MODELO DE LA “EVOLUCIÓN PROGRESIVA”

assumptions yet in the field. Many complex theoretical constructs are used to define organizational learning, often exacerbating the problems of comparing insights and research results. Some authors for instance regard organizational learning as confirmation or rejection of organizational theory-in-use. These discoveries are then embedded in organizational memory (Argyris and Schön, 1978). Other authors stress the importance of creating scientifically valid action-outcome theories for management (Duncan and Weiss, 1979), whereas others think that the coherence of views among organization members (shared mental models) is even more important (De Geus, 1988). One other major discussion has been the question of whether organizational learning can be more than just the sum of the learning of the individual organization members. Hedberg (1981) for instance states that organizational learning indeed occurs through the individual members, but that in some way organizations preserve certain behaviors, mental maps, norms and values so that organizational stability is maintained despite the fact that organization members come and go and leadership changes. Alternatively, Kim (1993) proposed a stronger link between individual mental models or maps and organizational mental models. He stated that despite some formal changes in an organizational mental map, organization members could keep behaving in the old way, following their personal mental models. But when a substantial part of the organizational membership leaves, it is most likely that the organization's mental model will also change.

Often the ideal of a learning organization is discussed. A learning organization should facilitate the learning of all its members and continually transform itself (Garratt, 1987, p. 77). Peter Senge uses the terms 'organizational learning' and 'the learning organization' in a much broader sense than the cognitive psychological one that dominated the previous definitions. He explicitly regards organizational learning as a cognitive (theory, memory, and views) and a behavioral issue. The following quote is illustrative of his view:

" ...in everyday use, learning has come to be synonymous with 'taking information'. (...) Yet, taking in information is only distantly related to real learning. It would be nonsensical to say, 'I just read a great book about bicycle riding - I've now learned that.' Real learning gets to the heart of what it means to be human. Through learning we re- create ourselves. Through learning we become able to do something we never were able to do. Through learning we reperceive the world and our relationship to it. Through learning we extend our capacity to create, to be part of the generative process of life. [...] This, then, is the basic meaning of a 'learning organization' - an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future. For such an organization, it is not enough to survive. 'Survival learning' or what is more often termed 'adaptive learning' is important - indeed it is necessary. But for a learning organization, 'adaptive learning' must be joined by 'generative learning', learning that enhances our capacity to create" (Senge, 1990a, pp.13-14).

I shall not summarize all these definitions to a single all-inclusive definition that satisfies all these authors. Such a definition is dangerous in that it may exclude some

important issues. Besides, an all-inclusive definition neglects the richness of theoretical constructs that are connected with world views and ways of theorizing. Therefore, I shall approach the problem not as a definitional problem but as a problem of concept formation.

A Method for Conceptualizing Organizational Learning

The conceptualization of organizational learning is especially complex because of the nature of conceptualizing phenomena for scientific purposes, which frequently requires the use of theoretical constructs. These concepts have a role in theoretical frameworks, to explain and predict phenomena, but are difficult to observe. Organizational learning is a typically good example of a theoretical construct. Observing it is not possible without further theorizing about what we mean by organizational learning. This situation is very different from the observation of things like 'chairs' or 'balls', that are directly and unambiguously connected with things and therefore called concreta. This situation also slightly differs from abstracta, which define a class of directly observable things that belong together, and exclude other things from this class (e.g. furniture defined as tables, chairs, sofas, but excluding beds). Abstracta can be defined by genus and differentia. In this way organizational learning can also be defined, because organizational learning = learning (genus) by organizations (differentia) (Stamper, 1973, p.88). The problem, however, is that 'learning' and 'organizations' are not concreta and thus cannot directly be observed. Conceptualizing them as abstracta gives us a very incomplete understanding of what organizational learning is about. Another type of concept often mentioned in the research methodological literature is called illata which can be observed without detailed theorizing, but are not observable without the use of specially constructed instruments (e.g. microscopes for observing bacteries) (Boesjes-Hommes, 1970). Many illata, however, are theoretical constructs that have been defined and operationalized in a precise way so that measurement instruments can observe characteristics of these theoretical constructs. Many examples of this kind exist in the natural sciences (e.g. electric current, molecular motion, certain types of light). It is often said that the natural sciences are about the physical world, and thus describe mainly concreta, abstracta and illata, whereas the social sciences are about virtual reality (opions, attitudes, motivations etc.) and apply concepts that have their meaning in the context of theories (thus theoretical constructs). A closer study of the conceptualizations in the natural sciences has been done by Thomas Kuhn (1962/1970) and shows that this presupposition is not correct. The development of a method for conceptualizing theoretical constructs thus could be favorable for both sciences.

The conceptualization of theoretical constructs involves the following steps:

1. Think over the purpose of the concept (explanatory and predictive value) within the larger theoretical perspective and functions it should have. With respect to organizational learning, the concept should be linked with the management of

modern organizations and the development of monitoring information and control systems. This implies the identification of the causes and impacts of organizational learning. Besides organizational learning, machine bureaucracy and MICS are also theoretical constructs. Organizational learning will be discussed in greater detail than the other two constructs, because it describes the dependent variable and the main source of criteria for MICS-assessment. Machine bureaucracy has, fortunately, already been conceptualized adequately by Mintzberg, and the conceptualization of MICS has already led to some consensus among information scientists (cf. Davis and Olson, 1985; Ansari, 1977).

2. Give a working definition of the concept, as a first demarcation of the object of research. Also try to detect the basic assumptions that are implied (possibly tacitly) in the definition.

3. Explain the different perspectives, paradigms or meta-theories that are relevant when studying the phenomenon of organizational learning. This is necessary for a clearer understanding of the organizational implications of the phenomenon. It does not mean that only one perspective should be adopted, because understanding a social phenomenon frequently requires the use of multiple perspectives (Morgan, 1986).

4. Define the main dimensions of the concept. This means describing the most important aspects from the perspectives defined previously. Besides, one should also define the relations between the different dimensions of organizational learning. This implies the investigation of demarcations between the dimensions found and especially the study of possible relations between these dimensions, for instance in terms of cause and effect or means and goals. This study is important because it could assist in the systematic investigation of phenomena. The observation of one kind could then be used for predicting possible phenomena of another kind. In this way a procedure for investigating organizational learning is developed, based on a theory and hypotheses that are theoretically and empirically valid.

5. Operationalizing the dimensions into concretely observable units, for instance by the development of questionnaires, scaling and measurement methods. This last issue enables an empirical test of the hypotheses to be carried out. Statements about the validity and reliability of the observations are a theory in themselves, and therefore must be refutable as are all other types of theories (cf. Popper, 1959; Kieser and Kubicek, 1978, part 1).

This method is further applied in chapter 4.