Learning Organization-practical Applications

7/30/2019 Learning Organization-practical Applications

1/54

THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION

REVIEW, PRACTICE & APPLICATION

by

Jean Marrapodi

A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements of

OM8999

December 2003

Address: 96 Ravenswood AveCity, State, Zip: Providence, RI 02908Phone: 401-453-5972

E-mail: [email protected]: Dr. Anthony DiBellaMentor: Dr. Barbara Salice
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/54

Abstract

The concept of the learning organization was quite popular in the 1990s. What is the learning

organization, and what kind of impact should it have? This paper reviews several theories of the

learning organization, including some criticisms of it, and takes a practical application approach

to review two organizations using some of the analysis tools created by the theorists.


3/54

Table of Contents

Introduction..2Peter Senge ...................................................................................................................................6Peter Kline ................................................................................................................................... 9Chris Argyris/Donald Schon ......................................................................................................13Anthony DiBella ........................................................................................................................15

Facilitating Factors .............................................................................................................17Other perspectives ......................................................................................................................19

Critics of the Learning Organization .............................................................................................26.......................................................................................................................................................29Practical Applications ....................................................................................................................30

The Organizational Learning Profile ......................................................................................... 30

Providence Assembly of God Organizational Learning Profile ........................................ 31PHCS Corporate Learning Services Organizational Learning Profile .............................. 33PAG: Kline Learning Organization Assessment ...............................................................34PAG LEARNING ORGANIZATION ASSESSMENT MATRIX ...................................37

Learning History: Providence Assembly of God ...................................................................43Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................50References ......................................................................................................................................51


4/54

Learning Organizations

Introduction

In the 1990, Peter Senge published a book called The Fifth Discipline that created a flurry

of change within management thinking, or at least that is what people say has happened as they

avidly quote him. In the September/October 1999 issue of the Journal of Business Strategy , he

was named a Strategist of the Century; one of 24 men and women who have had the greatest

impact on the way we conduct business today. (Smith 2001) In recent book reviews on

amazon.com he is still lauded and his work touches the international business community as

evidenced by reviews from UAE and India: (The emphasis within the reviews has been added bythe author)

Amazon.com

Peter Senge, founder of the Center for Organizational Learning at MIT's Sloan School of Management, experienced an epiphany while meditating one morning back in the fall of 1987. That was the day he first saw the possibilities of a "learning organization" that used"systems thinking" as the primary tenet of a revolutionary management philosophy . Headvanced the concept into this primer, originally released in 1990, written for those

interested in integrating his philosophy into their corporate culture.

The Fifth Discipline has turned many readers into true believers ; it remains the idealintroduction to Senge's carefully integrated corporate framework, which is structuredaround "personal mastery," "mental models," "shared vision," and "team learning." Usingideas that originate in fields from science to spirituality, Senge explains why the learningorganization matters, provides an unvanished summary of his management principals,offers some basic tools for practicing it, and shows what it's like to operate under thissystem. The book's concepts remain stimulating and relevant as ever. --Howard Rothman

The Book that began a fad , January 26, 2003Reviewer: ggxl from Bangalore, India

This book was written quite a long time ago (in 1990) and shifted the boundaries of

management from concentrating on silos (marketing, HR, finance, production) tolooking at organizations as open systems which interact with outside systems and put intomotion forces that may not be easily understood using traditional systems to assessment.

2


5/54


This ability of Systems Thinking Senge called the "Fifth Discipline", the other fourbeing:

1) Building Shared Vision

2) Mental models3) Team Learning4) Personal Mastery

The field of Systems Thinking was developed in MIT under Prof Jay W. Forrester, butSenge gave it the 'managerial' flavour, cross-fertilising [sic] it with folk beliefs,spirituality and scientific thought from around the world.

The belief being, once an organization has mastery of all the five disciplines, theorganization can become 'a learning organization'. This book, therefore triggered the

craze and fad on part of organizations to become 'learning organizations' and therise of the 'knowledge economy' was perfect timing for it. Now when the hoopla hassettled, it is time again to revisit the true essence of Senge's work and what he REALLYmeans.

An inspiration... , February 7, 2002Reviewer: la-layl from Dubai, UAE

The Learning Organizationremains one of the most talked-of management conceptsin today's business world , and nobody is as capable of explaining exactly what is aLearning Organization or what are the requirements for such an elusive concept thanPeter Senge.

Senges five disciplines are common concepts in many corporate offices. Often quoted in

the management literature, he is considered by many to be the founder of the concept of the

learning organization. Thirteen years later, the buzz has died down, and while Senge is still

quoted, have the principles of the learning organization been implemented? Are organizations

learning? A search of the term learning organization produces 133,000 hits on google.com, so

people still embrace the concepts. This paper will endeavor to examine the literature on the

learning organization in an attempt to define it and review some of the theories about it. It will

also provide examples of the attempt to experiment with the concepts of the learning

3


6/54


organization in two organizations. The first, an education department of a church undergoing

transformation and the second, the training department of a large managed healthcare network

provider. What does it take to become a learning organization? Are organizations by nature,

learning entities? This paper is an attempt to answer these questions.

4


7/54


Defining the Learning Organization

Learning organization, organizational learning, organizational development, knowledge

management these are key terms to differentiate at the beginning of the journey of this

discovery process. These are my definitions:Organizational development is a defined

methodology of looking at an organization from a holistic perspective with the intention of

improving it.Organizational learning is what happens as an organization matures and

improves; in essence, recognizing and changing the widget-making/serving process it is involved

with to build a better widget maker/server. Thelearning organization is an organization that

takes a step back to look at the big picture of how it benefits from new ideas and errors with theintention of continuous improvement. It is a deliberate process, and one component of

organizational development.Knowledge management is the storage and retrieval of the tacit

and implicit information contained within an organization, whether it is procedural or content

oriented. Knowledge management makes information that is within individuals available and

externalizes it for the availability of the organization. Others define these differently and have

written much about them. In the research literature, there does not appear to be a common, well

accepted definition of these terms, though they are used frequently. The next section will explore

the theories and definitions of others.

5


8/54


From the Experts

Peter Senge

In the opening (page 3) of Senges flagship book,The Fifth Discipline , he defines the

learning organization as organizations where people continually expand their capacity to

create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured,

where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole

together. (Senge 1990)

As mentioned earlier, he defines the core of learning organization work based on five

learning disciplines. To expand on them, in Senges words they are

Personal MasteryLearning to expand our personal capacity to create the results we most desire, andcreating an organizational environment which encourages all its members to developthemselves toward the goals and purposes they choose.

Mental Models

Reflecting upon, continually clarifying, and improving our internal pictures of the world,and seeing how they shape our actions and decisions.

Shared VisionBuilding a sense of commitment in a group, by developing shared images of the futurewe seek to create, and the principles and guiding practices by which we hope to get there.

Team LearningTransforming conversational and collective thinking skills, so that groups of people canreliably develop intelligence and ability greater than the sum of individual memberstalents.

Systems ThinkingA way of thinking about, and a language for describing and understanding, the forces andthe interrelationships that shape the behavior of systems. This discipline helps us to seehow to change systems more effectively, and to act more in tune with the larger processesof the natural and economic world.

(Senge, Roberts et al. 1994)

6


9/54


Senge believes that the learning organization exists primarily as a vision in our collective

experience and imagination. ( p5, 1994) He also believes that the impact of practices, principles

and essences are highly influential. Practices are what you do. Principles are guiding ideas

and insights, and essence is the state of being those with high levels of mastery in the

discipline. (Senge, 1990, p 373) He looks at leaders as teachers, stewards and designersquite

a different metaphor than the traditional business practices of the time. It is the leaders who must

pave the way to the creation of the learning organization, and they must also model the process.

