessment Map. For now, it is
important to understand that this study is premised on the belief chat learning happens

on all three levels. The n e x t category to explore is the definition of leaming used by OL
theorists.

Definition o f Learning
In Education. we commonly conceptualize and define learning in two ways: as a
relatively permanent change in behaviour due to experience, or a relatively permanent
change in cognition due to experience. (Ormrod, 1995, p.5).

The fim perspective

reflects a collection of theories known as behaviourism. The second perspective reflects a collections of theories known as cognitivism. In corporate education and t r a i n i n g ,we

tend to align with behaviourism and spec* learning objectives in tenns of desirable,
observable behavioua. We use instructional design techniques to teach new behavioun

and help individuals expand or change theu behavioural repertoire. In education, the
alignment is mostly likely to be with cognitivisln and the goals of developing individual's

beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, emotions and values.

The cognitive and behavioural

perspectives are also discussed in the OL literature and, as in education, there are theorists who tend to align with one or the other perspective.

The OL literature extends the discussion of the perspectives to develop theories to

show that both behaviour change and cognitive change are necessary in the definition of

learning. A framework that illustrates the outcomes of the complementary processes of

n this section and will provide insights cognitive and behaviour change is discussed i
beneficial for educators.

The OL literature contributes additional cognitive theories for

conceptualizing leaming on two levels: adaptation and d o n n a t i o n . We begin this discussion of the definition of Learning with a look at the theory of two levels of cognitive learning developed by Argyris.
Argyris' (1977) large conmbution to the field of organizational leaming has been

his assertion that leaming happens on two levels of cognition and results in what he calls
"single loopn and "double loop" learning:
O n e type (of organizational learning) involves the production of matches,

or the detection and correction of mismatches, without change in the underlying governing policies or values. This is called singbloop kmning. A second type, double-loop lemnng,does require re-examination and change of the goveming values. Single-loop leaming is usually related to routine,

immediate tasks. Double-Loop Learning is related to the nonroutine, the long-range outcome. (p. 11 6 ) .
Arggris's work i s based'on the premise that individuals and organizations have
e

"frames of referencenor Vheoties of action" that guide behaviour. Single-loop learning

does not require a change in organizational or individual cognitive structures and happens within existing h e s of reference. Double- loop leaming requires changing the existing
h e s of reference in order to produce new insights, new knowledge and new action. T h i s

latter type of leaming can result in organizational transformation. A r m argues that double-loop leaming is very difficult to achieve because people and organizations are not always aware of their theories of action. Even in situations in which people can amculate
the need to change underlying structures, the tendency is to maintain alignment between

action and e x i s t i n g frames of reference. Another factor Argyris cites which makes
double-loop leaming dificult to achieve is a defensive reaction: people tend to want to protect themselves by either hiding or covering up m i s t a k e s or need for change. Because of chis, the need to change is not made public and may not even be considered. Cognitive structures tend to be self-confirming and self-reproducingwhich makes

nansformarional learning difficult.

believes "learning involves a new response or action based on the Argyris (1977) interpretation... leaming is a process of putting cognitive theories to action" ( p. 116)

Others who align closely with cognitivism are Foil and Lyles, Driver and Huber.
Fiol and Lyles (1985) define learning as 'the development of insights,knowledge,

and associations between past actions, the effectiveness of those actions, and furure

actions." (p.809). Driver (1993) defines learning as a cognitive process which he

describes as, "anychange in long-term memory. These changes can involve laying in

engrams for new concepts, skills, beliefs and motives ...they can include large scale
cognitive structures.", ( p. 116). Huber (1991) defines leaming and organizational learning in chis way: " A nentity

learns if, through its processing of information, the range of its potential behavioun is
changed... a n organization learns if any of its units acquires knowledge that it recognizes as potentially useful to the organizationn ( p. 89). Huber's definition means that leaming
can happen without related action being t a k e n . Organizations do not always act on new

knowledge; leaming has occurred if the new information is deemed to be potentidy useful.

I n a 1985 article, Fiol and Lyles illustrate the differences in beliefs about leaming
in the OL literature. Their findings are summarized in Table 2.1.

Fiol and Lyles

attempted to remove debate in OL research about defining leaming either cognitively or behaviourally by clearly stating that organizational learning must always have a cognitive component. They present the argument that a common use by OL theorists of the terms

"learningn, "adaptationnand "changen would move research to a new level.

Fiol and Lyles build on the work of Argycis and assert that leaming is always
either low-level or high-level cognitive development that may or may not be associated

with behaviour development. Learning is defined as "reflective change" which means

there is always a cognitive component to learning that results in creation of new causal relationships, new assumptions and changes to the cognitive associations and interpretative schemes among the members of an organization. These changes lead to

new shared understandings at group levels. Behaviour developments are new responses or actions that are based on the cognitive change. For high level (double-loop) learning to

occur,cognitive development redefines the rules and changes the norms, values and
mental maps; new knowledge is created and orgdnizational renewal i s made feasible. Lower level (single loop) learning does not challenge existing norms, values and rules;
only minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s of behaviour are made.

Table 2.1 Interpretations of the Term "Learning"

Author
Arjgyris

Terms used
Learning: Single loop Double loop New insights and knowledge Learning Leaming :action after interpretation
Leaming: Habit forming and discovery

Meaning

Low-level cognition High-level cognition

Zangelosi and Dill

Behavioural and cognitive Behavioural

Daft and Weick

Hedberg

Behavioural and cognitive

Miller and Friesen

Adaptation: new actions

Behavioural
Behavioural and cognitive development

3hrivasta and Mitroff Leaming ( s y s t e m s ) : Evolutionarg, designed

Fiol and Lyles ( 1985) assert that pure behaviour change is adaptation, not learning. They distinguish adaptation and learning in this w a y :

Adaptation
The ability to make incremental adjustment as a result of environmental changes, structure change, or other change.

Leaming

The development of insights,knowledge, and associations between past

actions, the effectiveness of those actions and fitture actions. Low level: Focused leaming that may be mere repetition of past behaviour usually

i t h associations being formed. High level: short-term, surface, temporary, but w

The development ofcomplex rules and associations regarding new actions.

Development of an understanding of causation. (p. 8 11)

The definition of leaming employed by a theorist complicates the measurement of

leaming because cognitive change can happen without ever being reflected in observable behaviour. t o the observer, pure behaviour change would look like leaming. The theoretical framework presented in Figure 2.1, developed by Crossan ( 199 1 ) helps to bring the cognitive and behavioural perspectives together and illustrates the outcomes of varying degrees of cognition and behaviour change. In the framework,

cognitive change and behavioural change are arrayed against one another. In the upper
left quadrant, there is no cognitive change and no behavioural change, therefore, no leaming is taking place. I n Integrated Learning, illustrated by the lower right-hand

quadrant, change is occurring cognitively and behaviourally. Integrated Learning is the

most desirable because it is relatively permanent. The remaining quadrants reflect
varying degrees of cognitive and behavioural change.

Figure 2 . 1 Cognition and Behaviour Change

-BEHAVIOURS
No Change

No Change

No Learning

Change

COGNrnON

Change

Forced Learning, as illustrated in the top section of the upper right-hand quadrant,
is behaviour change without cognitive change. T r a i n i n g and incentives may influence

this type of learning but the person engaged in the learning may not really understand or
believe in the change.

The person or organizational unit that has been forced to change

does not change its own frame of reference to align with the new behaviour. Behaviour
may revert to a previous state when incentives are removed so that the person's behaviour
is in agreement with beliefs. At a point in time, Forced Learning may be interpreted as

relatively permanent learning because it involves an observable behaviour change. Experimental Learning is illustrated in the bottom section of the upper right-hand quadrant of the matrix i n Figure 2-1. A person in this section of the quadrant suspends

his or her belief to try a new behaviour. If the person has a positive experience with the

new behaviour, Experimental Learning may resolve into Integrated Learning where both
cognition and behaviour change. However, similar to Forced Learning, a behaviour change may or may not lead to change in cognitive associations. The new behaviour may
*

be dropped without any underlying cognitive change in such instances?A r m and Foil

and Lyles would argue that leaming has not occurred. Blocked Learning involves cognitive changes chat do not lead to behaviour changes. Some conditions exist in the organization that do not allow the behaviour change. Blocked Learning is not observable and may not be C O Z L S ~ ~ Ofor U S the learner. To measure cognitive change, one must rely on statements of people in order to determine if

this type of leaming is occurring and being blocked from resulting in new behaviour.

A person or organizational unit involved in Anticipatory Leaming, illustrated in

the lower lefc-hand quadrant of Figure 2- 1, has changed cognitively and that may result in

a change in behaviour or actions and therefore resolve itself into Integrated Leaming.

The entity has internalized howledge that it recognizes as potentially useful to the
organization but has not yet acted on it.

The definition that is most meaningful to me as a practitioner is the definition of

Integrated Leaming; leaming that involves cognitive and behavioural change. For

leaming to be sustainable, it needs to have a balance of both components of learning.

In t r a i n i n g ,we struggle with the problem of sustaining behaviour change over a

long time. We administer t r a i n i n g and can initially observe behaviour changes in

individual. Often however, the behaviour change is not sustained.

The reasons for this

are partially environmental a manager or the work environment does not support the

behaviour change. Another reason for the lack of sustained behaviour change could be

chat we tend not to teach the theoretical or hctual reasons for change. We are typically
not concerned with developing learners cognitively, we tend to focus efforts on behaviour

change. I n education, the learning is more anticipatory. Students learn and have new
knowledge, but are not always immediately able to apply the lmowledge to new actions.

Detailed knowledge learned in sdroot can be lost overtime because it is not put into

action.

The value of understanding the behaviour/cognition framework is knowing that

different types of leaming can take place and that we need to have a practical knowledge
of behaviourism and cognitivism. In our vision for a [earning organization, we can t h i n k
about what types of leaming are required to achieve certain goals. Ultimately, we will strive predominately for Integrated Leaming but there may be times when it is desirable to use Forced Learning or Anticipatory Leaming and structure the environment or

leaming events to achieve this type of leaming. To achieve Integrated Leaming we need
to develop abilities to know how to design Leaming environments and events that can

change people and groups both behaviouralfy and cognitively.

Essential Processes, Competencies and Practices

Similar to the preceding discussion of cognitive and behavioural change in leaming, some researchers cite a cognitive concept information processing as the
mechanism for OL (Huber 1991, Dixon 1992, Dafc and Weick 1984, Sinkula, 1994,

Simons 1995) while others take a behavioural approach citing various skills, knowledge

and behaviour as essential for OL (Senge 1990, Arygris 1977, Garvin 1993, Nevis 19%).
Review of literature in this category begins with a presentation of the frameworks for

information processing.

Processes

Huber (1991) proposes a comprehensive framework of organizational learning

processes that incorporates the work ofa number of theorists. Huber's framework

includes four constructs and related subconstructs and subprocesses. The framework is shown in Table 2.2. From the body of work he examined, Huber extracted four p ~ c i p aconstructs l
for organizational Learning: knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n ,information distribution, information

interpretation and organizational memory. Huber uses the terms knowledge and information interchangeably and gives t h i s explanation for doing so:

I have tried to use information when referring to data that give meaning by
reducing ambiguity, equivocality, or uncertaintyl or when referring to data which indicate that conditions are not pre-supposed, and have tried to use knowledge when referring to the more complex products of knowledge, such as interpretation of information, beliefs about caw-effect relationships or, more generally, "know how". (p. 89)

Constructs andProcesses

Subconstructs and

Subconstructs and

Subproeessess

Subprocesses

1 . 0 Knowledge
Acquisition

1.1 Congential Leaming

L

1.2 Experimental Learning 1.2.1 Organizational Experiments L.2.2 Organizational 1.3 Vicarious Learning SeKappraisal L .2.3 Experimenting Organizations 1.2-4 Unintentional or unsystematic learning 1 . 2 5 Experience-based learning curves 1.4 Grafting 1.5 Searching and
Noticing

..5.1 scanning

. . 5 . 2 Focused Search ..53 Performance

Monitoring

1.0 Information
Distribution

1.0Information
Interpretation

3.1 Cognitive Maps and Framing 3 -2 Media Richness 3 -3 Information Overload

LO Organization
Memory

1.4 Unlearning I. 1 Storing and Retrieving Information 1.2 Computer-based Organizational Memory

Table 2.2 Huber's Constructs and Processes of Otganirational Learning

The &st step of Huber's framework, Kmledge acquisition has five related
processes and subprocesses: drawing on knowledge available at and before the organization's birth; learning fiom experience; learning by obseming other organizations;
grafnng on components that possess knowledge not already possessed by the organization

(through arrangements such as mergets, acquisitions, partnerships); and intentional

searching for information about the environment and performance of the organization
within the environment. Learning from experience is broken down into five additional

subprocesses that include intentional and unintentional efforts to accpire knowledge. It i s through all of these processes that the organization acquires knowledge that is
potentidy useful.

Thinking of leaming as a linear process, knowledge acquisition is the

starting point.

All OL process frameworks include a step of knowledge acquisition. It is generally agreed that organizations need to manage the procedure for acquiring
information both externally and internally. Theorists caution about a number of issues

that impact how information is gathered. Some organizations do not engage in many external information acquisition efforts for fear of appearing vulnerable. Powerful filters

b r information exist in organizations that may block certain information from getting
through to the organization and may block the process of the right information getting to

the people who are m o s t likely to learn from the information. The information filters
may be deliberate attempts to block information or the filters may be unintentional. An additional weakness in knowledge acquisition is that groups within the organization who gather relevant information for leaming may not be aware of other groups who can

benefit ftom the information.

The flow of information might therefore be blocked by

ignorance or misundemanding of another unitts information needs. Arggris believes that powerful filters and blacks of informationexist intenaonalty because people tend to want to protect themselves by either hiding or covering up information that reveals a mistake or a need to change, Admitting failure or being wrong is difficult for people so they will block the knowledge acquisition process to protect their reputation. At the next level, inf-on
disnibution, information i s disseminated to those in

the organization who need it. The process of information distribution has a iarge impact

on leaming because the occurrence and breadth of leaming is dependent on this process.
Information has to get to the right people and the right number of people in a timely manner and not be unreasonably distorted along the way. For leaming to be broadly-based, information must get to a variety of places in the organization.

