ff

.;{:

Learning,
innovation,
and
knowledgemanagement

These two chapters have in common a focus on deliberate processes of learning within
organizations.However, each chapter considersquite different types of learning.Thus while
C h a p t e r ' l0 e x a m i n e so r g a n i z a t i o n a
l el a r n i n gi n g e n e r a l ,C h a p t e r1 1 h a s a m o r e s p e c i f i ca n d
rarrow focus on processesof organizational innovation.However,this is not to suggest these
:oo,cs are unrelated.There is obviouslymuch overlapbetween the chapters,as processesof
n n o v a t i o nm a n a g e m e nat r e v e r y m u c h a b o u t l e a r n i n gH , s Meeuset al.(2001)argue,
. owevera
'.vhileinnovationprocessescan be characterizedas a type of learning,they representa very
specificand distinctivetype of learning.lt is beyond the scope of this introductorysection to
'learning' 'innovatlon'.
l e f i n e w h a t i s m e a n tb y t h e t e r m s and T h i si s p r i m a r i l yb e c a u s ea, s w i l l b e
seen in each chapter,doing so is not straightforwardand involvesengagingwith debates and
: o m p e t i n gd e f i n i t i o n s .
Chapter10 examinesthe contemporaryliteratureon learningin organizations,
lnterest in this
s,lbjectpredatedthe explosionof interestin knowledgemanagementby a few years. However,
:rere is an enormousoverlapbetween the subjects.In fact it is impossible(and inaccurate)to
:efine learningand knowledgeprocessesas being separateand distinct phenomena.Tryingto
:efine where learningends and knowledgeprocessesbegin is a futile process,as knowledge
3'ocessescan be characterizedas being about learning,or to put it the oppositeway, learning
.rocessescan be characterized as knowledgeprocesses.One of the centralfocusesin Chapter'lO
s the debate over the concept and characterof 'the learningorganization'that, as will be seen,
:an be characterized as involvingtwo diametricallyopposedperspectives.
'1
Chapter1 by contrastfocuses more narrowlyon organizational innovationprocesses,which
^cludesR&D activities,as well as what some peopleterm new product
development(NPD).This
:lapter starts from the basic premiss that innovationprocessesare fundamentallyknowledge
:'ocesses, which is the way Nonaka,arguablythe most well-knownwriter in the contemporary
..rowledgeliterature,characterizes
innovationprocesses.
ryffiffi
andknowledge
Learning
management

Introduction

As Figure 1.1 indicates, a growth of interest in both learning in organizations and

knowledge management occurred at very similar times. This is to a large extent no acci-
dent, and indicated the interrelatednessof theseissues.Ultimately, learning, whether at
the level of the individual, group, or organization, is about improving and developing
knowledgeability: changing ideas,values, and/or behaviours through a change or trans-
formation in understanding. This can involve the acquisition and application of new
knowledge/practices, the reconfiguration of existing bodies of knowledge/practices,
refining existing knowledge/practice,or the application of existing knowledge/practiceto
a novel context. Thus, while the precise relationship between learning and knowledge
management is unclear, their relatednessis unquestionable(Thomas et al. 2001). The
purpose of this chapter is to consider the ways the learning literature links with
the topic of knowledge management, and how it can help to understand the dynamics of
organizational knowledge processes.
Given the enormity of the body of work on organizational learning this representsa
formidable task. In the spaceof one chapter it is impossible to outline, let alone examine
in detail, all the issuesraisedby the organizational learning literature. Thus, deliberately,
this chapter narrowly focuseson the learning literature from the late 1990sand is further
only concerned with how this literature relatesto the subject of knowledge management.
Even with this narrow focus, the increasing overlap of interest that occurred between the
learning and knowledge management literature between 1995 and 2OO2(on the import-
ance of social and cultural issues,on group-level processes/and on social constructivist/
practice-basedperspectiveson knowledge-Easterby-Smith et al. 2000; Vince et al.2OO2)
meansthat there is still much to examine.
As with the generalperspectiveof the book, a critical perspective,is taken to the descrip-
tive, prescriptive, and optimistic literature on learning which conveys the idea that it is
relatively straightforward to become a learning organization. This is because,despite the
rhetoric which suggeststhat all organizations are becoming learning organizations, there
aremany who arguethat leaming is still something that few organizationsdo well or do at
@ I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E I \ 4 E N T

all (Farr 2000; Hedbergand Wolff 2001; Salaman2001; Snell 2001; Weick and Westley
1996). This chapter examines the factors that help explain why this is the case,and why
genuine learning can be difficult to achievewithin the context of work organizations.
The chapter begins by very briefly examining the difficulties involved in defining what
learning is. After this, the next major sectionexaminesthe dlmamicsof learningin organ-
izations, and the relationship betweenindividual, group and organizational-levellearn-
ing processes. The largestsectionin the chapterthen examinesthe debateon the learning
organization concept,which provides a useful way of discussingsome of the key issues
which link the learning and knowledge managementliteratures.As will be seen,issues
raisedby the critics of the learning organizationrhetoric, such asthe need to accountfor
power, as well as the broad context of the employment relationship, link closely with
someof the key issuesdevelopedin Part 2 of the book, and in Chapter 7 in particular.

