Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice

this is by Chris and Donald Schon, not David and the link for Author should go to Donald who has done great work Fantastic work - great for all org dev researchers.

Individuals learn by absorbing new knowledge, finding ways to apply preexisting knowledge and to avoid tactics that fail. Organizational learning is much more complicated than that; it incorporates all of the learning tactics of individuals and includes the interactions of the people in the organization. The interactions are among peers, horizontally across different responsibility levels and longitudinally across time. However, the authors opt to use a fairly simple definition of organizational learning. "Generically, an organization may be said to learn when it acquires information (knowledge, understanding, know-how, techniques, or practices) of any kind and by whatever means. " In this sense, learning can be in either the positive or negative sense, an organization can become either more or less efficient over time. The authors spend a great deal of time covering the concept of an undiscussable. An undiscussable is a topic where everyone knows that it exists, is probably a problem, but for some reason is not talked about. In the worst case, the undiscussables becomes undiscussable, meaning that you cannot even discuss the fact that there are things you don't discuss. There are many reasons for the development of an undiscussable, but the most common is the perception that higher levels only want to hear statements of a certain type. The authors define two types of organizational learning: single and double loop. A single loop learning situation is one where strategies of action are changed, but there is no change in the underlying theory behind the actions. For example, suppose a company is convinced that hotels are needed in a particular area. If the hotel rooms do not fill up, then the company may try to change the style of the rooms. This is a single feedback loop, where the failure feeds back to cause a change in the implementation. A double loop learning situation is where there is a second feedback loop that can alter the theory behind the strategies. In the case of the hotel rooms example, this would mean that the company questions whether additional hotel rooms were needed. The authors also define model I and model II learning. Model I learning is the most common, which has a single feedback loop. It is characterized by situations where emotions and confrontation are minimized or disallowed. When difficulties or conflict are present, the general reaction is to suppress the issues as much as possible. The definition of model II learning is: "Model II couples articulateness and advocacy with an invitation to others to confront the views ands emotions of self and other. It seeks to alter views in order to base them on the most complete and valid information possible and to which people involved can become internally committed. " Model II learning is characterized by double loop learning, where the positions people take are examined in the context of their emotional condition. The book is occasi

The burgeoning literature that has grown up around organizational learning in the past twenty-five years is either uncritical (treats the phrase "learning organization" as a catchword for whatever it is the front-running Japanese or other organizations are doing and whatever the rest of the world needs to do to catch up with them) or distant from practice, skeptical and non-perspective.In this book, the approach to organizational learning is normative and practice-oriented. The authors are mainly interested in productive organizational learning: how this kind of learning can be generated in real-world organizations and how practitioners can help to foster it.The theory given in this book is primarily based on two types of learning: single-loop and double-loop. The authors have borrowed the distinction between single and double-loop learning from W. Ross Ashby's "Design for a Brain" (1960). On case studies of known companies, such as Intel, General Motors, etc., the authors show "primary inhibitory loops" that inhibit organizational learning, and "conditions for error", and how to avoid them. The following list gives the most common "conditions for error" and how to avoid them:- Vagueness : Specify- Ambiguity : Clarify- Untestability : Make testable- Scattered information : Concert- Information withheld : Reveal- Undiscussability : Make discussable- Uncertainity : Inquire- Inconsistency/incompatibility: ResolveIn part I, the authors introduce the conceptual framework, both for organizational learning and for the relationship between research and practice. In part II, they introduce and illustrate concepts central to limited learning. Part III presents a brief classroom-based example. Part IV is the review of the recent history of the field of organizational learning.Despite of the brilliant content, the book which is marked as "Reprinted with corrections August, 1996", which I have (paperback), is awfully printed. It is really the eye-killer. And nevertheless, it has some typos. Please try to find a version which is not "Reprinted with corrections August, 1996".

This is the definitive book on how people politics preventorganisational learning, especially when a company needs a doubleturnround. That is a change of culture as well as strategy. Some of the early chapters are a bit heavily academic, but the pursuit is worthwhile if you want to understand how many big old western organisations stop working - instead of reinventing themselves - whenever a competitor dramatically changes the rules of the marketplace. The authors seem to imply that what they call double loop learning across every department of an organisation is both so laborious as a change process and requires such extraordinary levels of mutual trust that it might be better to raise an old organisation to the ground, and start from scratch. Their research is full of evidence why the last two decades have seen so much downsized leadership. One question that occurs to me is will their pessimistic conclusions hold true now that companies can use internal media like intranets to turn all employees' thinking around at the same time? If you would like to discuss this or other provocations relating to this work, I would be delighted to help form an interactive book discussion club. Chris Macrae, editor of Brand Chartering Handbook and MELNET www.brad.ac.uk/branding/ E-mail me at [email protected]