As OL is concerned with dynamic entities, its process is better associated with an organismic view, the metaphor of which is the living organism. Employees can then be seen as organisms always seeking greater self-sufficiency (Knowles, 1984:24). The adequate personality embodies positive percept of self, together with a rich, varied and available perceptive field of experience (Pittenger and Gooding, 1971:107).
In 1978 Argyris and Schon had looked upon organisational learning as the detection and correction of errors. Chris Argyris has explicated that - “our theory was on learning as the detection and correction of error” (Crossan, 2003b:40). Jointly both writers had come forth with these three types of organisational learning: single-, double- and triple-loop learning.
Single-loop learning takes place when the error detected and corrected permits the organisation to carry on with its present policies or achieve its present objectives (Argyris and Schon, 1978:2-3). Double-loop learning occurs when error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the modification of an organisation’s underlying norms, policies, and objectives. Both single- and double-loop learning are not ‘one- shot’ learning events but continuous such as the learning that is required for innovation (Argyris and Schon, 1978:26). When an organisation continuously learns from previous context for learning, it goes into triple-loop learning or deutero-learning (ibid.).
Single- and double-loop learning have respectively been referred to as lower- and higher-learning by Fiol and Lyles (1985), or respectively adaptive and generative learning by Senge (1990). Triple-loop learning is for increased organisational effectiveness with respect to “learning how to learn” (Schon, 1975:2). These three forms of learning are perceived to have terminological ambiguities leading to differences in current conceptualisations (Visser, 2007:659). Their conceptual differences have lead to confusion which impedes a proper theoretical understanding of higher-level learning processes (ibid.).
By higher-level learning, Visser is referring to triple-loop learning or deutero-learning. But when scholars are not too clear on what double-loop learning entails, it may not be in the order of things to talk about deutero-learning. Argyris was asked these questions during an interview in 2003 with Crossan (2003b:46) – (a) Have scholars
55
used his book in the way he expected, and (b) Are there messages that have been lost that he would like to emphasise, or others that have been overemphasised or poorly understood?
The book referred to is this one that Argyris had co-authored with Schon in 1978 ~ Organisational learning: a theory of action perspective. To the above questions posed, Argyris responded thus – “In the poorly understood category, I’d put the lack of research on double-loop learning. The largest amount of work that has been done is on single-loop or routine issues. I think that limits social science as a discipline and as a contributor to a better world. The notion that I think has been misunderstood is that somehow there is a difference between individual learning and organisational learning” (Crossan, 2003b:46).
Per the interview in question, Peter Senge has added – “Although 25 years have passed since the book was published, it still may be ahead of this time” (Crossan, 2003a:38). Also Mark Easterby-Smith and Marjorie Lyles did a brief overview on the book and they highlighted the selective nature of the book’s impact on the academic community. They suggested that the book’s originality “is what limited its appeal to the mainstream academic community (ibid.).
Easterby-Smith and Lyles have elaborated further – “Ideas such as the emphasis on practice, on making direct interventions into the world one is studying, and on relying on subjective experience of the authors, run counter to the training and values of most management scholars, especially those trained within the positivist and empiricist traditions” (ibid.). On this point, Argyris is reported to have indicated that the tendency of the academics to focus on internal and external validity with little regard for implementable validity has meant that theory has generated far more than practice can absorb (ibid.).
“To bridge the gap between organisational learning theory and practice, we need to focus not only on implementable validity but also, as Argyris notes, in the interview, on usability” (Crossan, 2003a:39). Argyris had added that “implementable validity should be producible by a scholar or by a practitioner – it must be applicable to everyday life conditions and again, the scholar and the practitioner should be able to use it” (ibid.).
56 2.4.3 Learning from experience
“If learning comes through experience, it follows that the more one can plan guided experiences, the more one will learn” (DiBella et al, 1996:45).
Experiential learning is essential to innovation which is inherently risky and “trial-and- error learning is a highly uncertain undertaking – naive at first, mistakes encountered, more knowing later” (Van de Ven et al, 2000:15). Many organisations do not learn from their errors regarding innovation, and are baffled repeating the same errors and feeling the same old frustrations (Davila et al, 2006:210). When more new errors are made, these organisations become even more baffled and exasperatingly frustrated.
Learning has been indicated to enhance a company’s speed, innovativeness and adaptability (Amidon, 2003:307). However “working, learning and innovating are closely related forms of human activity that are conventionally thought to conflict with each other” (Brown and Duguid, 1991:40). Learning and change go hand in hand and as innovation is all about change; learning is an intrinsic part of innovation (Davila et al, 2006:211). But this association is not that straight forward because it is generally viewed that (a) work practice is conservative and resistant to change, (b) learning is distinct from working and problematic in the face of change and (c) innovation is the disruptive but necessary imposition of change on the other two (Brown and Duguid, 1991:40).
To see that working, learning, and innovating are interrelated, compatible, complementary and not conflicting forces, Brown and Duguid have stressed the need for a distinct conceptual shift. It is argued in this study that the shift must include a move from just learning to OL. With a positive attitude underlying this shift - working, OL, and innovating are better poised for a convergence towards innovation effectiveness.
Bessant too has emphasised the importance of OL to innovation – “Learning is the engine that creates innovations … via the learning cycle” (2003:185). He cites David Kolb’s experiential learning cycle as shown in Figure 2.2.
57
(Source: Bessant, 2003:184)
Figure 2.2 Kolb’s experiential learning model
Davila et al have referred to an organisation with significant learning disabilities that hampered its innovation (2006:210). Their advice to such an organisation is - “you cannot improve any part of innovation – not the framework, strategy, processes, organisation metrics, or incentives – and expect to see good results unless you make sure that your organisation knows how to learn and change” (2006:211). The point of entry per the four components of the Kolb learning cycle is not important; but completing the cycle matters as incomplete cycles do not enable learning (Bessant, 2003:184).
Errors can be pointedly tagged to the arrow connecting ‘active experimentation’ and ‘concrete experience’ in Figure 2.2 for subsequent reflection and conceptualisation in terms of positive experiential learning. This is quite unlike that of negative error cultures where errors may be concealed and there will be little experential learning from them (Rybowiak et al, 1999:528).
When it comes to innovation, this seems almost to have a death wish – “we ignore what’s important … the role of failure” (Peters, 1991:12-21). Innovation is a daunting process and organisations should cheer failures and preach “failure-as-a-part-of-life” (ibid.). A tenet of OL is that without detecting and correcting errors in “what we know”
Concrete experience
Abstract conception
Reflective
58
and “how we learn”, an organisation’s knowledge can deteriorate, become obsolete, and result in bad decision making (Fahey and Prusak, 1998:265).
2.5 ERRORS
If to err is human, can errors be humanly and naturally accepted by organisations as experiential resources for growth? Does an organisation need to have a certain culture that accepts errors as generative resources through learning from innovation?