Characterizinglearning

It would seemsensibleto begin the chapterby defining learning. However,such a task is

by no meanseasydue to the diversity of deflnitions which exist. In fact, one of the char-
acteristicsof the literatureon learning in organizationsis a lack of theoreticalconsensus
(Berthoin Antal et al. 2OOl; Crossanet al. 1,999).Ironically, the only consensusin this

T a b l e1 0 . 1 .T y p o l o g i e
o sf l e a r n i n g

Frameworks Concepts/Levels Description

LearningModes Cognitive Learningas a changein intellectual

conceptsand
f rameworks(atindividualor grouplevel).
Cultural group-based
Changein lntersubjective, values,
conceptsor f rameworks.
Behavioural/Action
based Learningoccursprimarily throughactionfollowed
by a processof criticalreflection.
Learning Types Single-loop Incremental
changeswithina coherent
frameworkof theory.
Double-loop Learning
whereexistingtheories/assumptions
arequestioned
and reflectedon.
Deutero The highestlevelof learningwhich involvesthe
processof learningand reflectionitselfbeing
questoneo.
LearningLevels Individual Changesin the behaviouror theoriesand
conceptsof an individual.
Group Changesln grouplevel,sharedunderstandings
or
practrces.
Organizational Institutionalization
at organizational
levelof
changesin behaviour/theory.
ln+^r^r^^^i,^+i^^^l
i l r Lgr ur 9or i l aoLut tol Learning level-for
at supra-organizational
examplewithina networkor sectoT.
 L E A R N I NAGN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T

subiect areaappearsto be on the lack of consensusthat existswithin itl The heterogeneous

and relatively fragmented nature of the literature on learning is partly becauseit is such a
broad, multidisciplinary topic. Thus learning in organizationshas been written about by
economists,managementscientists,psychologists,sociologists,historians,and anthro-
pologists, all of whom conceptualize it in different ways.
Thus, instead of providing a single definition of learning, Table 10.1 gives an overview
of some of the most important ways that learning in organizations has been characterized
(for a more detailedexamination of the different taxonomiesof learning which exist see
Pawlovsky2001).Thesetypologiesale not examined in detail becausenot only do con-
straints of spacemake it impossible to do justice to the depth of debate,but the debateon
thesetypologiesbecamesomewhatdormant during the mid-1990s(Easterby-Smith et aI'
2000).Thus, most of the contemporarylearning literature makesonly passingreference
to these frameworks. Presenting such a summarized overview illustrates the complexity
of the topic and the diversity of ways in which learning has been conceptualized'

The dynamicsof organizationallearning

While the central concern of the chapter is on learning within organizations, this does
not mean that there is an exclusivefocus on organizational-level learning. As will be seen,
learning in organizations can be characterized as involving a d;,rramic reciprocity
between learning processesat the individual, group, and organizational level. Before
presenting a conceptual model that outlines the interrelationship between these
processesit is useful to define and discussthe term organizational learning. Organizations
can be understoodto learn, not becausethey'think' and'behave' independently of the
people who work within them (they cannot), but through the embedding of individual
and group learning in organizationalprocesses, routines,structures,databases, systemsof
rules,etc. (Hedberg1981;Shrivastava1983). For example, organizational learning would
be where insights developedby an individual or group result in a systematic transforma-
tion of the organization's work practices/values.However, it is wrong to equate organiza'
tional learning asbeing simply the sum of individual and group learning processes(Vince
2001). Organizationallearning only occurswhen learning at the individual or group level
impacts on organizational-level processesand structures. But such a transition is by no
meansautomatic. For this to be achievableorganizations need to be able to sustain critical
reflection on their establishednorms and practices.It is thus possible, as will be seenin
the example of Hyder presentedlater in the chapter, that learning can occur at individual
and group levels, but nofproduce learning at the organizational level'

Theembedding andgroup-level
ofindividual- in organizational
learning andprocesses,
structures
throughreflecting
achieved on and the
modifying normsand values
embodied in established
processes
:rganizational andstructures.
@ INNOVATION
A N D K N O W L E D G EI V 1 A N AEGM E N T

Individual Group Organization

Feedforward

lntuiting
I n d i v i ud a l Attending Interpreti
ng
Experimenting
f+

ie
Group _o
Integrating
E
Organization
Institutiona
lizing

Fig.10.1.The modifiedCrossanet al. model(fromZietsmaetal.2002\

This complex interrelationship between learning at different levels is taken account of

in the Crossan-Zietsma framework of organizational learning. This framework was
initially devisedby Crossanet al. (1999), but was usefully modified by Zietsma et al.
(2002)with the addition of two action-basedlearning processes to supplementthe more
cognitively focusedprocesses of Crossanet al. The relationship betweenthe six learning
processes and three levelsof learning in the Crossan-Zietsmaframework is illustrated in
Figure10.1.
Descriptions of the learning processesrand the levels at which they exist are outlined in
Table 10.2. In the framework, the six learning processeslink the three levels of learning
through two opposing dy'namics:feed forward and feedbackloops. The feed forward loop,
alternatively referredto asan exploration-based learning process,involves the development
and assimilation of new knowledge. Exploration thus startswith individual-level learning,
through intuition or attending, and then builds to both group- and organizationlevel
learning through interpretation, experimentation, integration, and institutionalization
processes.The feedback loop, by contrast, referred to as an exploitation-basedlearning
process,involves the utilization of existing knowledge, whereby institutionalized learning
guidesand affectshow groups and individuals act and think. However,while feed forward
and feedbacklearning loops involve moving between learning processesat different levels,
such movement cannot be assumedto happen automatically or unproblematically. Thus,
for example, it can be difficult for someoneto take an individual-level insight, articulate it
to a group, and for this to develop into a shared,agreedupon, collective insight.
One of the core themes in the Crossan-Zietsmaframework is the tension that exists
betweenexploration (the development and acquisition of new knowledge)and exploitation
(the utilization of existing knowledge).This tension existsbecauseprocessesof exploration
may bring into question, challenge,undermine and even replaceinstitutionalized norms
 L E A R N I N GA N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T @
Table 10.2. characteristicsof learningprocessin crossan-Zietsmamodel

Processname Level ProcessdescriPtion

lntuition lndividual processinvolving

Cognitive the preconsclous
of patterns.lntuitionis highly
recognition
and rootedin individual
subjective experience.