The authors of the companion work The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (1994) see the

learning organization as something that develops within a team, and is part of a deep learning

cycle where team members develop new skills and abilities, which in turn create new awareness

and sensibilities, which it turn creates new attitudes and beliefs. These new attitudes are the

things that can change the deep beliefs and assumptions inherent in an organization and product

transformation. Within the learning organization a sense of trust and safety are established and

the members are willing to reveal uncertainties and make and acknowledge mistakes. This cycle provides a domain of enduring change within the organization.

The architecture of a learning organization is considered a domain of action and

consists of guiding ideas, innovations in infrastructure, and theory, methods and tools. The

guiding ideas include the vision, values and purpose of the organization. They have

philosophical depth and are seen as ongoing. They include the philosophy of the whole, the

community nature of the self and the generative power of language. The development of tools

and methods test these theories and cause them to be shaped and refined, and bring about the

cyclical nature of this domain of action. These changes create infrastructure innovations and

7


10/54


enable people to develop capabilities like systems thinking and collaborative inquiry within the

context of their jobs. (1994, p34)

Senges philosophy has been graphically illustrated using the domain of enduring change

as a circle and the domain of action as a triangle (Figure 1). It is the interaction between the two

that creates the dynamic of the learning organization.

Aw arenwss andSensibilities

Domain of EnduringChange

Skills andcapabilities

At t itudes andBelie fs

Guiding Ideas

Theory,Methods, and

Tools

Innovations inInfrastructure

Domain of Action

Figure 1

Adapted from Senge, et al, 1994, p42

It is difficult to assess the results in this type of a system because deeper learning often does not

produce tangible evidence for considerable time. (p.45)

The core concepts contained in this model are: At its essence, every organization is a

product of how its members think and interactLearning in organizations means the continuous

testing of experience, and the transformation of that experience into knowledgeaccessible to

the whole organization, and relevant to its core purpose. (p 48-49)

The creation of this type of learning organization comes from establishing a group that

learns new ways to work together: discussing priorities, working through divergent thinking,

8


11/54


clarification, then convergent thinking to come to conclusions and implementation of the

solution. The learning organization discovers how to best work with individual styles, allowing

for reflection and other individual needs. It becomes a safe place to take risks, make mistakes,

and learn from the results. The learning organization also works through the five disciplines of 1)

building shared vision, 2) creating mental models 3) reinforcing team learning, 4) developing

personal mastery and 5) understanding systems thinking. Much of what occurs is the creation of

shared vocabulary to produce common understandings. Learning about systems thinking

concepts of links, reinforcing and balancing loops helps to define problem issues.

Following the publication of The Fifth Discipline , The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (Senge,

Roberts et al. 1994) and The Dance of Change (Senge, Kleiner et al. 1999) were released with

exercises to assist in the organizational development process and support the changes it created.

Both contain resources helpful in the implementation process.

To summarize, Senges model is based on the interaction and the learning that goes on

between individuals in an organization. It is an intangible process, but one that can be enhanced

by taking certain measures to foster development.

Peter Kline

Peter Klines work on learning organizations,Ten Steps to a Learning Organization

(Kline and Saunders 1998) focuses primarily on cultural change. He believes to have a Learning

Organization, you must begin by having an organization of learners, then show them how to

9


12/54


function in such a way that the organization as a whole can learn. (p8) He differentiates how

individuals learn versus how organizations learn:

The most obvious difference between the way organization and individuals learn is that

individuals have memories, which are essential to learning, while organizations dontThe main difference between a learning individual and a Learning Organization is in theinformation storage process. Individuals store their learning primarily in their memories,augmented by libraries, notes and other aids to memory. Organizations store it primarilyin their cultures, with a secondary backup in documentation that is useful only if theculture is committed to making use of itIn simple terms, individuals learn through theactivation and updating of their memories while organizations learn through change inthe culture. (p24)

Kline discusses the difficulties of creating change in the organization, realizing that people in

general are resistant to change. He defines ten conditions to build a learning organization,allowing people to be able to cope with the ambiguity of the change process. These conditions

are:

1) Assess the current learning culture to create a benchmark,Then have:

2) Positive expectation that dilemmas can be resolved.3) Support for the learning process itself.4) Willingness to delay closure long enough to arrive at significant Gestalts rather than

forced and trivial ones.5) Communication processes that bring people together to consider in a friendly and

noncompetitive atmosphere many different perceptions, templates, habits of thought and possible solutions, from which the most useful may then be chosen.

6) A cultural habit that encourages exploring apparently meaningless ambiguities with theexpectation that meaning can be found in themas an expression of both a personal andorganizational commitment to learning over the long haul.

7) The establishment of contexts within which meaning for new possibilities can be foundas they emerge.

8) A set of modeling skills, strategies and techniques or mechanisms that allows peoplemore easily to construct meaning out of apparent chaos.

9) A cultural understanding which is shared throughout management of the systemicinteractions that will inevitably be present as complex Gestalts are formed.

10) An intuitive feeling for how complex interactions will be likely to occur. (p32)

Klines third point is one of the key elements of creative thinkinglearning to continue to look

for solutions rather than just accepting the first one that fits as best. His fourth point is similar to

10


13/54


Senges concept of the team learning to work together in new ways, and incorporates convergent

and divergent thinking.

Kline presents his change model as The Great Game of Business, with three elements:

1) know the rules, 2) keep score, and 3) have a stake in the action. (p 35) Knowing the rules is

working to choose rules that emerge from self-organizing systems to select the ones that lead to

the most productive behavior. Keeping score is about measurement, and having a stake in the

action is about employee buy-in. He encourages that one of the rules must be the breaking down

the cultural barriers between managers and workers. Rules should also include integrative

learning, (the restoration of the natural learning of early life), strategic micromanagement toolsfor decision making, communication and problem solving, generally originating from the people

who use them; and expanding the scoring system beyond financial reports. (p 38-39) Kline also

acknowledges that the most valued asset of the organization is people, and the development of

relationships between them if highly important so they can work together well.

In the end of his book, Kline equates business to a theatre metaphor, by getting the show

on the road. He speaks of improvisation, ensemble work, and creativity; then continues the

metaphor making workers the actors and leaders the directors. He emphasizes the need for

continuous improvement and awareness of what everyone is doing while excelling in ones

individual role as would occur in a theatrical production.

He begins the process with an assessment of the culture from an institutional perspective:

to learn what everyone thinks, then from an individual perspective: take responsibility for what

you think and what you do. He stresses looking for fear, which can be disabling to an

organization.

11


14/54


Kline has created an assessment to look at the culture of the organization. It is designed

to be filled out by the members of the organization, and discussed as a group to explore

differences. The assessment may be scored by averaging the rating numbers for each question to

provide an overall score of the conditions for creating a learning organization, or the individual

scores may be entered in a matrix, which assigns the different questions to one of the ten steps of

his later plan. Using the matrix, scores are obtained for each of the ten areas, providing a more

specific idea of which areas the organization needs the most work in. In filling out the form

within an organization, it is anticipated that different groups within the establishment will have

different perceptions of the organization itself. He recommends creating an overall report for theorganization and asking the members to voice agreement or disagreement with the results. He

also encourages that at this stage, the ideal state of the organization is discussed to determine

where it would like to be at the end of the process. A large portion of the learning comes from

the discussions and the decisions for direction that follow afterwards. This is a similar pattern to

DiBellas model of assessment.

