A Different View of Organizational Learning

by Sue Gilly
February 21, 1997

Much of the organizational learning literature seems to be following in the

tradition of learning theories and taking a psychological or individual
perspective on the phenomenon. There is a debate about whether or not
organizations can learn and many just take the approach that organizational
learning is the sum total of the individual learning occurring in the workplace
(Argyris & Schon, 1996; Levitt & March, 1988; Normann, 1985; Weick &
Westley, 1996). What would happen if our focus shifted to one that is more
anthropological and, therefore, focused on group learning? What if there was a
shift from seeing learning as just cognitive to seeing it as occurring when
groups try to make sense out of their world? As a result of this new view of
organizational learning what would be some of the necessary shifts in attitudes,
beliefs and practices? Why would companies want to become learning
organizations? This paper will explore these issues.

It seems difficult to shift our view of learning to something groups do and that
it is a natural part of our day- to-day activity. Many educators and theorists do
not seem able to hear their own contradictions. James E. Russell, dean
emeritus, Teachers College, Columbia University states:

It can not be pointed out too often that all education is self-education. Teachers
may help define procedure, collect equipment, indicate the most propitious
routes, but the climber must use his own head and legs if he would reach the
mountaintop. . . . The best method of teaching adults yet hit upon is
undoubtedly group discussion (Knowles, 1990, p. 34-35).
The group approach to learning is very compatible with humanistic learning but
even Carl Rogers in his book "Freedom to Learn" (1996) does not directly
address group learning and group tasks. There is a reference to a "jigsaw
approach" that assigns each student a piece that becomes part of a total project.
This seems to fall short of what might be possible if we explore group learning
as something different from the accumulation of individual learning. What will
happen if workers move from cooperation, helping someone when asked, to
collaboration, doing real work together. This paper will not debate the issue of
whether or not there is such a thing as group learning. Instead let us just try to
see what can be discovered about organizational learning when we take a
different viewpoint of the topic.
The key concepts for developing this different view of organizational learning
comes primarily from three sources. In one of the articles the authors see an
organization as a culture and the juxtaposition of order and disorder often
stimulates learning (Weick & Westley, 1996). The second looks at the social
construction of knowledge in groups and how this changes the way we see
learning (Bruffee, 1993). The third source uses the Native American medicine
wheel to develop a model of organizational learning that is circular,
longitudinal and integrative rather than linear, cross- sectional and
compartmental. Learning is something that happens all the time (Cowan, 1995).
Next these concepts from the three key sources are expanded to see what they
indicate for organizational learning. Then some of the necessary shifts
organizations may make in order to adopt these concepts are considered.

Organizational Culture

In an article by Weick and Westley in "Handbook of Organization Studies"

(1996) called "Organizational Learning: Affirming an Oxymoron" the authors
see organizations as cultures. They explain that organizational learning is an
oxymoron because learning involves disorganization and an increase in variety
while organizing involves forgetting and a reduction in variety. This sets up a
tension that many workers do not use and often ignore in an effort to return to
"organization." According to the authors, the juxtaposition of order and
disorder is where learning occurs. Kofman and Senge (1993) also believe
learning occurs when there is tension between fear of the unknown and having
a need to change and between holding on and letting go of beliefs, assumptions
and certainties.

Weick and Westley also suggest viewing an organization as a culture is useful

because learning is an inherent characteristic of culture. According to
anthropologist Larry Naylor (1996), even though culture is conceptualized
differently

"anthropologists do agree on some things. Most of them agree that culture . . .

must be learned. The fact that culture must be learned also means that it must
be taught, making it a group and shared phenomenon. . . . Anthropologists also
agree that cultures are always changing, because environments are always
changing" (p. 18).
Normann (1985) believes the current interest in culture by businesses results
from the desire to learn through increasing understanding of assumptions,
beliefs and values. Seeing organizations as cultures focuses on their
experiential and social nature and views them as repositories for knowledge
and as self-designing systems. Weick and Westley highlight three subsystems
of culture where knowledge is embedded: language, artifacts, and action
routines.