Attending lndividual Action-basedindividualprocessof activeiy

searchingfor and absorbingnew ideas.

lnterpretation roup
Individual-G Explaining personalinsightsthroughwords or
process,where an
actions.lt can be an rndividual
individualactivelyinterpretstheirown insights,or
a groupprocesswhere individual insightsare
sharedanddiscussedcollectively.

Experimenting Individual-Group Attemptingto implementand utilizenew learning

throughactualpractices
of change.

lntegration Group-Organization sharedunderstandings

Developing and practices,
whichcanoccurthroughboth dialogueand
action.
coordinated

Organization action
The processof ensuringthat routinized
lnstitutionalization
occursthroughembeddinginsightsin
systems& processes
organizational

(knowledgeand practice) embeddedin exploitation processes.This is a potentially serious

'learning that has becomeinstitutional-
tension because,asCrossanet al. argue(1999, 534)
ized atthe organizational level is often difficult to change.'Thus the institutionalization of
to
learning has the potential risk that such a processcan introduce rigidities and an inability
adapt and changethrough a blinkering processthat leavesinstitutionalized norms unques-
tioned. Thus when instituflonalized norms become powerful and dominant, for example
'competency traps'
through being successful,they can turn into what has been defined as
rvhereorganizationsbecome locked in to previously successfulloutines through not noti-
1995;
cing or effectively accounting for changed ctucumstances(Bettis and Prahalad
of
Levinthal and March 1993).To help explain the Crossan/Zietsmaframework, an example
its application is presentedimmediately below.

Resistingand embracing learning:the case of MacMillan Bloedel

]etsmaeta|.(2002)presentaninterestingcasestudyofanorganizationwhichfor|ongperiods
::tively resistedchange,but which eventually undertook a radicaltransformation MacMillan
which for a longtime was in the vanguard of
I cedel(MB)is a Canadian forestrycompany,
'clearcutting'forestrymanagement inthefaceof extensiveandwidespread
::fendingthe useof
:coosition froma rangeof protesters.In termsof the CroSSan framework thiswas becauseMB
,,,asfocusedon exptorationfieedback learningprocesses, which involved the and
utilization
 A N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T
@ INNOVATION

refinementof existingpracticesand values.In MB, these institutionalized norms were extremely

powerful and dominant,which activelylnhibited,if not prevented,feed forward, or exploration-
t h e e x i s t i n gv a l u e si n a n y w a y . I n M B t h i s m e a n t t h e l o g l co f
b a s e dl e a r n i n gw h i c h c h a l l e n g e d
clear-cuttingforestrymanagementwas never seriouslyquestioned.This occurredbecauseMB
'legitlmacy
developeda specificform of competencytrap, which Zietsmaet al. labelleda trap',
. l e g i t i m a c yt r a p o c c u r s w h e r e t h e
w h i c h s i g n i f i c a n t l iyn h i b i t e dl e a r n i n g A a r g u m e n t so f an

individual/group are ignoredor regardedas worthlessas the legitimacyof the group/individual to

protesters
make relevantargumentsare questioned.In the case of MB, the argumentsof the
were disregardedas seniormanagementbelievedthat they did not understand the detailedtech-

nlcaland economicfactorsaffectingforestrybusinesspractices.Resistance to the arguments of

l o t i o n a il s s u e s .T h u s ,m a n y o f M B ' s s e n i o r
t h e p r o t e s t e r sw a s a l s o r e l a t e dt o i n d i v i d u a l - l e veem
managerswere reluctantto listen to the arguments of the protestersas they felt this challenged
and underminedthe moralityof their traditionalvalues and businesspractices.However over
(including
t i m e , c h a n g ea n d l e a r n i n gd i d b e g i nt o o c c u r ,w i t h v a r i o u si s o l a t e di n d l v i d u a lisn M B
p u b l i cr e l a t i o n s t a f fa n df i e l dm a n a g e r sa) d a p t i n gt h e i rt h i n k i n gT. h i so c c u r r e dn o t s i m p l yt h r o u g h
'attending'(see
a processof intuition,but also through an activeprocessZietsmaet al. labelas
Table10.2),where these individualsactivelyengagedin a dialoguewith the protestersto develop
a better understandingof their perspectiveand arguments.These isolated,individuallearning
processesthen developedinto isolatedgroup-levellearningthrough processesof group-level
interpretationand experimenting.This involvedgroupsof individualscoming togethernot only to
practices.
share their views, but actively experiment with alternativeforestry management
Finally,after a new CEO was appointedthis learningbecame institutionalized,with the view-
pointsof the protestersbecomingacceptedand discussedat boardIevel.This institutionalization

of learningbecame highlyvisiblewhen MB eventuallygave up clear-cuttingpracticesaltogether

and shiftedto a differentstyle of forestrymanagement.

learningoccurrlngat
of the new CEOto organizational-level
How significantwas the appointment
relatedto the attitudes
learning
MB? To what extentarecompetencytrapsthat inhibitorganizational
and behavioursof seniormanagement in organizations?

The learningorganization:emancipationof exploitation?

