This article was downloaded by: [141.214.17.222]On: 11 October 2014, At: 15:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

The learning organisation: An approach tomanagement education and developmentAndrzej Huczynski a & David Boddy ba University of Glasgowb University of GlasgowPublished online: 05 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Andrzej Huczynski & David Boddy (1979) The learning organisation: An approachto management education and development, Studies in Higher Education, 4:2, 211-222, DOI:10.1080/03075077912331376987

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075077912331376987

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Studies in Higher Education Vol. 4 No. 2 1979 211

Andrzej Huczynski, Lecturer in Management Studies, University of Glasgow

David Boddy, Senior Lecturer in Management Studies, University of Glasgow

The Learning Organisation: an approach to management education and development

The need to prepare management students to deal with change is now generally accepted. How this should be done, however, is less clear. It seems to be generally agreed that to educate for change and for 'what will be' necessitates a course design and approach different from that involved in educating managers for 'what is'. Pedler (1974) emphasised the need for flexibility in the design of educational experiences: "To help people to cope with new situations and new problems which have not yet arisen, objectives cannot be set in the normal way. What we can do is to try and prepare the individuals themselves for the difficulties involved."

In recent years the tread has been to identify and emphasise the 'process' or 'meta- goals' in management education--that is, the learnings that a student acquires in the process of being educated in particular subject matter. Writing about these process goals, Handy (1973) felt that it was, ". . . folly to use content as a base for long term development". He considered that subject matter should become the context rather than the content of the learning, and that the process was more crucial than the substance. Examples of meta-goals include helping people to find a scientific way of learning from experience and helping them to increase their self-knowledge by testing out their self- concepts (Handy, 1973); increasing their ability to work with and motivate others and to evaluate achievement, people and opportunities (Dunbar); assisting them in identifying the resources in a given situation and learning to think (Pedler, 1974).

While it may be easy to accept the value of meta-goals of this sort, it is more difficult to devise a course structure which will help such goals to be met, particularly within a university system. Traditional teacher-centred approaches will not do, as they will tend to increase the students' dependence on the teacher and/or on received knowledge: a radically different technique needs to be devised.

The notion of creating a learning community seemed to us attractive in principle, but scarcely suitable for students attending a university degree course on a part-time basis. We therefore sought to pursue the meta-goals by setting up what has been termed a 'learning organisation'. This paper discusses our experience. After describing the theoretical bases of the approach, we give an account of the course structure. Student perceptions of the course and of its outcomes are compared with our original expectations and some possible reasons for the discrepancy are discussed. We also

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4

212 Studies in Higher Education Vol. 4 No. 2 1979

outline the lessons we have drawn from this experience and which we plan to use in later courses. Finally, we discuss some of the criticisms that have been made about the use of this approach within a university context and give our responses to them.

The Philosophy of the Course

The students concerned in our experimental approach were a group of about 40 experienced managers employed in private and public industry in the West of Scotland. All had an engineering or scientific background, and were taking a part-time programme in the Department of Management Studies at the University of Glasgow. They attended the University on Mondays and Saturdays over three consecutive academic years, continuing to perform their normal jobs for the rest of the time. Successful completion of the scheme led to the award of the Degree of Master of Engineering (Production Management) by the University.

Many substantive areas of knowledge and skill must be covered in such a programme. However, it seems equally important to work towards meta-goals of the kind described earlier: as students' careers progress they are bound to meet situations and issues which cannot be resolved by reference to established knowledge. Meta-goals can be pursued in any course, but this particular account relates to a 'Behavioural Science and Management' course, 54 hours in length and accounting for half of the teaching during the second year of the M.Eng. programme. The part-time nature of the course provides many possibilities for using the relationship between work experience and university study as a vehicle for learning, and this feature was taken into account in our initial specification of our goals.

Some of these goals related to the subject matter in a quite conventional way- - for example 'to be able to review critically expectancy theories of motivation' or 'to be able to identify the different kinds of stresses experienced at work.' Of greater relevance to this paper, however, are the meta-goals. The following were included among them:

ability to make sense of and critically to evaluate, academic literature relevant to management practice;

ability to identify and make use of resources in a given situation;

skill in analysing the main elements in a situation;

ability to communicate effectively in speech and writing;

ability to set one's own learning objectives, and to measure progress towards them.