The next step in a linear learning process is information interpretntion. It is at this

step that information is given meaning and the resulting action (whichcould include no

action) is decided. The process of interpretation is critical for leaming. Some OL

theorists work only in this construct and define organizational leaming as an

interpretative process. Dak and Weick (1984) define leaming as "the process through

which information is given meaning and actions are chosen" ( p. 285). A decision to
take a new response or action is based on how the information is given meaning and to
what extent the interpreted meaning is shared amongst those to must act on the

dormation. Huber ( 1991) describes the effect on learning of the four subconstructs of Information Interpretation:

The extent of shared interpretation of new information is affected by (1)

the uniformity of prior cognitive maps possessed by the organizational u n i t s ,

(2) the uniformity of the h i n g of the information as it is communicated,

(3) the richness of the media used to convey the information,(4) the
information load on the interpreting units, and (5) the amount of

unlearning that might be necessary before a new interpretation codd be

generated. ( p. 102).

For goal- directed learning to occur, information needs to be translated and a degree of shared understanding developed. Groups and individuals may come to a shared understanding very quickly or may have dficulty ever achieving shared understanding.

Theorists struggle with determining the desirability of quickly achieving shared

understanding as opposed to groups debabating a variety of interpretations. If shared understanding is accomplished too quickly it may be at the expense of considering valid

and relevant diverse interpretations that may result in more effective action being taken.
People should be aware that in order to help the interpretation process, idonnation
should be framed in a specific, widely understood context when it is distributed so that

achieving uniform interpretations is facilitated.

Orgunizatid memory, the final construct in Huber's framework, is stored

information and organizational artificts. Organizational memory influences learning in

four primary ways:

1 .

To demonstrate or use learning, t h a t which has been learned m u s t be

stored in memory and then brought forth from memory; both the demonstrability and usability of learning depend on the effectiveness of

t h e organization's memory,
2. Information acquisition depends in many instances on attention, which is
directed by previous learning retained in memory,

3. Information distribution is afEected by organizational decisions made using

information contained in memory,

4. Information interpretation is greatly affected by cognitive maps or kames of reference, which are undefinable except in term of memory- (Huber, 1991, p. 106)
Information is stored in many places: the human brain, manuals, paper files, and
computer files. Accurate recording of information, accurate and complete recall of

information, and interpretation of the information at the time of storage all impact leaming.

The strength of organizational memory is dependent on a number of factors:

Everyday observations make clear (1) that personnel turnover creates great

loss for the human component of an organization's memory;(2) that nonanticipation of future needs for certain information causes great amounts of information not to be stored.. (3) that organizational members

with informationneeds frequently do not h o w of the existence or

whereabouts of information possessed or stored by other members. In

addition, humans are deficient as repositories of organizational information

and howledge. (Huber, 1991, p. 105)

Huber's b e w o r k proirides a good orientation to the relevant: processes of
6

organizational learning.

The fundamental steps he presents can be seen in the

frameworks of other theorists who take an idormation processing view of organizational learning (Dixon 1992, Daft and Weick 1984, Simons 1995, Sinkula 1994). Dixonts
(1 992) learning cycle f o r organizations uses much of the same terminology and resembles

Huber's.

Table 2 . 3 Dixon's Pmcess of Organizational Learning

1. 23. 4.
Acguisition of knowledge Sharing of knowledge Constructingmeaning Organizational Memory 5. Retrieval of Information

Dafc and Weick ( 1984) define the overall learning process as a three step process
and is shown in Table 2.4.
Daft and Weick do not emphasize the construct of

organizational memory. Most of their work is in the area of interpretation. They believe that an organization's capacity for learning is dependent on how it searches for information about its environment and how informarion is interpreted.

Table 2.4 Daft and Weick's Process of Organizational Learning

1. Scanning: Data Collection 2. Interpretation: Data Given Meaning

Nevis, DiBella and Gould (1995) identifv a three step idonnation processing
cycle and support it with seven leaming orientations and ten facilitating facton to help develop leaming abilities. The three stages of the cycle are listed in Table 2.5.
b

Table 2.5 Nevis, DiBella and G o d ' s Cyde of Organizational Laming I 1. Knowledge Acquisition: the development of skills, insights, relationships.
2. Knowledge Sharing: the dissemination of what's been leamed 3. Knowledge Utilization: the integration of leaming so it is broadly available and can be generalized to new situations.
The hcilitating hctors that Nevis, D&Ua and Gould idenbfy as essential introduce behavioural processes that affect the ease at which learning occurs and the amount of effective learning that takes place. The facilitating factors are listed in Table

2.6. The leaming orientations, listed in Table 2.7, are described as the values and
practices within the organization that reflect where learning occurs and the nature of

what is leamed.

Table 2.6: The Ten Facilitating Factors That Expedite Learning

Information gathering practices in the internal and external environment Awareness of pedonnance gaps to motivate learning E f f o r t spent on measuring key hctors that determine needs for and outcomes of learning Support for experimentation Climate of opemess Continuous Education Variety of methods, procedures and systems ehat allows adaptation Multiple advocates at all levels to advance new ideas Involved leadership Interdependenceof organizational units which leads to widespread accountability

Table 2.7: Learning Orientations for the L d g Otganisation

Knowledge Source: Intend v s . External. The organization's preference for developing knowledge intemalLy or externally-

Product * Process~Focus: The emphasis on acaunulation of knowledge about products and services verses how the organization develops, makes and delivers its products and services. Is the organization organized to learn about both?
Documentation Mode: Formal I n f o d : Is knowledge something the individual has or is knowledge publicly documented and shared? Dissemination Mode: F o r d M o d : Formal, prescribed organization+ride methods of sharing learning vs. idorma1 methods such as role-modelling and casual daily interadonLearning Focus: Incremental Transformational: Is learning concentrated on
methods and tools to improve what is already in place or on testing the assumptions underlying what is being done?A sound learning s y s t e m benefits f r o m work in both areas.

Value-Chain Focus: Design- Deliver: Emphasis on learning investment in engineering/production activities verses sales and senrice activities.

S k i l l Development Focus: Individual Group: Development of the individual's skills verses team skills. An organization should be able to assess how it is doing in both of these skills areas and improve one or both. (p. 77 )

The analysis of the literature relative to essential structures and processes reveals
that researchers are working w i t h i n all c o n s t ~ a and s various dimensions of the broad framework presented by Huber. Some ofthe item on the Learning Assessment Map
capture perceptions of how w e l l the processes described by Huber support learning in

organizations and if hditating hctofs similar to those dexribed by Nevis, DiBella and Gould are in place.

Behaviours

Huberrsframework does not pay much a t t e n t i o n to learning behaviours and skills.

The Nevis, DiBella and Gould framework incorporates behavioua but does not rely on
them as much as the frameworks that will be presented next.

A discussion of the work

of theorists who take a competenciesabased approach to the mdy of organizational leaming begins with a presentation of the work of Senge.

In the introductory chapter, Senge's (1990) definition of organizational leaming

was presented:

Learning Organizations are organizations where people continually expand

their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of drinking are nurtured, where collective aspirations are set free and

where people are continually learning how to learn together. (p.3)

Senge's contributions have been important to the practitioner. Senge's

theoretical framework for building a learning organization involves five essential leaming
disciplines for organizations and a framework of three stages necessary for application of

the disciplines.

Table 2.8

Sage's Five Learning Disciplines

Personal Mastery Individual commitment to develop one's own capacity for learning. Each person m u s t continudy clatifg and deepen their own personal
vki~n*
8

Shared Vision The organization must be able to continually build commitment u s t be aligned with b e to goals. The thinking and action of each person m u s t prevail in the organization. goals. A sense of common putpose m
Mental Models People m u s t be aware of their m e n t a l models and able to amcukte the unspoken assumptions and norms that shape their actions and decisions. Revealing mental models enables individuals to achieve breakthroughs by surficing and testing assumptions.
Team Learning Organizations m u s t posses collective thinking skills s o groups can develop intelligence and ability greater than individual. Employees must be able to learn in teams and as teams.

Systems Thinking Systems chinking i s the ability to discover structural causes of behaviour and see interrelationships rather than only linear cause and effect. n i s competency links the other four. Within a system, individuals m u s t understand the underlying structures well enough to find leverage points for change and know what to do to change. ( p. 42)

Senge presents a three stage framework that is required for transformational

learning to occur. He argues that organizational learning is a continuous cycle of change

that happens in three stages. The stages include both cognitive and behavioural change
on the levels of individuals and groups.

The three stages are illustrated in figure 2.2.

The deep learning cycle represents underlying cognitive changes that are not observable.

This deep leaming cyde constitutes the essence of the learning organization

- the development not just of new capabilities, but of hdamental shifcs of

mind, individually and collectively- The five basic leaming disciplines are
the means by .which this deep leaming qcle in activated. Sustained

commitment to the disciplines keeps the cycle going. (Senge, 1994, P. 18)

Figure 2.2: Senge's Continuous Cycle of Change

A "deeplearning cycle" of unobservable cognitive change,

Stage 2:

A "Learning~ u u c h n ethat w is changed ovedy to adapt t o the learning i n the "deeplearning cyclenStage 3:

"Rdm"
ObsembIe, measurable
change that resuIt from the learning i n che first two stages

There are three elements related to the deep leaming cycle: awareness and
sensibilities; attitudes and beliefs; and skills and abilities. The skills and abilities are:
1. Aspiration to change: The capacity of individuals and teams to o r i e n t

themselves toward what they care about and to change because they want to.

2. Reflection and conversation: The capacity to reflect on deep assumptions and

patterns of behaviour, both individually and collectively.

The ability to have

"leammghd" conversations.
b

3. Conceptualization: The capacity to see larger systems and forces at play and to
coflstfllct

public, testable ways of expressing these views. (Senge, 1994, p. 19)

A fundamental change i n any one of the elements in the deep leaming cycle will
lead to changes in the other elements in the cycle. Changes in the deep learning cycle
may lead to the visible changes of any of three elements related to the Learning

infrasmrmre: guiding ideas (shared understanding of what the organization exists for and where it is going); theories, methods and tools; systems that guide the behaviour of individuals and groups within the organization.

A leaming organization must foster development of the capabilities of aspiration,

reflection and conversation, and conceptualizationby becoming engaged in the five learning disciplines. The organization must have the ability to continually turn the leaming in the deep learning qcle into new shared understandings, construct new systems andor look for tools based on imporrant new theories in order to evolve the way people think and act. Senge contends that "buildersof learning organizations must develop and improve infhmcture mechanisms so the people have the resources they need: time, management support, money,information, ready contact w i t h colleagues, and more." (Senge, 1994, p. 32)

Senge's premise that structure leads to certain behaviours includes systemic

smcture of a n organization (culture, policies, procedures, organizational hierarchies) and

individual and collective mental models. Fixing problems by trying to fix behaviour

(Forced Learning) w i l l only mask underlying problems for a short time. Systems thinking
means that people understand the underlying structures and what changes to t h e m are

needed to solve problems and impact results. Senge's remarks help to substantiate the argument presented by the cognition/behaviour m a &
in figure 2.1. A balance of

cognitive and behavioural change is required for relatively permanent learning to occur.

Similar to A r m , Senge believes that it is the organization's capacity for

double-loop leaming that makes it a m e learning organization. Senge uses the term "generativenleaming for double-loop learning, and contrasts it to "adaptive" leaming

which is equivalent to Argyri.st definition of single-loop leaming. Also in agreement with

Argyris, Senge asserts that h e s of reference m u s t be analyzed and changed if necessary
in order to achieve generative leaming.

The deep learning cycle in Sengetsframework is the institutional or organizational

memory as it is described by others. Senge acknowledges that changing the deep leaming cycle is difficult and can take years. Institutionalized memory can be a barrier to
generative learning. Senge's main premise however is that a true commitment to practising the five Learning disciplines can overcome bamers imposed by institutionalized

memory. For educators, Senge's work reveals that our greatest point of leverage to affect OL
is most likely at stage 2; developing and improving infmtmcture. Work at this stage can

involve: facilitating buy-in to organizational mission and goals;developing theories,

methods and tools for changing individuals and groups cognitively and behaviourally; and

facilitating the c o n ~ u o u s refinements of the five learning disciplines hcilitating the storage and retrieval of information.

Garvin (1993) builds on Senge's theories and offers some practical tools and
L

techniqyes educators,can use to develop and improve the learning infi.aStruccure. Garvin
describes five building blocks each requiring a distinctive mind-set, tools and patterns of
behaviour. The five building blocks are described in Table 2.9.

Table 2.9 Gamin% Five Building Blocks for Learning Organizations

A consiscent process for problem solving must involve tools and methods for collecting facts and data, systematicalLy analyzing each with an open mind, iden-g causes of behaviour and deciding on action to takeExperimentation with new approaches: Programs to find out about innovative approaches and experiment (sabbaticals to other companies, encouragement of r i s k taking). Learning from experience and history. Activities to reflect on the past, review success and failures and record learning in a format that is open and accessible. Leaning from the best practices of others: Processes for ongoing benchmarking activities that ensure the best industry practices are uncovered, analyzed, adopted and implemented. Transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently: A common vocabulary is required to minimize time and effort spent o n interpretation. Activities to achieve this competency include personnel rotation, education and t r a i n i n g , centrally produced communications, and standardization programs.(p. 79)

Systemic Problem Solving:

Garvin stresses that programs need to be in place to acquire information internally

and externally, analyze and interpret the information, think about strategic plans, assess
current work, find out what other companies are doing, and stimulate exchange of ideas.

The organizational climate needs to be receptive to new ideas and allow time for
reflection and analysis. Staff m u s t be open to criticism and willing to experiment and

self-reflect. The organization climate must be tolerant of mismkes made in an effort to

push the organization f o m d and be open to dowing t i m e for experimentation with new
ideas.

A number of .theorists write specifically about the influence of organizational

F o i land Lyles 1985,Simons 1995, SoUman 1995, climate (or culture) on learning (
Campbell 1985). Simons (1995) makes two observations about culture: culture can make

a positive contribution to leaming in that it prevents the organization from making the same m i s t a k e s over and over again; culture can also have a negative influence on
leaming i n that it can be a powerful hurdle t o change and leaming. S o l h a n (1995) aLo

identifies climate as an important organization element for leaming.