After the assessment is completed, the organization is instructed to work through steps

two through ten. Kline provides numerous activities that focus on a variety of thinking skills,

working to change attitudes and behaviors of individuals. Learning to reframe things in a

positive way by looking in two directions at once: at the current reality and the positive

outcome that can be developed from it (p 70) is just one of the many ideas given for step two.

He deals with learning styles, mind mapping, and teaches people how to listen to one another. He

creates safe ways for people to take risks.

Unlike some of the more theoretical books on Learning Organizations, Klines book

contains practical steps for developing a group to become a Learning Organization. Working

12


15/54


through the ten steps as a team would do remarkable things within the group as they learn to

learn together.

Chris Argyris/Donald Schon

Argyris is best known for his concepts of single and double-loop learning. In a book

written with Donald Schon (1974), they believe that organizations learn through individuals

acting as agents. Organization learning is the detection and correction of error. Their key

concepts revolve around single- and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning results in the

organization continuing in the existing policies while remedying the situation at hand, while

double-loop learning examines and modifies norms, policies and objectives as necessary. There

are needs for both types of learning. Argyris model is much earlier than most of the other

organizational learning literature, and he is revered as a founding father by others and like Senge,

often quoted in discussions on the learning organization. As a side note, Argyris was one of

Senges influential teachers:

Despite having read much of his writing, I was unprepared for what I learned when I firstsaw Chris Argyris practice his approach in an informal workshop Ostensibly anacademic presentation of Argyriss methods, it quickly evolved into a powerfuldemonstration of what action science practitioners call reflection in action. Within amatter of minutes, I watched the level of alertness and presentness of the entire grouprise ten notches thanks not so much to Argyriss personal charisma, but to his skilful practice of drawing out generalizations. As the afternoon moved on, all of us were ledto see (sometimes for he first time in our lives) subtle patterns of reasoning whichunderlay our behaviour; and how those patterns continually got us into trouble. I hadnever had such a dramatic demonstration of own mental models in action But even

more interesting, it became clear that, with proper training, I could become much moreaware of my mental models and how they operated. This was exciting.

(Senge 1990, p.182-183)

13


16/54


In the December 2002 issue of Reflections, the Society of Organizational Learning

Journal on Knowledge, Learning, and Change, Argyris article on Teaching Smart People How

to Learn is reprinted as a classic. In this article, he references single- and double-loop

learning, but discusses the need for managers and employees [to] look inward. They need to

reflect critically on their own behavior, identify the ways they often inadvertently contribute to

the organizations problems, and then change how they act. He makes the observation that the

individuals in leadership in an organization are not accustomed to failing, therefore they have

never learned to learn from failurethey become defensive, screen out criticism, and put the

blame on anyone and everyone but themselves. In short, their ability to learn shuts down precisely at the moment they need it the most. He sees the learning from mistakes something

that must become a focus of organization learning and part of the continuous improvement

programs within an organization. He discusses how often individuals turn the focus away from

their own behavior to that of others [which] brings learning to a grinding halt.

This type of behavior creates what he calls the doom loop where people do not follow

the theories they espouse, acting inconsistently. He calls what they do as behaviors that apply

theories-in-use. This type of behavior without examination creates repetition without

reflection, and doesnt promote improvement. His first recommendation is to step back and

examine what is occurring, and challenging it beginning with the uppermost strata of the

organization.

Argyris and Schons model involves governing variables, action strategies, and

consequences. The governing values are the individuals theories-in-use, and the action

strategies are what keeps their behavior within the boundaries created by the theories-in-use.

14


17/54


The resulting actions are the consequences. The interaction between these concepts is illustrated

in Figure 2.

Figure 2 from (Smith 2001)

When the consequences of the action strategy used are what the person anticipated, the theory-

in-use is confirmed because there is a match between intention and outcome. There also may be

a mismatch between intention and outcome. Sometimes, however, the consequences may be

unintended or not match, or work against the persons governing values. This is where double-

loop learning needs to be applied and processes and concepts revised. When only the action is

corrected, Argyris refers to this as single-loop learning. (figure 3)

Figure 3 (from Smith, 2001)

Anthony DiBella

DiBella defines organizational learning as the capacity (or processes) within an

organization to maintain or improve performance based on experience. This activity involves

15


18/54


knowledge acquisition (the development or creation of skills, insights, relationships), knowledge

sharing (the dissemination to others of what has been acquired by some), and knowledge

utilization (integration of the learning so that it is assimilated, broadly available, and can also be

generalized to new situations.) (DiBella, Nevis et al. 1996)

DiBellas work in How Organizations Learn (DiBella and Nevis 1998), overviews the

Learning Organization literature of that time, and classifies the writing into three categories: the

normative, the developmental and the capability perspectives. In the normative perspective, the

learning organization presumes that learning as a collective activity only takes place under

certain conditions or circumstancesThe role of organizational leaders is to create theconditions essential for learning to take place (DiBella 1995) Senges model fits this category.

In the developmental perspective, the learning organization is a stage in the development of a

maturing organization or in parallel, the development phase of the organization determines its

learning styles and character. The third perspective, capability, identifies that organizations

develop and learn as they mature or by strategic choice, and that all organizations have

embedded learning processes.

Rather than ascribing to perspectives one or two, DiBella and his colleagues believe that

all organizations have learning capabilities. These seven areas are labeled learning orientations

and each runs on a continuum of opposites. For example, the knowledge source may be internal

or external. These seven orientations and their descriptors are:

Seven Learning Orientations

Orientation Spectrum DescriptionKNOWLEDGE SOURCE Internal/External Where does the organization get

information from? Primarily from theinside or outside world?

C ONTENT -P ROCESS FOCUS

Content/Process Which is more important: the content of the information, or the process of doing

16


19/54


it?KNOWLEDGE R ESERVE Personal/Public Where is information stored? Is it

accessible to all, or in the heads of individuals?

DISSEMINATION MODE Formal/Informal How is information given out in the

organization? Through informalconversations, or in official meetings or written communication?

LEARNING S COPE Incremental/Transformative When learning occurs, are the changeslittle by little or dramatic ones?

VALUE -C HAIN FOCUS Design-Make/Market-Deliver Is the focus more on how something iscreated and made, or promoted to thecustomer?

LEARNING FOCUS Individual/Group Is intentional learning geared towardindividuals, or groups?

Figure 4

These orientations are facilitated by ten factors called Facilitating Factors. These factors enhance

certain orientations, and increase the likelihood of the organization functioning as a learning

organization.

Facilitating Factors

Facilitating Factor DescriptionS CANNING IMPERATIVE Gathering of information on best practices and conditions outside of

the organizationP ERFORMANCE GAP Shared perception in the organization between the current and

desired performanceC ONCERN FOR MEASUREMENT

Desire to measure key factors and discussion about the statistics

O RGANIZATIONAL C URIOSITY Interest in creative ideas and technology, with support for experimentation

C LIMATE OF O PENNESS Sharing of lessons learned, open communication about all areas atall levels

C ONTINUOUS EDUCATION Commitment to quality resources for learningO PERATIONAL VARIETY Valuing different methods; appreciation of diversityMULTIPLE ADVOCATES New ideas can be advanced by anyone in the organization; multiple

champions for learning exist throughoutINVOLVED LEADERSHIP Management is personally involved in the learning and perpetuation

of the learning organizationS YSTEMS P ERSPECTIVE Recognition of interdependence among organizational units and

groups; awareness of the time delay between actions and their outcomes

17


20/54


Figure 5, adapted from DiBella

In the analysis process utilizing DiBellas methods, the organization determines its

current status and desired status using the learning orientations and facilitating factors. There is

an interrelationship between the ten facilitating factors and the seven orientations, and focusing

on specific factors can help an organization become a better learning organization.