Social Construction of Knowledge

Other key concepts are found in a book called "Collaborative Learning: Higher
Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge" by Kenneth
Bruffee (1993). The basis of the whole book is the premise that knowledge is
socially constructed. He calls this nonfoundational knowledge. Elias and
Merriam (1995) do an excellent job explaining foundational knowledge,

Historically, the purpose of education has been the transmission of cultural

heritage and the perpetuation of existing society. This concept is based upon
the assumptions that society will remain pretty much the same from generation
to generation and that society's elders know what knowledge and skills are
necessary for maintaining the cultural status quo. This view also assumes that
there is an identifiable body of knowledge that can be packaged and passed on
to new learners (p. 121-122).
Nonfoundational knowledge, since based on the social construction of
knowledge, has the assumption there are no absolute or universal answers. The
answers and knowledge belong to the specific communities which they develop
based on their particular language, history and situation. Members of a
community use language, symbols and artifacts to construct and reconstruct
their knowledge over time. Several other authors (Brown & Gray, 1997;
Kofman & Senge, 1993) see the value in taking a community building
approach to organizational learning. Brown and Gray call them "communities
of practice."

With regard to the social construction of knowledge, Bruffee says university

education needs to change and, therefore, so will organizations. When a student
enters a university he or she enters a new community which requires a process
of what Bruffee calls reacculturation. In anthropology enculturation is the
process of learning one's own culture while acculturation is the assimilation of
one group to another culture's ways. Bruffee may be trying to emphasize the
fact that students enter a university as members of many different cultures
already but they still need to learn those of academia and a discipline. So
Bruffee uses the term reacculturation to indicate the act of moving into a new
subculture that is part of the individual's larger culture. His term is used here.

Peer groups that construct and reconstruct knowledge socially are the best
environments for reacculturation. In a university setting, authority for
knowledge first has to shift from the teacher to the peer group. Members of the
group have to both grant authority to their peers and accept authority to help the
group become reacculturated. The teacher's job becomes setting up the
environment for this to happen. In many ways Bruffee's model is similar to
humanistic learning as Elias and Merriam's comment demonstrates: "The role
of the teacher in a humanistic setting is that of facilitator, helper, and partner in
the learning process. The teacher does not simply provide information; it is the
teacher's role to create the conditions within which learning can take place"
(1995, p. 125).

Teachers have to learn to trust students to be responsible for their learning. This
"necessitates abdicating the authority generally ascribed to the teacher role" (p.
125). In order for reacculturation to be successful Bruffee suggests students
need to learn the "craft of interdependence" which might include such things as
social, negotiation and conversational skills. Kofman and Senge (1993) talk
about workers giving up their own certainty and recognizing their
"interdependence within the larger community of practice" (p. 21).

Medicine Wheel

Another significant article called "Rhythms of Learning: Patterns That Bridge

Individuals and Organizations" by David Cowan (1995), develops a model for
organizational learning based on concepts from the Native American medicine
wheel. First, it is worth briefly describing the medicine wheel symbolized by a
circle showing the four directions on a compass. The direction of movement is
clockwise with learning beginning in the East that involves anticipation,
direction, vision, and an expanded perspective. As you move around the circle
from East to South, learners examine their new visionary ideas with attention to
issues of action and implementation. The South is the place for curiosity and
innocence where the learner closely examines details. The movement from the
South to the West is the time to find the personal and social resolve to
implement the vision. It is the time to accept the responsibility for the plan and
figure out how it will fit with our lives, conviction and self-assurance. So in the
West reflection is important along with letting go of any attachments formed
earlier in the process. Moving from West to North is a making way for the new
as old ideas die. It is a time for leadership and empathy for those who may need
help as they journey along the medicine wheel path. The North is a time for
integration and wisdom and sharing oneself with others so they may grow.
Lastly, the movement from North to East involves an inner process of renewal
and an awareness for the need to continue cycling around the wheel.

When incorporating the medicine wheel concepts into organizational learning,

Cowan advocates four new premises for learning. First, learning needs to be
seen as part of every performance and every relationship within an
organization. Organizational learning, therefore, becomes an everyday
occurrence with everyone taking responsibility for keeping the organization
learning. Second, he also believes we need to move from a linear view of
learning to one that is circular or a spiral. This is vital due to our continually
changing contexts. We also need to learn more about the process of learning.
With this view relearning, reexamining, rethinking, play, exploration,
alternative paths and areas become very important.