If the organizational climate is learning imfriendly, individuals will perceive
low probability of engagement in learning activities yielding desirable

outcomes, such as financial rewards, social recognition or self achievement.

They may even expect that engagement in learning will lead to negative
outcomes, such as social isolation An important part of the leaming climate is

the organization's reactions to errors. ..There is some evidence that the values
and norms of an organization's corporate culture, reflected in prevailing
management style as well as in its polities and systems, considerably influence

the organization's leaming processes. (p. 424).

A review of Sollman's (1995) dimensions of general organizational climate and
Campbell's (1995) dimensions of corporate culture have lead to the following list of five
dimensions of corporate culture which stress cultural values and organizational systerns.

1 . Communication and Co-operation A learning-lriendly organizational culture

is characterised by open and free communicationt trust and mutual support.

Information flows hotizmtally, upwards, downwards and across h c t i o n a l areas.

2. Learning Fmm Error

- The culture's tolerance for experimentation and

viewing failures as learning opportunities will impact learning. Companies drat

tolerate errors will be better able to detect errors, prevent and reduce error rates.

3. Reward and Recognition An organizational reward system which favours

innovative and creative behaviour promotes learning.

4. Innovation Prevailing attitudes toward innovation are a n important

dimension of the culture to measure.

D o e s the culture value diverse perspectives,

h e emphasis put on conformicy experiences, risk taking and experimentation or is t

with existing rules, beliefi and norms?

5. Decision Making The degree of autonomy of decision making and

participation in important organizational decisions. Are employees responsible for the decisions they make? Employees are more likely to learn from their mistakes if they feel responsible for their actions and are involved in important decisions.

6. Ability to "unlearn" Hedberg (1981) defines "unlearningnas making room

for new ideas and cognitive h e w o r k s in order to foster new knowledge.
Unlearning is very dficult if not impossible because people cannot easily abandon

old ways of thinking and adopt new ones. Organizations cannot easily forget their
history and discard old values and norms. To operationalize the concept of
unlearning, it is important to consider if people are able to articulate underlying

assumptions, set counterproductiveways of thinking aside, and allow new ways of thinking to influence action.
Structure
6

Structure is an important organizational level construct to consider and has not

been specifically addressed in the literature review so far. It is imponant because: "though

most authors believe structure is an outcome of OL, it usually conditions OL itself."

(Nicolini and Meznar, 1995, p. 731). The perceived affect of structure on learning is measured by the Learning Assessment Map so it is important to review some of the key arguments about structure. Disagreements exist amongst researchers regarding optimal organizational structure for learning. Some argue, as Foil and Lyles (1985)do, that the

m o s t influential aspea of structure is the amount of centralized versus decentralized

decision-making; " Centralized and decentralized decision-making structures have very different impacts on the organization's learning ability. Centralized structures tend to reinforce past behaviour (slowing learning) while decentralized structures facilitate the assimilation of new patterns and associations. (p. 805) Not all researchers agree with Fiol and L y l e and argue that, for some organizationsT a centralized decision-makingstructure does not hinder Learning. Nicolini

and Memar (19% ) summarizes the opinions of a number of researchers:

The recognition that certain structures ace more conducive to OL than others has led some authors to support the argument that organizations should be intentionally designed as to enhance their capability to learn. ...

Duncan and Weiss (1979) apply a contingent approach and argue that

finding the optimal organizationdesign results fiom learning which is the

appropriate structure to face the perceived environment. Daft and Huber (1987) argue that the proper structure to promote leaming depends on the amount of information the organization needs to process and the equivocality of that idonnation. ( p. 731) Gephan et al. (1995) contend that there are three elements to structure that influence learning: organizational roles and relationships should be structured flexibly;

work structures should enable those closest to the problem to solve it and structures
should allow leaming to be captured and shared. For example, structure can restrict the development of communities of practice or allow them to thrive.

This chapter has provided a descriptive o v e ~ e w of the literature f r o m the field of OL. As presented in the chapter, in each of the three dimensions discussed: levels of
leaming; definition of Ok and processes and behaviours for OL, there is some convergence in thinking amongst theorists and some issues that continue to be debated.

The Learning Matrix provides a means to begin to pull together the viewpoints in each
dimension and consolidate our understanding of OL.
the next chapter.

The Learning Matrix is discussed in

Chapter Three: Theoretical Framework

The Learning Matrix is a cuhination ofOL research done at the Richard h e y
School of B u s i n e s s at the University of Western Ontario. created the Learning Matrix provide this definition of OL:

The group of researchers who

" the process of change in

individual and shared thought and action, which is affected by, and embedded in the institutions of the ~rganization." (Crossan and HulIand, 1996, p.2).

The definition

focuses on organizational learning rather than defining a leaming organization as in the

definitions offered by Gar-

(1993), Fiol and Lyles (1985) and Pedler, Burgoyne,

Boydell ( 1991) presented in chapter two.

The framework captures the dimensions of OL

described m the literature review. The assumptions on which the framework is built are
summarized in Table 3.1-

The Learning M a t r i x captures the "softnaspects of OL such as Senge's five

disciplines (personal mastery, shared vision, mental model,team learning and systems

thinking)and the "hardnprocesses described by Huber (knowledge acquisition,

information distribution, information interpretation and organizational memory).

Levels of Learning
The Learning M a t r i x is based on the premise that organizational learning happens
at three levels; individual, group and organization. Organizational leaming is more

complex than the s u m of learning at the level of individual members. Crossan et al.
assert that although OL theorists have placed different emphases on the individual. group

and organizational levels of learning, a comprehensive framework needs to consider all

three (1995, p.3).

.
Table 3 . 1 Assumptions Undedying the Learning Matrix
Levels of Learning Learning happens at three levels (individual, group and organization) and complicating tensions exist amongst
these levels.
-

Definition of
earning

Learning involves changes in cognition and behaviour. Leaming and performance are not necessarily directly

and positively related.

-

- -

- -

3ssentia.L
itructures,

There is not an ideal learning organization. The structures,

systems and practices must be managed to ensure they are

mocesses and

appropriate for the particular organization. There are distinct leaming processes that occur at the h e levels of

~ehaviouts.

leaming: intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing.

The Learning Matrix defines two caregories of group leaming: the leaming that
arises from formal and informal work groups and the leaming that is associated with

leadership. The Learning Matrix recognizes leaders and managers as an isolated group

that has a pamcularly strong influence on organizational leaming.

The Leaming Maaix defines the organization level as the systems, structure,
procedures, saategy, culture and other non-human organizational arcifscts that are storehouses of learning. The organizational level embeds learning that flows from
s

individual and group Jeaming systems and procedures.

Definition of Learning
An underlying assumption of the Learning Matrix i s that organizational leaming
is a process of change in both cognition and behaviour and achowledges the notion that

leaming and performance are not directly and positively related. The creators of the
kamework concur with Huber's observation:

Learning does not always increase the learner's effectiveness...entities can

incorrectly learn, and they can correctly learn that which is incorrect... learning need not result in observable changes in behaviour....learning may

result in new and significant insights and awareness that dictate no

behavioural change. (Huber, p. 89)

Extending Huber's argument, learning can a l s o result in incorrect behaviour

changes which do not improve performance and may negatively affect performance. For
the practitioner trying to iduence performance improvement in organizations, it is

important to understand the learning processes chat exist and the co-relation between
leaming behaviours and performance.

Learning Processes The Learning Manix is premised on the theory that there are four meta-processes for
learning at the individual, group and organization levels. The four meta-processes are

"intuiting" and "intetpreting" at the individual level; "integrating" at the group level;

and 'institutionalizingn at the organization level . The four processes can most easily be
conceptualized when described in a linear process. I have adapted an example of a start-up organization used by Crossan and Tiemessen (1995)to describe each type of
learning . Consider the example of a n enaepreneur with an idea to start a private school.

Intuiting

The entrepreneur has a vision of what the school will be, who will attend and
what a day at school will be like for students.

His ideas are based on experiences. He has

vivid mental images of what this organization could be and develops metaphors to share

his ideas with others.

Intermeting

The entrepreneur must interpret idormation about the environment in which the school will exist. Recognizing that he can not n a n and run a school on his own, the entrepreneur hires people to help him. The start-up ideas are interpreted by others through dialogue. Some structure begins to be put around the ideas. Individuals working

with the entrepreneur begin to form conceptual maps of processes and structures for
achieving the vision for the private school. A language stam to form that is unique to the organization.

Through shared understandings, the conceptual maps of the individuals become integrated. Teachers and resource people are hired and groups or depamnents are formed.

Each of these groups has a vision and goals. As the groups begin to taik about what role
they will play in this school and how to achieve their desired outcomes, they adjust their
own ideas and actions to make their actions complement and build on the actions of

others. U p to this point in the development of the school, the interactions may have

been largely informal. Now more formal processes s t a n to be worked outInstitutionalizing

Through the formalization of processes and structures, the organizational storehouse of

systems, procedures, fonndized rules and routines, e t c are built. t h e groups have decided
what subjects will be taught, how to teach them, how students will be grouped i n t o

Learning units, if and how students will move from one place to another, when the school
day begins and ends, how students will be evaluated, in what way parents will be
involved, and the salaries of teachers. The schw1 has formalized structures and procedures that achieve the vision of the
entrepreneur. People working in and attending the school know their roles. Meetings

with people now must be arranged in advance whereas m e e ~ g may s have been idormai
and spontaneous at other stages of learning. Meeting agendas now guide discussions.

There is a structure in place that includes plans, procedures, rules and understanding
amongst individuals and groups about how to operate a a daily basis.

Nonns and values for the school have developed. D e c i s i o n making by people
working in the school is less spontaneous than at earlier stages. The school becomes less responsive to change and new ideas than it had been as a n informal structure. Individual

and group learning becomes institutionalized. The process of inscitutionaiization embeds

past learning into the organization. An organizational culture starts to emerge and

strengthen-

New ideas brought into the organizationby a new member or that come from
existing members will be interpreted in the context of the outcomes of instituionalized

learning. The belief that "all leaming takes place in the context of prior learningn

(Driver, 1993, p. 122) means that new ideas could result in only "single 1oop"leaming
because they are likely to be interpreted i n the context of existing rules and nonns. On

the other hand, with well developed leaming skills, the institutionalized howledge can
be a catalyst for "double-loopnleaming.

The ongoing use of the four types of leaming is desirable in the organization but
now more difficult to isolate and manage. Although the organization is functioning

effectively, now information and environmental change will require the development of
new structures and behavioua. To generate these new outcomes, the organization needs
to manage its ongoing ability to foster intuition that results in new ideas, new intergretatiaui that may require change in collective thinking, integration of the new ideas,

and insututionali~~ion of new processes, practices and behavioua into the system.
Each of the discrete learning processes can potentially result in the refinements of imporrant leaming abilities as outlined in Table 3.2.

47

Table 3.2 Potential Outcomes of Lcuniag

Individual

intuitAg and interpretation

Increase i n human capital and capability.

Group

integration

M o d i f i c a t i o n or wide-scale change in
shared understanding and shared cognitive
structures resulting in co-ordinated action.

Organization institutionalization

Changes to aU or some of the non-human

context for leaming: systems, structure, strategy, procedures, norms of behaviour

and culture.

The Learning Assessment Map reveals people's perceptions about the patterns of
Learning in the organization. Responses to items on the instrument gives an indication of

the extent to which people believe the discrete learning processes are in place and how
the types of learning impact each other.

Essential Structures, Processes and Practices

The Learning Matrix is premised on the belief that there is no ideal pattern of
leaming for a n organization in order to effectively and appropriately engage in both
single 1oop"and"double1oop"leaming.

Organizations w i l l have d&rent patterns of leaming for dif6erent work u n i t s ,

hctional areas, or levels of the organization,.. the pattern need to be assessed

relative to the associated tasks. Ultimately, orboanizationsw i l l have different patterns of learning depending upon the industry in which they operate, their competitive position in the industry, and their stage of development. Rather

t h a n defining one type o f learning organization, i t will be critical for

researchers and managers to begin to diagnose the patterns of leaming in

organizations to assess whether the patterns facilitate or inhibit taking action

given the organizational context. (Crossan et al, 1995, p. 25)

The Learning Matrix

The Learning Matrix is a nine cell structure inwhich the three levels of leaming
are put on both the vertical and horizontal axis. The matrix is shown in figure 3.1. On

the vertical axis, the levels of leaming represent causes or inputs to leaming and on the

h o r i z o n t a l axis, the levels represent results or outcomes. For example, the top middle cell,

LG,represents individual level leaming

resulting in group level leaming. The diagonal

represents the process of moving through the discrete Learning processes: intuiting, interpreting (I-I), integrating (G-G)and institutionalizing (0-0). All the cells within the matrix help to illustrate knowledge flows and behaviours associated w i t h organizational leaming: "The learning m a t r i x provides a means to frame leaming as a multi-dimensional, interactive phenomenan.(Crossan and Hulland, 1995, p. 10). The

framework illustrates distinct differences in the levels o f leaming. Individual level

learning (cell 1-1) is the level educators are most aligned to. The framework identifies groups and organization as valid levels to be isolated and analyzed.

OUTPUT
~ O U P

I-G
Individual Impact on Group

Individual Impact on Organization

Group Impact on Individual

Group Impact on

Ocganization

Organization Impact on [ndividual

Organization Impact on Group

Figure 3.1 The Learning Matrix

Crossan and Hulland (1996) incorporate the theories of group learning offered by

Huber (1991), Senge (1990) and SeelyBrown (1993) and state their view of group
learning:
I

We support the importance of a group level of analysis as distinct from the

individual and organization leveL... We need to be min&l of the information
processing challenges of the group, as weU as the issues of interpretation and

social construction. And the dominant coalition (leadership) is a group that has
particularly strong influence on OL, and thus must a l s o be recognized. (p.5)

At the organization level, the h e w o r k captures the nnonn-human"element and

sees the 0-0cell as representing storehouses of learning.

The 0-0cell depicts

organization encoding and institutionalizing in the form of systems,structures, and procedures. Crossan and Hulland (1996) state "the organization level is not just the

impact of systems, structures and procedures on learning, it is also the institutionalizing of

individual and group learning in the systems, structures and procedures"(p. 6).

