The concept of a learning organization was promulgated by Senge (1990), in his book entitled "The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization". Nevertheless, the notion of a learning organization appreciably predates this book (for reviews, see Argyris & Schon, 1978 & Fiol & Lyles, 1985 & Shrivastava, 1983 & Watkins & Marsick, 1992). The learning organization represents an organization characterized by a continuous and systemic change of individuals and systems (Senge, 1990;; Watkins & Marsick, 1993).
According to Senge (1990), learning unfolds at the level of individuals, teams, organizations, and communities. The learning organization develops and institutes systems and mechanisms that represent, maintain, and communicate this learning, efficiently and broadly (Watkins & Marsick, 1993). Discourse and cooperation across departments, rather than fragmentation and competition, are encouraged (Kofman & Senge, 1993). These systems and mechanisms are regarded as a facet of workplace strategy, separate from the core work activities, intended to facilitate innovation, productivity, and growth.
Both individuals and organizations demonstrate two distinct forms of learning: incremental and transformational (e.g., Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Incremental learning represents a gradual improvement in understanding and behavior-through refinements to extant associations-within the established structure and rules of the organization. In contrast, transformational learning represents a refinement to the underlying structures, rules, and norms that characterize the organization. Fundamental shifts in skills, thinking, insights, and heuristics all underpin this form of learning.
A learning organization engages in transformational, not only incremental, forms of learning--continuously rather than sporadically (Kofman & Senge, 1993;; Watkins & Golembiewski, 1995;; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). Such organizations institute and embrace initiatives that expedite and facilitate these transformational changes.
Senge (1990) enumerated five core facets, called disciplines, which facilitate transformational learning: systemic thinking, personal mastery, shared vision, changing mental models, and team learning. These factors are intended to mobilize the innate and profound drive in individuals to learn.
Systems thinkingFor example, Senge (1990) posits that individuals in organizations should learn systems thinking. Such a perspective enables individuals to appreciate their own role in provoking the problems they seek to solve-underscoring opportunities to act more suitably in the future.
In particular, after sufficient exposure to change, individuals learn about the systems that underpin organizational development: the feedback, the delays, and many other key elements. They perceive themselves as a key constitute of a larger, complex whole.
Personal masterySecond, learning organizations attempt to cultivate a culture that encourages risk taking as a means to accelerate individual development. Specifically, learning organizations establish "practice fields" (Kofman & Senge, 1993)-environments in which individuals can learn novel skills and techniques through experience and practice. Action technologies, such as research into the surrounding context coupled with subsequent reflection, is an importance example of these practice fields (Watkins & Golembiewski, 1995;; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). To facilitate this learning, individuals are encouraged to apply a balance of rational processes and intuition to formulate an inspiring personal vision as well as commit to the organization as a whole.
Senge emphasizes the concept of lifelong learning in this pursuit. He relays the story of Antonio Stradivari whose endeavor was to foster a particular sound in violins. He pursued this goal throughout his life, refining the violins continuously. Senge would argue that Antonio Stradivari was never satisfied with his last violin, because he was engaged in a process of continual and everlasting improvement.
Senge argues the divergence between a personal vision and the existing state of affairs evokes a tension that promotes creativity. Nevertheless, this creativity will only translate into progress if the perception of individuals towards the existing state of affairs is indeed accurate-and extant constraints are recognized, accommodated, and even utilized.
Shared visionThird, learning organizations formulate a shared vision, derived from the personal direction of members. Practices are instituted to facilitate commitment and compliance to this shared vision. Furthermore, the vision is translated into clear purposes and values. A shared connection to an important undertaking is assumed to evoke a profound sense of energy in the individuals.
Mental modelsMental models, sometimes called repertoires, are ingrained beliefs, assumptions, and generalizations-represented as either verbal propositions or visual images-which our perceptions and choices. Argyris and Schon (1978) and Senge (1990) maintain that individuals need to develop their capacity to reflect upon how these assumptions shape behavior and decisions. In particular, individuals first need to recognize or unearth these assumptions, which are usually inaccessible to awareness. Next, individuals need to explicate and discuss these beliefs and assumptions, enabling colleagues to consider and question their legitimacy.