Thirdly, Cowan calls for a movement from cross- sectional to longitudinal

thinking. This position acknowledges the flows of learning where learning can
occur on many levels and in different directions. For example, some employees
can explore new ideas while others sustain the core identity of the company by
maintaining consistency. Since learning occurs in relationships, flow helps us
see them as continually changing so organizational structures need to change
too. This leads to a growing emphasis on the value of diversity. Longitudinal
thinking helps groups focus on harmony, balance, maturity and survival rather
than immediate gratification.

Lastly, our view of learning also needs to change from one that is
compartmental to one that is integrative. To Cowan this means valuing wisdom
rather than expertise. Expertise always operates within a narrow scope and is
only useful when one knows the context. Wisdom becomes more important
when operating in uncertain contexts. Wisdom extends knowledge so we
choose the game that is played as well as the means, ends and values more
intelligently. Kofman and Senge (1993) say we need action but only when it
comes from reflection that combines cognition, the body, emotions and spirit.

Summary

From the above referenced literature we now have many concepts with which
to further examine a group perspective on organizational learning. For a
summarization of the key concepts just covered contrasted with a more
traditional view on learning see the table below. The ideas just highlighted will
now be the basis for looking at shifts organizations will make when they use a
group or holistic paradigm (Kofman & Senge, 1993).

Group Paradigm Individual Paradigm

Nonfoundational knowledge Foundational knowledge
Knowledge continually constructed and Knowledge is a body of knowledge given
reconstructed in groups to learners by teachers
Need for tension between order - disorder
Learning inherent in culture, therefore inherentLearning must be imposed, barriers to
in organizations
Organizational knowledge embedded in
language, artifacts, action routines
Learning in every interaction, relationship
Authority needs to be given and accepted
Managers help set up environment for workers to Managers need to send employees to
construct/reconstruct knowledge
Everyone is responsible for organizational
learning
Relearning, reexamining, rethinking, play,
exploration are important
Learning how to learn is important
Harmony, balance, maturity, survival
Action + cognition + reflection + body +
emotions + spirit
Wisdom
Need more organization and control
learning must be removed
Organizational knowledge is the sum
total of all individual knowledge
Learning occurs by removing barriers
Authority resides in managers and
teachers
classes
Managers are responsible for
implementing organizational learning
Setting goals, quality improvement,
reduction of variance are important
Content learning is important
Immediate gratification
Action + cognition
Expertise

Shift to nonfoundational knowledge and learning.

One of the key shifts is the importance of nonfoundational knowledge and

learning. From the viewpoint of knowledge as socially constructed and
nonfoundational, knowledge is different for every organization and it is
continually being constructed and reconstructed by its members. Depending
upon the size of the organization there may also be subgroups within the
organization that will have different knowledge. The group has constructed
their current knowledge based upon their particular situation, the language they
use and where they are historically. This dynamic quality to knowledge also
reaffirms the need for a shift to accepting there are no right or absolute
answers. With this outlook a greater sensitivity to differences between groups
within the same company will develop. When members of different groups
come together to work it will become important to first think about
reacculturation or how they can understand each other and value the diverse
knowledge within the group. (Bruffee, 1993; Brown & Gray, 1997; Cowan,
1995)

Shift to organizations as cultures.

Viewing knowledge as socially constructed corresponds with viewing an
organization as a culture. Learning is an inherent part of culture and
organizations are, therefore, repositories for knowledge. So learning becomes a
natural part of the organization as workers acquire, maintain and change the
organizational culture embedded in such things as the organization's language,
artifacts, and action routines. This highlights certain aspects of an organization
that work groups can examine to stimulate their learning. Some of the elements
anthropologists focus on when they want to understand a culture include myths
or stories, metaphors, rituals, roles, structures, procedures, language, and
symbols. (Cowan, 1995; Weick & Westley, 1996)

What members of organizations need to do is develop ways to examine their

own culture. Thomas Kuhn, in the PostScript to the second edition of "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions," (1970) provides a model for developing a
"disciplinary matrix" that can be used to understand individual scientific
communities. An organizational community can use these ideas to study itself.
The highlights of Kuhn's matrix include: 1. What symbolic generalizations and
taken for granted assumptions do we have in this community; 2. What models
do we believe in, what are the acceptable problems, solutions, and explanations
and how important are the various problems, what analogies and metaphors do
we use; 3. What are the shared values of the community even though there will
be individual and group differences; 4. What are our exemplars for explaining
how we work here, what are the stories we tell, and where is knowledge
embedded in this community. Self-examination models will help organizations
make the invisible visible. When groups of workers look at their own culture
then rethinking, relearning, and reexamining become important for those things
they believe they already know. (Cowan, 1995; Knowles, 1990; Weick &
Westley, 1996)

Shift to learning in day-to-day activities.

