El ICEX, Instituto Español de Comercio Exterior

Individual  learning  according  to  Kolb  (1984)  is  a  lifelong  process  that  revolves  around   four  stages-­‐concrete  experience;  reflective  observation;  abstract  conceptualization  and   active  experimentation-­‐,  translating  experience  into  concepts  through  reflection.    This   model  suggest  learning  begins  with  a  “here  and  now  experience”  or  encounter,  which  is   followed  by  data  collection  and  observation  of/about  the  experience.  Data  collected  is   then  analysed  and  conclusions  drawn  from  the  analysis  are  communicated  to  actors  in   the  experience  for  use  in  the  modification  of  their  behaviour  and  choice  of  subsequent   experiences.   The   stages   of   experiential   learning   are   diagrammatically   represented   below:  

Figure  3.3  Kolb’s  Learning  cycle  

  From  Exeter  (2001),  Adapted  from  Kolb  (1984:21)  

Kolb  states  that  the  learning  cycle  maybe  entered  into  at  any  point,  but  the  sequence  of   occurrence   must   be   followed.   He   argues   that   individuals   get   to   apply   what   is   newly   learnt   based   on   previous   experiences   and   the   cycle   continues.   It   means   learning   and   practice  here  is  intentional.  With  a  deep  intention  to  convey  how  individual  experience   the   world,   Argyris   and   Schon   (1978)   examined   the   concept   of  mental   models   in   their  

theory  of  action.  The  theory  claims  that  people  construct  knowledge  or  image  in  ways   that  the  mind  can  use  it,  in  order  to  make  it  actionable.  Aside  from  being  internally  held,   mental   models   were   understood   to   affect   the   way   individuals   act.   According   to   Rook   (2013)  mental  models  are  important  for  providing  information  relating  to  the  structure,   relationships  and  how  learning  occurs  in  organisations.  This  she  emphasized,  emulates   individual  learning  as  the  foundation  of  organisational  learning.  Dixon  (1999:  17)  also   argued  that  individual  learning  is  about  making  sense  of  an  individual’s  experience;  “We   create   ‘meaning   structure’   from   the   data   that   we   encounter   in   our   interaction   in   the   world”.  Individuals  are  seen  to  create  “meaning  structures”  in  their  daily  activities.  By   meaning   structures   Baoteng   (2011:6)   means   the  “meaningful   links   or   interpretations   drawn  from  their  sensory  impressions,  which  is  influenced  by  numerous  factors  including   genetic  factors,  context  and  prior  meaning  structures  from  their  past”.  These  structures   guide   individuals   to   organize   and   interpret   experiences.   Dixon   (1999:15)   expatiated   that  meaning  structures  are  the  hallway  of  learning  and  could  be  created  through:  

• Verbal  transmission-­‐  ideas  from  sources  like  books,  reports  and  other  people’s  

ideas  

• Direct  experience-­‐  the  receipt  of  sensory  data,  sound  and  pain  

• Reorganisation-­‐  what  is  already  known  is  reorganized  to  create  new  meanings.  

Organisational  learning  is  said  to  occur  when  individual  meaning  structures  are  made   explicit   through   dialogue,   arguments   or   negotiations.   Shared   experiences   and   ideas   allow   group   members   learn   from   each   other   and   tap   knowledge   of   others.   At   organisational  level,  individuals  may  choose  to  learn  on  their  own  but  that  knowledge   may   not   be   made   accessible   to   other   organisational   members.   It   is   therefore   obvious   that   meaning   structures   could   either   be   held   privately,   shared   through   dialogue   and   those   held   together   with   other   members   of   the   organisation   collectively.   This   is   explained  in  Table  3.3  below:  

Table  3.2  Forms  of  Meaning  structures   Meaning   structures   Explanation     Private   Meaning  

An  individual’s  accumulated  learning  experiences  and  knowledge   about   the   organisation   and   from   personal   effort.   Individuals   decide  not  to  share  their  private  meaning  structures  for  reasons   best  known  to  them.  However,  the  more  they  are  willing  to  share   with  other  organisational  members,  the  more  the  organisation  is   able  to  learn.  

Accessible   Meaning  

As  the  word  implies,  these  are  the  meaning  structures  individuals   share  or  are  willing  to  make  known  to  others  in  the  organisation.   It   is   comparable   to   the   mechanisms   of   the   organisation   where   exchange   occurs   and   ideas   get   tested   against   other’s   way   of   thinking.   When   these   meaning   structures   are   made   available   to   people   then   the   data   source   is   challenged.   Hallways   or   mechanisms   are   domains   where   collective   meaning   is   made   and   constructed.        

Collective   Meaning  

This   is   the   common   shared   meaning   held   by   organisational   members.   It   can   be   reflected   in   the   norms,   strategies   and   assumptions   of   how   work   gets   done.   It   could   also   be   codified   in   processes  and  policies.  Shared  meaning  is  like  having  a  storeroom   where  organisational  memories  are  stored.  It  is  the  history  of  the   organisation  that  binds  organisational  member  together-­‐  just  like   glue-­‐,   providing   a   sense   of   belonging   and   it   saves   the   organisation’s   time.   But,   when   it   inhibits   learning   or   becomes   obsolete,  it  can  have  a  negative  effect  on  the  organisation.  

