Chapter 6 / The learning organisation 169
This model comprises two aspects: an organisational learning one and a strategic one. Organisational learning can be considered as a distinction between cognitive and behavioural development. Behavioural development can be seen as new responses or actions based on existing interpretations. In contrast, cognitive development can be regarded as organisational changes that affect the interpretation of events and devel- opment of shared understanding among organisational members. The behavioural learning is referred to as ‘single-loop learning’ in the model and the cognitive level as
‘double-loop learning’ (Argyris and Schon 1978). Another way of looking at single-loop learning is ‘doing things better’ in organisations whereas double-loop learning is ‘doing things differently or doing different things’ (Hayes and Allinson 1998).
The model of a ‘competitive learning organisation’ argues that learning by itself is not enough to achieve competitive advantage. What if the learning is misdirected? Instead, the emphasis in the model is on how best to focus the learning. Would sending senior executives on Japanese flower-arranging courses be suitable? Is sending all prospective senior managers on MBA programmes the best way forward? The problem with any pre- scriptive approach is that the external environment and competitive changes tend to be left out of the equation. Instead, this model argues that any learning needs to be focused on the predominant competitive force acting on an organisation at any given moment.
Undoubtedly, these forces are dynamic and change over time.
The learning focus for a competitive learning organisation is based on a system of seven forces identified in effective organisations (Mintzberg 1991), as shown in Figure 6.5. There are five generic forces that act externally on an organisation and two dia- metrically opposite internal forces. At any given time, one of these forces tends to dominate and learning is focused on responding to this force as best as possible. For example, if innovation is the dominant force, learning efforts may be driven towards creativity through articulation of tacit knowledge and the use of figurative language (Nonaka 1991). The dominant external forces impacting on an organisation due to changes in the competitive environment are as follows:
●
● The force for direction is concerned with strategic vision and may relate to organis- ations in start-up or turnaround situations.
●
● The force for efficiency is concerned with standardisation and formalisation of pro- cesses and may relate to bureaucratic organisations where rationalisation and restructuring are a major focus.
Critical thinking and reflection
As a manager, how can you ensure that the collective learning of your team is responding to changes in the competitive environment? How would you manage your team learning in an uncertain and turbulent environment? What time frames do you consider most workable for managing learning in your teams? How would you influence your team to be more proactive and take greater responsibility for their learning?
Chapter 6 / The learning organisation 171
●
● The force for proficiency is concerned with tasks requiring high levels of knowledge and skills and may relate to professional organisations.
●
● The force for concentration is concerned with concentrating efforts on serving certain markets, particularly in large diversified firms.
●
● The force for innovation is concerned with discovering new things for the customer and may relate to adhocracies comprising skilled experts or multidisciplinary projects.
There are also two internal cultural forces that have an impact on a firm’s learning and effectiveness: the forces of cooperation and competition. In this conception, organ- isational culture is viewed as a product of continual struggles by groups of organisational members to impose values and identities on the role of others (Carroll 1995). If the forces of cooperation are dominant in an organisation, this may result in an ideological organisation such as a kibbutz. In contrast, if the forces of competition are dominant, this may result in the pulling apart of politics and a highly political organisation where conflicting in-fighting takes over. There may be limits to the levels of cooperation in an organisation as ideology discourages change and if individuals perceive a need for change, they may be forced to challenge the ideology which breeds politics.
As competitive forces are rarely static and vary continuously over time, a state of
‘configuration’ may occur where one of the external forces described above dominates and the organisation is drawn towards a coherent form (Mintzberg 1991). However, configuration may lead to the problem of ‘contamination’ where the dominant force undermines equally valid forces. For example, a firm may be so fixated on improving its efficiency over five years that it fails to recognise that it needs to focus on innova- tion given the market changes with new products and services.
In some periods organisations may go through states of ‘combination’ where no single force dominates. This may result in periods of ‘conversion’ from one form to another. The state of ‘combination’ may result in problems of ‘cleavage’ where two or more forces may confront each other and eventually paralyse the organisation. For instance, half the management board of an organisation may wish to focus organis- ational energies and learning on efficiency whereas the other half may see innovation as a much greater priority. The internal forces of competition and cooperation can be important catalysts for managing these problems of ‘contamination’ and ‘cleavage’.
The competitive learning organisation is seen as an ideal rather than an end state.
Metaphorically, such organisations can be seen as in a ‘continual quest for the Holy Grail’ (Jashapara 1993). The Holy Grail represents a search for improved methods of learning at all levels and an understanding of the changing nature of competitive bases which act as a focus for organisational learning. The fluctuating nature of the com- petitive environment and the fragility of competitive bases means that organisations are likely to maintain their ‘competitive learning’ phase for very limited periods before they slip into either a ‘teaching’ phase, or a ‘static’ phase as shown in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3 Development of a competitive learning organisation (Jashapara 1993)
Static organisation
Teaching organisation
Competitive learning organisation
Level of organisational learning Poor Fair High
Rate of learning Poor Fair High
Learning focus None Limited High
Level of communication Poor Fair High
Flow of communication None One-way Two-way
Organisational performance Poor Fair High
The static organisation is characterised by a lack of learning. Such organisations may view their workforces as costs to be minimised rather than assets to be developed. It is inevitable that such organisations will face an internal crisis through lack of responsive- ness to the external environment. This crisis may act to inhibit learning or result in a transformation into a ‘competitive learning’ phase. Such crises can be seen as opportuni- ties for growth or can herald the beginning of the eventual decline of an organisation.
The competitive learning organisation places high value on the learning of all its employees at individual, group and organisational levels. Double-loop learning is encouraged, with an emphasis on questioning underlying assumptions. The distri- bution of learning is facilitated through open channels of two-way communication throughout the organisation. Each employee is committed to focused learning that responds to forces in the external environment.
However, the problems of contamination and cleavage may become more evident or major cultural changes (fluctuation in forces of cooperation or competition) may dominate an organisation, forcing it to slip towards a ‘teaching organisation’ where the overarching role of senior managers as teachers becomes important. Learning can become prescriptive and the domain of human resource departments rather than the responsibility of each learner. As these organisations are characterised by one-way communication from senior managers to employees, there is little scope for an equal exchange of ideas and knowledge. The role of learning focus is left solely to organ- isational strategists and human resource departments. Learning becomes parochial and employees may feel blocked due to a lack of challenge and responsibility for their learning. In such circumstances, firms may slip into static organisations. This model promotes the nature of adaptive enterprises responding to the ideal of continuous improvement similar to the quest for the Holy Grail. Each time they feel they have arrived at this elusive destination, the goal posts change due to the dynamics of the competitive environment.
Chapter 6 / The learning organisation 173