These discussions and reflections enable individuals to refine and share their mental models, circumventing the pervasive obstacles to change. As these mental models evolve, impediments to development, such as perceived politics and reliance on traditional practices, dissipate.
These processes redress many flawed assumptions. Examples include the need to maintain exclusive control, the motivation to win rather than lose, the tendency to suppress negative feelings, and the obsession with rationality. These biases arise partly because we extract generalizations from previous generalizations and, over time, these representations begin to diverge from experience, called the ladder of inference.
Team learningTo ensure that team processes are aligned optimally, individuals need to learn how to think and contemplate together. Patterns of interaction and communication that stifle the fluid and progressive interchange of ideas need to overcome.
From the perspective of a learning organization, leaders are not conceptualized as the managers who stipulate the direction, reach key decisions, and coordinate or motivate individuals. Their role involves design, stewardship, and teaching.
First, leaders assume the role of a designer-firstly, developing a vision, purpose, and values from the contributions of all members. This vision orients the attention of individuals towards the future, which further encourages the will to learn. Furthermore, leaders must first promulgate the concept of a learning organization, conveying an inspiring vision of the future. Next, they need to introduce other mechanisms or systems that could facilitate the five disciplines.
Second, leaders assume the role of a steward, in which they communicate stories that integrate and explain the evolution and development of the organization. These conceptualizations, called purpose stories, instill in these leaders a sense of meaning to all key activities, which promotes an unambiguous personal commitment to the vision. These purpose stories evolve as leaders discuss these insights with other individuals.
Third, leaders assume the role of a teacher, offering insights and opportunities about existing realities that relate to a broader purpose or organization. The aim of leaders is to facilitate learning and development in everyone.
Although, from the perspective of a learning organization, the roles of leaders are diverse, one form of leadership has been shown empirically to foster many of the attributes that epitomize the desired culture. Specifically, Nemanich and Vera (2009) showed that transformational leadership is associated with a learning culture. Transformational leaders, in contrast to transaction leaders, change the goals of followers. That is, followers are motivated to pursue more inspiring, visionary goals of the future. To inspire these pursuits, these leaders challenge established practices and customize their support to followers.
As Nemanich and Vera (2009) showed, when leaders of a team demonstrated these behaviors, followers were more likely to feel the culture embraces learning. First, when leaders were transformational, followers reported the culture afforded individuals with a sense of psychological safety (e.g., Edmondson, 1999), as represented by items such as "It is safe to take a risk in this team". Second, if leaders were transformational, followers were more likely to feel that diverse perspectives are embraced (Bontis, Crossan, & Hulland, 2002), as epitomized by items such as "Different points of view are encouraged in my team's work". Finally, if leaders were transformational, their followers felt that employees were able to participate in decisions, as represented by items like "This team is designed to let everyone participate in decision making".
When a learning culture is forged, individuals are more inclined both to explore novel solutions as well as to utilize established practices--referred to as ambidextrous individuals. Specifically, in their study, when the culture was perceived as receptive to diverse opinions from employees, individuals were more likely to endorse items such as "My team implements most of my ideas", which represents exploration of novel solutions, and "I look for new ways to do things by learning what has worked for others", which represents exploitation of established practices".
The work of Peter Senge tends to be regarded as practical--more directed towards practitioners and managers rather than academics and scholars. Several issues have been raised since his work was published in 1990. First, the ideals of a learning organization are sometimes regarded as unrealistic within the context of competitive market forces, when financial imperatives are essential. Nevertheless, the learning organization is intended to facilitate productivity over a longer duration. Second, some critics maintain the skills or disciplines that are necessary to foster a learning organization depart from the inclinations and capacities of many modern managers.
Quantitative investigations into the repercussions of this learning approach are sparse. In the nursing profession, however, research has shown that a learning organization is associated with measures of organizational effectiveness. Shared vision and team learning, for example, have been shown to be associated with job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Jeong, Lee, Kim, Lee, & Kim, 2007). Furthermore, over 20% of the variance in job satisfaction and organizational commitment were explained by the principles of learning organizations.