Source:  Dixon  (1999:44-­‐49)  

The  explanation  clarifies  the  relationship  between  individual,  group  and  organisational   learning   stressing   that   the   removal   of   barriers   between   the   three   meaning   structures   leads  to  shared  meaning,  which  results  in  organisational  learning.  The  existence  of  the   above   meaning   structures   and   mechanisms   are   what   tends   to   differentiate   individual   learning   from   organisational   learning   as   argued   by   Dixon.   Graham   and   Nafukho  

(2008:9)  assert  that  in  understanding  how  organisations  learn,  it  is  relevant  to  identify   key  learning  systems  or  mechanisms  within  the  organisation,  “the  literature  repeatedly   reflects  these  as  not  only  valuable,  but  also  essential  to  the  learning  organisation”.    

Huberman  (1995a)  proposed  four  progressive  cycles  of  learning.  The  closed  individual   cycle   relates   to   the   private   individual   learning   usually   done   in   a   formal   manner.  The   open  individual  cycle  is  where  an  individual  seek  assistance  from  peers  and  colleagues  in   an   organisation.   The   closed   collective   cycle   involves   the   coming   together   of   organisational   members   from   different   units   with   shared   interests   to   form   a   group   where   experiences   are   shared,   criticism   occurs   and   learning   takes   place.   This   group   relies  on  its  collective  wisdom  which  may  or  may  not  be  sufficient  to  promote  higher   level   of   learning.   Finally,  the   open   collective   cycle   employs   other   individuals   who   may   not   directly   share   same   interest   with   the   group   members   but   possess   skills   and   knowledge   capable   of   complementing   practical   knowledge   held   by   other   members   of   the  group.  This  cycle  permits  external  parties  and  experts  to  contribute  to  the  learning   in  the  organisation  (Day,  1999).  

Figure:  3.4  Open  collective  cycle  

  Didactic  inputs  

Huberman  1995  adopted  from  Day  (1999:193)  

To  Huberman  (1995a:  207)  if  an  organisation  is  to  learn,  collaboration  is  necessary,  and   this  is  not  limited  to  one  group  but  opened  to  admit  other  groups  and  external  parties  to   its  membership  in  the  knowledge  that:  

• Conceptual   input:     this   is   a   process   of   conceptualizing,   challenging   diverse  

perspectives  of  knowledge  to  enhance  joint  construction  of  knowledge  through   conversation.    

• Didactic   inputs:   enables   the   experimentation   and   application   of   learning   into  

practice.  

• Data  collection  and  analysis  are  vital  if  existing  practices  are  to  be  reviewed  and  

new  practices  introduced.  

According   to   Hayes   and   Allison   (1998),   organisational   learning   begins   with   an   individual’s  cognitive  style  (the  preferred  way  of  gathering,  processing  and  evaluation),  

experience   sharing     developing  new   methods   experimenta4on   exchanges   experimenta4on   applica4on/ abandon   Conceptual   input  

  Help  with  _analysis     Data   collection   and  analysis   Conceptual   input     Technical   consultation     Observation   demonstration     Observation    

how   they   guide   their   interpretation   into   theories   and   models   that   guide   their   actions   personally   and   at   work.   The   cognitive   style   influences   collective   learning,   a   process   through  which  individuals  in  an  organisation  create  shared  mental  model  for  examining   and  challenging  their  experiences,  leading  to  the  modification  in  the  rules  that  regulates   behaviour  in  organisations.  Figure  3.4  shows  how  an  organisation  learns:  

Figure  3.5  Organisational  Learning  

                                   DOUBLE  LOOP  COLLECTIVE  LEARNING      

(Doing  things  differently  -­‐or   doing  different  things)     Source:  Hayes  and  Allison  (1998:849)  

Sanchez   (2005:15)   describes   organisational   learning   as  “a   collective   sense   making   process  that  follows  an  identifiable  progression  of  cognitive  activities”.  The  cycle  begins   with   individuals   identifying   potential   significant   events   for   the   organisation,   and   then   seeks   to   make   sense   of   those   events   by   applying   their   interpretive   frameworks,   and   finally  respond  to  meanings  derived  from  events  by  modifying  or  forming  new  reasons   about  the  world  and  the  position  of  the  organisation  in  the  world.  Nicolini  and  Meznar   (1995)  recognised  the  ‘organisation’s  cognitive  posture’  as  the  internal  ideologies  and   patterns   that   form   organisation   culture.   They   argued   that  “strategy   produces   stress   which   requires   adaptation   and   produces   learning,   the   very   process   of   formulating   and   implementing  strategy  is  said  to  foster  knowledge  acquisition”  (p730-­‐731).  This  implies   that  learning  is  suggested  as  a  platform  for  creating  meaning  that  leads  to  action,  and   learning  could  be  the  result  of  strategic  actions  as  argued  by  Lant  and  Milliken  (1992)   that   the   need   to   maintain   an   alignment   between   organisation’s   strategy   and   other   elements   of   its   design   pilot’s   orientation   and   learning.   Aside   from   meaning   being   the  

underlying   motivation   behind   thoughts   and   interpretation   that   leads   to   learning,   organisational  components  drive  learning  also.  