The central issue was to devise a course structure conducive to this type of learning goal. Influenced by Rogers' (1969) writings on what constituted 'significant learning' we considered that a group orientation to learning was to be preferred to an individualistic one, and would ultimately offer more learning opportunities for both students and lecturers. Among other things, we hoped that some mutually beneficial division of labour might occur. For example, rather than all students trying to read the whole reading list, they might arrange to share it out between them, those who had studied a particular article in depth communicating the salient points to the others, and giving an indication of whether it merited close study by all.-More generally, we expected that a group approach would itself generate conflicts between the needs of individual students and those of the group, and/or between both and the course as a whole- -and that these experiences, matching real organisational pressures, could themselves be the basis for learning. It should be stressed, however, that we saw the group learning process as a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4

The Learning Organisation 213

means to an end, and not as an end in itself. We recognised that the student is assessed by both the University and by his employing organisation as an individual. Our target was the development, albeit via the use of groups, of the individuals who had chosen to attend the programme.

A model for the approach had already been developed by Heron (1974), through his work in the training of General Practitioner trainers. Heron's concept of the 'Peer Learning Community' had been extended by Megginson & Pedler (1976) into the field of management training. These authors, together with Boydell, had applied it to short courses for management trainers as well as to formal polytechnic programmes. The learning community approach stresses the responsibility of both students and tutors for the planning and implementation of all the learnings within the community; encourages the expression of the affective dimension of learning; acknowledges the individual needs of learners; and emphasises the range of learning resources available to community members. The objectives were in line with our needs and ideas, but we did not think it would be feasible to create a learning community durable enough to survive a nine- month course attended by participants on a part-time basis. Learning communities have generally been run as intensive events, attended on a full-time basis for periods not exceeding two weeks.

An alternative structure which appeared capable of incorporating the same underly- ing ideas was suggested by Kolb, Rubin & Mclntyre (1971). From these authors we took the idea of the learning organisation, which sets out to maximise the attainment of the individual members' learning goals. "The way an organisation is organised (its structure)" wrote Kolb et al., "and the kinds of norms, rules of behaviour and procedures it develops (its climate) are very important determinants of the organisation's success in achieving its goal." The feature which distinguishes an 'organisation' approach from a 'community' approach lies not in its underlying objectives, but in its more formal structure. Such a structure appeared to us better suited to the circumstances of the present course: being part of a wider degree programme, flexibility in the disposition of the scheduled number of contact hours is limited by student commitments to other classes, while staff too have other teaching commitments. The wider programme--which is for the most part highly structured--must also affect student expectations about the way a course should be run. Moreover, the time required for study and reflection must, for these students, compete with organisational and family commitments--so the staff for the programme should accept a professional responsibility to build in the necessary structure to help students use their personal study time effectively. Furthermore, as an element in a degree programme, there is a requirement for the cognitive components to be examinable; and the staff involved must again take some professional responsibility for student performance in assessed work.

These considerations influenced our decision to construct a learning organisation with a number of fixed and predictable features, but one which still left ample scope for the attainment of the meta-goals described above.

Features of the Course

Within the general framework we have described, various operational decisions had to be made about the main features of the learning organisation. These are described briefly below.

(1) Meta-goals and course content

The course was introduced to students at the end of the preceding academic year, when the concept of 'meta' or 'process' goals was explained to them alongside a summary of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4

214 Studies in Higher Education Vol. 4 No. 2 1979

the course content. Students brainstormed a number of possible subject topics for study and evaluated the degree of support that existed for each among the class group as a whole. Being themselves members of the learning organisation, the lecturers also made suggestions about subjects which they wanted to include. The agreed final list formed the content of the syllabus (or the context of learning, to use Handy's term). As Table I shows, the subject matter was traditional for a course of this kind, but it had been chosen by the course participants themselves and was thus significant to them as a group.

TABLE I: Behavioural science and management course content

Learning processes Individual behaviour and motivation Management stress Organisational climate, culture and structure Leadership and decision-making Communication and negotiating Industrial relations Conflict Work structuring

One problem we experienced as a result of this design was that content tended to dominate the course and did not allow the process issues to be fully discussed. For the subsequent year group we decided to reduce the content by about 30%: it will in any case differ, since it is re-negotiated with each new group of students. Another source of dissatisfaction concerned the imposition of the meta-goals by the lecturers. In future it is proposed that a proportion of the time made available by a reduction in content should be assigned to a group discussion of the meta-goals, drawing on the work of Burgoyne & Stuart (1976) and Pedler, Burgoyne & Boydell (1978).