Measures of learning organizationSome researchers have applied the Learning Organization Scale, developed by Jeong, Lee, Lee, and Kim (2003) and adapted by Jeong, Lee, Kim, Lee, and Kim (2007). The scale comprises 23 or 24 items, depending on the version to measures the five core disciplines: system thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning. A sample item is "I think (the organization) should incorporate members' opinion thoroughly when trial of a new change is attempted". Cronbach's alpha approximates 0.89 for shared vision, 0.84 for personal mastery, 0.77 for system thinking, 0.75 for team learning, and 0.79 for mental models.
Knowledge management refers to the extent to which organizations attempt to create, identify, collect, adapt, organize, apply, and share knowledge and information. The capacity of organizations to manage knowledge effectively depends not only on technology but on the extent to which the culture and climate embraces knowledge.
Luo and Lee (2013), for example, explored the features of climate that promote knowledge management. Specifically, they examined how the ethical climate of organizations affects knowledge management. Three ethical climates have been differentiated: egoism, benevolence, and principle (Victor & Cullen, 1988). Egoism refers to organizations in which individuals are primarily motivated to pursue their personal interests, and directors strive only to enhance profit and market share. Benevolence refers to organizations in which individuals are motivated primarily to establish friendships, managers are motivated to promote teamwork, and the directors are concerned about social responsibility. Finally, principle refers to organizations in which companies cherish procedures and rules as well as laws and professional codes.
Benevolence, and in particular team work and team interest, was shown to foster trust and commitment to the organization, in turn fostering knowledge management. Respect of procedures, rules, laws, and professional codes also fostered knowledge management. Presumably, when individuals trust their colleagues and feel committed to an organization, they are more willing to sacrifice their personal needs to store and share knowledge that could help the company. Furthermore, the respect towards procedures, rules, laws, and professional codes also highlights how the behaviors of one person, such as sharing knowledge, is vital to enhance the functioning of a broader community or organization.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Beck, M. (1992). Learning organization: how to create them. Industrial and Commercial Training, 21, 21-28.
Birleson, P. (1998). Learning organisations a suitable model for improving mental health services? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32, 214-222.
Bontis, N., Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 437-469.
Ceppetelli, E. B. (1995). Building a learning organization beyond the walls. Journal of Nursing Administration, 25, 56-60.
Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization studies, 14, 375-394.
Dowd, S. B. (2000) Organizational learning and the learning organization in health care. Hospital Materiel Management Quarterly, 21, 1-3.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002) The relationship between the learning organization concept and firms' financial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 5-21.
Francis, S. D., & Mazany, P. C. (1997) Developing elements of a learning organization in a metropolitan ambulance service: strategy, team development and continuous improvement. Health Manpower Management, 23, 17-26.
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86, 109-116.
Hult, G. T., Lukas, B. A., & Hult, A. M. (1996). The health care learning organization. Journal of Hospital Marketing, 10, 85-99
Jeong, S. H., Lee, T. Kim, I. S., Lee, M. H., & Kim, M. J. (2007). The effect of nurses' use of the principles of learning organization on organizational effectiveness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58, 53-62.
Jeong, S. H., Lee K. S., Lee M. H., & Kim, I. S. (2003). A study on the development of the learning organization measurement for nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration, 9, 75-88.
Kofman, F. & Senge, P.M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 5-23.
Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S. M., & Feurig, P. L. (2005) Examining the relationship between learning organization characteristics and change adaptation, innovation, and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 185-211
Luo, S., & Lee, G. (2013). Key factors for knowledge management implementation. Social Behavior and Personality, 41, 463-476. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2013.41.3.463
Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 19-33.
O'Connor, N., & Kotze, B. (2008). Learning organizations: A clinician's primer. Australasian Psychiatry, 16, 173-178.
Redding, J. (1997). Handwriting the learning organization. Training and Development, 51, 61-67
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 7-29.
Snell, R. S. (2002). The learning organization, sensegiving and psychological contracts: A Hong Kong case. Organization Studies, 23, 549-569.
Vander Woude, D. L., & Letcher, D. C. (2005). Becoming a living-learning organization. Nursing Science Quarterly, 18, 24-30.
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101-125.
Watkins, K.E. & Golembiewski, R.T. (1995). Rethinking organization development for the learning organization. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 86-101.
Watkins, K. & Marsick, V. (1992). Sculpting the learning organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Last Update: 6/17/2016