Why do we find it difficult to view learning as part of every groups' day-to-day

activity? As quoted in Knowles (1990), Maria Rogers, volunteer worker, New
York City Adult Education Council said: "The educator who uses the group
method of education takes ordinary, gregarious human beings for what they
are, searches out the groups in which they move and have their being, and then
helps them to make their group life yield educational values" (p. 35). This
corresponds with Cowan's (1995) view that learning occurs in every interaction
and relationship.

Learning should not just be seen as only occurring in special classes and
workshops. Learning then shifts from mastery of discrete topics to learning
about self, others, the organization, and how to learn. Wisdom not expertise
becomes the goal. Learning that is ongoing does not depend upon a qualified
teacher or expert because learning occurs in groups of peers as they construct
and reconstruct existing knowledge. Real organizational genius occurs when
workers solve difficult problems that the formal system does not address.
Transfer of training, the lack of classroom knowledge being used back on the
job, will no longer be a problem since learning happens during work
interactions. This view of learning achieves a holistic perspective and allows
workers to become aware of the self-organizing nature of organizational
learning. (Brown & Gray, 1997; Bruffee, 1993; Cowan, 1995; Kofman &
Senge, 1993)

Shift to flows of learning.

According to the Native American medicine wheel, learning consists of

multiple flows as many levels of learning go on simultaneously. For example,
everyone on a project may not be in the same place as they move through
different stages and areas of learning and become reacculturated into the
project. If everyone has this new view of organizational learning then there will
be greater acknowledgment of the diversity of learners in the group. There will
be no search for "truth" or right answers. We can only create knowledge using
our current language and produce something that works for this time in history,
in this particular company, and for this particular situation. Before a group
passes on knowledge to another group or to customers they may begin to
consider how those groups will construct and reconstruct their knowledge to
accept what they are given. (Bruffee, 1993; Cowan, 1995)

Shift to the craft of interdependence.

Relationships and interactions become very important and, therefore, so do

skills that help individuals improve them. Bruffee (1993) believes members of
groups need to develop the craft of interdependence. Specific skills are not
listed but they fall under the categories of conversation and social skills, giving
and accepting feedback, group process fundamentals, and achieving principled
negotiation.

The craft of interdependence might also include learning more about learning
and developing everyone's learning skills (Cowan, 1995). Weick and Westley
(1996) point out that learning refers to both process and outcome and this
serves to hide the dynamics of the process and the exact nature of the outcome.
Rather than deal with this problem many organizational learning theorists
choose to focus on individual learning in an organizational context rather than
figuring out group learning.

Learning occurs in the tension created when organizing and learning are
combined and not ignored in the need to maintain a state of organization. It
becomes important for organizations to find the optimal juxtaposition between
order and disorder. A good example of this is the idea of combining various
organizational structures. The opposite extremes go from self-designing
systems that explore and play to bureaucracies that exploit and achieve, ideally
there should be a creative tension found when both exist within the same
organization. (Weick & Westley, 1996)

Bruffee (1993) believes authority needs to shift, in a classroom situation, from

the teacher to the peer group members. In an organization, authority needs to
shift from the managers to the workers. Kofman and Senge suggest "our
attachment to individualistic notions of leadership may actually block the
emergence of the leadership of teams, and ultimately, organizations" (p. 27).
This can also bring about a shift in power as everyone's voice becomes
important and accepted by others. Each individual will have to grant authority
to their peers that they will help them in their learning process. Workers will
also need to accept authority for helping others and providing useful,
constructive, and honest feedback.

Shift in values, beliefs and behaviors.

