Theories of Organizational Learning
The task of analyzing organizational learning is very
complex. Several researches have explained organizational learning using
different theories. The field of organizational learning is large and
researches often fall prey to disappointments becoming unaware of other
important but categorically different researches from their own. Shipton (2006)
classified the various theories of organizational learning. This essay analyses
the evaluations of theories offered in the journal and offers a way of
advancing the theories. It will also note any challenges hindering theory
advancement.
The article divides the theories of organizational learning
into two continuums. One continuum covers theories using normative approaches
and the other continuum covers theories using explanatory approaches. The
article identifies two major categories of theories. The first category
describes organizational learning in the focus of the whole organization. The second
category describes OL as individual learning done in the organizational
context. Some studies are not clearly distinct and their description borders on
the two categories. The article has used the degree of emphasis to classify
such studies (Shipton 2006).
The article first analyses the theory describing OL as
individuals learning in the context of the organization and falling into the
first continuum of normative approaches. It notes that literature in this
category mainly highlights learning as inspirational. It highlights dialogue’s
benefit of improving communication among individuals and groups. The
environment plays a key role in facilitating learning and organizations are
encouraged to be decentralized and flat to promote dialogue. Personal
communications are emotional and the organization has to have mechanisms to
solve concerns and anxieties. Emotional issues make overall learning in the
organization complicated. The article notes that many researches have not shown
the complexity however when deeply analyzed, the researches place the
individual at the center of the initiatives incorporated to stimulate learning.
The evaluation of this theory advocates for a focus on how individual leaning
mechanisms assist organizational learning. Secondly, it identifies a research
gap in use of empirical evidence to justify learning activity effects on the
organization (Shipton 2006).
The article also evaluates the same theory as above, but which falls on
the second continuum of explanatory perspective mainly due to their descriptive
nature. In this category, the article points out two distinct views. In the
first view, research is concerned with knowing how individual learning takes
place under either stressing or enabling environments. Research also focuses on
cognitive ability of the individual. The second view emphasizes on the process
of knowledge construction. The article
further notes that research works falling into this category evaluate knowledge
using a ‘situated learning’ approach. According to the article’s findings,
tacit knowledge sharing is not clear. Furthermore, it is difficult to picture
how to encourage best practices when implementation happens subconsciously in
daily work (Shipton 2006).
In the second theory category described as organizational focus, the
article reviews research works in the first continuum of prescriptive
perspective. The article places research works focusing on the organization in
this category. Individuals are not the focus of the research studies reviewed unless
they form the first state in which the organization learns. The article notes
that works reviewed were clear on the outcomes of organizational learning.
Based on the notion that organizational learning sanctions become measurable
when they work, studies in this category have investigated strategic renewal
and learning curve. The former refers to dynamic movement of knowledge in the
institution while the later looks at the time it takes to transfer knowledge
effectively in the institution (Argote 2005). Although in this category
learning curve offers a direct way of measuring learning, the review article
criticizes the various researches for failing to elaborate what lies between
individual level learning and organizational level learning. Furthermore, the
article finds out that the researches ignore tacit knowledge’s influence on
learning (Shipton 2006).
Finally, the review article evaluates researches in the organizational
focus category that fall into the second continuum of explanatory perspective.
Researches falling in this continuum focus on the changes associated with
organizational learning. Additionally, they look at possibilities of inadequate
results despite any efforts made to enhance organizational learning. Lastly,
they look into the role of tacit knowledge in molding the capacity of the
organization (Bennet & Bennet 2008). In this category, researches fall
under behaviorist or cognitive perspective. The former views procedures and
sequences as learning mines. The later associate learning with potential that
later assists in sharing understanding of awareness and actions. The common
view among the various researches in this category is codification of knowledge
in the organization. However, reviewed research has not shown whether
codification as a storage and retrieval mechanism for knowledge stimulates or
hinders progress (Shipton 2006).
The review article concludes that the typology used in the review is
usable when comparing theories whose consideration does not fall in one
context. In order to advance the theories discussed in the article, future
research must be more focused and in depth employing empirical methods. However,
the author notes that such an in depth look might return the researcher to the
disillusionment of having no knowledge of other non-related but significant
theories (Shipton 2006).
Bibliography
Argote, L. 2005, Organizational Learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge.
Springer, New York, NY.
Bennet, D & Bennet, A 2008, ‘Engaging
tacit knowledge in support of organizational learning’, VINE, vol.38, no.1, pp. 1-25, Viewed 17 March 2011,
http://www.mountainquestinstitute.com/Engaging%20Tacit%20Knowledge%202008.pdf
Shipton, H. 2006, 'Cohesion or confusion?
Towards a typology for organizational learning research.' International Journal of Management Reviews, vol.8, no.4, pp.
233-252, EBSCOhost Business Source Premier [Online]. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00129.x
(Accessed: 11 December 2009).
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00129.x
All the agriculture related community members should visit it as I found it very informative post.Its link should be shared on some great post site as well.Thank you so much.
ReplyDeleteIts really inspiring update.My one of the ideas here collegue was asking me to share with us some property update as she is interested to buy.Thanks for sharing this.
ReplyDeleteThe home which is loaded with children is the best home. I extremely like the children and need to play all the day since it gives me joy to play with the children and make fun and here is easy way to get site for good work. What's more, it is the best snapshots of my life.
ReplyDeleteSuch a good blog post about the learning organization. You can check this https://www.literaturereviewwritingservice.com/literature-review-apa-formatting site without a considerable amount of a stretch have such advances on the off chance that you secure.
ReplyDeleteSuch kind of organization is helpful to learn new ideas. The reason is that this school is in the best position and this https://www.personalstatementwriter.com/university-of-oregon-essay-prompt site giving the most apparent opportunity to the thorough system.
ReplyDelete