(2) Timing and ordering of content

A basic feature of the course was that it was structured into about eight major topic areas, each designated as a block to be taught for about 6-8 hours. The agreed list of topics was therefore expressed as a list of blocks, and given an order, mainly reflecting staff availability.

(3) Selection of teaching/learning methods

The course content was one of the means through which the meta-goals were to be achieved. The teaching/learning method was another. As Fig. 1 shows, a single process goal could be achieved by a number of different combinations of content and method. A wide variety of teaching methods was used during the course, the choice lying with whoever was conducting a session--normally the member of staff, but on occasions a group of students. We had originally expected joint decision-making between staff and group members, but this expectation was not realised.

(4) Responsibilities of staff and students

All members of the learning organisation, students as well as lecturers, were expected to be jointly responsible for the learning outcomes. This responsibility began with the choice of course content, described earlier, and extended to the teaching of the subject

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4

The Learning Organisation 215

Course content

Organ isational N-b-.. >

Current industrial >

Learning method

IndividuaI project

Invited speaker answers questions researched by students

Case study analysis and presentation

FIG, I,

Meta- goa I

> To organise oneself successfully to ~ achieve assignment

To identify resources in a given situation

To be able to use and tearn from an expert

i To be able to analyse the main elements in a problem

To be able to communicate an analysis clearly in speech and writing

matter itself. A 'block team', constituted from the course members, was assigned to teach some aspect of the subject matter of each block of content. The team approach was an attempt to encourage participants to take responsibility for their own learning and the learning of the organisation as a whole. The group approach also emphasised interdependence between students, as opposed to the individualistic attitude that tends to manifest itself in part-time courses of this kind.

Individual needs, however, were very real and had to be met within the overall framework of the design. Since the choice of presentation, as well as the method through which it would be communicated, was the responsibility of the team members themselves, it was hoped that participants would address issues relevant to them at the time. The method of assessment (described later) further facilitated the achievement of individual goals. In all, about a quarter of student contact time was allocated to team presentations.

Our function as the two course directors was to provide the structure and continuity which the part-time nature of the course demanded. Because we were permanently available, and had access to the resources of the university system, we were able to help the learning organisation to promote the achievement of the specified process or meta- goals. Yeomans (1976) has aptly described the role we aimed to achieve: "The student still needs the teacher. Indeed, the teacher may become even more vital to a student than he was before (if he was vital at all). But always the teacher exists as a resource and facilitator for the student's growth, not as an imposer or giver of knowledge and meaning."

(5) Assessment and assignments

The regulations of the Master's degree in question allow up to 30% of the final mark in any subject to be awarded on the basis of work done during the course, the remaining percentage being gained in the final examination. We decided to exercise this option, and also stipulated that the course-work mark would be earned by the submission of two essays during the academic year. The choice of topics for these assignments was left almost entirely to individual students. They were asked to select some aspect or question in the area covered by the block teams ix~ which they had worked for a particular

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4

216 Studies in Higher Education Vol. 4 No. 2 1979

presentation, and to submit an assignment on this topic within three weeks of the team presentation to the class. We believed that such an arrangement would encourage members to put effort into the block team, since it could constitute direct preparation for the individual assignment. We also expected that freedom of choice would generate sufficient enthusiasm to lead to a high quality of assignment.

In the event, the response varied greatly. At one extreme were those students who grasped the opportunity with both hands and proceeded to study, with great interest and motivation, a subject or problem of direct relevance. At the other were those who even found difficulty in choosing an essay title. This experience underlined a basic point to be kept in mind by anybody adopting a similar approach--namely that in any classroom group, the desire and ability to take part in self-directed, group-orientated learning is likely to vary considerably. For the tutor to impose a group-orientated, cooperative learning style as a replacement for the individualistic, competitive methods traditional in most educational institutions may merely mean the replacement of one form of dictatorship with another. The real challenge of the stance we have chosen to adopt is to allow members to behave divergently, to change ideological positions if they so wish, and yet do so in a way that does not threaten the existence of the organisation as a whole.