Feed-Forward and Feed-Back

The points of intersection above and below the diagonal represent flows of
information between the levels. Below the diagonal, feed-back loops represent the ways

in which integrated and institutionalized learning impact the creation, development and
integration of insights and new ideas (cells 0-G, 0.1 and G-I).

Figure 3 3 F e d F o d and Feed-Back Flows of Learning

Individual

Group

Organization

B y examining the organization level consaucts (systems, structure, strategy,

procedures, culture, etc.) and their influence on individual leaming, one can determine if institutionalized learning is facilitating individual leaming (cell 0-1). As discussed in the literature review, the organization may "empower"indidivualsand enable them to be innovative and intuitive. Organizations may also stifle individual thought and action. Within a single organization, both of these actions may occur; the organizational level could be a hindrance to learning in some situations and a support individual leaming in other situations. Cell G-I represents the groups impact on individual. The group may motivate individual leaming by inspiring individuals and enabling them to be innovative

and intuitive. As Simon (1995) summarizes: 'Group leaming can support individual

learning by creating opportunities to leam, stimuiadng each other to learn, helping each
other to integrate leaming skills in work, giving each other feedback and rewards for learning, helping and supporting each other while Ieamingn (p. 283). Negative tensions

l s o exist between the group lerrel and individual Level can a

-- groups have the potential to

stifle individual thought.

The ceUs above the diagonal (I-G, 1-0,and G-0), represent feed-forward loops;
the ways in which new ideas and insights become integrated and institutionalized. Senge

(1990) sees this flow of leaming as crucial: Tndividual change is vital but not sufficient-

If we are going to address these conditions (need for change) in a significant way, it will
have to be at the level of collective thinking and undemanding" (p. 236).

For individual learning to impact a n organization, the leaming must eventually be

manifested at the organization level. Nicolini and Memar (1995) assert: m
y leaming

embedded in standard operating procedures, methods of communication and

co-ordination and shared understanding about tasks have a persistent effect." ( p.734)
By examining behaviour associated with feed-forward, one can determine how well the organization is perceived to institutionalize the learning of individuals and groups.

Tensions

The three leaming levels and flows of information between them create tensions
for leaming and these tensions can both help and hinder organizational Learning. One
example of the challenge of managing the tensions amongst the levels is how to ensure that the context through which new ideas and insights are interpreted by individuals and

integrated by groups is not impeding growth and the organization's ability to respond to its environment Crossan and Hulland (1995) define the challenge:

The challenge for o r ~ ~ z a t i ois ns to manage the tension between the

I

institutionalized learning that enables it to efficiently produce along the part of

the business that is well defined, and is more routine in nature, while simultaneously allowing the less tangible and concrete process of i n t u i ~ g ,
interpreting and integrating to flourish (p. I 2)

Information related to behaviour in the feed-forward and feedcback constructs

helps one understand the tensions amongst the levels of leaming. An important
consideration is chat tensions amongst levels are not hindering leaming. When it is
required, institutionalized learning must result in intuition (new ideas) and new interpretatiom (new ways of looking at things). And, although it is often difficult for intuition to overcome institutionalized learning, when existing processes need radical

adjustment, i n t u i t i o n from individuals with the "rightnvision must become institutionalized.

Crossan and Hulland (1995) explain the strength of the Learning Manix over other frameworks in t h i s way:

Most of the existing work in OL can be positioned along the diagonal of the
manix, focusing on the learning process at any one level, such as individual interpretation, group decision making,or organizational systems and

structures-.... It is our belief that in order to properly capture all dimensions of

OL, all nine cells m u s t be assessed. ( p. 9)

Through the learning behaviours and processes represented by the nine cells,
knowledge is created2 Knowledge creation is a desirable outcome of learning behaviours. Lei, Hitt and Bettis (1996) describe howledge as an "invisible asset" of the organization

that is generated through everyday leaming behaviours:

Technological and skill accumulation often occurs through "learning by doingnor "learning by using".. firm-specific learning and skill accumulation may translate into embedded or tacit knowledge that become the basis for sustainable competitive advantage....Many perspectives that dominated the early t h i n k i n g concerning competitive advantage have their roots in

traditional economic theory with emphasis on market power and industry

structure as determinants of performance. . . . In recent years however, other

streams of research emphasizing a 'resource-based" or "skill-based" perspective of strategy and organization have evolved to characterize the

firm as a collection of unique skills and capabilities that influence the firm's
evolution and strategic growth alternatives...

..a firm's competitive

advantage is derived from it's unique knowledge. (p. 560)

The ongoing development of "unique knowledgencan become a competitive asset

that is proprietary to the organization and difEcult to imitate by competitors.

The Learning M a e positions the traditional, educational view of leaming

predominantly in the 1-1cell of the Matrix.

The additional cells of the matrix provide a

broader perspective by identifping the additional Levels of leaming and the learning processes associated with them (integration and institutionalization).

The cells above

and below the diagonal on the matrix extend our undemanding funher to consider flows of learning and tensions among the levels. These additional perspectives potentially provide opportunities for educators to expand our options for developing learning abilities
in our organizations.

The theoretical discussion is insightful in that it provides different perspectives.

Moving beyond theory to measure the constructs of the Learning Matrix provides data

that we can analyze and interpret to get a handle on how measurement can provide further insights.
The items on the Learning Assessment Map help us to diagnose an organization's

unique knowledge and leaming abilities. The items are presented in the next chapter

along with the details of the application of the measurement instrument.

Chapter 4: Research Procedures

Four steps define the procedures followed in this study to apply the Learning Assessment
Map:

1. Ethical review of research procedures and administration of the

Learning Assessment Map inthe organization.

2- Data-entryof the responses for each instrument. 3. Analysis of the results to iden*

the perceived patterns of learning

and widelpheld beliefs about learning and relationships between learning

and performance4. Interpretation of the resuks.

Each of the steps will be reported in detail starting with the presentation of the

Learning Assessment Map and how it was administered.

The Learning Assessment Map

The Learning Assessment Map was chosen for use in this study because i n
addition to its strong theoretical base, it was the only instrument inventoried by the

ASTD that can provide tests to show reliability and validity of the instrument. L n
several applications, the measurement instrument has demonstrated strong "goodness-of-fitn measures and strong assessment of reliability, internal consistency and
discriminant validity (Crossan and Hulland, 1996). The conclusion from applications of

the instrument is that it can accomplish what it was intended to do patterns of organizational learning.

-- identifg meaningfid

The application of the instrument "provides

empirical support for what to date has been a theoretical debate about whether or not multiple levels of OLmeed to be considered". (Crossan and HuUand, 1996, p. 23).

The Learning Assessment Map is a questionnaire used to gather perceptions about

particular behaviour patterns that correlate to the constructs of the Learning Matrix and widely-held beliefs relative to learning. The questionnaire has a number of items presented as statements that people respond to using a seven point scale ranging from

(I ) Strongly Agree to (7) Strongly Disagree. Some revene+caled questions are used.

The Learning Assessment Map was created as a questionnaire for three reasons:
1 . It guarantees that the same set of questions is asked of each respondent,

2- It allows the involvement of a very large population, and

3. It is more time efficient to administer than other ways of measuring such as

hce-to-hce inte~ews.

The items on the Learning Assessment Map are intended to measure everyday
learning behaviours related to each of the nine cells of the Learning M a t r i x .In addition
to the nine cells, there are three other categories of items. One additional category

isolates information about leadership as a distinct group. A second additional category

measures individual perceptions of organizational performance ( to gather information

about the relationship between Learning and pedonnance). A final set of items collects

information about the widely-held beliefs about learning to gather idonnation about the learning climate. To present the items, I have unbundled the sections of the instrument

to put related items together. The items are presented next in six categories: Individual Level, Group Level, OrganizationalLevel, Leadership, Cognition, Performance.

Individual Level

Statements related to individual learning (cell 1-1) measure the pure processes of
i n t u i t i n g and interpretation resulting in individual cognitive and behavioural change.

Table 3.3 lists the items to collect information about this construct.

Table 3.3 Items to Collect Information about Individual teaming Behaviours

1. Individuals generate many new insights. 2. Individuals take actions that are experimental in name. 3. Individuals are able to break out of traditional m i n d s e t sto see t h i n g s in new and different ways. 4. Individuals are able to grow through their work. 5 . Individuals are aware of the critical issues that affect their work 6. Individuals accept negative feedback without becoming defensive. 7. Individuals have a clear sense of direction in their work. 8. Individuals feel a sense of accomplishment in what they do. 9. Individuals have a capacity to change and grow with the business. 10. Individuals feel a sense of pride in what they do. 11. Individuals feel a sense of ownership in what they do. 12. Individuals look for new and better ways to work. 13. Individuals are current and knowledgeable about their field of work. 14- Individuals have a high level of energy at work. 15. Individuals feel confident in their work. 16. When individuals make an e r r o r they w i l l usually try to cover it up. (reverse scaled) 17. Individuals scan the external environment (customers, suppliers, competitors, governments) to assess future risks and opportunities. 18. Individuals demonstrate a high level of competency in their work. 19. The origin of most of our innovative ideas are people within the organization.

The statements address issues for learning that have been identified by OL
theorists such as: individual capability and capacity to create new knowledge, accountability for actions, self-reflection, the disciplines of personal mastery and mental models, the behaviours of experimentation,risk taking, learning from mistakes, personal growth and the e x t e n t to which individual collect data from the external environment t o improve the business.

Grou~ Level Leaming

The focus of cell G-G is group level learning behaviour. Information about the
learning disciplines described by Senge: collective mend model, team learning, shared vision and systems thinking are captured in this cell. Items about the process of

idonnation sharing help determine how widely information is shared. Table 3-4 lists the items related to the group Level cowmrct.

Table 3.4 Items to Collect Information about Group Learning Behaviours

Group work in chis organization is valuable. Others in the organization co-operate w i t h us in order to share relevant information. Different points of view are encouraged in my group. We have effective resolution of conflict in my group. When we work in groups, ideas arise that did not occur to any one individual. We do not know how to effectively work m groups. (reverse scaled) When working in groups we have the right people involved in addressing the issues. We share our successes with others. We share our hilures with others. I n meetings, we are prepared to rethink decisions when presented with new information. 1 1. We have too many unproductive meetings (reverse scaled). 12. In meetings, we seek to understand everyonels point of view.

Organization Level

The process of institutionalizing i s the focus of items related to chis cell. As

described earlier, this cell is most easily concepntalised as being "nnon-humann elements
of organizational learning. The items are designed to capture perceptions about the
storehouse of howledge in organizational structure, culture, vision, strategies and systems of the organization. The willingness of the culture to accept risk-taking and experimentation is captured in the words ' t r u s t " and "innovation".

The items address the

abilicy of systems to capture and store information* Respondents are asked if the

performance indicators are perceived to be relevant as they can drive the behaviours of
individuals and groups.

Table 3.5 Items to Collect Information about the Organization

I . 2. 34.

The organizational structure supports our strategic direction. We have a strategy that positions us well for the h r e . We have a realistic yet challenging v i s i o n for the organization. We have an organizational structure characterized by a high degree

of trust. 5. The organization culture could be characterized as innovative 6. We are a learning organization. 7. Our information systems are 'leading edgen. 8. We have systems in place that enable us to keep track of the critical issues that d e c t our business. 9- We have relevant performance indicators for our business. 1 0 . Our organizational structure needs to be reassessed. (reverse scaled) 11. Our physical assets are inadequate (Lee,buildings, furniture).
(reverse scaled) At each of the levels of leaming, items measure the "stocksnof learning: "For example,

stocks of learning at the organization level such as systems, structures, strategy and
culture support or impede the process of individual and group leaming. Stocks also exist

at the individual level (e.g., level of competency, individual orientation to experiment).

...the initial stock of leaming at the individual, group and organization levels; 1) impacts
the ffow or process of learning; and 2) is transformed in the process. " (Crossan and
b

Hulland, 1996, p. 15)*The flowsof learning are measured by the items related to
feed-forwardand feed-back which are presented next

Feed-Forward

The items related to feed-forward are listed on Table 3.6

Behaviours Table 3.6 Items to Collect Information about Feed~Fomard

We rarely think or act beyond the boundaries of our own jobs. (reverse scaled) Individuals are prepared to challenge the assumptions of the group. Individuals posses the appropriate communication skills to conmbute to the
group process. Individuals are discouraged by the resistance they receive from others when trying to affect change (reverse scaled) Individuals are reluctant to share their ideas with others. (reverse scaled) We share new insights throughout the organization. This organization captures the intelligence of its workforce Individuals understand how their work contributes to the performance of the organization. We routinely communicate the lessons learned from our past actions throughout the organization. 0 . New &sightsget developed into the improved products or processes. 1. We seem to continually "reinvent the wheel.' (reverse scaled) 2. There are good ideas that seem to go nowhere. (reverse scaled) 13. When a good person leaves the organization, we lose valuable information. (reverse scaled) 14. Individuals have input into our strategy. 15. We propose innovative solutions to organization-wide problems. 16. ~hede&ionswe make are reflected *changes to our organizational s y s t e m s and procedures. 17. No matter what we do, the organization does not seem to change. (reverse scaled)

62

The ease with which the individual level learning is translated into changes at the group and organization level gives some indication of how well the organization is perceived to capitalize on the learning of individuals and groups.

Feed-Back

The set of items related to the feed-back behaviours are given in Table

Table 3.7 Items to Collect Idormation about Feed-Back Behaviours

Individuals know enough about the work of others to be able to pass on the infomation they need. Individuals take the needs of other members of the group into account when making decisions. Once the group has made a decisiont individuals will support it. Individuals comply too easily with directives. (reverse scaled) In meetings, we have access to the right information to make the best decisions. When making decisions for the h u e , we do not seem to have a memory of the past. (reverse scaled) Valuable information from success or failure of past programs is not available. (reverse scaled) Reward systems recognize the contribution made by groups. Our information systems make it easy for individuals to share information. 10- O u r organizational structure facilitates the sharing of ideas. 11. Individuals understand the v i s i o n and strategy of the organization. 12. Individuals are directed by the vision and strategy of the organization. 13. Time for leaming is readily available to ail individuals. 14. Resources for learning are readily available to all individuals. 15. Our systems and procedures support innovation. 16. Our policies and procedures aid individual work. 17. Cross training,job rotation and ad hoc assignments are used to develop a more Aexible workforce. 18. Our compensation structure rewards people appropriately. 19. Our compensation structure motivates people appropriately. 20. Training is readily available when it is needed to improve knowledge and skills. 21. Our policies and procedures of the organization block new ideas. (reverse scaled) 22. O u r organizational structure enables the right people to deal w i t h the right problems. 23. We recruit the best people in the industry. 24. Key information is readily available through our information systems.

m e items collect idotmation about the perceptions of the existence of a leaming

inhstructure that includes conditions and enablers for learning at the individual and

group levels. Items collect infotmatim about the existence of a common sense of purpose

that comes from a well articulated and achievable vision statement and related strategies.