In an article written with DiBella, Edwin Nevis calls learning a systems-level

phenomenon because it stays within the organization, even if individuals changeOrganizations

learn as they produce. Learning is as much a task as the production and delivery of goods and

services. (Nevis, DiBella et al. 1995) Nevis et al sees three learning-related factors important

to an organizations success:

1. Well developed core competencies that serve as launch points for new products and services

2. An attitude that supports continuous improvement in the businesss value-added chain.

3. The ability to fundamentally renew or revitalize.

They see these factors as some of the qualities of an effective learning organization that

diligently pursues a constantly enhanced knowledge base. There is also an assumption madeabout the learning process following three stages: knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization.

There is the belief that all organizations are learning systems, that learning conforms to culture,

there are stylistic variations between learning systems and that generic processes facilitate

learning. The model supporting all this is comprised of the learning orientations and facilitating

factors.

18


21/54


Other perspectives

Consultants online define the learning organization in similar ways. From the UK, David

Skyrme (Farago and Skyrme 1995) quotes several other theorists on his website:

"The essence of organisational learning is the organization's ability to use the amazingmental capacity of all its members to create the kind of processes that will improve itsown" ( Nancy Dixon 1994)

"A Learning Company is an organization that facilitates the learning of all its membersand continually transforms itself" (M. Pedler, J. Burgoyne and Tom Boydell, 1991)

"Organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results theytruly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collectiveaspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to learn together" (Peter

Senge, 1990)

Fargo and Skyrme use these thoughts to create their own definition: Learning organizations are

those that have in place systems, mechanisms and processes, that are used to continually enhance

their capabilities and those who work with it or for it, to achieve sustainable objectives - for

themselves and the communities in which they participate. They speak of four elements that

create learning organizations: learning culture, processes, tools and techniques and skills and

motivation. They define these as:

Learning Culture - an organizational climate that nurtures learning. There is a strongsimilarity with those characteristics associated with innovation.

Processes - processes that encourage interaction across boundaries. These areinfrastructure, development and management processes, as opposed to business

operational processes (the typical focus of many BPR initiatives).Tools and Techniques - methods that aid individual and group learning, such ascreativity and problem solving techniques.

Skills and Motivation - to learn and adapt.

They also define things that inhibit learning organizations:

19
http://www.skyrme.com/resource/kmres2.htm#Dixonhttp://www.skyrme.com/resource/kmres2.htm#Pedlerhttp://www.skyrme.com/resource/kmres2.htm#Sengehttp://www.skyrme.com/resource/kmres2.htm#Sengehttp://www.skyrme.com/resource/kmres2.htm#Dixonhttp://www.skyrme.com/resource/kmres2.htm#Pedlerhttp://www.skyrme.com/resource/kmres2.htm#Sengehttp://www.skyrme.com/resource/kmres2.htm#Senge


22/54


operational/fire fighting preoccupation - not creating time to sit back and think strategically

too focused on systems and process (e.g. ISO9000) to exclusion of other factors(bureaucratic vs. thinking)

reluctance to train (or invest in training), other than for obvious immediate needs

too many hidden personal agendas too top-down driven, overtight supervision = lack of real empowerment

Fredrick Simon and Ketsara Rugchart define a learning organization as one that is

continually enhancing its ability to get the results it truly wants. (Simon and Rugchart 2003)

They see organizational learning as facilitative of knowledge management by first aligning

common vision reduces competitivenessallowing for greater demand for the shared knowledge

(the information retrieval side of the equation)The greatest learning takes place in failure,when things dont go as expected[sharing] leads to a willingness to be open and to risk

vulnerability by sharing the learning from failure (the input side of the equation.)

Organizational learning does not replace knowledge management tools, but can provide a

substantial accelerator to the KM effort.

DaeYeon Cho looks at the connection between self-directed learning and the learningorganization. (Cho 2002) He comments in todays climate of rapid change, organizations are

more interested in becoming learning organizations in order to meet rapidly emerging

challenges. The proponents of the learning organization believe that it enables organization to

foresee and respond to toadys globally competitive business environment. He groups the

characteristics of the learning organization into two categories: learning strategies, which are the

types of learning, such as individual, team and organizational learning; and systems to capture

that learning, which focus on the environment, and are created so that learning strategies can be

used successfully. He sees the concepts of self-directed learning, normally seen as an avenue for

personal growth, as key to the learning organization model. David Cutterback, on the other hand,

20


23/54


comments that academics and managers tend to see the learning team as the critical link

between the learning organization and the learning individual. (Clutterbuck 2002) In his work,

he looks at six basic team types (stable, hit, evolutionary, virtual, development alliances and

cabin crew teams) and concludes that job demands focus attention primarily on task

achievement. The leaner the team, the less opportunity for learning, particularly away from

work. Reflective time, which and if its available, is used to solve todays urgent issues, rather

than learning for tomorrows. Teams learn to function, but do they really benefit from what they

gain in the process? This is the key concept that distinguishes the learning organization from the

functional team.A web search on the learning organization brings up numerous papers by university

professors, who teach on the concepts in their classes. Michael Chase of Quincy College (Chase

2000) has a particularly comprehensive summary definition:

The term learning organization is the label now being used for an integration of a set of ideas that have emerged from organizational research and practice over the past three or four decades on ways of organizing work in such a way that the often-conflictingdemands of organizational effectiveness and individual job satisfaction aresimultaneously met. The learning organization is, in many ways, a natural evolution of older participatory management themes of the 1970's and more recent emphasis onempowerment and self-managed work-teams. A learning organization is not so muchcharacterized by its altered structure (flatter and less hierarchal) and redesign of work (emphasis on teams), but by the transformation of the relationship of the organization tothe individual and increased capacity for adaptation and change. The previous overridingconcern for control (e.g. motivate others, organize work for others, set goals for others,etc.) is replaced by a concern for learning by all organizational members on behalf of theorganization. Learning about technical things and things about the external environmentis greatly valued, as are learning things about itself including its organizational processes.A learning organization expects its members to " . . . act as learning agents for theorganization, responding to changes in the internal and external environment of theorganization by detecting and correcting errors in organizational theory-in-use, andembedding the results of their inquiry in private images and shared maps of organization"(Argyris & Schon, 1979, p. 29).

21


24/54


Benyamin Lichtenstein, of Boston College, brings a completely unique perspective,

examining whether the growth process of an organization is more like punctuated equilibrium

than evolutionary. He speaks of organizational transformationa wholesale replacement of one

structure or framework for another which is what the learning organization concept intends to

do within an organization. Punctuated equilibrium provides a distinct if controversial image of

evolutionary change processes: long periods of minimal change (species in equilibrium)

punctuated by short bursts of rapid change, resulting in a new species. (Lichtenstein, no date

available) Basing his concepts in biological parallels, he realizes that this model is not ideal, and

that the self-organizing framework fits better. In the learning organization, discoveries oftenmerit changes and restructuring. Little makes a similar observation in what the learning

organization is, quoting the European Consortium for the Learning Organisation (ECLO). The

learning organization can be seen as a model for supporting individual team an organizational

learning ...[or] it can be seen as a metaphor for change based on the principles of

transformation[According to Kelleher, the general secretary for ECLO] learning organisation

is a metaphor for organizational innovation through learningit is a journey, not a destination. It

cam be anything the organization wants it to be, providing that learning is at the heart of the

organizational changeit focuses on transformation. (Little 2003) The ECLO sees seven core

components of learning organizations: 1) individual learning, 2) team learning, 3) organizational

learning, 4) new structures, 5) new processes, 6) new values, and 7) new roles. A learning

organization is characterized by giving the learners personal control of their leanring.