As outlined in the introduction, the literature on organizational learning is characterized

by a diversity of theoretical perspectives.One specifictopic that has produced an enor-
mous amount of debate and heated argument is the learning organization' It is worth-
while examining the contours of this debate,as doing so shedslight on somekey issues'
crudely, those engaged in this debate can be classified into two broad camps: the
visionariesoI utopian propagandistsand the scepticsor gloomy pessimists(Friedman
et al. 2001).The visionary/propagandists camp,whosemost well-known and ploliflc writ-
ers include PeterSenge(1990)and Mike Pedler(Pedleret al' t997), is largely dominated
 L E A R N I NAGN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T

by consultantsand industrial practitioners(Driver 2002).This camp portraysthe learning

organization as an achigvabfe.j_dealwith significant bgnqfits. for both organizations
enOth-eiiworters.ftre sceptic/pessimisticcamp,which is largelypopulatedby academics,
.frafie.tgei'ihi, p..rp".tive and pours scorn on the claims of the learning organiza-
tion propagandists(Levitt and March 1988; Weick and Westley 1996). Primarily these
n-riters,with Coopey (1995, 1998)being one of the most incisive, arguethat despitethe
emancipatory rhetoric of the learning organization discourse, in reality it is likely to
provide a way to buttressthe power of managementand is thus likely to lead to increased
exploitation of and control over workers, rather than in their emancipation and
self-development.
This section examinesthe two dominant perspectivesin this debate,simultaneously
uncovering and focusing on key issuessuch as power, the natule of the employment
relationship,and trust, which have been shown in Part 2 tobe key to understandingthe
d;mamicsof knowledgeprocesses, and which thus helps to link the learning and knowledge
literatures.

The learningorganization:the advocatesvision

Constraints of spacemake it impossible to elaborateall the different learning organization

frameworksdevelopedby its different advocates(Pedler,Senge,Garvin, among others).
This section focusescentrally on the way Pedler et al. conceptualize it. However, there is
much commonality to theseframeworks,therefore,there is a generalresonancebetween
the broad characteristicsof thesedifferent models.Pedleret al. (1997,3) definethe learn-
'or.g_u1ttz;4tion
which facilitates the learning of all its members
ing organization as an,
and consciouslytransforms itself and its co-ptex!'.Their learning organization frame-
wuIpi3'aTjtt?ldboiatedfnto"eleven speciflccharacteristics(seeTable 10.3). A key element
of this definition is that there is a mutual, positive synergy between the organizational
context and the learning of its members.Thus in a learning organization,the organiza-
tional context should facilitate the learning of organizational staff, with this learning in
turn sustaining and contributing to the ongoing transformation of the organizational
context.
One of the articulated orgaliza,lto;1a-l advantag,e.l.9l""th9Jg?,{Si+.9-9j93}-1.:9jl-93".!-T?-{ls:
'p--9o-g-!i,ng-en-gy-!he-,o-11-t9rp-qL!9
work is that it is qpprop_riate-,
-
-t!-I-9..q,q-+-!,e.pP-olqly..!9!11--T.:...
-.-
. ,-. i
enViro-n-me.nf rySSb_tSjnSgtly.,qfrg4qleripgd ?t beipg h-rgtr.1yeompetitlv*e--a:..d--t-U$--!l,l-9!J.
filrrison and Leitch 2000; Salaman 2001). qlgS_ry-z*-i_o_ls
Jl-:"r.,"_il"-CU-.-h^.-cjrsiru.s*!-4-I-lqe.C
regr4leJo.contlnually-"adapt"apd..change, wilh- the_1$-o-p-!-!o!--9f organization
1l-1e--1,9?rning
bqing glguedte ma5-e- itris possiure. on" oi ttt. *1"1ng"!h1!ai9"tttJf6-F.-.4:
J1-qg,g,y_oft
lg3rniqggrgaqilqtiqp_ii!bS*{o:9",1!.9! it jq..flelible,-4ngth4! thll-proJl-q-ql9--189!t
"zAlt"g-l-s-
p-o.-siliqr,I
*itn tfr. ability-to.qqtrlgy_e-44d!-e-t-ai!.4 a,{yqltage,Implicitly (and
qf 9-omp-e!it11r9
iimetimesexplicitly)thelearningorganization is regarded asthe antithesisof traditional
highly cenlla1ized and liierarchicai syslems
9gl9?1cru.i"h.w-hlplr--erSrgCalqgg tha"ing
of managementand qonarol.Instead,the learningorganizationls typigallyconceptual-
flat structure,opencommunicationsystems,
pgl_atively limited top down
]-zedashaving4
control, apd autonomous working conditions (Driver2002).
INNOVATIOA
N N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T

Table 10.3. The earningcompanyframeworkof Pedleret al. ('j997)

Focus Core characteristics Description

Strategy (1) Learning

Approachto Strategymaking-implementation-
Strategy evaluation
structuredas learning
processes-for examplew,th
experimentsandfeedbackloops.
(2) Participative
Policy-Making Allow allorganizational
members
opportunityto contributeto makingof
majorpolicydecisions.
Looking in (3) Informating Useof lT to empowerstaffthrough
widespreadinformation dissemination
and havingtoleranceto how it is
in+arnrata.l anri r rcarl