Student Behaviour and Perceptions

The course structure we have described was designed to encourage both staff and students to behave in a way conducive to the attainment of the meta-goals described at the outset of the paper. Since the first cycle of this course has been completed, it is appropriate to consider how the students perceived the course at its conclusion and what specific issues arose which can be taken into account in future course design.

Students' perceptions of the course were assessed by using Boydell's (1975) 'Scale for measuring the degree of learner-centredness of a course'. The advantages of this instrument were, first, that it was aimed at providing feedback on the process issues of course experience; secondly, that it had been tested for reliability and validity; and, thirdly, that comparative scores existed against which our own results could be compared. The 48-item questionnaire consisted of 12 dimensions, each of which is summarised below:

(1) Goals--whether goals were set by the tutor alone or with learners. (2) Homogeneity--whether all learners went through the same learning experiences or

not. (3) Sequencing--whether the order in which things were taught was flexible or fixed. (4) Control whether decisions were made by the tutor or with learners. (5) Evaluation--whether evaluation by the tutor was based on his or the learner's goals. (6) Methods--whether a few or a wide variety of teaching methods were used. (7) Tutor-learning relationships--whether the relationships between tutors and students

were distant and formal or close and personal. (8) Group--whether or not people trusted and supported each other. (9) Tutor--whether the tutor was seen as a role or a person.

(10) Feelings--whether the expression of feelings was thought legitimate and encour- aged.

(11) Expository/discovery approach--whether a discovery or an expository approach was used.

(12) Certainty--whether ideas were presented in a positivistic or a relativistic manner.

Fig. 2 contains two sets of scores for this instrument. The first, marked by dotted lines, gives an indication of staff preferences for this course, i.e. the way we hoped it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4

The Learning Organisation 217

would be perceived, in the light of our stated meta-goals. The other shows the average scores obtained from 24 students who completed the instrument at the end of the course. In reflecting on these results, it is worth emphasising that while we were concerned as tutors that the course as a whole should be seen as learner-centred, we did not expect this to be reflected in every individual item. The main point of interest in the figure is the extent to which the students' perception of the course corresponded to our expectations for it.

On some dimensions--for example, tutor-learner relationships and group c l imate-- students have clearly seen the course as we hoped they would. They have also recognised the emphasis on relativism (dimension (12))--that there are no right answers and that each person's opinion is legitimate, provided that it is suitably supported by evidence. This is particularly encouraging, as our approach was not intitially welcomed by students brought up in a positivist, engineering tradition, even though we presented it as essential to the pursuit of the meta-goals of the course.

'Tu tor centered ' ILearner centered t

-12 - I 0 - 8 - 6 - 4 - 2 + 2 + 4 + 6 + 8 +10 +12 I I I I I I I I I ................... I

( 1 ) Go~ls 1 I I kq I I I .. -4 I I - 5"9 / ( 2 ) Homogeneity , I ~Y"|/-'- . - ' ' ' - . - ~ . - 1 - - - , I ~ . , I - 7 - 6

( 5 ) Sequencing I | ~ - ~ " t ~ | I t I t ~-8"2

( 4 ) Con.*ro! I I I ~ - - - j I i I 1 -4"0

( 5 ) Evelo~tie. | I I ~ I_ I I I ........ I - F 3

( 6 ) Meihods ' t 3...... I I - - : 4 I [ L--0"6 /

Tufor- leorr ler ( 7 ) relationships I I I I I l I 1+5"1

( 8 ) Groupciimeie i [ I I I ~ _ 3 q I i 1+7'2

( 9 ) Tutor 1 Ir '~ -~ ~ - ' I ~ 5 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ " - ~ - " ~ S ' ~ 1 ~ ~ " / I i I I - I . 7 \

(10) Feelings L [ 1 I [ " " P ~ I I 1-0"3

/ ' (I I ) Exposilory I [ I I I I t I i ,I-0'9

versus discovery I

(12) Cerlainly 1 1 I I J i I , , i + 5 , 6

Behovioura l Sc ience and Monagement Course ( M . E n g . ) 1 9 7 7 - 7 8

...... Students ' percept ions . . . . Tutors ' expecta t ions

F I G . 2 . Results of the scale for measuring the degree of learner-centredness of a course