There is also quite a bit of discussion within higher education about universities

becoming learning organizations. James Forest makes a great point in his learning organization

article about learning not always being intentional. What did you learn today?...Given a

22


25/54


moment, each of us can respond to this question appropriately, often recognizing that what we

learned today had little to do with what we set out intentionally to learn, and much to do with

haphazard discovery. (Forest 2002) Certainly this is also valid in organizations. Learning is not

always a deliberate activity. The question really must be How is that learning that occurs

captured? He comments further,

Organizations need a learning plan to encourage and guide learning, with theunderstanding that learning is likely to occur regardless of any planned course of action.The most effective form of learning plans are aligned with the institutions strategic plan.The strategic plan lays out what you seek to accomplish; the learning plan describes whatyou hope to learn in the process of achieving that goal[It must include] a dimension of assessment[but] more importantly, a college must seek to instill a culture of intellectual

curiosity throughout the organization, such that learning is consistently encouraged andrewarded. This may involve a high tolerance of risk, which allows for an organizationsmembers to experiment and innovate. Regardless of the success of failure of experimentation, an organization must document what was learned in the process

While organizational learning is in some sense a strategic activity for advancing theorganization, these activities complementrather than duplicatestrategic planningactivities, which themselves require considerable attention and assessment.

Mu and Gnyawali discuss how the learning organization and team learning concepts are

being attempted with students. In a case study (Mu and Gnyawali 2003) they look at groups

created on campus to simulate cross-functional teams such as would be found in a learning

organization. They look for synergistic knowledge development (SKD) which they define as

a process by which a group constructively integrates diverse perspective of individual group

members. They look for three elements: task conflict, which is seen as a cognitive element,

psychological safety, which is viewed as a psychosocial element, and social interaction, which is

looked at as the procedural element. They found time to be a limiting factor, similar to the

observations about team learning made by Clutterbuck. Learning is impeded by a strict task

focus, as would occur with time limitations. They made several observations about the process:

23


26/54


The greater the task conflict among group members, the lower the development of synergistic knowledge.

The greater the team psychological safety among group members, the higher thedevelopment of synergistic knowledge

Team psychological safety moderates the relationship between task conflict and

synergistic knowledge development. When task conflict is high, high psychologicalsafety can lead to higher synergistic knowledge than can low psychological safety. The greater the social interaction among group members, the higher the development of

synergistic knowledge. The greater the development of synergistic knowledge, the better the students perception

of their groupsperformance.

While this work was with students, there are numerous parallels to the learning organization

concepts, where safety is a key factor in growth of learning, enabling risk taking and information

sharing.

In the corporate sector, authors also speak of the alignment of strategic objectives and

learning goals. To build a lasting learning environment, organization must begin early by

clearly defining what it means to be a learning organizationA learning organization is capable

of aligning tits strategic objectives and vision with the capabilities, competencies and ideas of its

employees. Managers within a learning organization seek to create an environment where their

employees realize their maximum potentialAs this learning culture is supported and fostered

by management, employees seek out and solve problems, become more entrepreneurial, and

more willing to take risks. (Kirkwood and Pangarkar 2003) These comments reinforce Chos

ideas about self-directed learning. It is particularly attractive to see the alignment of the

employees ideas in the vision of the company. Benefits cited in this article include a reduction

in errors and mistakes, improved quality and innovations, a better understanding of the business

and empowered employees. When the culture of the learning organization involves everyone, the

company benefits the most.

24


27/54


In the healthcare industry, the learning organization concepts have also begun to take

hold. Pressing economic times and the need to keep healthcare costs manageable make the

learning organization concept very valuable. Karlene Kerfoot looks at the role of learning: In

real learning organizations, one cannot distinguish between the learner and the teacher, because

everyone throughout the organization is expected to teach each other and learn from each

otherTeaching occurs everywhere in the organizationvertically, horizontally, and

diagonally. Hierarchies are eliminated, and the authority gradient that implies that one person

has more intellectual ability over another one is eliminated. It is replaced by the belief that we

are all peers in the learning and teaching and we can teach and learn from each other no matter where we are positioned in the organizational chart. (Kerfoot 2003) This type of interaction

leverages the best in all staff members, hopefully providing the best care possible in the most

economic fashion.

25


28/54


Critics of the Learning Organization

Within the literature there are some criticisms of the learning organization concepts. In

CIO Magazine, June 1, 1996, Megan Santosus writes about the difficulties in creating a learning

organization.

Trying to achieve learning organization status takes a lot of hard work on the parts of managers and employees and is not for those seeking instant gratification. People have tofundamentally change the way they think and interact with others in the organization.Fostering sustained change in an individual's belief system is a tall order; trying to do iton a widespread basis is beyond the capabilities of many organizations. Learning

initiatives often require sweeping changes throughout the organization. Yet there's adanger that any learning programsimply because it requires a lot of hard work toimplementcan become marginalized to small pockets of the company. Learning effortsmust permeate the entire enterprise in order to be effective and long-lasting. Otherwise,serious fissures can appear between nonbelievers and faithful followers. That almostinevitably creates an "us versus them" atmosphere that rarely promotes anything productive Successful learning is also a function of the systems, structures and processes within the organization. As a result, organizations have to change everythingthat reinforces old behaviors and patterns of thinking. (Santosus 1996)

Santosus makes a good point. It is a lot of work to change the entire culture of an organization to

create a climate where risk taking is tolerated and errors are evaluated for the learning that can be

discovered from them. However, not doing this perpetuates the single-loop learning cycle

Argyris postulates.

Matthias Finger and Silvia Brgin Brand as quoted by (Smith 2001) describe some of the

shortcomings of the learning organization concept.

They conclude that it is not possible to transform a bureaucratic organization by learninginitiatives alone. They believe that by referring to the notion of the learning organizationit was possible to make change less threatening and more acceptable to participants.However, individual and collective learning which has undoubtedly taken place has notreally been connected to organizational change and transformation. Part of the issue,

26


29/54


they suggest, has to do with the concept of the learning organization itself. They arguethe following points. The concept of the learning organization:

Focuses mainly on the cultural dimension , and does not adequately take intoaccount the other dimensions of an organization. To transform an organization it is

necessary to attend to structures and the organization of work as well as the cultureand processes. Focussing exclusively on training activities in order to foster learning favours this purely cultural bias.

Favours individual and collective learning processes at all levels of theorganization, but does not connect them properly to the organizations strategicobjectives. Popular models of organizational learning (such as Dixon 1994) assumesuch a link. It is, therefore, imperative, that the link between individual andcollective learning and the organizations strategic objectives is made. Thisshortcoming, Finger and Brand argue, makes a case for some form of measurementof organizational learning so that it is possible to assess the extent to which such

learning contributes or not towards strategic objectives. Remains rather vague . The exact functions of organizational learning need to be

more clearly defined.

In our view, organizational learning is just a means in order to achieve strategicobjectives. But creating a learning organization is also a goal, since the ability permanently and collectively to learn is a necessary precondition for thriving in the newcontext. Therefore, the capacity of an organization to learn, that is, to function like alearning organization, needs to be made more concrete and institutionalized, so that themanagement of such learning can be made more effective.

These are particularly useful criticisms. The concept of the learning organization is not the be-

all-end-all silver bullet solution to organizational problems. In a complex system, something like

this could never be. It may foster praxis, but requires the commitment that Santosus questions

ever possible.