The items also collect information about reward and recognition, compensation,
employee development and education practices. The items can help us discover if the organization is attracting and keeping good people (building human capital and capacity)

and directing their actions toward common goals which hcilitates focused leaming.

Coenition

It has been argued in the discussion of the cognitive/behavioural change matrix

(figure 2.1) that cognitive leaming and behaviour change are separate processes.

The

items on table 3.9 list the perceived cognition the insaument measures.

Table 3.9 Items About Cognition Relative to Learning

Individual Cognition 1. We value creativity.
Experimenration is necessary f o r [earning. Mating mistakes is part of leaming. 4 It is important to be open-minded. 5. It is imponant to feel fulfilled by your work. Feed-fonvard Cognition 6. Innovation is caking a good idea and making it happen. 7. It is important to capitalize on a good idea. 8 . Individuals can make a daerence. 9. It is important to share our ideas with others. 10. Others can learn from our successes and failures. 11. To contribute to others, we need to be aware of their needs and issues. Group Cognition I t . Diversity is important. 13. Open communication is critical. 14. Teamwork is an essential part of organizational activity.

2.

3.

The statements collect information about the widely-help beliefs about learning. As
revealed in the literature review, theorists have described a number of beliefs important for the organization that is constantly learning: creativity, experimentation, learning

from m i s t a k e s ,self-retlection,integrating diversity, and sharing information.

Leadersh h

The Learning Assessment Map collects idonnation about leadership as a n isolated category at the group level and assesses the perceived effectiveness of management

behaviours to facilitate feed-forward and feed-back of learning. Table 3.8 lists the items
related to leadership behaviours. Table 3.8 Items Relative to Leadership as a Catalyst for Learning Feed-forward Leadership 1. Management supports the learning and development of individuals. 2. Management encourages experimentation and innovation. 3. Decisions made by the management team have a strong impact on what individuals do. 4. Decisions made by management are well communicated to the workforce. 5. Individuals feel well served by managema 6. Individuals feel they have input into the critical decisions made by management?. Management actions are in keeping w i t h the stated vision. 8. Management demonstrates the leadership cpalities required to excel. Feed-back Leadership 9. The management team has articulated a clear strategic direction. 10. The management team has developed a clear v i s i o n . 11. The management team drives change in the organization. 12. Management actions support the strategy. 13- Management understand the challenges hcing individuals in this organization. 14. Individuals understand how what they do fits into the decisions made by management. Leadership 15. Management continually ensures that new knowledge and information are disseminated to all parts of the organization. 16. Management works as a team.

65
Performance
One of the assumptions underlying the Leaming Assessment Map is that learning and

performance are not directly and positively linked. A desirable outcome of learning is improved performance but this link must be managed. There is a strong connection between perceived performance and financial pedonnance (Geringer and Hebert, p. 240). Therefore the responses to subjective performance items give some indication of financial perfonnance of the organization. m e n t h e results are analyzed,conclusions can be drawn
about how perceived learning patterns impact performance.

Table 3 . 1 0 : Items to Collect Information about Performance

1- We understand and meet our external customer needs. 2. We understand and meet our internal customer needs. 3. Employees are very satisfied working here

4. We provide a good return to our shareholders. 5. Individuals are generally satisfied with their perfonnance.
6. Individuals are hlfilled by their work

The complete measurement instrument is shown in Appendix 1. The value

judgements prompted by the wording of many of the items on the measurement
instrument mean that rather than purely measuring leaming patterns, the items measure

perceptions of whether or not certain leaming behaviours and flows of leaming are occurring. The measurement instrument provides valuable information about how well
people believe flows of learning are occurring. The value dimension allows one to draw

conclusions about effectiveness of certain dimensions within each of the categories of results. For example, the low score for questions about the organization level affect on

individual leaming indicates that this ked-back flow does not have appropriate impact on

individuals. As a n example, a low score for "Oursystems and procedures support innovation" does not give pure information about the impact of systems and procedures
on innovation it tells us that individuals do not value the impact systems and procedures

have-

Many of the ideas embedded in the items of the Leaming Assessment Map are
vision, strategy and intuitive and may, at &st, seem outside of the realm of learning (e-go, structure are part of a leaming i n f i a s m m e ; processes for sharing information among

groups support learning, communities of practice are communities of Leaming; when good
people leave an organization, valuable information is lost; and organizations have

memories that e x i s t even though organization members come and g o ) . However, when
the various ideas about OL are brought together and discussed in the context of the Learning Matrix and the Learning Assessment Map, we can begin to visualize more concretely what OL can be. The Learning Assessment Map items add insights into

identification of behaviours, characteristics, cognition and conditions of OL. The

discussion lends credibility to the belief that there is not a "blueprintnfor a leaming organization.

The relative strength of the levels of leaming and fluidity of learning

between the levels can vary depending on the needs of the organization. In thinking
about the organizations we work in: private businesses o r schools,we can start to appreciate that there is benefit to looking at learning from the OL perspective.

In the next section the participating organization is described followed by the

procedures followed to administer the measurement insaument.

Participating Organization
The organization participating m the research is Strategic Business Unit of a
large corporation.

The organization seUs pmducts duedy to external customers and

I

s e ~ c e the s distribution network of the corporationtug&

The organization works within a

regulated industry but has some ability to vary the product features to customize it

for the organization.

The organization has 175 naff

working in eight departments. More

than half of the staff are administrative or customer senrice clerks and have fairly routine
jobs. These staffare senring internal and external customers. The issues that arise are,

for the most part, predictable and documented policies and procedures are in place to deal with them. If issues arise that are out of the ordinary, the clerks are expected to deal

w i t h the issues themselves or go to a supervisor for help. The structure is hierarchical.

The organization is headed up by a Vice- President and two Assistant Vice Presidents. A
level of middle managers report to the senior management. Supervisors report t o each manager and clerks report to the supervisors. Jobexpectations are documented and an annual performance review process takes place. In the Product Development department, the job levels are the highest of all the

job Levels in the department. The catalyst for new product development is changes
observed or anticipated i n the competitive marketplace or responding to customer

demands.
The organization has well articulated, written, vision, mission and strategy statements. The profits of the organization are a large source of revenue for the larger corporation. The organization has been in existence for sixteen years. In the fim yean of

its existence, the organization experienced some development challenges as it learned how to attract profitable customers and keep them, and learned to stay out of product

lines that were not profitable.

The most recent five years have been a time of .

consolidation, streamliningof procedures, and developing a greater understanding of internal and external customers and the business.

The industry the organization operates

in is highly competitive and growing.

Procedure
Managers of each department within the organization notified all individuals in
their department via electronic mail to tell them that they would receive the questionnaire and could take the necessary time at their desks to complete the questionnaire. Copies of the measurement instrument were then sent to each manager for distribution to all staff (including the managers). A mailing label allowed respondents

to send it directly to me. The fim page of the questionnaire explained what the study was
about, defined terms used and gave duections for returning it. Individuals were not required to iden*

themselves and anonymity of results was assured.

Ten working days were given to respond to the items and return the instrument.
After 10 days, the departmental manager sent a reminder note to their staff asking them
to complete the questionnaire if they had not already done s o . After the three week
period, 93 completed questionnaires were received giving a response rate of 54%.

W e now turn to a discussion of the empirical r d t s fiom the organization i n

order to make more conclusive statements relative t o the utility of using the Learning
Assessment Map to W e r our understanding of how to identifp, diagnose and leverage
the OL perspective.
8

Chapter Five: Results

I n this chapter, the results from the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Learning Assessment Map are
presented and analyzed.

The discussion of resuIts includes suggested priorities for improving

OL and ideas for interventions the organization might consider.

Interpretation Concepts Employed

The results are analysed and interpreted on a number of dimensions:
1. Correlation of performance scores with scores for each construct,

2. Overall patterns of learning,

3. Leadership,

4. Cognition-behaviour gaps.

Each dimension is analyzed based on the mean scores (average score) for each
construct and each item. Each respondent assigned a value from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) to each item.

The mean scores were produced by entering all the data onto

an Excel spreadsheet and using a software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
to calculate the means and standard deviations for each item and each construct. The mean

score b r each construct and each item is presented in tabular form within this discussion. For standard deviations for all items, please refer to Appendix 2.

To interpret the results, four was considered a neutral response. Scores above four
indicate that, on average, people agree with the statement. Scores below four indicate that, on average, people disagree with the statement.

Within the discussion, linkages are made between results and possible interventions to
consider how the organization can improve organizational learning. In order to decide their course of action, the people in the participating organization wiU be coached to interpret the

results within the context .of their history, environment,and curtent and hture strategies.
The ccmstruct level resuLts are presented on table 5.1. The interpretation of the results begins w i t h a dixussion of the correlation of construct scores w i t h the performance scores.

Table 5.1: Construct Levd Results

Construct

Std.
Deviation

Performance

Ranking o f Conelatior

Individual

Group organization Feed-Forward Feed-Back Leadership Feed-Forward Group Feed-Back Cognition Individuai Feed-Forward Group

Correlation of Performance with the Construct Means

The scores for the items about respondent's perceptions of organizational peerformance
relative to customers, employees and shareholders were compared to the scores for each between the constructs and performance. The construct to determine relatio~lships correlation with performance gives us some indication of which construm may be most closely linked w i t h performance.

The values for correlation (r) indicate the statistical relationship of each construct
with performance.

The value of 1 indicates a pedect correlation. The values indicate the

degree of connection between the two variables. The value of (r) gives some indication that

the variables tend to move together or in opposite directions. The closer the (r) value is to 1,

the greater the systemic connection between changes in one variable and the other. This
information is valuable to the organization trying to prioritize the interventions they will put
in place to improve organizational learning.

The results show chat for the participating organization, the six constructs most highly
correlated with performance ace the organization level (.79), feed-back behaviours (.74), leadership feedback behavioun (-771, the individual level behaviours L73) the group level behavioun (.72) and leadenhip (-72). The constructs less highly correlated w i t h performance are all of the cognition measures and feed-forward behaviours.

The Three Levels of Learning

The first step in identifytng the organization's overall learning patterns is a discussion of scores for the learning behaviours at the three levels of learning as shown on Table 5.1.

Comparing the scores F o r pure individual (4.57), group (4.72) and organization (4.48). it is at

the group level that the learning behaviorus are perceived to be the strongest. An analysis of
the results for each level gives us some indication of the "stocksNfor leaming.

The results for each item i n the individual level c o n m a is given in Table 5.2.

TabIe 5-2: Individual Level Scores

lndividuals generate many newinsights. lndividuals take ~ * mthat s are experimental in nature. Individualsare able to break out of traditional mind-sets to see things in new and different wys. lndividuals are able to grow thrwgh their wdc. lndividuals are awre o f the ctitical issues that affect their uwrk Individualsaccept negative feedback without becoming defensive. lndividuals have a dear sense of diredon in their work lndividuals feel a sense of accomplishment in M a t they do. lndividuals have a capacity to change and gtowwith the business. lndividuals feel a sense of pride in what they do. lndividuals feel a sense of ownership in what they dolndividuals look for new and better ways to hark. Individualsare current and kndedgeable about their field of m r k Individual have a high level of energy a t wrk lndividualsfeel confident in their m r k When individuals make an emf, they all usually try to cover it up. (rev) lndividuals scan the external environment (customer, suppliers, competitors, government) to ; assess future risks and opportunities. lndividuals demonstrate a high level of competency in their work The origin of most of our i n n o v a t i v e ideas are people within the organization.
1

The strongest behavioua related to the Individual level are cask- related knowledge,
innovation, competency, confidence and awareness of the issues that affect individuals. Individuals are not perceived to strongly participate in behavioun such as experimentation,

learning from mistakes, learning through negative feedback and being creative. The disciplines

of challenging personal mental models and the process of acquiring knowledge through
scanning the environment are not perceived to be strong.

The results suggest that task-related

learning has been effective in this organization. People seem to feel that, on average, they
have the bowledge and skill t o d d e n t l y do their work. However, demonstration of

everyeday learning behaviours are not perceived to be strong.

An analysis of the group level items indicates that group dynamics and shared
undemanding are relatively strong. Individuals perceive group level strengths t o be synergy,
relatively strong skills of group work, and encouraging and considering new ideas. The following statements received the highest scores for the GG categories: "Whenwe work in

groups, ideas arise chat didn't occur to one individual", , W e know how to effectively work in
groups", "We share our successes with others",and "In meetings, we are prepared t o re-think

decisions when presented with new infomationn. The group level results are presented i n

Table 5.3-

Table 5.3: Group Level

Scores

5.43 Group work in this organization is valuable. 4.52 Others in the organization co-operate ~Ath us in order to share relevant information.
4.67,Different points of vieware encouraged in my group.

I
I

1
I

4.38 We have effective resolution of conflict in my group. r k in groups, ideas arisethat did not occur to any one individual. 4.94 When w e w 5.17 1 we do not h o w how to effectively Kwk in gmup. (rev) 4.491Whenwrking in groups w e have the "ght people involved in addressing the issues. 4.84 We share our successes with others, 4.36 We share our failures with others. 4.79 In meetings, we are prepared to rethink decisions Wen presented with new information. 4.39 We have too many unproductive meetings. (rev) 4.67 In meetings, we seek to understand everyone's viewpoint.

j
I

As discussed in the literature review, groups can be powerful learning e n t i t i e s . There is

also the possibility that relying too heady on group work could atrophy the ability of
individuals to have impam The organization may need to consider if it needs to further build

the strengths of learning done through groups. The organization may decide that the group
level is strong enough and it is important to ensure the individual level is equally as strong a
stock of learning- If the decision is made to improve group level learning, this organization

should focus o n the weakest group leaming behaviours of sharing lessons learned from failures.
having the right people involved in groups, and using conflict in the most productive ways.