In other respects, however, there are discrepancies between our expectations and students' perceptions. The divergence in respect of 'goals' merits particular consideration. Although the course content was negotiated with the students, the lecturers imposed the meta-goals--not least because the concept was assumed to be unfamiliar to students. This has clearly proved unsatisfactory: as noted above, we plan in future to give more time during the course t o the development of meta-goals at the expense of a certain amount of course content.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4

218 Studies in Higher Education Vol. 4 No. 2 1979

The difference of view about the degree of homogeneity of the course is also of interest. This dimension relates to the extent to which learners went through the same learning experience. The students gave it a high tutor-centred score--in some respects an understandable response, since all o f them studied the same content areas, and attended the basic teaching components of each block. Beyond that, however, there was scope for a considerable diversity of learning experience, through the students' own choice of essay topics, the different options for block team presentations, their selection of reading material, and so on. Thus a greater diversity of learning activities took place than was allowed for by students: although this is clearly a feature which we need further to encourage. In particular, we need to overcome what may be the students' understandable desire for homogeneity--the feeling of safety produced by everybody doing the same thing throughout the course.

The response under dimension (4) suggests that we as tutors were perceived by the students to be more controlling than we had intended to be. This could well have been a reflection of our anxieties about sharing responsibilities with students. Since we had to take into account our wider responsibilities to the programme as a whole and to our colleagues, we undoubtedly retained more control than we should ideally have done in pursuit of the meta-goals of the course. But the students' reaction might also reflect their desire to see us as being in charge, and therefore as fitting into their established stereotypes of university teachers.

On the issue of exposition versus discovery as the main learning approach, our concern to cover the course content in a restricted time led us into more exposition than we had intended. This should be partly rectified by the decision to give less emphasis to content and more to goals, but we are also planning to concentrate more explicitly on the discovery approach on future courses. For example, we may ask individual students to present a relevant work situation to the class; the task for the group would then be to explore, with the assistance of staff, what concepts, theories or techniques may be relevant to such situations and how they might best be applied. This seems likely to yield a wider variety of learning experience, as well as to promote discovery learning.

Discussion

The first year of this course has been completed. The writers are currently involved in applying the same ideas to two further courses in a similar context. A number of changes and adjustments have been made, and three central issues have emerged that may be relevant to others interested in adopting a similar approach.

(1) Sharing the responsibility for learning

The sharing of responsibility for learning between the student and the tutor is crucial for the success of the approach. Writing about the role of the trainer in a learning group, McLeish, Matheson & Park (1973) noted that:

The process of devolving responsibility to the individual group members seems to be the most difficult task facing the trainer. Not all trainers are prepared to yield their responsibility. It is part of the trainer role to abdicate authority, and become more and more a member. This means that he must train the group to accept responsibility for their own learning. If he does not incorporate this as an objective, he does the members a disservice: their learning process will be handicapped because of their continued dependence on him.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4

The Learning Organisation 219

A basic difficulty in putting this philosophy into practice is that our students' previous experience of formal education has not encouraged them to take responsibility for their own learning. Knowles (1969) noted how dependent students were on teachers to diagnose their needs, formulate their learning objectives, tell them what they needed to know, and evaluate their progress and performance. We have somehow to convince our students that we are committed to the concept of shared responsibility: but at the same time, unless we start with a certain amount of structure, the degree of anxiety among participants could be so high as to inhibit any possibility of learning. We have come to share Handy's view that the learner first needs to be dependent on the teacher, and then counter-dependent, before moving finally to a position of independence. We are therefore prepared to be relatively directive during the early part of the course, provided that we can build in a process which encourages the students' ultimate independence.

Other writers, Douglas (1978) among them, have stressed the gradual nature of the process:

It is not a good thing to think that people can be self-directing without some help in first recognising what such a way of existing actually entails ... the development [in self-sufficiency] should be allowed to conform to the needs of those involved and not be imposed as part of some philosophy which sees self-direction as a desirable end in itself without reference to the needs and abilities of group members.

We have therefore decided to raise the issue of responsibility for learning at an earlier stage in the total programme. One of us also teaches a course in the first year of the three year programme, and the idea that the student should be actively engaged in the design of his learning is now introduced during that course. Another promising means of building responsibility for learning is likely to be through the early articulation and periodic review of the students' own learning objectives. This strategy requires students to make explicit what they are seeking from the course; and the review of their progress against such objectives can lead naturally to the consideration of what they need to learn next.

