Example Essays - Education Essays
Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management: A Comparative Perspective
There is a substantial amount of literature focusing on individual learning within the discipline of social psychology. However there is a need to examine the notion of organisational learning which is associated with the growing recognition of the relationship between organisational strategy and learning (Stewart, 1999).
The discipline of social psychology is significant especially in terms of considering the dynamics of organisational learning. It is vital then to begin with a brief review of three key concepts within psychological sciences about the processes of learning which can be defined as Behaviourist theory, Cognitive theory and Humanist theory (Butler & McManus, 2000).
Psychological research has put forward a number of theories seeking to explain individual learning and the processes involved in this function. In general due to different perceptual processes people pick up different pieces of information from world with this resulting in learning styles and processes varying from one to another. Psychologists then can be seen to draw upon concepts and derive principles which support each other and contradict each other in order to reveal people's learning process dependent of the contextual basis to which such theorising takes place in. In order to understand organisational learning behaviour it is useful to be aware of the similarities and differences of these individualised learning theories as organizations are composed of individuals who are organised in some way to achieve organizational objectives. Thus a reductionist outlook explaining organisational learning will serve to explain these processes at the macro level of the organisation.
Therefore a review of the literature suggests a multiplicity of theories surrounding the learning process with diametric views and little consensus existing on these processes. According to Myers (1995) individual learning is a relatively permanent change in an organism's behaviour resulting due to experience. In consideration of this definition behaviourist learning theory takes up the argument that human behaviour is learned. In other words behaviourists contend that human behaviour as well as individual learning is the product of experiences gleaned within the milieu of physical and social environments (Myers, 1995; Butler & McManus, 2000). The most familiar of all behaviourist theories related to learning is conditioning which was first researched by the Russian psychologist Pavlov. Pavlov conditioned dogs by associating the sound of a bell with food being given to them to the degree that the sound of the bell alone would cause the dogs to salivate. Pavlov proposed that unconditioned stimuli are linked with automatic responses which are not learned but are inherent within the biological processes of the organism. In contrast only stimuli and responses which are learned are conditioned (Myers, 1995; Stewart, 1999).
There are several limits of this theory which have been raised extensively since behavioural theories became popular both within psychology and outside of the discipline generally. Yet it can be argued that the main contribution of the classic conditioning model confirms the relationship between conditioned motivations and conditioned responses. The second model first expounded by the American behaviourist Skinner focused on associations between operant behaviour and controllable behaviour (Myers, 1995). This theory suggest that measures can exist intrinsically and extrinsically controlling what people learn and suggests that if the outcome is pleasant so the likelihood of such behaviour generating this outcome being repeated is high. On a practical level then this can explain people in organisations who do highly repetitive work easily losing interest in performing these tasks where no positive outcome is associated with their tasks.
This theory has provided many insights and been adopted in many contexts in relation to organisational management. It has had many practical implications in organisational management for example in relation to job design. For example if you wish for a behaviour to be continuously repeated successfully after it has been learned a positive reward is useful such as pay rate or other performance related bonus in ensuring the repetition of the desired behaviour. Skinner believed that punishment is ineffective in helping people learn during the initial stages of behavioural pattern formation because due to the associated negative outcomes which will decrease motivation to perform specific behaviours. Bulter and McManus (2000) in contrast argue that punishment is useful in some circumstances such as in reducing the risk of accidents that might occur from staff behaviour within an organisation. In a word, operant conditioning is all about shaping behaviour and providing reinforcements towards securing desired behaviours from individuals.
During the initial phase of its articulation organisational learning was synonymous with individual learning since organisations consist of limited people and such developments were an almost natural offshoot of individualised concerns. As organisations have grown rapidly and expanded in scale there has been an increased focus on the distinctions and divisions between individual learning processes and organisational learning. However it needs to be considered and remembered that organisations learn from the individuals within it so it is obvious that organisational learning is directly and/or indirectly affected by individual learning processes operating within the organisational context.
The founding theory of organizational learning developed by Chris Argyris emphasises the practice of learning from an action perspective. The main ideas of his work are first of all that individuals are a critical element when they are acting to lean, secondly it is impossible to learn without using our brain and lastly all the knowledge has to be generalized in ways that the brain can distil it and apply it in order to make such new knowledge actionable (Fulmer & Keys, 2004). While social scientists may pay little attention to this feature he argues that in order to promote learning it is vital to reduce organisational routines and structural frameworks that pose a barrier to actionable learning. Argyris's theories of action and Model II attempt to give practitioners guidelines of how to employ learning strategy within the setting of their organisational management strategies.