The lower score (4.48) for the organization level indicates that it may not be a strong storehouse of knowledge. The low score could be problematic, especially given this level's high correlacion co performance. To determine which aspects ofthis level are in most need of improvement, each item and score given in table 5.4 must be analyzed. The strongest aspects of
the organization level are relevant performance indicators, adequate physical assets, structure

and vision and strategy that are challenging and well positioned. The weakest aspects of chis
level are information systems that are "leading edge", systems that enable tracking of critical business issues and a culture that is considered trusting. Information systems can be a catalyst for learning flow when they are designed,
managed and used effectively.

The results reveal that individuals do not perceive information

systems t o be "leading edge" in this organization.

Table 5.4: Organization Level Scores

The organizatid sbuctwe suppmts our strategic direction. us wll f m the future. We have a strategy #at We have a realistic yet challenging vision for the organizationThe orgaruaruzab*on culture characterized by a high degree of trust, The organization culture could be characterized as innovative. We are a learning Organizationn. bur infomatarum systems are leading edge", issues that affect our I We have systems in place that enable us to keep track of the business. We have relevant pefimance indicatorsfor our business. Our organizational structtrre needs to be reassessed. (rev) Our physical assets are inadequate (Le., buildings, furniture), (rev)

Fostering a culture open to innovation and risk-taking, and creating a more advanced
information system are two interventionsthat might improve the Learning stock at the
organization level. Developing a climate of trust can have a n impact on other components of

the patterns such as improving some of the weaknesses of individual and group learning:
accepting negative feedback, being willing to experiment and sharing lessons learned from failure.

Feed-Forward Learning Flow

The scores related to feed-forward indicate whether individual learning feeds forward
into group learning and if both individual and group learning impact the organization in terms

of changes to smcyre, strategy, culture, systems and procedures.

As shown inTable 5.1, thescore for the construct is 4.30. Alookat the result. for
each feed-forward item (Table 5.5) indicates some relative srrengths in this flow: individuals

understand how their work contributes to the performance of the organization (which is
important for f i g people's effom to an overall goal); individuals have good

communication skills to contribute to the group process; and new insights are shared and get

developed i n t o improved products or processes.

Table 5.5 :Feed-Fomd Behaviour Scores

1
1

4.24 Individualstend to act in their own self interest 4.43Wemlythinkwadbeyondhebandarydarwnjahs.

4.37 Individualsam prepared to challenge the assumptionso f the gmup. 4.8 Individualspossess the appropriate communication r k i l to mnbibute to me gmup pmcess. 3.9 Individualsare discouraged by the &stance they receive from others when trying to affect

)
j

1
;

'

;
I

change. (rev) 4.6 Individuals are reluctant to share their ideas vith others. (rev) the organization. 4.62 We share new insights tf~mughout 4.1 5 This o r g a n i z a t i o n captures the intelligenceof its w r k f m e . 4.841 lndividuals understand how their w r k contributesto the performance of the organization. 4.21 'we communicate the lessons learned fmm our past actions throughout the organization. 4.63 New insights get developed into improved produds or processes. 3.74 We seem to continually "rre-invent the wheel". (rev) 3.82 There are goad ideas that seem to go novhere. (rev) 2.79 When a good person leaves the organization, HR lose valuable information. (rev) 3 . 9 3 Individuals have input into our strategy. 4.05 We propose innovative solutions to organization-vide problems. I 4.38 The decisions we make are reflected in changes to our organizational systems and procedures. 4.86 No matter what we do, the organization does not seem to change. (rev)

!
I I

i
I

I
8 t

i 1 8

Ln contrast to the areas of relative strength,the results indicate that respondents

perceive that the intelligence of the workforce is not being captured and embedded at the

organization Level and "when a good person leaves the organization, valuable information is

lostn. Individuals believe they do not have input into suategy which can be a critical factor for

achieving buy-in to strategy. There are some apparent contradictions in the results; in contrast to relatively high scores for sharing insights and insights being used, the score f o r "ovative solutions are proposed to organization-wide problemsn is relatively low.

The items give some

indication of opportunity to improve f e e d - f o d behaviours but chis organitation may want

to focus on the improvement of feedeback behavious. As revealed in Table 5.1, feed-back is

more highly co-related to performance and received a lower mean score than feed-forward.

Feed-Back Learning Flow

The scores related to feed-back indicate how well the organization uses the learning
embedded in the systems, structures, suategy, procedures and culture of the organization to facilitate learning at the individual and group levels and if group learning feeds-back to the individual,

The overall fedback score (4.27) is lower than the feed4orward score. The scores for
each item is given in Table 5 . 6 . An analysis of the items and scores reveals that the
organizational bmework b r learning is not perceived to be facilitating individual learning behaviour to a great degree.

The strongest feed-back elements are a good understanding at the individual level of
the organizational vision and strategy, and individual support of group decisions. There is a
discrepancy between individual understanding of the vision and strategy and being directed by
the vision and strategy. This may indicate that something is blocking people's ability to line
up their actions with the organizational direction.

The components of feed-back that received the lowest scores were:

time and resources

for learning; a compensationsrmcnue that rewards and motivates individuals and groups;
systems and procedures that support innovation, recruiting, access to necessary information,

a n organizational structure that allows the right people to deal with problems and the ready
availability of mining.

Table 5.6: Feed-Back Behaviours Scores

4.58 lndividuals understand the vision ad strategy of the organization.

4.38 Individuals are directed by the vision and strategy o f the organization.

3.29 Time for learning is readily available to afI individuals. 3.85 Resources for learning are readily available to all individuals. 4.01 Our systems and procedures support innovation. 4-27 Our palides and procedures aid individuals work 4-07 Cross training, job rotatbn and ad hor: assignments are used to develop a more flexible wrkfome, 3.43 Our compensath stnrcture rewrds people appropriately. 3.38 Our compensation structure motivates individuals appropriately. I 3.99lTraining is readily available when it is needed to improve knWedge and skills. 4.51 Our polides and procedures of Re organiration block new ideas. (rev) 4.24 Our organizational structure enables the right people to deal with the right problems4-18,We recruit the best people in Re industry. I 4.36 Key information is readily available through our information systems. 4.351In meetings. HR have access to the right information to make the best decisions. t making dechions for the future, w e do not seem to have a memory of the past.

j
I

!
I

from success or failure of past programs is not available. (rev) 3 . 9 2 Rewrd systems recognize the contribution made by groups. 4.441 Our information systems make it easy for individuals to share information. 4.451Our organizational structure facilitates the haring of ideas. 4.19 lndividuals know enough about the Hnrk of othen to be able to pass on the information they need. 4.28 lndividuals take the needs of other members of the gmup into account Wen making decisions. 4.59 Once the group has made a decisions, individuals All support it 4-21lndividuals comply too easily ~Ath directives. (rev)
nformation 4.88 Valuable i

I
i
I I I
I

I 1
I

II
i
I

Leadership
Leadership and management practices greatly influence learning on all three levels.

Analysis of che perceptions of management as a catalyst for Learning on the individual, group

and organization levels i s done using the scores for items in three categories; leadership

feed-forward (4.55), leadership group const~ct W Z ) , and leadership fked#back(4.53 1. The

scores f o r each of the leadership items a r e given in Table 5.7. The leadership of the participating organization received fsir1y high scores at the c o m c t and item levels relative to
the other constructs.

i
I
I

4.52 Management continually ensures that new knowiedge and information are disseminated to all f the organization. parts o 4.51 Management a team.
!
I ,

/ ~ e a d e a hFeed-forwad i~ Behaviours i 4-45 The management team has articulated a dear strategico e n r id c . t i

Table 5.7: Leadership Behaviours Scores

Ij
i

4.52 The management team has developed a clear vision. 5 m e management team d"ves dlange in me organization.
4.8 Management actions support the strategy-

!
!

5.15 4.35 4.7 4.59

Management understands the challenges fadng individuals in this organization. Individuals understad how what they do fits into the decisions made by management Management supports the learning and development of individuals. Management encourages experimentation and innmation.

5-55 Decisions made by t h e management team have a strong impact on what individuals do. 'Leadership Feed-back behaviours i, 4.45 Decisions made by management are well-communicated to the wrkforce. I ; 4.11 Individuals feel wII sewed by management. 3.52 Individuals feel they have input into the uitical decisions made by management. o c in ts are in keeping Hn'th the stated vision. jI 4.7 Management a : 4.67 Management demonstrates the leadership qualities required to excel.
I

,
I

The leadership categories are relatively highly correlated with performance. The
feed-back category is the most highly correlated with performance of the leadership categories
(see Table 5.1 ). Some opportunities to improve leadership as a catalyst to the feed-back of

leaming are revealed in the items that received the lowest scores within the leadership feed-back categorp. "Individuals feel they have input into the critical decisions made by managementn, ' D e c i s i o n s made by management are well-communicated to the workforce", and Vndividuals feel well-served by managementn. If the organization decides it is a priority to strengthen the management constructs, the results show that behaviour can be improved in the areas of capcuring and using individuals' ideas and facilitating the flow of information
between individuals and groups.

Cognition-Behaviour Gaps

The cognition-behaviourgap is the difference between the mean scores for cognition
items and behaviour items. A large gap between cognition and behaviour indicates that something is blocking employee's ability to behave in l i n e with their beliefs and achieve "integrated learningn (the desirable state of both cognitive and behaviourai change and actions
being in line with beliefs).

The results for each of the items in the cognition category are

given in Table 5.8 and the gaps calculated for the pamcipating organization are listed i n Table

5.9.

It is interesting to note in Table 5.5 that the cognition measures that received the
lowest scores measure the beliefs about the leaming behavioun that were found to be weak at
the individual level: making mistakes in order to learn creativity and experimentation. Since

individuds do not have relatively strong beliefs m these areas, we can see that they do not practice them to a great degree.

Table 5.8 :Cognition Scores

iMean Items 5.74 It is important to capitalize on a good idea. 1I 5.74 Teamwork is an essential part of organizational activity1 5.73 It is important to be open-minded. 5.66 Open communication is critical. I 1 5.58 It is important to share our ideas with others. I 1 5.47 It is important to feel fulfilled by your work. 1 5.46 Individuals can make a difkrence. I 1 5.46 To contribute to others, we need to be aware of their needs and issues. 5.43 Innovation is taking a good idea and making it happen. i 5-42 Others can learn from our success and failures. I , 5-26 Diversity is important. Ij 5.15 Making mistakes is part of learning. 1 4.93 We value creativity. i: 4.9 l 1 Experimentation is necessary for learning.

I
i1
I
!
I

!
!

i
I

An analysis of the gaps between cognition and behaviour (Table 5.9 ) shows an overall
0

oap of 1-07. The smallest gap is between cognition and behavioua in the individual level

construct (gap of .65). Large gaps exist between the beliefs and behavioun related to the feed-forward of learning ( 1.07).

Significance tests done on each of the s e n of means determine if the gaps between
them are statistically significant. A ca1cuIation of t-score for a two tailed test at the 5% level
of significancerevealed that a difference becureen the means for the individual level behaviours

and cognition of -39 or ,greater is statistically significant. The same test applied to the group

and feed-forward m e a n s showed that the difference between means of group behavioua and
group cognition i s significant at -40. The difference between means of more than 3 9 is

statistically signiscant beoveen feed-forward behaviours and feed-forward cognition.

8

Table 5.9: Cognition/BehaviourGaps

Individual Ekhaviours
Group Cognition
Group Behaviours

4-56

5 -5
Gap = -83

4.72

Feed-forward Cognition Feed-forward Behaviours

5.5 1
Gap = 1.21

4-3

The significant gaps between cognition and behavioua indicate that individuaIs value
certain behaviours they are not putting into practice. Blockages may exist drat do not allow

the level of learning and flows of knowledge which people believe are important. The
feed-forward gaps are larger than the individual and group gaps. This indicates that people
believe they should have more impact on the group and organization levels than they perceive

they have.

The organization could achieve a higher degree of

"integrated learning" if beliefs were

more in line w i t h behavious. Identifving the reasons for barriers to behaving in line w i t h beliefs such as why individuals perceive they are "continuafiy re-inventing the wheel" and why "good ideas go nowheren will help the organization determine how to eliminate the barriers.

Lmptoving Learning Patterns

The results have illustrated that the scores for the behaviours at the three levels of
leaming are higher than the scores for both feed-forward and feed-back behavioua (see TabIe

5 . 1 ). T h i s imbalance in the scores indicates that individual competency and capability and
group level learning may exceed the organization's ability to utilize it. There are bottlenecks to the flow of leaming as indicated by the lower scores for feed-forward and feed-back.

The organization needs to consider where scarce development dollars can be best spent.
A traditional corporate education approach would be to invest in individual or group leaming behavioun.

The results seem to indicate that for this organization, investment in individual

competencies and group learning abilities have been relatively effective. Putting more investment i n t o these levels of leaming may not yield better performance because of the bottlenecks to using new skills and knowledge. Resources may best be directed to strengthen the organization level, feed-back and feed-forward constructs before any more effort is put into individual or group leaming abilities.

The analysis suggests that to improve overall leaming patterns and impact performance,
this ~ r ~ m i z a t i o n three leverage p has o i n t s :
1. Improve the organization level as a storehouse for leaming.

2. Improve the balance of flows of leaming with emphasis on strengthening the feed-back
flows.
3. Narrow the cognition/behavio~~ gaps.

The results give indications of where to focus to improve OL but we would need to do
l o w s of learning and the details of leaming more investigation of the blockages to f
impediments at the organizational level in order to develop programs to address the problem
areas. There are a number of resources available from many areas of management and business practice to help in the decisions about programs to improve the three areas. Some suggestions are listed here to illustrate the types of programs that may be considered and to contrast them
with traditional education and t r a i n i n g and development solutions.

Improve the Oteanization Level as a Storehouse for Learning

Organizations with this developmental need might conduct an audit of the organization level elements to determine their utility to capture and store knowledge and aI1ow
it to be easily remeved.

The audit would include an examination of compensation, reward

and recognition and training policies, procedures, systems, culture, etc. to assess the impact of
these elements on the f l o w of learning.