To   Bushe   (2009:21),   the   phrase   ‘organisational   learning’   has   to   refer   to   something   beyond   simple   individual   learning   inside   an   organisation   for   it   to   be   useful.   Organisations   learn   through   mutual   relationship   with   its   members.   March   (1991)   argues  that  organisations  embed  knowledge  in  their  routines,  rules,  norms,  procedures   and   forms,   learnt   overtime   from   their   members.   At   the   same   time,   individuals   in   an   organisation   are   socialised   to   organisational   beliefs   and   values.   With   regards   to   ‘who’   learns  in  organisational  learning,  some  authors  favour  a  multi-­‐level  perspective,  relating   individual,   group   and   organisation   (Antonacopoulou   2006;   Crossan   et   al   1999).   Different   social   perspectives   on   the   multi-­‐unit   debate   have   also   been   highlighted   in   order   to   provide   the   level   analysis   of   OL   in   work   settings.   The   “theory   of   situated   learning”  (Lave  &  Wenger  1991;  Lervik  et  al  2010)  emphasises  the  interaction  between   individuals  in  the  course  of  work  and  the  theory  of  “communities  of  Practice”  (Brown  &   Duguid  1991;  Handley  et  al  2006)  which  stress  the  role  of  social  relationship  in  learning   are  some  examples.  Crossan  et  al  (1999)  argue  organisational  learning  is  a  multi-­‐level   process.   The   process   begins   with   individual   level   learning,   that   progresses   to   group   level   and   then   to   organisational   level.   The   three   levels   are   related   by   sub-­‐processes-­‐ intuiting,  interpreting,  integrating  and  institutionalizing-­‐  that  involves  the  creation  and   application  of  knowledge  (Lawrence  et  al,  2005).  

Figure  3.6  Dynamic  process  of  Organisational  Learning  

  Source:  Crossan  et  al  (1999:532)  

Intuiting  is  “the  preconscious  recognition  of  the  pattern  and/  or  possibilities  inherent  in  a   personal   stream   of   experience”   (Crossan   et   al   1999:525).   Intuiting   is   the   function   of   individual   level;   individuals   create   mental   models   based   on   their   experiences   and   translate   these   models   into   metaphors   that   guide   their   communication   and   actions.   Interpreting   involves   the   explanation   of   an   individual’s   ideas   to   one’s   self   and   others   through  words  and  actions.  Interpreting  begins  at  individual  level  and  further  includes   others   through   dialogue;   making   ideas   explicit   (Greenwood   and   Sommerville,   2011).   Integrating  is  “the  process  of  developing  shared  understanding  among  individuals  and  of   taking  coordinated  action  through  mutual  adjustments”  (Crossan  et  al  1999:525).  This  is   the  first  process  that  occurs  at  group  level  with  the  focus  of  achieving  collective  action.   Institutionalizing   is   the   final   process   that   captures   learning   that   has   occurred   among   individual   and   group   levels   into   the   organisation   through   mechanisms   such   as   structures,   systems,   procedures   and   strategy.   This   process   differentiates   OL   from   individual   and   group   learning   because   through   institutionalizing,   ideas   and   lessons   become  organisational  and  independent  of  their  origin;  and  are  made  available  for  use   on   ongoing   basis   by   organisational   members   (Lawrence   et   al   2005).   Jones   and   Macpherson   (2006)   and   Jenkin   (2013)   extended   the   4I   model   by   including   two   processes:   Intertwining   and   Information   Foraging.   Intertwining   is   the   active  

engagement  between  organisations  and  external  knowledge  networks.  Learning  in  this   case,   not   only   occurs   within   organisations   but   cuts   across   organisational   boundaries   (Jones  and  Macpherson,  2006:168).  To  Jenkins  (2013:100),  OL  starts  with  information   foraging  and  it  is  linked  with  the  individual  learning  process  of  intuiting.    Jenkin  argues   “To  initiate  information  foraging,  a  goal  must  be  articulated  even  if  it  is  exploratory  and   vague  in  nature”  (ibid:  100).  In  order  to  guide  the  foraging  process,  individuals  become   developed  through  intuitive  and  inductive  processes.  

Argyris  and  Schon  (1978)  identified  three  forms  of  organisational  learning;  single-­‐loop,   double-­‐loop  and  deuteron  learning;  single-­‐loop  learning  is  the  detection  and  corrections   of  misalignment,  double-­‐loop  learning  advances  beyond  error  detection  and  correction   to   the   transformation   of   organisational   overall   rules,   and   triple-­‐loop   learning   occurs   after   an   organisation   understands   the   processes   of   single   and   double   loop   learning.   Similarly,  Crossan  et  al  (2013)  contend  that  learning  occurs  at  three  levels  and  is  seen   as   a   two-­‐way   process-­‐   transfer   from   individuals   to   the   organisation   and   vice   versa,   which  happens  at  different  levels  as  represented  below:  

Figure  3.7  Crossan  et  al  Organisational  Learning  Process