However these models are based on complex knowledge base and it can be further argued then therefore that these works do little to provide an evaluation of an organisational ability to learn. Based on Argyris's (1977) work and Cyert and March's (1963) learning theory an organisational learning Typology is suggested which is concerned about sharing and adaptive learning techniques (Neilson, 1997). This series of theories added concepts related to action oriented forms of learning in terms of creating, acquiring and knowledge flows involved in the learning process, (Spender, 1996). This is a core concept in understanding the future organisational learning and knowledge management related to this learning because new technologies introduced and changing organisational contexts as a result of external factors pose challenges to the organisation which require solution in order to create a truly dynamic and reflexive learning organization. It is believed that organisational learning and knowledge management is closely linked to generating organizational competitive advantages, (Blackler, 1995). Therefore future research should seek to illustrate ways in which learning how and learning why each can generate competitive advantages for an organisation as well as provide adequate responses to the new challenges facing organisations (Edmondson & Moingeon, 1996).
In addition the behavioural perspective can be extended to organisations with work such as Cyert and March's (1963) seeing the organisation as an adaptively rational system which basically learns from experience, a reflexive organisation in other words, (Argote, 1999). For example an organisation may adapt its strategies due to failures in its policies in response to the environment thus internalising the learning of rules related to these factors. In this mode, there is an obvious distinction between individual learning and organisational learning. Cyert and March (1963) argue that individual learning depends on a sense of personal belief, attitude and values and therefore the learning cycle may change due to the changes in beliefs held by individuals according to the outside environmental changes while organisational learning cycles generally have the tendency to remain unchanged. In contrast to this viewpoint however Muth (1986) provided a review of former models and developed a new one based on the identified limitations of these previous models which demonstrated a strong relationship between individual learning and the institutionalisation of organisational change (Argote, 1999). Based on individual experience and knowledge the unit cost in organization can be reduced for example. In addition research has been carried out to find an effective way in which organisations lowered the costs from a fixed resource through the implementation of a technological improvement.
Social learning theory has emerged and drawn upon work and research conducted within a cognitive learning theory framework itself building on and considering the implications of earlier behaviourist learning and accepts the existence of an internal (cognitive) process in individual learning processes. Baudura introduced the notion of imitation and modelling as integral parts of the learning process which demonstrated the important principle that people learn things through observation and imitation of others (Mayers, 1995). The social learning theory allowed for the introduction of a cognitive process factor into the learning process in response to pure behaviourist theory which notably lacked such an element. It is fair to say that cognitive theory is not necessarily contradictory towards behaviourist theory but that it emphasises the key role of cognition that can be further developed as a result of insights from sign and latent learning. It is vital to mention the literature on cognitive learning and knowledge.
Two related concepts within organisational learning are 'tacit knowledge' or knowledge that refers to personal and unconscious knowledge and 'implicit learning'. Chao (1997) argues that implicit learning is the process through which tacit knowledge is developed and internalised (Stewart, 1999). That is to say the outcome of implicit learning is the development of tacit knowledge that takes place independently of conscious attempts to learn and acquire such knowledge. The relevance of these two concepts to organisation learning is demonstrated by the application of organisation socialisation and the development of organisational strategies with these two concepts in mind. Research has demonstrated that the free flow of knowledge is necessary as well as vital for successful organisational learning, one in other words in which the spiral knowledge processes interdependently associated within the organisation are connected, (Collins, 1993). Theses processes incorporate shifts through which knowledge is held as tacit to tacit, explicit to explicit, tacit to explicit and finally explicit to tacit.
Furthermore we should note that the resolution of these processes is a fundamental part of an organisation's learning process at strategic and operational level, (Stewart, 1999). Organization learning occurs then through these four processes and in particular the creation of knowledge. While Chao (1997) held that implicit learning results in the acquisition of pre-existing knowledge Stewart (1999) argued that implicit learning also results in new knowledge. It is clear that organisations depend on individual learning but that there are other considerations also to take account of. From this point of view then we can consider Dixon's (1994) argument that organisational learning is improved through increasing the accessibility of individual meanings and the attendant processes of creation associated with these meanings.
Another important development arising out of cognitive theory is theories related to experiential learning. The implication of experiential learning theory is especially vital in considering organisational learning and knowledge management processes. The vital concepts here rely arguments put forward which contend that learning is goal directed in that the process has a tendency to be applied in such a way as to solve problems (Cunliffe & Easterby-Smith, 2004). Because of the uncertainty and unique characteristics within any given organisation researchers have developed experience-based approaches to manage knowledge and learning within the specific contextual circumstances of these organisations. The two main forms are reflective of an individual's own experience and reflective towards the experience created by the leaders of the teams in which they operate in.
In practical terms this approach directs attention towards the utilising of team building exercises and management in order to encourage the reflection of team members which will result in increased information and knowledge flows evolving out of experiential feedback. For example at group level managers are able to learn through sharing their experiences with others and to identify team members' individual behaviours which have exacerbated or helped solve organisational problems. It is argued that the key to an effective experiential learning approach is the ability to reflect upon actions performed (Weinstein, 2002). Similarly Malone and Crowton's (1994) study on coordination learning theory provides further support to the linkage between team working tools, managing shared knowledge and organisational learning (Neilson, 1997).