(4) FormativeAccounting Useof accounting practices

which
and Control contributeto learningcombinedwith a
senseof self-responsibility,
where
individuals/groups
encouraged to regard
themselvesas responsiblefor cost
management.
(5) InternalExchange Constant, opendialoguebetween
i n d i v i d u aal sn dg r o u pw i t h i na n
organization, and encouraging
collaboration not competition.
(6) RewardFlexibility New ways of rewardingpeoplefor
learningcontribution
which may not be
andwhere principles
solelyfinancial, of
rewardsystemareexplicit.
Structures (7) Enabling
Structures Useof looseand adaptablestructures
whichprovideopportunitiesfor
organizational
and individual
development.
Looking
out (8) Boundary
Workersas The bringingin to an organization
of
Environmental
Scanners ideasandworkingpracticesdeveloped
and usedexrernally-anopennessand
receptivity
to learningfrom others.
(9) Intercompany
Learning U s eo l m u t u a l lay d v a n t a g e o u
l esa r n i n g
activities with customers,suppliersetc.
Learntng ('lO) Learning
Climate Facilitatethe willingness
of staffto
Opportunities take risksandexperiment, whichcan be
encouraged by seniormanagement taking
the lead.Peoplenot punishedfor
criticizing
orthodoxviews.
(11) Self-Development Haveopportunitiesfor allstaffto be
Opportunities
for All ableto developthemselvesas theysee
appropilate.
 L E A R N I N GA N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E I V E N T @

Learningorganization(propagandists)

An organizationwhichsupportsthe learningof itsworkersandallowsthemto expressandutilizethis

throughhavingan organizational
of the organization, which
environment
to the advantage
learning
e n c o u r a g eesx p e r i m e n t a t iroi snk,t a k i n ga, n do p e nd i a l o g u e '

the
However, the advocates such as Pedler are clear that the benefits of utllizing
learning organizationframework areby no meansconflned to improving organizational
and
performance.Instead,an inherent element of theseframeworksis that management
workersalikewill benefit from their adoption. In fact one of the articulatedconsequences
workersare
of utilizing theseframeworksis that the divisionsbetweenmanagementand
organ-
likely to becomeblurred. As is clearfrom all elevencharacteristicsof the learning
through the creation of a working
ization framework (seeTable 10.3), workers beneflt
where the
environment where levels of participation in maior decisions ale high,
be creative
opinions of all are valued, and where there are opportunities for workers to
and develoPthemselves.

structuresantithetical
organizational learning?
to organizatlonal
Towhat extentarebureaucratic
network (see
structures Chapter12)more conducive to, and of
supportive
\re flexibleor
r r q a n i z a t l o nl ea al r n i n g ?

of such a
one element, which is argued to be necessaryand centlal to the creation
(Sadler2001; Snell 2001)' For
rvorkingenvironment, is a particulartlpe of leadershipstyle
teachels' and
exampleleadersin learning organizationsrequireto be learnersasmuch aS
style is neces-
that they should also have loles as coachesor mentols. Such a leadership
and learning of workers, but to alsomake
sarynot only to actively stimulatethe curiosity
the contradictions
leadersSensitiveand responsiveto the opinions of wolkers. Howevet,
organizational
of the learning organizationadvocatesregardingthe role and style of that
later when looking at the critique of this per-
managementshould have are discussed
its application in practice,with the
spective.Beforedoing this it is useful to illustrate
resultsof this processpointing towardsthe criticismsof this perspective.

A learningorganization?

-larrisonand Leitch (2000) applied Pedler's learning organizationframework to what they

:escribe as a knowledge-intensivecompany,a small software developmentcompany' wnlcn

graduates.The company had a flat organizational hierarchy,and
:mployed a largeproportionof
Harrisonand Leitch used a surveyto
siructuredwork aroundflexible,temporaryprojectteams
a learning organization'
ientify whether the company demonstrated the characteristicsof
 INNOVATIOA
N N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T

The surveywas sent to three levelsof workers: the ManagingDirector(MD), senior managers,
and projectteam members. Eachrespondentwas asked questionson both how thev perceived
the companyto be, and how they would like it to be, with the differencebetween these scores
representingwhat Pedleret al. calleda dissatisfactionindex. One of most interestingfindings
was that a consistentdifferenceexisted,acrossall three levelsof the hierarchy,in terms of the
d i s s a t i s f a c t i oinn d e x .T h u s t h e M D h a d n e g a t i v ea v e r a g es c o r e o f _ 1 . 2 a / oi,n d i c a t i n gt h a t h e
thought the company exceeded his expectationsin terms of supporting staff learning.By
contrast,the averagescore for senior managerswas 1B.2ok,while that for project staff was
3 8 1 o k . T h u s s e n i o rm a n a g e r s a
, n d m o r e s p e c i f i c a l l py r o j e c ts t a f f , h a d d i f f e r e n tp e r c e p t i o n s
regardingthe extent to which the organizationsupportedtheir learning.However, there was
evidencethat the company displayedthe characteristics of a learningorganizationas the MD
addressedsome of these concerns,despitehis own feelings.One areawhere tnrswas done was
'reward
flexibility'(seeTable10.3),where issuesraisedby staff were dealtwith. However,there
were other areasof disagreement,such as in relationto 'structures'whereno conclusiveresolu-
tion was achieved.Harrisonand Leitchconcludeby suggestingthat the consistencyof difference
in satlsfactionlevels,'raisesthe possibilityof substantialdifferencesin internalpolicy-making and
p r i o r i t i z a t i ow
n ,h i c h w i l l b r i n gi n t o p l a yi s s u e so f c o n fl i c ta n d p o w e r r e l a t i o n s .( '11 3 ) .

Are suchdifferences typical?Towhat extentarethe interestsof workersand managerswith regards

to learninglikelyto be in conflict?Further,
doesthis suggestthattherearefew, true learninq
organizations?

Arguably, though this is not how Harrison and Leitch see it, the differences in
satisfactionlevelsfound could be interpreted as indicating that there are irreconcilable
differencesbetween senior managementand workers,which make it likely that conflict
will be inherent and unavoidable.This representsone of the main critiquesput forward
by Coopey of the leaming organization framework, and is an issue that will thus be
elaboratedin detail in the following section.