The auditor would require an understanding of the

organization in terms of strategy, the industry in which the organization operates, and the roles
of all staff to assess the elements and suggest improvements.

Training and development methodologies may need to build more on the awareness of
the reasons f o r change. The limitations of methodologies directed towards "forced" or
"anticipatory" learning must be undemood and avoided.

With the perception that the culture is not nusting and does not support important
Learning behaviours such as experimentation, making mistakes and learning from hilures as well as success, there may be blockages to learning.

The leadership can be instrumental in

improving these cultural aspects through role modelling,reward systems and consistent, organization-widecommunications about organizational values.

Im~rove the balance of flows of learning The primary blockages indicated by the results are how individual learning affects

organizational change and how the organizational sauctwes, systems and procedures support
individual leaming. Managers can play a bigger role to improve the feed-forward of leaming by supporting individuals with good ideas to bring the ideas forward and help the process of

institutionalization of goods ideas. The knowledge of particularly effective individuals could be

captured in documentation available to anyone who requires it. A mentoring program would

help to share the knowledge and skills of exceptional employees with others and embed their knowledge at the group and organization levels.

A primary leverage point to improve the feed-back flow of leaming could be through

the creation of an Electronic Perfomance Support System. Such a system could be designed to
capture and store important information and be available on-line to those who need it, when
they need i t Other opportunities to improve feed-back flows may be uncovered by the

organizational audit. Programs can be designed and implemented to help managers develop abilities to identify when embedded leaming is impeding leaming and facilitate the removal of blockages. Managers can aid information flow by disseminating information to people who can

benefit from it, getting the right people working on the right issues, and understanding and
supporting communities of practice.

Narrow the Coeplnon/Behaviour Gabs

Management can be a primary leverage point for m o w i n g the gap between cognition

and behaviour relative to leaming. Blockages to behaving in line with beliefs could be caused
by employees who do not believe that the learning behavioua are highly valued.

If actions

such as challenging the assumptions of the group, experimentationand creativity are highly
-valued by the organization then managers can encourage these behaviours by rewarding them.

One solution may be that managers need to demonstrate putting the beliefs into action i n
order for people to practice the behaviours to greater degree.

Chapter Six: Conclusions

The purpose of chis study was to assess whether educators can benefit from developing a
pragmatic knowledge of organizational leaming and whether a measurement instrument can help us understand how to improve organizational effdveness through better learning processes and abilities. I n particular, two research questions were examined: 1)What is the
difference between organizational leaming and the learning of individuals who are participants

in the organization?and, 2) If we can substantiate organizational learning theoretically, can it

be identified, diagnosed and leveraged?

The theoretical discussion and empirical results are highly suggestive that OL is more
than the leaming that individuais do. The appreciation for the dimension of embedded
leaming at the organization level and its inter-relatedness with the other levels have been good contributions to our understanding of learning in organizations.

The discussion of the impact

on learning of leader's beliefs and actions has also provided insight- The behaviour/cognition
matrix has provided a thought-provoking concept to draw actention to the instructional strategies we use. Educators need to appreciate what the outcomes of varying degrees of cognitive and behaviour change may be and how to achieve "integrated leaming". The findings of the study challenge the mental m o d e l s of corporate educators who typically believe that individual leaming is a planned, observable, programmed activity.
Everyday learning behaviours and conditions for learning are oken not understood in terms of

their significance to overall learning. We use instructional techniques that have people work in groups but it has been difficult to perceive groups and the organization as entities that learn

in different ways than by purely the aggregation of individual leaming.

SS

As a lens to collect information and determine actions to improve OL, the Leaming

Maaix and the results from the Learning Assessment Map can provide a focal point and data
that we can discuss to bring greater undemanding to the abstract view of organizational

leaming provided in the literature. The information helps us start to develop a pragmatic undemanding of differences between the learning levels. The results can be bundled for analysis and prioritization in the six categories: individual, group, organization, knowledge flows, leadership and cognition. The categories help the process of deciding what action to

take based on the results and how to bundle strategic programs for improvement.
Although the results for the participating organization are tentative because of the early stage of development of the tool, the results of the Leaming Assessment Map strongly suggests
that the greatest impact on leaming is not from mining and education of individuals and

groups. The greatest leverage points for investing in leaming for the participating organization

o r may be: improving the organizational level as a storehouse of knowledge and as a catalyst f
leaming; implementing programs to enhance leaming flows to utilize the knowledge and skills

of individuals and groups (feed-forward) and to facilitate the development of skills and
knowledge of individuals and groups (feed-back);and taking a c t i o n to narrow the gap between
behaviours and cognition relative to leaming.

When the results for this administration of the Leaming Assessment Map were shared
with the participating organization, the managers agreed with the majority of the observations.

They will use the theoretical background and the insights provided by the results in strategic
planning discussions. The f a c t that the results "rang true" f o r the management group is a

validation that the measurement of OL can add value to the process of developing and

implementing plans to improve o r g a n i z a t i d effectiveness-

In closing, there are a few additional comments that may suggest other research
opportunities as an extension of this study. ?he research is potentially value-added for educational administrators searching for ways to improve the effectiveness of schools. The

Learning Matrix and Learning Assessment Map can help administrators broaden their

u r r e n t strengths of the understanding of their school as a learning orgnaization, identifg the c

individual, group and organization levels of learning and barriers to leaming that will block leaming flow. The administrator can then formulate a strategy to improve OL.

The Learning Matrix and the measurement tool suggest that management of leaming is
not the domain of any one part of the organitation. For example, one time training events or

education of individuals offered through the Human Resources department will not make a significant difTefence in performance without the support of elements on the levels of group

and organization such as: structural elements that allow the right flow of intonnation;
managers who provide support, willingness and capacity to reinforce new behaviours;

behavioural evidence that certain leaming belie6 are widely-held; and reward and compensation f o r desirable performance. The data gathered by the Learning Assessment Map can potentially lead to improvement programs that will be the responsibility of many parts of

the organization. For example, improved information systems, restructuring, tracking and
reporting instruments, and compensation would all be dealt with by different parts of the organization.

A practical howledge of OL helps to broaden the scope of areas in which

educators can add value to organization effectiveness. We have the opportunity to influence

learning in ways that recognize not all learning takes place in a n traditional educaaonal setting
or in the minds of individuals.

The oppommity for further exploration with the participa~g organization w i l l give me
a better understanding of how to implement OL improvement programs.

The organization

wants to create specific programs and track their progress. The organization plans to start by

educating managers to be more aware of their influence on the flow of learning.

The

organization will a l s o look for ways to increase the trust and perceived acceptance f o r innovation and experimentation i n their culture.

The research has provided insights and given a starting point that educators in many
types of organizations can use to broaden their understanding of learning, widen their span of

potential influence and ultimately, improve the learning processes and patterns in their organizations.

Appendix One

Measuridg Learning in Organizations

t

Dear Employee,
Developing a hunhg Orguhtion i s a goal ofmany organizations. An important step i n evolving to a learning organization i s the identificationof learning pattems. This survey is designed to ideveryday pattems ofkanhg i n any ocgaaizaton. -

The word, " O ~ t i o n ni s , used thmughout this survey. The " o n " i s d&ed as your division within the company. Think in terms ofyour division as you answer the questions, not the
larger corporation.
'Ihe words, 4Ccroclpn and 'kt", me used in the survy to refix to the people you usually work with on a daily bask

Completionof the survy win take abaut 2&30 mtoutcs. Answer the questionsby circling one responsenSe h m 1(StrnnsZy D 1 to 7(Shougty Agree). Y o u r involvement i s voluntary and Responses you may choose not to answer any question
We are intaested i n your opinions and expienas. All information you provide is strictly confidential and anonymous. Your personal mponses will not be identifii in any way in the fuul reporting.

CoIeaiveRsuhswilbeovailablehrnyarrAUretumedarmyswillbegiventoanextanal individdy. data processor for input and not

Ifyou would like to coptact us dirdy, please call Lori N e m e t h at

Y o u response w i t h fivc days ofreceiving the m e y is appreciated.

When you have completed the survey: Put the completed nwey m m irrterdfice envelope, attach the label provided, drop the d o p e in interdice mail If you misplace the label, please address the envelope to:

1. Individuals gawnae many ncwins'ghts.

2. Individuals take a c t i o n s that m e q e h e d m name-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Individualsare able to break out oftraditionaIarind-sets t o see things in new and di&ent ways.
4. Individuals are able to grow through their work

5. Individuals are aware ofthe critical issues that a f k t their work 6. Individuals accept negative M a c k without becoming defkmke.

7. Individuals have a clear sense of direction in their work

8.

Individuals fld a sense of accomplishmemt in what they do.

9. IpdivduaIs have a capacity to change and grow with the businessess

10. Individuals fkl a sense of pride in what they do.

11 . Individuals f d a sense of ownership i n what they do.

12. Individuals look for new and better ways to w o k

13. Individuals are aarent and knowledgeable about their field ofwork

1 4 .Individwls have a high level of energy at w o k

15. Individuals f e e l confident in their work
16. When individuals make an error they will usuaily t q to cover it up.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. Individuals scan the external environment (customers, suppliers, competitors, government) to assess fbture risks and opportunities.
18. Individuals demonstrate a high I

d ofcompetenv in their work

19. The origin ofmost of our innovative ideas are people within

the oganization
20.Individuals tend to act in their own selfinterest,

25. We are encouraged to share our ideas with others.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 6 .New ideas are generally Pcccptcd by members ofmy ocgmkatioh

2 7 .Individuals are reluctant t o share theif ideas with others.

28. We share new insights throughout the organhion

29. This orgar6zation captures the intelligence ofits woMone30.Individuals understand how their work contn'butes to

the performance ofthe orpnbation.

3 1. We routinely communicate the lessons learned h m our past actions throughout the organization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32. N e w insights get developed into improved p d u c t s or procssa.

33. We seem to c0ntindfinvent

thewheel".

34. There are many good ideas that sean to go nowhere.

35. When a god person leaves this ogar6tption, we lose

valuabIe information,
33.

m e o a t statements date to the adions or work of group. Please c h i t the most appropriate
number for each strtcment.
1 . Individuals loum enough about the work ofothers to be able to pass on the krfbrmation they need.

2. Individuals take the needs of other manbas ofthe group into account when making decisions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Once the group has made a decision, individuals will support it

4.

Group work i n this orpkation hV a I u a b I e .

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 . W e have dWvc resohrtionof c o d k t in my group8. When w e work i n group%ideas arise that did not oenn

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

to any one individual,

9. We do not know how t o & i y work m groups10. When working in groups we haw the right people

invohtcdinaddrrssingthe issues.
11. We share our successes with others.

13. In meetings, w e are prepared to rethink decisions when presented with new idiomation.

1 4 .W e have too many rmproductivc meetings-

IS.In meetings, we seek to understand everyone's viewpoint.

16. Group decision-makingis an important step i n making organiratiorr

wide changes.
17. Group decision-making impedes progress i n making orpiationwidechanges

1 8 .W e propose innovative solutionsto o ~ o n w i d pmbtemse

19. The decisions groups make are reflected in changes to our o q p n h t i o d systems and Q ~ C ~ U = .

2 0 .No matter what we do, the organhion does rot seem to change.
2 1. In meetings, we have access to the right infomation to make the best decisions-

22. When making decisions for the future, we do not seem to have any memory ofthe past

23. Valuable inhmtiion&om success or M u r eofpast programs is not available.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24. Reward systems

6

the contribution made by groups.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

to what atrntvou bd*vc each value is mddv-bdd

i n vour-omanization.

1. Wevaiueadvhy.

2 Experimentation is neces~ary for learning-

3. Mihg mistakes i s part ofleanring.

4. It i s important to be open-minded. 5.

I ti s important to f d W e d by your w o k

6 . Innovation i s taking a good idea and making it happen. 7.

It is important to capitalize on a good idea.

8, Individuals can make a diffaarce.

9. Diversity is important-

1O.Open.connnunidonis critical.
11. Tuunwork is an essential pan of orgmidorral aaivity12. It is important to share our ideas with others-

13. Others can learn from our successes and fkilures.

14. To contn'buteto others, we need to be aware oftheir needs and issues.

D . 'lbenext statcmtnts d a t e to the coltwe, strategy and vision of your organization. Please M e : the number that best corresponds to vour rerccment with the statement
1. Individuals understand the vision and strategy ofyour organization

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Individuals an directed by the vision and strategy ofthe organization

4. The orphtional structm supports our sltatcgic direction.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. W e have a rraliaicyet Meaging vision for the organbtion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. The organhion culture could be characterized as innovative.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

E The natqclatioPrrrhbto your w t E w s of managem~~~t's influence on your unit @ e . , your unit manager and the paron Wshe reporb to). Pkrrc cirde the number that conaponds to Your IuwIUt
1. Mimagenrent suppats the leaming and ddmlppman ofindividuafs.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Managerpent encourages expsimentation and innovation

3. Decisions made by the management team have a strong impact on what individo.
4. Decisions made by management are well-commrolid to theworl$orce*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Individuals fkd they have input into the critical decisions muie by manogana*

8. Individuals undefsbnd how what thy do fits into the

decisions made by management.

9. PrZanagement continually cnsurcs that new knowledge is d h e m h e d to all parts ofthe organization

11. The rnamgeumt team has articulated a dear -c

direction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 .The ma~gaacnr team hu d d o & a dear vision.

I

14. Managcmem actions support the srxategy.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. Uanagancaactions arc in keeping with the stated visioa

F . These statcmaab d a t e to how the systcmr,s t r u m led procedures of yoar organization

,

influememu and voar work unit.

1. T i e fbr learning is readily adable to all individds. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 ' 7

2. Resources for learning are d

y available to a l individuals.

3. Our systems and procedures Juppon innovation

4. Our policies and procedures aid individual work

5. Cross training, job rotation and ad hoc used to develop a more flexible workforceree

are

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 . 0 & cornparsation structure rewards individds appropriately-

8.

Training is readify available when it i s needed to irnpnm knowledge and skifls.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Our policies and procedures ofthe ogar6tationblodcnewideas.

10. Our orphtionai structure enables the right people to deal with the right problemsems

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. W e reauit the best people in the industry.

12. Key idionnation is readily available through our information systems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Our infbdon share intbdon

system make it

for individuals to
s the sharing or ideas.