While important work has been done on how individuals within organisations learn by sharing knowledge and a shared understanding about the for example technological implementations or standard operational routines Henriksson (1999) argues that in large organisations there are conflicts during the interpretation phase of these processes. The tendency to break whole organisation down to several subunits based on technology or markets requires different groups to develop their own knowledge structures. Nevertheless, the ongoing globalisation of business and a growing systematic network or business structures raises further problems for group learning among individuals from different backgrounds and cultural backgrounds. From this view organisational learning and knowledge management needs to be associated with an expanded role for cultural awareness through research in order to make sense of these contextual influences on individual learning processes and styles that are embedded within organisational learning processes, (Wilkstrom and Norman, 1994).
Finally there is a different way in which to think about experiential learning in organisations which has been defined as practical reflexivity theory (Cunliffe & Easter-Smith, 2004). There are significant differences between reflection and reflexivity as argued by Cunliffe and Easter-Smith (2004). First of all within a reflective perspective there is the existence of real experience which refers to the objective world and an internal consciousness that can make sense of that experience and dynamically respond to it. Therefore from this point of view organisation learning is a typical cognitive activity under individual control. Kolb et al (1984) argue that learning only occurs in an inner world in which data about the external real world is discovered, reflected upon and utilised in the generation and construction of new ideas and techniques (Cunliffe & Easter-Smith, 2004).
It has been a feature of current writing and research then that reflexivity has challenged ideas emanating from traditional reflective learning theory and sought to replace it with the notion that learning is an embodied, dialogical and existential activity intimately tied to how we feel and respond to others. In this way experiential learning is thus not a technique to be used but an ongoing question of how we construct a shared sense with others, or how genuine processes of reflexivity can be identified and managed (Foucault, 1980, Cunliffe & Easter-Smith, 2004). In conclusion knowledge management in strategic fields might provide different forms of learning at business level or different processes of learning between small projects in a big organization and in a small/medium organization.
Back to: Example Essays
References
Argote, L. (1999) Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge, Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA.
Blackler, F. (1995) Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations, Organization Studies 16 (6).
Butler, G. & McManus, F. (2000) Psychology: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford New York.
Chao, G. T. (1997) Organization Socialization in Multinational Corporations: the Role of Implicit Learning, in Cooper, L. & Jackson, E.(eds) Creating Tomorrow's Organizations, John Wiley, UK.
Collins, H. (1993) The Structure of Knowledge, Social Research 60.
Cunliffe, A. & Easterby-Smith, M. (2004) From Reflection to Practical Reflexivity: Experiential Learning as Lived Experience, in Reynolds, M. & Vince, R. (eds) Organizing Reflection, Ashgate Publishing Limited, UK.
Dixon, N. (1994) The Organisational Learning Cycle, McGraw-Hill, UK.
Edmondson, A. & Moingeon, B. (1998) Organizational Learning as a Source of Competitive Advantage, in Edmondson, A. & Moingeon, B.(eds) Organisational Learning and Competitive Advantage, Sage Publications, London.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge, Pentheon, New York.
Fulmer, R. & Keys, J. (2004) A Conversation With Chris Argyris: the Father of Organizational Learning, in
Starkey, K., Tempest, S. & Mckinlay, A. (eds) How Organizations Learn: Managing the Search for Knowledge 2nd edition, Thomson Learning, London.
Henriksson, K. (1999) The Collective Dynamics of Organizational Learning: On Plurality and Multi-Social Structuring, Lund University Press, Sweden.
Hicks, L. (2005) The Nature of Learning, in Mullins, L. (ed) Management and Organisational Behaviour, Pearson Education Limited, UK.
Myers, G. (1995) Psychology, Worth, New York.
Neilson, R. (1997) Collaborative Technologies & Organizational Learning, Idea Group Publishing, UK.
Reynolds, M. & Vince, R. (2004) Organizing Reflection: An Introduction, in Reynolds, M. & Vince, R. (eds) Organizing Reflection, Ashgate Publishing Limited, UK.
Spender, J. (1996) Competitive Advantage From Tacit Knowledge? Unpacking the Concept and Its Strategic Implications, in Moingeon, B. & Edmondson, A. (eds) Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage, Sage Publications, London.
Stephens, J. (2003) Perspectives On Individual Behaviour, in Brooks, I., Organisational Behaviour: Individuals, Groups and Organisation, Pearson Education Limited, UK.
Stewart, J. (1999) Employee Development Practice, Financial Times Pitman Publishing, UK.
Weinstein, K. (2002) Action Learning: The Classic Approach, in Boshyk, Y. (ed) Action Learning Worldwide: Experiences of Leadership and Organizational Development, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Wikstrom, S. & Normann, R. (1994) Knowledge and Value: A New Perspective on Corporate Transformation, Routledge, London.
Yorks, L., O'Neil, J. & Marsick, V. (2002) Action Reflection Learning TM and Critical Reflection Approaches, in Boshyk, Y. (ed) Action Learning Worldwide: Experiences of Leadership and Organizational Development, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
More Free Education Essays...
Get free education essays from our extensive online resource library. Hundreds of example essays available from all the major essay topics to help you with your research...
Please note: The above essay was written by a student and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted work to us.