The learning organization:the sceptics' perspective

The arguments of the learning organization advocateshave produced an enormous

amount of debate(Easterby-Smith1997;Tsang1997).This sectionexaminesthe critique
put forward by those who have been labelled the pessimistsor sceptics.The critique is
structuredinto three broad, but interrelated areas:the nature of the employment rela-
tionship, the need to account for power, and how individual factors, such as emotion,
shapepeople'swillingnessto learn.

Commitment, trust, and employment relationship

Central to Coopey's(1995, 1998) critique of the learning organization rhetoric is that
there is a fundamental contradiction that is not addressed,regarding the power and
authority of management.On the one hand, asoutlined previously,Pedler'svision of the
 L E A R N I NAGN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E I V E N T

learning organization-characterized by the suppolt and encouragement given to open

discussionand risk-free critical debate,as well as the importance of democratic decision-
making processes-requires organizational managersto sharepower much more than in
traditional organizations.However,on the other hand, Pedlertakesfor grantedthe legit-
imacy of both shareholder rights, enshrined in company law, as well as management's
authority and right to managein their shareholdersinterests(Coopey 1995, 195)' Thus,
while the learning organization rhetoric suggeststhat more democratic decision making
is necessary,it doesn't explain how this can be effectively achieved. Given that empirical
evidence suggeststhat organizational management is often unwilling to sharepoweq it is
arguably unlikely that such a plocess will occur voluntarily (Boeker t992; Dovey 1997;
Ketsde Vries 1991).

authorityto manageis enshrinedin companylaw,doesthis limitthe extentto

lf management's
can be madedemocratic?
decision-maklng
whrchorganizational

Coopey'sargument, which is compatible with the way the employment relationship is

conceptualized in Chapter 7, is that within the socio-economic context of capitalism,
power is structurally embedded in the employrnent relationship, and that this t)?ically
places workers in a subordinate position to management. Such institutional arrange-
ments are arguedto producea'democratic deficit'where the values,ideas,and interestof
workers are largely downplayed and where the authority and knowledge of management
is privileged and taken for granted (Coopey 1998). In such situations it is arguable that
the vision of the learning organization articulated by its propagandists is unlikely to be
achieved. Firstly, this is because necessarylevels of empowerment are unlikely to be
granted to workers. Secondly,without such levels of empowerment the level of trust in
and commitment to their organizations that workers have is likely to be relatively low
lCoopey1998).

Power,politics, and learning

Neglecting to adequatelyaccount of power, politics, and conflict is another critique made
againstthe learning organization propagandists.However, such neglect was $'pical of the
majority of the learning literature until the mid-1990s (Berthoin Antal et al. 2001).
Further, the propagandists not only downplay such issues,but ale t)?ically unwilling to
even acknowledge that they are relevant to the analysis of learning processes(Driver
2002). However, since the mid-1990s, issuesof power and politics have been given a
greater level of attention (LaPolombaraZO0l; Easterby-Smith et al. 2000; Vince et aI.
2002). The need to account for power and politics in learning processesflows from three
closelyinterrelatedfactors(seeFigure10.2).
Firstly, asdiscussedin Chapter 7, power and knowledge areintimately interrelated. Thus
if learning is about the development and use of knowledge, then account needs to be
taken of issuesof power (Vince 2O02).Coopey (1998) for example, drawing on Foucault
suggeststhat managerial authority relatesto the inseparability of power and knowledge,
@ IN N O V A T I O N
A N D K N O W L E D G EI \ 4 A N A G E I \ 4 E N T

The \
'/-
Embeddedness
. of Powerin the
i.-.-Employm enty',

LEARNING

/t\
/ lntra- \ /'tne lnter-\
Organizational Relatedness
. of Powerand
\Conflict __./ \nowledge_-,/
F i g .1 0 . 2 .L i n k i n gp o w e ra n d p o l i t i c st o l e a r n i n g

where management'spower is reflectedin the privileging of their knowledge,

and vice
versa.Secondly,as discussedin the previous section,the need to account
for power in
learning processes relatesto the embeddednessof power in the employrnentretationship.
Thirdly, and finally, some argue that power and politics need to be accounted
for due to
the typical lack of value consensuswhich existsin most organizations,and
the potential
for conflict and disagreementthis creates(Huzzafi. and Ostergren 20O2;
Salaman2001).
This is another issuethat was discussedpreviouslyin Chapter 7.

Learningwithout a consensus

Huzzardand ostergren (2002)examinedthe dynamicsof learningin a

Swedishtrade union (SlF).
where, during the 1990s,a lack of consensusexjsted over the fundamental
objectivesof the
organizatioa n s, w e l l a s h o w i t s h o u l dr e s p o n dt o s i g n i f i c a net c o n o m i c
a n d s o c i a lc h a n g e sw h i c h
underminedtraditionalnotionsof collectivity.In responseto these environmentat
changessenior
managementin SIF attemptedto implementa top down, centralizedprocess
of learning,where
t h e y d e s c r i b e da n d e x p l a i n e dh o w a n d w h y t h e u n r o nw a s c h a n g i n g .
T h e i n t e n t i o nw a s t h a t
t h r o u g ht h i s p r o c e s su n i o nm e m b e r sa n d o f fi c i a l sw o u l d c o m e t o a g r e ew i t h
t h e c e n t r a l l vp l a n n e d
changes.These changeswere characterized as generallymoving from a collectivistto a more
individualistic orientation,from an adversarialto a partnership-based relationshipwith organiza-
tlonalmanagement,and movingfrom a focus on issuesof collectivebargaining
over pay and con-
ditions to supportingthe career and work experienceof members.
However. little evidence
existedthat these ideaswere acceptedby localunion members and officials.
Thus, despitethis
initiative,members hada diversityof conceptionsof the union'sbasicvalues
and identity.Huzzard
and Ostergrenarguethat attemptingto developa consensusin such
a contextwas not feasible.
 L E A R N I N GA N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E I V E N T

and that learningwould be more likelyto occur if the value

djssensuswas embraced,and where
ceopledevelopeda better understandingof the perspective
of others throughan open process
cf communication.