Organizations also need to examine why they believe it is important to become

a learning organization and what the repercussions will be. They need to
believe it is important to transition to self-designing and self-diagnosing
systems with everyone in the organization involved in this process. New
organizational structures and new action routines are also necessary. The
change takes work and should not be undertaken just because other
organizations are doing so. (Cowan, 1995; Normann, 1985; Kofman & Senge,
1993; Weick & Westley, 1996)

Managers, like Bruffee's university teachers, will need to prepare to experience

shifts in their authority. They need to see their function become one of setting
up opportunities for groups to socially construct and reconstruct the
organization's knowledge. Modeling of techniques from the craft of
interdependence may also become a manager's obligation as they become a
learning organization. This will also mean managers need to be able to handle a
more chaotic environment as everyone takes responsibility for and becomes
part of creating learning communities. Since everyone's voice should become
more valued managers may also have to confront their own fear as power shifts
within the organization. (Brown & Gray, 1997; Bruffee, 1993; Kofman &
Senge, 1993) Carl Rogers (1994) recommended self-actualized facilitators for
humanistic learning and managers of learning organizations may need to
become so too.

Shift to everyone responsible for organizational learning.

Seeing the entire organization as learning and encouraging variety and

exploration of alternative paths, makes it possible for some groups to explore
while others maintain consistency. Those concentrating on consistency
maintain the core identity of the organization while the rest look at new
opportunities. This is one of the concepts from self-organizing systems -- these
systems play and explore and yet continue to maintain the system's core nature.
Learning becomes important for everyone within the organization. Each
individual has to accept their responsibility for their own learning as well as
helping others to learn. (Cowan, 1995)

Shift from expertise to wisdom.

Cowan (1995) believes organizations must shift from their linear and
compartmental view of learning to one that is circular, longitudinal and
integrative. Our current view of learning is a linear progression from novice to
expert. Cowan points out that expertise is only useful when we know the
context and consult the right expert. Today we cannot know the context
because the environment is continually changing. This situation calls for
wisdom rather than expertise. The scope of expertise is becoming too narrow to
operate effectively in a rapidly changing world. Brown and Gray (1997) put the
need another way, "The difference, increasingly, pivots not on information but
on interpretation -- the ability to make meaning out of still- emerging patterns"
(On-line) Wisdom extends knowledge and helps us to choose both the means
and the ends as well as the values and the game we want to play.

Conclusion

We have explored a group viewpoint here in order to develop a more holistic

approach to organizational learning. The work of changing our focus can begin
with such concepts as organizational culture, juxtaposition of order and
disorder, the Native American medicine wheel and the social construction of
knowledge in peer groups. Organizations need to make some shifts in order to
operate from this new perspective and some are discussed above. What is being
called for here is an expanded focus to that of groups and the development of
wisdom in individuals and the development of the capacity for self-designing
and self-diagnosing by the whole organization. Many organizational learning
theorists need to explore beyond their outlook of just individual learning to find
ways to integrate and juxtapose individual and group learning for the expansion
of organizational possibilities into unknown realms.

References

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational

Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Brown, J. S., & Gray, E. S. (1997). The People Are the
Company. Fast Company, [On-line], Available:
http://www.fastcompany.com/t1/inprint/01/people.htm
Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative Learning: Higher
Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cowan, D. A. (1995). Rhythms of Learning: Patterns
That Bridge Individuals and Organizations. Journal of
management Inquiry, 4(3), 222-246.
Elias, J. L., & Merriam, S. (1995). Philosophical
Foundations of Adult Education, 2nd ed.. Malabar, FL:
Krieger Publishing Company.
Knowles, M. (1990). The Adult Learner: A Neglected
Species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993, Autumn). Communities
of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations.
Organizational Dynamics, pp. 5-23.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, 2nd ed.. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational
learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-40.
Naylor, L. L. (1996). Culture and Change: An
Introduction. Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey.
Normann, R. (1985). Developing capabilities for
organizational learning. In J. M. Pennings (Ed.),
Organizational Strategy and Change (pp. 217-48). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to
Learn, 3rd ed.. NY: Macmillan College Publishing Company.
Weick, K. E., & Westley, F. (1996). Organizational
learning: Affirming an Oxymoron. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy &
W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 440-
458). London: Sage.