14. Our organhticmal structure k

I

15. Our inbamption systems are "leadingedge*.

17. W e have relevant pafbnnance indicators for our business.

19. Our physical atsets are inadequate (i.e., buildings, firrniture).

'G.

The nest questions relate to your perceptions of how well your orgnintion is meeting the needs of M*OIW p u n s .
1. We understand and meet our extend customer needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. W e understand and meet our intend customer needs. 3. Employees are very mided working here.
4. We pmvide a good reurnto our shareholders.

5. Mkiduals are g d y satisfied with their paformance

6 . hdividuals are f i M e d by thdr work

IE

P l e a s ei

~ e the r followinn cluestions which will hdn us when analyzing s u n w results.

1 . Put a checkmark beside the words that best represent your position

Senior Manager

2. What is the name of your work unit within the orgdnization?

Appendix Two

.
6

Results

Individual Leorel

Individuals generate many new insights. Individuals take actions chat are experimental in nature. Individuals are able to break out of traditional mind-setsto see things in new and different ways. Individuals are able to grow through their work. Individuals are aware of the critical issues that affect their work. Individuals accept negative feedback without becoming defensive. Individuals have a clear sense of direction in their work. Individuals feel a sense of accomplishment in what they do. Individuals have a capacity to change and grow with the business. Individuals feel a sense of pride in what they do. Individuals feel a sense of ownership in what they do. Individuals look for new and better ways to work. Individuals are current and knowledgeable about their field of work. Individual have a high level of energy at work. Individuals feel confident in their work. When individuals make an error, they will usually try to cover it up. (rev) Individuals scan the external environment (customer, suppliers, competitors, government) to assess future risks and opportunities. Individuals demonstrate a high level of competency in their work. The origin of most of our innovative ideas are people within the organization.

Qmrp Level

Group work in t h i sorganization is valuable.

Others in the organization co-operate with us in order to share relevant

information, Difkrent points of view are encouraged in my group.

We have effective resolution of conflict in my group. When we work i n groups, ideas arise that did not occur to any one individual.
We do not h o w how to effectively work in group. (rev)

When working in groups we have the right people involved in addressing the issues. We share our successes with others. W e share our failures with othersIn meetings, we are prepared to rethink decisions when presented with new information. We have too many unproductive meetings. (rev) I n meetings, we seek to understand everyone's viewpoint.

Organization b e 2

The organizational structure suppom our strategic direction. W e have a strategy that positions us well for the hture.

We have a realistic yet challenging vision for the organization. The organization culture characterized by a high degree of trust. The organization culture could be characterised as innovative. We are a "learning &ganizatimn . O u r idonnation systems are "leading edge". We have systems in place that enable us to keep track of the critical issues that
afbect our business.

We have relevant performance indicators for our business.

1.66 o u r physical assets are inadequate (i-e., buildings, furniture).(rev)

Our organizational structure needs to be reassessed. (rev)

. -

Individuals tend to act in their own self interest. We rarely think or act beyond the boundary of our own jobs. Individualsare prepared to challenge the assumptions of the group. Individuals possess the appropriate communication slrills to contribute to the group process. Individuals are discouraged by the resistance they receive from others when trying to affect change. (rev) Individuals are reluctant to share their ideas with others. (rev) We share new insights throughout the organization. This organization captures the intelligence of its workforce. Individuals undernand how their work conmbutes to the performance of the organization. We routinely communicate the lessons Learned from our past actions throughout the organization. New insights get developed into improved products or processes. We seem to continually "re-invent the wheeln. (rev) There are good ideas that seem to go nowhere. (rev) When a good person leaves the organization, we lose valuable information. (rev) Individuals have input into our strategy. We propose innovative solutions to organization-wide problems. The decisions we make are reflected in changes to our organizational systems and procedures. No matrer what we do, the organization does not seem to change. (rev)

Individuals u n d e d the vision and strategy of the organization. Individuals are directed by the vision and strategy of the organization.

Time for learning is readil; available to all individualsResources for learning are readily available to all individual. Our systems and procedures support innovation. Our policies and procedures aid individuals work. Cross mining,job rotation and ad hoc assignments are used to develop a more
flexible workforce. Our compensation structure rewards people appropriately. Our compensation structure motivates individuals appropriately. Training is readily available when it is needed to improve knowledge and skills. Our policies and procedures ofthe organization block new ideas. (rev) Our organizational structure enables the right people to deal with the right problems. We recruit the best people in the industryKey information is readily available though our information systems. In meetings, we have access to the right information to make the best decisions. When making decisions for the fkure, we do not seem to have a memory of the past. (rev) Valuable information from success or tailure of past programs is not available. (rev) Reward systems recognize the contribution made by groups. Our information systems make it easy for individuals to share information. Our organizational structure hcilitate the sharing of ideas. Individuals know enough about the work of others to be able to pass on the information they need. Individuals take the needs of other members of the group into account when making decisionsOnce the group has made a decisions, individuals will support it. Individuals comply too easily with directives. (rev)

Leadership Impact on Learning

Leadership

. 3 9 Management continually ensures that new knowledge and information are 4.52 1 disseminated to ail pam of the organization. 4-51 1-27 Management works as a team.

The management team has articulated a clear strategic directionThe management team has developed a clear vision. The management team drives change in the organization. Management actions support the strategy.
Management understands the challenges hcing individuals in this organization. Individuals understand how what they do fits into the decisions made by management-

Management supports the learning and development of individuals. Management encourages experimentationand innovation. Decisions made by the management team have a strong impact on what individuals do. Decisions made by management are well-communicated to the workforce. Individuals feel well served by management. n t o the critical decisions made by Individuals feel they have input i management. Management actions are in keeping with the stated vision. Management demonstrates the leadership qualities required to excel.

Performance Measures
------------.. . . . . -.--.. . . . . . .. . . .

1-18 We understand and meet our external customer needs. 1.21 We understand and meet our internal customer needs. 1.4 Employees are very satisfied working here. 1-2 w e provide a good retum to our shareholders. 1-23 Individuals are generally satisfied with their performance. 1.4 IIndividuals are fuHled by their work.
I

I
1
1

Cognition Measures
It is important to capitalize on a good idea.
Teamwork is an essential part of organizational activity. It is important to b e open-minded. Open communication is critical. It is important to share our ideas w i t h others. It is important to feel hlfilied by your work. Individuals can make a difKerence. To contribute to others,we need to be aware of their needs and issues. Innovation is taking a good idea and making it happen. Others can learn fiom our success and fgilures. Diversity is important. Making mistakes is part of learning. We d u e creativity. Experimentation is necessary for learning.

Evidence of Ethics Approval

RICHARD M Y SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Research and Dcvelopmull O@ce

MEMOEUNDUM
5

To:
From:
Date:

David Radcliffe
Kenkdy
June 3, 1996

Re:

Ethics Review "Measuring Learning in Organizations"

The Ethics Committee of the Western Business School has given final approval for the above mentioned submissionby Lori Nemeth.

I fyou require further i n f o d o n , please contact Connie Zrini, X3018.

Bibliography
Argyris,C. ( 1977). Double-Loop Learning in Ocganizatiolls Harvard Business Review,Vol. 5 5, No. 5, pp 115-125.

Argyris,C. and Schon, D. (1978). Ormnilational Leaminv: A Theom of Action Perswctive Mass: Addison-Wesley. Campbell, T and Cairns, H. (1994). Developing and Measuring the Leaming Organization. Industrial and Commercial Train- Vol. 20, 7. pp. 10-15. Crossan, M. (1991). Qgpnizational Leamiw: A Sociocoenitive Model of Strateeic Thesis, The University of W e s t e r n Ontario. Mana~ement, Crossan, M. and Guano, T .(1996). The Evolution ofOrganizationa1 Learning, Journal of Or-mizational Chan~e Management. Vol. 9, 1 pp. 109-115.

Rush,J. and White, R (edJ(1993). Learnin? in Oreanizations, Richard Crossan, M., Lane, HOT hey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario.
Crossan, M., Lane, H., Rush,J. and White, R (1995). Organizational Leaming Dimensions for a Theory. International Journal of Oreanizational Analvsis, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp 33 7-360.
Crossan, M., Lane, H . , Tiemessen, I., and White, R (1995). Diaposina Orpanizational Leaming, Working Paper Series No. 95-08, Richard h e y School of Business.

Within Oreanization, Crossan, M., Lane, H., Rush, J. and White, R. (1994). Leamin~ Working Paper Series No. 9 4 . 0 6 , Richard Ivey School of Business.
Crossan, M., Hulland, J. ( 1995). Measurinp Organizational Leamin~, Working Paper Series

No. 95-29, Western Business School.

Crossan, M., Hulland, J. ( 1996). Measurine Oreanizational Learning, Richard hey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario.
Daft,

R.L-, Weick, K.E. (1984). Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems,

Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 254-295.

Academy of Manaeement Review.

Dogson, M. ( 1993). Organizational Leaming: A review of some literatures. Or~anization Studies. Vol. 14, pp. 374 394.

Dixon, N. M. ( 1993).Organizational Leaming: A Review of the Literature with Implications for Human Resource Development Professionals Human Resource Development Ouarcerlv, Vol. 3 , 1 pp. 57 101.

Dixon, N. M. (1993). Oreanizarional Leamine. 111-93.

The Conference Board of Canada Report

Diuon, N. M. (1994). The Ormnizational learn in^ Cvcle. How We can Learn Collecti~el~. McGraw-Hill Book Company, London.

Driver, M. ( 1993). Learning, Cognition and Organization. in Mary Crossan et al. Leamin~ in Ornanizations, Western Business School, The University of Western Ontario.

ECLO. (1994). Leaming Organization Inventory.Questionnaire s e n t to members.

Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985). Organizational Leaming. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 803-813.
Gamin, D.A. ( 1993). Building a Leaming Organization. Harvard Business Review. JulyAug. pp. 78-91.

. ( 1989). Control and Perfonnance of International Joint Ventures. Geringer, J. and Hebert, L Journal of International Business Studies. Vol. 20, 2, pp. 235 251.

Glynn, M. A., Lant, T. K . ,Milliken, F.L. (1994). Mapping learning Processes in Organizations: A Mu lti-level Framework Linking Learning and Organizing. in Advances in Managerial Cornition and Oreanizational Information Processing, vo 1.5, p. 43 -83, JA1 Press. Griffey, S-, Kelleher, M. (1995). M e a s u ~ g Leaming: Connecting Practice with Theory. Or~anizational Leamine: Measurin~. the Realitv. 1995 Annual Conference of the European Consortium for the Leaming Organization, M a y 1995.

Hu ber, G.P.( 1991). "Organizational learning: the contributing processes and literatures", Orpanization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115
Leitch, C. Burgoyne, J. (1996). Leaming Organization: The Measurement of Company Performance. Best Practices Measuring the Reality. pp. 97-120

Lei D.,

H i t t M.A., Bettis R (1996). Dynamic Core Competencies Through Meta-Learning and Strategic Context. Journal of Management. Vol.22, No. 4, pp. 549-569.

McKay, D . and Mink,0. Leamin~ About Leaming, forthcoming

bkacham, J.M. (1983). Wisdom and the Contest of Knowledge: Knowing that One Doesn't Know. In D. Kuhn and J.A. Meacham (eds.), Contributions in Human Development, Vol.
S, 11-134

Nevis, E., DiBda. A., Gould, J. ( 1995). understanding Organizations as Leaming Systems. Sloan Management Review. winter 1995, pp. 73 85.

Nicolini, D., Mezna~? M. ( 1995). The Social Consmction of Organizational Leaming: Conceptual and Practical Issues in the Field. pp. 727 745.

Onnrod, Jeanne ( 1995). Human Leamw. Prentice-Hall Inc., N. J. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T. ( 1991). The Leamine Comoanv. McGraw Hill Book Company. N . Y . Scheffler, I. (1973).d . n a R -

Bobbs-Med, Illinois.

Schon, Donald A. (1975). Deutero-Learning in Organizations: Learning for Increased Effectiveness. Qreanization Dvnarniq, Vo1.4, No. 1, pp. 2- 16. Seely- Brown,J., Duguid, P. ( 1991).Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Leaming and Innovation. Orsanization Science. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 40-56 Seely- Brown, J. (1993). Presentation transcript in Mary Crossan et al. Leamine in Oreanizacions,Western Business School, The University of Western Ontario. Senge. P. ( 1990).The Fifth Disci~line: The Art and Practice of the Learning Owanimtion. Dou bleday/Currency. N.Y.
Senge. P., KLiener, A., Roberts, C., Ross,R Smith, B. (1994). The Fifch Discipline Fieldbook

DoubledaylCurrency. N.Y. Senge, P. ( 1990). The Leaders New Work Building Learning Organizations. Sloan Management Review. Vo1.32, No. 1, pp. 70-23 Shrivastava. P . A. (1983).Typology of Organizational Leaming Systems.Journal of Orpanizational Leamin~ Systems. Vol. 20,1. Simons, P.R. (1995). New Roles For HRD-Officers and Managers in Leaming Organizations. Oraanizational Leamin~: Measurin~ the Realitv. 1995 Annual Conference of the European Consortium for the Leaming Organization, May 1995. Sinkula, J. ( 1994). Market Information Processing and Organizational Leaming. Journal of Marketing. pp. 35-45 Sollman, J. ( 1995). Measurement of the Organizational Learning Climate. Oreanizational Leamin~: Measurin~ the Realicv. 1995 Annual Conference of the European Consortium for the Leaming Organization, May.

Soloman,C.M. (1994).HR Facilitates the Learning Organization Concept. Personnel Ioumal, Nov. pp. 56-66.
Stewart, T .A., (1996). The Invisible Key to Success Shadowy Groups Called Communities of Practice are Where Learning and Growth Happen. You C a n ' tCcmtrol Them But They're Easy To K i l l .Fortune Maeazine, Vol. 143,No. 3,pp. 173-176.

--

. Assessment Van Buren. M . E . ,Lucadamo,L. (1996). ASTD1sGuide to Leamine Omanlzaaon o r Training and Development. Alexandria, Virginia. msrmmenaw American Society f
Wedey, K,Latham, G.(19911. Developing and train in^ Human Resources i n Or-nizations. Harper Collins Publishers Inc U.K.