Mojab and Gorman (2003) bring another valid point into play when they discuss who the

learning organizational concepts actually touch within an organization. Referencing Keep and

Rainbirds research from the UK in 2000, they comment that Only certain segments of the

workforce benefit from learning opportunities[There are] four groups who generally are

excluded from any type of training: those who are in a lower status occupation; those on

27


30/54


atypical contracts such as flexible workers, particularly part timers [who] have consistently

lower chances of being offered training of any sort by their employer; older workers and those

who are less well qualified. They also accuse the concepts saying, The failure of many

organizations to offer to more than a small fraction of their workforce broader opportunities for

upskilling and reskilling renders the rhetoric about the learning organization concept empty of

meaning and purpose Continuing, they remark about the learning organization theories

being birthed from the logic of the human capital theory where the more you have learned (or

the more capacity you have for learning), the more of an asset you will be for your organization.

In a human capital formulation, workers are compensated for the use of their critical thinkingthrough higher wages and a higher position. Critics of human capital theory point out that if the

life experiences and learning of marginalized workers were recognized, they could attain

equality with the higher paid managerial employees. Coming from a Marxist/feminist

viewpoint, while severe in their language, they do make a strong point about the concepts of the

learning organization potentially never filtering down to the lower levels of the organization and

remaining an academic discussion among management. Idealistically, the learning organization

culture would infiltrate the entire organization, but in reality, does it ever touch everyone?

Theoretically, it should.

rtenblad brings a radical perspective to the reviews. Almost every writer describes

organizational learning or the learning organization in quite positive terms. They almost seem to

be bewitched. (Ortenblad 2002) He divides the literature on learning organizations into a

functionalistic perspective and an interpretive paradigm and also looks at the criticism of it. In

order for some of the changes inherent in the learning organization to occur, he sees a need for

28


31/54


major societal changes first, but he sees potential for major changes to occur as the power is

disseminated to the employees, and looks at the possibilities of overthrowing the existing system.

In a similar vein, Owenby discusses the dark side of the learning organization,(Owenby 2002) looking at the power issues involved. He looks at four types of learning

networks:

Verticalstaff direct and linearly plan the learning activities of employees

Horizontalan egalitaritan, problem focused community of learners attempting to solve

problems Externalpractices are directed by professional organizations outside the organization

Liberalemployees direct their own learning

He believes that the learning organization really only can function in the horizontal setting. He

brings out several issues around control, mentioning that power issues and interests influence the

learning agenda in any organization. Present-day corporations routinely sacrifice the interests of

their employees to further corporate goals of profitability and competitive advantage He sees

corporate universities as instruments of corporate control. He looks at the language of power

shaping the learning agendas, and sees organizational learning as a technology of power as

unwilling employees are compelled to attend continuous learning programs. Owenby sees

contradictions in what is espoused and what is practiced, and makes recommendations that

organizations must be careful not to miss the point of the learning organizations intent.

29


32/54


Practical Applications

I chose to experiment with three of the assessment tools for learning organizations found

in the literature. The first, the Organizational Learning Profile (DiBella 2001) was used in two

settings. The second tool, the Learning History (Roth and Kleiner 1995) was only prepared for

one organization because of its extensive detailing. The third, taken from Don Clarks training

website (and apparently from an ASTD publication) was also only done for one organization.

Each of these experiences will be discussed.

The Organizational Learning Profile

The first attempt to use the Organizational Learning Profile (OLP) was done by the

author as part of a needs assessment for the Christian Education program at Providence

Assembly of God. This provided familiarity with the concepts that were measured and allowed

initial experience prior to using the tool with a group. The second experience was conducted withthe training department of a large, managed healthcare network, and involved all of the members

of the team scoring an assessment individually, the compilation of the results and the discussion

of the results and desired ideal. According to DiBella, the learning actually occurs during this

discussion phase of gap analysis of where the organization perceives itself, and where it would

like to be, then developing a plan to achieve the desired levels.

The OLP tool examines seven sources of where information originates within the

organization and how it is utilized. Each dimension is given opposite points on a continuum and

the rater determines where on the spectrum each area falls within the organization. The

30


33/54


secondary examination looks at factors that enhance learning, looking for the degree of evidence

that the particular factor is functional within the organization.

Figure 6

Providence Assembly of God Organizational Learning Profile Learning Orientations

1 Knowledge Source x2 Content-Process Focus x3 Knowledge Reserve x4 Dissemination mode x5 Learning Scope x6 Value-chain focus x

7 Learning Focus x

Facilitating Factors

1 Scanning Imperative x2 Performance Gap x3 Concern for Measurement x4 Organizational Curiosity x

5 Climate of openness x6 Continuous Education x7 Operational Variety x8 Multiple Advocates x9 Involved leadership x10 Systems Perspective x

In looking at the learning orientations of the church Christian Education program,

information is heavily content based, originating from internal sources. There is a balanced

knowledge reserve, with the primary information being focused on the individual, with

transformative results. As a church, it would be expected that faith would be personal and life

changing. The dissemination of the information comes from preaching and teaching with some

degree of personal study during the week.

31


34/54


As to the facilitating factors, the church is totally unaware of the performance gap

between where they are and where they could be. The pastor and the author are two of the few

who realize the need for biblical education and literacy programs. The reading skills of the

children and many of the adults is quite poor, and the needs assessment the OLA was part of

clearly demonstrated that. The church has been highly self-sufficient. Until recently, there has

been little involvement with other churches in the area or the denomination and para-church

organizations providing conferences and additional resources.

However, there is a very high level of leadership involvement and openness to new ideas

within the congregation. As a church, we will not change our central focus on Christ, but we arewilling to look at the ways we do things and are interested in continuing improvement. In a

survey given to the congregation, members wanted to grow in their faith and consider

themselves fairly knowledgeable about the bible.

The second use of the tool was at the authors company, Private Healthcare Systems, in

the Corporate Learning Services department. As mentioned above, the administration and

discussion was with the entire training department. Initially, when the individual results began

coming in for tabulation, the author was surprised by how wildly divergent they were. This

played out in the discussion of what was perceived by the different individuals in the group.

Some of the differences were in interpretation of the information, but others were perceptions of

what occurs within the department. The team had mixed reactions to the exercise. Many saw it as

a useless discussion of theory. The authors initial perception that the team really does not

function as a learning organization was confirmed by these conversations. Direction is set by the

director, and unquestioning compliance is expected, even though the verbalization of the ideals is

quite different. The ideal and the team aggregate results are displayed below, in Figure 7.

32


35/54


Figure 7

PHCS Corporate Learning Services Organizational Learning Profile

Key: A-groups current assessment (numerically indicated by score

J -authors assessmentI-groups ideal placement Learning OrientationsORIENTATION Avg

Score1 Knowledge Source 3 AI J2 Content-Process Focus 2.8 AJ I3 Knowledge Reserve 3.18 A I4 Dissemination mode 2.73 AI J5 Learning Scope 3.18 J AIJ6 Value-chain focus 2.73 A IJ7 Learning Focus 2.72 J A I

Facilitating FactorsFACTOR AVG

SCORE

1 Scanning Imperative 4.0 J A I2 Performance Gap 4.36 J A I3 Concern for Measurement 4.64 J A I4 Organizational Curiosity 5.0 J A I5 Climate of openness 5.73 J A I

6 Continuous Education 5.0 J A I7 Operational Variety 5.0 J A I8 Multiple Advocates 5.82 J A I9 Involved leadership 6.36 J A I10 Systems Perspective 4.18 J A I

From a learning perspective, it was startling to see how differently the authors

perceptions were than those of the group. The initial rankings were quite spread out, but the

author tended to be the outlier. Could that be from more exposure to the learning organization

concepts, or a distorted perspective? As mentioned before the director sets the tone and direction

and individuals are unlikely to challenge her perspective. These results may be an indication of

that. Overall, the team found the discussion interesting, and will be creating an action plan to

33


36/54


incorporate some of the facilitating factors into the 2004 agendas to further develop the

organizational learning capability of the team.