How typicalis the caseof SIF?ls valueconsensusunlikely

in most organizations?Do conflicting
cerspectivesinhibitlearning?
To what extentcanconflictsoperateas catalyststo learnino?

The critics of the learning organization rhetoric argue that

taking adequateaccount of
thesefactorsmeansthe vision of the advocatesis unrealistic,
and that there are likely to
be somestarkcontradictionsbetweentheir rhetoric and
the way the adoption of learning
organization practicesimpact on organizational relations.
Thus, rather than workers hav-
ing a greater potential for creativity and self-development,
the use of learning organiza-
tion practicesmay mean they are subjectto greaterlevels
of control. Further,rather than
empowering workers, learning organization practices have
the potential to bolster and
reinforce the power of management (Armstrong 2oo0;
coopey 1995, r99g; Driver zo0z;
Easterby-Smith1997).The adoption of the rhetoric and practice
of the learning organiza-
tion can be perceived as increasing the potential to control
workers, because,as with the
use of culture-basedmanagement practicesgenerally (Kunda
lg92), itinvolves a form of
socially based control, where goal alignment between
worker and organization is
achieved through persuading workers to internalize
the organi zational value system
(Driver 2002).such control systemsaremore
subtle,lessvisible,and have the potential to
be more effective than traditional bureaucraticmethods (Alvesson
and wllmott 2001;
Gabriel1999).

R
An organizationwheresociallybasedcontrolsystemsareusedto createvalue
alignment
aroundthe
benefits
to allof learning,
whichhasthe potential to reinforce
management
power,andcontradict
the logic
of emancipation embodied in the learning
organization
rherorrc.

Somewriters however,concludethat conflict is not necessarily

detrimental to learning
processes,and that if conflict and differencesof
opinion are managed and negotiated
through a certain type of diarogue, they can actually
facilitate rearning (coopey and
Burgoyne 20oo; Huzzard and ostergr en 20o2). For example,
conflict can facilitate learn-
ing if it is dealt with in a communication processwhich
doesnot privilege any particular
point of view, where people are able to communicate without
fear, where the commun-
ication is a two-way process,and where ultimately the
objective of the processis not to
achieve a consensus,but for people to develop a greater
understanding of the viewpoint
of others' Suchprocesses thereforehave much in common with the processes of perspect-
ive making and taking outrined in chapter 3, which
are an important erement of the
practice-based perspectiveon knowledge.
I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T

Emotion and attitudes to learning

The final factor that the learning organizationadvocatesinadequatelyaccount for is the
role of emotion in shapingattitudesand behaviourstowardslearning processes. However,
a growing number of writers now acknowledgehow emotion importantly affects the
dynamics of learning processes(Schererand Tran 2001; Vince 2001). At the individual
Ievel, learning can be regarded as potentially positive and exciting-discovering new
knowledge, improving levels of understanding, developing more effective ways of work-
ing, etc. But, there is also a potential negative side-giving up the familiar, embracing
some level of uncertainty-which may be anxiety-inducing for people (Kofman and
Senge 1993). Learning is therefore likely to induce conflicting emotions for people.
Learning and changing can also be understood to affect an individual's senseof self-
identity (Child 2001), which may be regardedpositively or negatively.Arguably, the
attractiveness of defensiveroutines (Argyris1990)is that they provide peoplewith a sense
of securityand self-identity(Giddens1991).Thus, a potentially frightening sideof learn-
ing is that it can be felt to involve giving up that which makespeoplefeel competent and
secure.For example,in the caseof MacMillan Bloedelexaminedearlier,part of the reason
why senior managementresistedchangewas becausethey felt that acknowledgingthe
Iegitimacy of the protester'sarguments raised questions about the morality of their
actionsand the company'sstrategy(Zietsmaet al.2OOZ).
Learningcan alsobe understoodto have an emotional component due to the dynamic
between individual and group or organizationallevel learning. Primarily, learning and
changewill inevitably involve, to some extent, challenging the existing balance of power,
interests,practices,and values.Thus, learning may induce hostility and defensiveness
becauseof its (potential) implications: people may be scaredof challenging the existing
norms (Salaman2001).As Cooperand Burgoyne(2000)argue,the characterof the organ-
izational context will crucially affect the extent to which people will feel anxious and
reluctant to raiseor introduce learning that is likely to challengeexistingvaluesand prac-
tices.Pessimistically, they arguethat few organizationscreatethe 'psychicspace'for peo-
ple to raise such issuesin a risk-free and supportive environment, with, for example,
levels of consultation in key decision-makingprocessestypically being 'pitifully low'
(2000,876).In such circumstancesnormalizing pressuresare likely to inhibit the quest-
ioning of establishednorms, which may adverselyaffect the willingness or capacity of
people to learn. Thus, Vince (2001)suggests,as a consequenceof theseideas,that issues
of power,politics, and emotion are intimately related.