Our original design lacked a short-term planning/acting/evaluation cycle, but we are now convinced that group planning should occur with each block. On our current courses, each block concludes with an evaluation which contributes to the next round of plans. This short planning cycle can put tremendous strains on a teacher working on his own, but the pressure is eased considerably if he works with a colleague. It lessens still further as students begin to take on more responsibility for the planning, execution and evaluation of their own learning.

(2) Competitive orientations

One of the main difficulties we experienced in applying a learning organisation approach stemmed from the competitive attitudes which characterise students from the business world. This competitiveness is particularly evident in the block team presentations, where individual members typically seek to out-perform one another. Johnson & Johnson (1975) distinguished between 'cooperative', 'competitive' and 'individualistic' goal structures in learning. They comment that "competing with and defeating an opponent is one of the most widely recognised aspects of interpersonal interaction in our society. No wonder that competitive behaviour persists where it is not appropriate". They go on to support Miles' (1959) assertion that "For most adults today, the abilities required to work effectively as a leader or a member of a co-operative group do not come naturally, perhaps because our traditional educational system has generally ignored or discouraged shared effort."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4

220 Studies in Higher Education Vol. 4 No. 2 1979

In retrospect, our difficulties seem to have stemmed in part from not paying sufficient attention to the establishment of a climate which encouraged mutual trust and stressed cooperative endeavour. Temporal's (1976) work on blocks to management learning highlighted, among other inhibitors, the uncritical reinforcement of existing cultural assumptions about what is good or bad, right or wrong, which has the effect of restricting the learner's imagination, inquisitiveness and readiness to take intellectual risks. A further set of barriers may take the form of environmental constraints in which the learner's wider context, together with the particular "learning climate' which builds up within the course, can combine to inhibit effective performance. Environmental constraints can include the examination system, the pattern of available contact hours and the teaching styles used in other aspects of the programme.

(3) The learning organisation in a traditional environment

Finally, there is the issue of whether it is genuinely possible to create a satisfactory learning organisation, of the kind we have been discussing, within a university degree course. What people do within a learning organisation will be affected by the environment of that system as well as by its internal design. In the present case, the most influential external element is undoubtedly the traditional academic institution within which the activity takes place. It has been implied, for example, that there may be so great a discrepancy between what it is hoped a student will do in the learning organisation, and the behaviour encouraged by the wider system, as to undermine the whole exercise. On this argument, it is fruitless to adopt innovative approaches within courses and institutions that are traditionally conceived.

We see the force of this argument, although we do not accept it. Our own experiences within the higher education system suggest that, for the most part, the emphasis is on teaching students subject matter, or content, rather than helping students to learn how to learn. Universities have an unparalleled expertise in developing student abilities in the cognitive areas of learning, and this emphasis is supported by most course structures and assessment procedures, quite apart from the more subtle influences through the dominant value systems in the institution.

The effects of this conventional system on an innovative approach such as that described here are predictable and have already been alluded to. We can take assessment as a common example. Many of the insights which students appeared to experience in this behavioural science course were to do with process issues which arose in the programme itself; and this must create doubts about the relevance of conventional assessment procedures to such learning. In turn, this creates tension in a student's mind, between concentrating on the 'here and now' with all the learning opportunities it contains, and concentrating on the 'content' of the recommended reading, which is most likely to be usable in essays or examinations.

However, although we acknowledge these difficulties, we firmly reject the implication that innovative courses can only take place outside the higher education system. It seems to us that the more constructive approach is to take the view that course design, teaching matters and assessment procedures can be adapted to take into account new ideas about learning. The question is how best to bring about these changes.

It is possible to distinguish the 'macro' from the 'micro' approach to change. Action learning would be an example of the former, which is particularly relevant to management education. Originally developed by Professor R. W. Revans (1971) in the early 1950s, this approach centres on a real organisational task as the basis of learning. The main idea is that significant managerial learning is most likely to occur as the manager grapples with the complexities of bringing about real organisational change, and as he reflects upon his activities with other managers (Casey & Pierce 1977). Such an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4

The Learning Organisation 221

approach is radically different from that favoured in most institutions of higher education, and the early development took place outside that system. However, it is worth noting that several academic institutions are now operating course designs based on these ideas. For example the Management Practice Programme offered by the Irish Management Institute leads to the award of a Masters Degree by Trinity College Dublin, while the North East London Polytechnic offers an Action Learning Programme leading to an MSc degree.