Kline Learning Organization Assessment

The Kline Learning Organization assessment tool evaluates individual perceptions of the

conditions in the organization that would promote a Learning Organization. This assessment and

its accompanying matrix was completed for the church. Using a straight average to compute the

initial score, the rating was 4.67, indicating a high degree of conditions in place promoting a

Learning Organization.

PAG: Kline Learning Organization AssessmentUsing the response options below, write in the blank before each statement the number which best describes your answer.

Response Options:

I = Not at all

2 = To a slight extent

3 = To a moderate extent

4 = To a great extent5 = To a very great extent

The current reality in my organization is that:

51. People feel free to speak their minds about what they have learned. There is no fear, threat or repercussion for disagreeing or dissenting.

5 2. Mistakes made by individuals or departments are turned into constructive learning experiences.4 3. There is a general feeling that its always possible to find a better way to do something.5 4. Multiple viewpoints and open productive debates are encouraged and cultivated.4 5. Experimentation is endorsed and championed, and is a way of doing business.5 6. Mistakes are clearly viewed as positive growth opportunities through out the system.

57. There is willingness to break old patterns in order to experiment with different ways of organizingand managing daily work.

3 8. Management practices are innovative, creative, and periodically risk taking.5 9. The quality of work life in our organization is improving.

510. There are formal and informal structures designed to encourage people to share what they learnwith their peers and the rest of the organization.

5 11. The organization is perceived as designed for problem-solving and learning.

512. Learning is expected and encouraged across all levels of the organization: management,employees, supervision, union, stockholders, customers.

34

Average score: 4.67

High degree of LearningOrganization characteristics


37/54


513. People have an overview of the organization beyond their specialty and function, and adapt their working patterns to it.

514. Lessons learned sessions are conducted so as to produce clear, specific and permanent structuraland organizational changes.

5

15. Management practices, operations, policies and procedures that become obsolete by hindering thecontinued growth of people and the organization are removed and replaced with workable systems and

structures.5 16. Continuous improvement is expected and treated receptively.

517. There are clear and specific expectations of each employee to receive a specified number of hoursof training and education annually.

518. Workers at all levels are specifically directed towards relevant and valuable training and learningopportunities inside and outside the organization.

519. Cross-functional learning opportunities are expected and organized on a regular basis, so that people understand the functions of others whose jobs are different, but of related importance.

520. Middle managers are seen as having the primary role in keeping the learning process runningsmoothly throughout the organization.

5 21. The unexpected is viewed as an opportunity for learning.

522. People look forward to improving their own competencies as well as those of the wholeorganization.

523. The systems, structures, policies and procedures of the organization are designed to be adaptive,flexible, and responsive to internal and external stimuli.

324. Presently, even if the environment of the organization is complicated, chaotic, and active,nevertheless it is not on overload.

4 25. There is a healthy, manageable level of stress that assists in promoting learning.5 26. Continuous improvement is practiced as well as preached.

527. The difference between training/education and learning is clearly understood. (Training andeducation can be so conducted that no learning takes place.)

5 28. People are encouraged and provided the resources to become self- directed learners.

529. There is a formal, on-going education program to prepare middle managers in their new roles asteachers, coaches and leaders.

330. Recognition of your own learning style and those of co-workers is used to improvecommunication and over-all organizational learning.

531. Management is sensitive to learning and development differences in their employees, realizing that people learn and improve their situations in many different ways.

332. There is sufficient time scheduled into peoples professional calendars to step back from day-to-day operations and reflect on what is happening in the organization.

4 33. There is direction and resource allocation planned to bring about meaningful and lasting learning.

534. Teams are recognized and rewarded for their innovative and paradigm breaking solutions to problems.

535. Managers have considerable skills for gathering information and developing their abilities to copewith demanding and changing management situations.

536. Managers enable their staffs to become self-developers, and learn how to improve their performance.

EVALUATING THE RESULTSThe results of this Assessment can be compiled, analyzed, and used in several ways. Thequickest is a simple results average, dividing the sum of all the ratings by 36, the number of statements. This average indicates on a scale of 1-5, the degree to which the respondent believeshis of her organization possesses the characteristics of a Learning Organization.Average score: 4.67= high degree of Learning Organization characteristics

35


38/54


Klines assessment also includes a matrix to break down the ratings into specific category

averages. For PAG, the high score was Mapping the Vision, and the low score was Get the Show

on the Road. All of the scores except the low score of 4.43 were above 4.50. The averages are as

follows, with the complete matrix following:

Assessment 4.50Promote positive 4.55Safe thinking 4.67Risk taking 4.62People as resources 4.79

Learning power 4.79Map the vision 5.00Model the Vision 5.78Systems thinking 4.67Get show on the Road4.43

36


39/54


PAG LEARNING ORGANIZATION ASSESSMENT MATRIXThe Learning Organization Assessment Matrix can be filled in after the Learning OrganizationAssessment has been completed. Enter in the white boxes to the left of each of the 36 items therating for that item (as scored by an individual, a sub-group, or the organization as a whole). Thesame score is to be entered in each white box to the left of that Item. For instance, if the responsewas 3 on the first item, a 3 would be entered in the columns under Steps 3 and 4. Therespondents assessment of the organizations overall rating for each of the Ten Steps is found bytotaling the sum of the numbers in each vertical column and dividing it by the number of white boxes in that column.

A s s e s s m e n

t

P r o m o t e p o s i

t i v e

S a f e t h i n k i n g

R i s k t a k i n g

P e o p

l e a s r e s o u r c e s

L e a r n

i n g p o w e r

M a p

t h e v i s i o n

M

o d e l

t h e

V i s i o n

S y s

t e m s

t h i n k i n g

G e t s h o w o n

t h e

R o a

d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Enter Assessment Rating for Each Item ASSESSMENT ITEMS

5 5 1. People speak their minds

5 5 5 2. Learn from mistakes

4 4 4 3. People see better ways

5 5 5 5 4. Different views encouraged

4 4 5. Experimentation encouraged5 5 5 6. Mistakes are opportunities

5 5 5 5 5 7. Willing to try new ways

3 3 8. Management takes risks

5 5 5 9. Work life improving

5 5 5 10. Learn from each other

5 11. Structured for learning

5 5 5 5 5 12. Learn across all levels

5 5 13. Awareness beyond specialty5 5 5 5 14. Lessons learned sessions

5 15. Obsolete practices replaced

5 5 5 5 16. Improvement expected

37


40/54


A s s e s s m e n

t

P r o m o t e p o s i

t i v e

S a f e t h i n k

i n g

R i s k t a k i n g

P e o p

l e a s r e s o u r c e s

L e a r n i n g p o w e r

M a p

t h e v i s i o n

M o d e l

t h e

V i s i o n

S y s t e m s

t h i n k i n g

G e t s h o w o n

t h e

R o a

d

continued

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 105 17. Employees training expected

5 5 18. All get relevant training

5 5 5 5 5 19. Cross-functional learning

5 20. Middle managers key role

5 5 5 21. Learn from unexpected

5 5 5 5 22. Eagerness to improve

5 5 5 5 5 23. Systems are flexible

3 3 3 24. Not overloading

4 4 4 4 4 25. Stress is manageable

5 5 5 26. Improvement not just talk

5 27. Training may not = learning

5 5 5 528. Learners salt-directed

5 5 5 29. Middle managers prepared

3 3 3 3 30. Learning styles recognized

5 5 5 5 31. Learning differences respected

3 3 3 32. Time for reflection

4 4 33. Resource for learning

5 5 5 5 34. Teams rewarded

5 5 5 5 5 35. Managers cope with change

5 5 5 5 36. Staff enabled to improve45 50 70 60 67 91 30 43 42 31 Total Overall Score10 11 15 13 14 19 6 9 9 7 Divide Score by These Numbers4.5

0 4.55 4.67 4.62 4.794.7

9 5.00 4.78 4.67 4.43 Results Average

38


41/54


ASTD Learning Organization Profile

This tool was taken from Don Clarks website.