Conflict, emotion, and learning:the case of Hyder

Vince(2001)analysedthe dynamicsof learningat Hyder,a multi-utilityand infrastructurecompany,

which had evolved considerablyfrom its origin as Welsh Water. Hyder activelysupportedindi-
viduallearning,and believedthat this would createorganizational
learning.HoweverNO organiza-
tional learningoccurred,which was explainedby the intra-organizational
dynamicswhich were
 L E A R N I NAGN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T @
shapedby issuesof powerand emotion.Hyder'sevolution from WelshWaterinto Hyderhad
resultedin two broadperspectives emergingoverwhat the valuesunderpinning the company
shouldbe. Onecampsaw the companyas beingprimarily a Welshutility,andthat it shouldbe
drivenbv valuesof publicservice. Theothercampsawthe companyas a globalcorporation that
shouldbe drivenby commercial values. Peoplein bothcampsuseda rangeof methodsinattempt-
ingto maketheirview of the companyaccepted. Oneof the mainpolitical tacticsusedwas to
developchangeinitiatives, whichresultedin two competing initiativesbeingdeveloped simultan-
eously.Onewas a corporate re-branding exercise to create the idea of one company driven by
commercial values.Theotherchangeinitiative, whichusedthe rhetoricof employeeempower-
ment,attempted to develop supportaroundthe publicservice perspective. Verylittlecommunica-
'iron developed between
tionoccurred between the camps and what was described as an curtain'
them.Thisreinforced the senseof competition, increased the level of anger and suspicion in both
campsat the motivations of the other,andcreateda senseof entrenchment anddefensiveness
whichultimately reinforced theirisolation. learning
Individual was notableto contribute to organ-
learning
izational as it couldn't/didn't challengethe existing dynamics. Thiswas partly
shaped by
emotionsof defensiveness, as partof the dynamicwas the fearof the consequences of challen-
gingthe statusquo.As a consequence of this,openand acrimonious disputeswere avoided
(peoplepubliclypretended theydidn'texist,but simultaneously wereattempting to defendtheir
Thustheseorganizational
interests). dynamics activelyinhibitedorganizational learning.

Thisrepresents an examplewhereconflicting viewpointsactivelyinhibitedorganizational-level

learning.What could management at Hyderhave doneto makeuse of thesedifferentperspectives to
learning
activelyfacllitateorganizational-level ?

Conclusion

The chapter has shown that the enormous literature on organizational learning which has
been produced since the mid-1990s is of great relevanceto those wishing to understand
the dynamics of organizational knowledge processes.This should be relatively unsurpris-
ing given the relatednessof learning to knowledge management. Through utilizing the
Crossan-Zietsmaframework the complexity of the relationship between learning at indi-
vidual, group, and organizationallevels was explored, showing how organizational learn-
ing cannot simply be regardedas the sum of the learning of an organization's wotkers.
The chapter also showed how the concept of the learning organization has been the
subject of significant debate, with its advocatesarguing that it provides both organiza-
tions and workers with many benefits, while the critics argue that the emancipatory
rhetoric of the learning organization disguisesand denies the way in which the practices
of the learning organization may impact negatively on workets, for example leading to
increased levels of exploitation and control. This debate was not resolved, but it did
provide a useful way of revealing the diversity of factors which making learning within
the context of work organizations difficult and complex (seeTable 10.4).
E INNOVATION
A N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T

Table 10.4. Factorsaffectinglearningin organizations

Factor Level
I
a
The emotional characterof learning lndividual
Competencytraps and the difficulty of giving up estabtished Individual-Group-Organization
vslt te< and nrertirac

Thepolitics and power involvedin implementing learning Individual-G

roup-Organization
and challengingestablishednorms
The interrelatednessof learning,knowledge, and power Supra-organ
izational
The embeddednessof power in the employment relationship Supra-orga
nizationa
I

Theadvocates of the learning

organization
suggestthatcrlticalself-reflection
andopen
debateon normsandvaluesarefundamental to learningorganizations.
However,coopey
andBurgoyne (2000)suggestfew organizations providethe 'psychicspace'wheresuch
reflection canoccur.Doyouagreewith thisanalysis? lf so,whatfactorsarekeyin stifling
s u c hp r o c e s s e s ?
Comparethetwo definitions
of the learning
organization
outlinedin the chapter.
Whichdo
youmostagreewith,andwhy?
Oneof the maincritiques of the learning
organization
literature
is thatmanagements are
typically
unlikely 'give
to up' andsharepowerin the way necessary proper
to facilitate
learningandself-reflection.
Doyouagreewith this?lf so,what,if anything canbe doneto
persuade suchmanagers thatsharingpowerwith workershaspotential advantages for ali?

and l. Vertinsky(2002).'TheWar of the Woods:Facilitators

C. Zietsma,M. Winn,O. Branzei, and
lmpediments of Organizational
LearningProcesses', BritishJournalof Management,l3:561-74.
A fascinatingcase studY that examines the dynamics of organizationallearning processesand
provides a useful modificattonof the Crossanframework.

R.Vince(2001).'Powerand Emotionin Organizational

Learning',
Human Relations,
S4llO:i325-Ej
A useful examinationof the relationshipbetween individual-and organizational-level
learning,
which considers issuesof emotion and aower.
r J. Coopey(1995).'TheLearningOrganization,
power,politicsand ldeology,,
Management
Learning,2612:193-213.
One of the earliestand best critiquesof the propagandists'perspectiveon the learningorganization
o J. Thomas,S. Sussman,andJ. Henderson(2003).'Understanding
,,Strategic
Learning,,:Linking
organizational
Learning,
KnowledgeManagementand sensemaking', organizationscience,
1/3:33'1-45.
Linkstogether the topics of organizationallearningand knowledge management via an empiric4
case study.