Alternatively, as we have tried to do here, one can adopt a 'micro' approach: namely, to work within existing institutional structures and to bring about change from within. Although it is usual to emphasise the difficulties and constraints of the conventional university system, it is important also to stress the opportunities it provides. At a mundane level, most regulations contain ambiguities and scope for discretion, and these can be exploited to the full by the potential innovator. Another advantage is that one is under less commercial pressure than one is in a consultancy firm or an independent training unit. Most students who undertake a degree course do not come expecting neatly packaged answers, and have proved receptive to the more exploratory learning style discussed here. Above all, there is the belief that what one is doing is consistent with the basic values of the higher education system as it should be, although not necessarily with what it presently is.

Postscript The modifications we have made on the basis of the lessons learned from our initial experiment seem to be helping students better to cope with the identification and achievement of process goals; although we expect that the course will continue to evolve with experience.

However, we have now begun to identify new areas in need of development. For instance, the process goals are at present framed in broad and undemanding terms: as students become more knowledgeable about what they involve, there will be a new challenge to refine and clarify such goals. Again, the concept of process goals needs to be applied beyond the confines of the present behavioural science courses: if they are to have their full impact on student learning, they will need to be taken into account throughout the whole range of courses in the degree programme.

Correspondence: Andrzej Huczynski, Department of Management Studies, University of Glasgow, 25 Bute Gardens, Glasgow G 12 8RS.

REFERENCES

BROWN, G.I, (1976) The Live Classroom: Innovation through Confluent Education and Gestalt (Esalen Books, Penguin, USA).

BOYDELL, T. (1975) A course-description questionnaire, Management Education and Development, 6, pp. 175-t86.

BURGOYNE, J.G. & STUART, R. (1976) The nature, use and acquisition of managerial skills and other attributes, Personnel Review, VoL 5, No. 4.

CASE¥, M.D. & PIERCE, D.J. (1977) More than Management Development (London, Gower Press). DOUGLAS, T. (1978) Basic Groupwork (Tavistock). DUNBAR, R.LM. A Proposal to the AACSD Western Electric Fund Programme for Educational Innovation in

Higher Education in Business Administration (Southern Methodist University, mimeo, no date). HANDY, C.B. (1973) Reflections on the Way to a Philosophy o f Education (London Business School, mimeo). HERON, J. (1974) The Concept of the Peer Learning Community (Department of Adult Education, University of

Surrey).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4

222 Studies in Higher Education Vol. 4 No. 2 1979

JOHNSON, D.W. & JOHNSON, R.T. (1975) Learning Together and Alone (London, Prentice-Hall Inc.). KNOWLES, M.S. (1969) An experiment with group self-directed learning: the learning teaching team, in Rundel,

P., Harrison, R. & Runkel, M. (Eds) The Changing College Classroom (Jossey-Bass). KOLB, D.A,, RUmN, I.M. & MClNTYRE, J.N. (1971) Organizational Psychology: An Experiential Approach

(London, Prentice-Hall Inc.). MCLEISH, J., MATHESON, W. & PARK, J. (1973) The Psychology of the Learning Group (London, Hutchinson). MEGGINSON, D. & PEDLER, M. (1976) Developing structures and technology for the learning community,

Journal of European Training, Vol. 5, No. 5. MILES, M.B. (1959) Learning to Work in Groups (Teachers College, Columbia University, Bureau of

Publications). PEDLER, M. (1974) Learning in management education, Journal of European Training, Vol. 3, No. 3. PEDLER, M., BURGOYNE, J. & BOYDELL, T. (1978) A Manager's Guide to Self-Development (London, McGraw-

Hill). REVANS, R.W. ( 1971 ) Developing Effective Managers (Praeger). ROGERS, C.R. (1969) The interpersonal relationship in the facilitation of learning, in Freedom to Learn

(Merrill). TEMPORAL, P. (1976) Foundation for Management Education: Research and Development Programme in

Management Education: a Report (Sheffield Polytechnic, Regional Management Centre). YEOMANS, T. (1976) Search for a working model: gestalt, psychosynthesis and confluent education, in BROWN,

G.I., op. cit.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

5:21

11

Oct

ober

201

4