(http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/learnorg.htm) Clark is a practical resource known

throughout the training industry, and this particular tool is noted as being taken from ASTDs

resources. The only reference to anything similar on the ASTD website is listed within 16 Steps

to Becoming a Learning Organization, by Michael Marquardt, which is one of the Info-line

series published by the association, so the source is unverifiable beyond Clarks website.

Unlike the other two tools, this included technology resources, and touched on more

knowledge management aspects. The assessment was used for the church program, so many of the questions were not particularly applicable. However, it is one more reinforcement for the

need to upgrade the computer systems of the organization, since that will help in the

management of information.

The scoring of this tool rated the CE program at 66, in the 61-80 point category which

states Keep on moving! Your organization has a solid learning foundation. It was the

technology related questions that were scored poorly, bringing down the overall score. It did

bring out some education needs to work with the staff on learning to learn and understanding a

systems perspective.

ASTD Learning Organization ProfileInstructionsBelow is a list of statements. Read each one carefully, then decide the extent to which it actually appliesto your organization, using the scale below:4 = applies fully

3 = applies to a great extent2 = applies to a moderate extent1 = applies to little or no extent

39


42/54


Learning Dynamics: Individual, Group or Team, and Organization

1. __4___ We are encouraged and expected to manage our own learning and development.2. __4____ People avoid distorting information and blocking communication channels, using such skills as active

listening and effective feedback.3. __1____ Individuals are trained and coached in learning how to learn.4. __3____ Teams and individuals use the action learning process. (that is, they learn from careful reflection on

problem situations, and then apply their new knowledge to future actions.)5. __2____ People are able to think and act with a comprehensive, systems approach.

Organization Transformation: Vision, Culture, Strategy, and Structure

1. __4____ Top-level managers support the vision of a learning organization.2. __4____ There is a climate that supports and recognizes the importance of learning.3. __4____ We learn from failures as well as successes.4. __4____ Learning opportunities are incorporated into operations and programs.5. __4____ The organization is streamlined--with few management levels--to maximize communication and

learning across all levels.

People Empowerment: Employee, Manager, Customer, and Community

1. __4____ We strive to develop an empowered workforce able to learn and perform.2. __4____ Authority is decentralized and delegated.3. __4____ Managers take on the roles of coaching, mentoring, and facilitating learning.4. __3____ We actively share information with our customers to obtain their ideas to learn and improve services

and products.5. __3____ We participate in joint learning events with supplies, community groups, professional associations, and

academic institutions.

Knowledge Management: Acquisition, Creation, Storage and Retrieval, andTransfer and Use

1. __2____ People monitor trends outside our organization by looking at what others do--for example, bybenchmarking best practices, attending conferences, and examining published research.

2. __1____ People are trained in the skills of creative thinking and experimentation.3. __2____ We often create demonstration projects to test new ways of developing a product or delivering a

service.4. __1____ Systems and structures exist to ensure that important knowledge is coded, stored, and made available

to those who need and can use it.5. __3____ We continue to develop new strategies and mechanisms for sharing learning throughout the

organization.

Technology Application: Information Systems, Technology-Based Learning, andEPSS (Electronic Performance Support Systems)

1. __1____ Effective and efficient computer-based information systems help our organizational learning.

2. __1____ People have ready access to the information superhighway--for example, through local area networks,the Internet, ASTD Online, and so on.

3. __1____ Learning facilities such as training and conference rooms incorporate electronic multimedia support.4. __1____ We support just-in-time learning with a system that integrates high-technology learning systems,

coaching, and actual work into a seamless process.5. __1____ Electronic Performance Support Systems (EPSS) enable us to learn and do our work better.

40


43/54


__66____ Grand Total for Five Subsystems (Maximum Score 100)

81 - 100: Congratulations! You are well on your way to becoming a learning organization!61 - 80: Keep on moving! Your organization has a solid learning foundation.40 - 60: A good beginning. Your organization has gathered some important building blocks to

become a learning organization.Below 40: Watch out! Time to make drastic changes if you want to survive in a rapidly changing

world.

NotesCreated by ASTD (American Society For Training and Development) - The material on this page is notcovered by copyright and may be reproduced at will. Please note that since this was created by others, I[Don Clark] have no information on its reliability of validity.

Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/learnorg.html 12/21/2003

41
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/learnorg.htmlhttp://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/learnorg.htmlhttp://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/learnorg.htmlhttp://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/learnorg.html


44/54


Learning History

The concept of the learning history comes from George Roth, who sees this as a safer

alternative to the assessment process. (Roth and Kleiner 1995) It looks at assumptions and

experiences within an organization in an attempt to inspire others. It reviews what has occurred

as part of a transformational learning process. Roths process includes seven steps, only four of

which have been completed for this application. The seven steps are:

1. Planning Stage2. Retrospective, reflective conversational interviews3. Distillation of the material into coherent themes4. Creation of a document using the themes

5. Key managers and the participants in the interviews hold a validation workshop6. Documentation becomes the basis for company-wide dissemination workshops7. Review of the learning history effort

(Roth 1996)

The learning history process was quite an interesting experience. The history for PAG

was written for the church Christian Education program as a part of the needs assessment

process. The author began to document some of the insights gathered in research papers over the

last several years and began to see some trends and additional needs arise not previously

revealed in other tools. It was also fascinating how aware the author became of learning related

discussions occurring among the staff. The learning history is designed to span a considerable

period, and it will be interesting to watch this evolve over time as the growth process is

documented.

42


45/54


Learning History: Providence Assembly of GodPrepared by Jean Marrapodi, Director of Christian Education, 11/2003

Introduction

In taking over the Christian Education (CE) programs of the church, I have noticed gaps inseveral areas. As a teacher, I noticed severe deficits in the reading comprehension of mystudents. As an observer, I have noticed the lack of retention of information in the children fromyear to year. This is an attempt to document some perceived observations with documentation.

Reviewers comments Anecdotal EventThe childrens reading and writing abilities seemed to be well below the normsof elementary students.

Fall 1999I ran Childrens Church for the 6-10 year olds fromSeptember-December. When I gave them a half sheet to fill in their name, phone number andaddress, very few could do this task I perceived to be very simple. It wasnt that there were all six year olds, either. The class tended to lean more towardthe 8-10 year olds. Shouldnt third and fourthgraders be able to do this? I was stunned that only 2of them were familiar with the books of the Bible,and some common bible stories. Completing a basicworksheet was nearly impossible for most. Therewere the usual discipline issues, but many centeredin frustration about completing work I perceived to be very easy for them.

I expected this to be creative fun for thechildren.

October 1999I taught the children the story of Daniel in theLions Den, and for our activity, gave them pipecleaners and told them they could make whatever they wanted to show the story, or a part of the story.They did not know where to begin, and were veryunhappy with me that they didnt have specificdirections and needed to use their cre

Documents

Learning Organization-practical Applications