DEFINING AND IMPLEMENTING THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION: SOME STRATEGIC LIMITATIONS BRIAN R.

FRY
University of South Carolina

J. SAMUEL GRISWOLD
Department of Health and Human Services, State of South Carolina

ABSTRACT
The concept of the learning organization has gained increasing currency in the management literature. However, the concept has not received much attention in the public sector. This analysis discusses the idea of the learning organization and its applicability in one public organization, the Office of Information Resources in South Carolina. Both the substance of the concept of the learning organization and its methodological implications are considered. The focus of this particular eflFort was on using technology as a catalyst for change and capitalizing on "deeper learning cycles" as strategic devices in a process of organizational transformation. The successes and the problems of efforts to implement the learning organization are recounted with the intent of suggesting initiatives that might be undertaken by other public agencies interested in incorporating more systematic learning processed into their operations.

INTRODUCTION
It is easier to say what this article is not than what it is. It is not a case study nor a prescription for what should be done to improve management in an organization. It is not a prediction of what might happen should certain initiatives be adopted. It is not a learning history, at least in a technical sense. It is not a report on the strategies employed in a learning organization initiative in one public agency.

(312)

PAQ FALL 2003

Given that modest perspective, the intent is not to prove that a certain technique or set of techniques will work but to suggest strategies that might be tried elsewhere to see if they improve organizational performance. As we shall see, this is true to the spirit of the learning organization with its emphasis on continuous innovation, experimentation, feedback, and adaptation in the organization. The authors will proceed by discussing some reasons for adopting a "learning" perspective in guiding organizational change, addressing some of the ambiguities of the meaning of the learning organization, outlining the strategies employed in their own experience, and reflecting on lessons learned therefrom. WHY THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION? By now it is commonplace to observe that we are living in an age of rapid change. Only the adjectives vary. From an environment once characterized as merely "turbulent" (Waldo, 1971) we have moved to more descriptors such as "chaotic," even "crazy" (Peters, 1987). The pace of change, in large part, has been stimulated by rapid developments in the field of information and communications. As information pipelines, processing speeds and memory capacity increases at exponential rates, it is argued that the only limitations of the information age will be the speed of light and the length of a lifetime (Gilder, 1997). Theories of management seem to have been changing nearly as quickly as the environment. It is estimated that the life span of a management idea has dropped from ten years to little more than a year (Micklethwait and Wooldridge, 1996). Many of the new proposals for management reform have been energized by the development in information and communications technology. New technology

PAQ FALL 2003

(313)

has made it possible to implement changes, particularly in decentralization and decision-making which were hitherto difficult, at best. The proposals come under a variety of labels^reinventing (Osbome and Gaebler, 1992), reengineering (Hammer and Champy, 1993), quality management (Deming, 1986), and liberation management (Peters, 1992). They are drawn from some ideas of the 1960s and 1970s (participation and decentralization) with a 1990s spin (customer service, quality, and empowerment). Underlying the apparent diversity of these proposals is a general agreement that flexible and responsive organizations are needed to cope with the chaos and complexity of the organizational environment. Although in agreement on intent, management reforms have had only limited success in enhancing organizational performance (Beer and Eisenstat, 1996). A number of reasons have been cited for this occurrence but key among them have been problems associated with organizational culture and knowledge management. Regarding organizational culture, it is argued that management reform initiatives have simply attempted to graft new techniques on an old organizational culture rather than transforming the culture to make it compatible with the proposed technique (Senge, 1990). Senge argues that we must change the way people think and interact to change the way the organization works. One major problem has been a failure to translate information and communications. Authors like Peter Drucker have long since heralded our entry into the Information Age and asserted the necessity of reforming organizations to meet the demands of that new age. Drucker (1994:72) declares, "The essence of management is not techniques and procedures. The essence of management is to make knowledge productive." Despite advances in technology.

(314)

PAQ FALL 2003

organizations have only begun to address this problem. The solution to both problems, Senge (1990) contends, is the "learning organization," designed to produce flexible, responsive, and adaptive structures relying on constant experimentation, feedback, and response to cope with larger quantities of information and the increasing pace of change. The culture of the organization is to be transformed from an emphasis on predictability and stability to an emphasis on experimentation and innovation. The learning organization is to challenge basic assumptions about the way things operate and is to be engaged in a continuous search for a better way of doing things. In gathering information, instead of employing simplified "definitions of the situation" (March and Simon, 1958), the learning organization is to deal directly with the chaos and complexity of a turbulent environment. In processing information and responding to information gathered, the learning organization is to rely on fiexibility and adaptation rather than on preprogrammed responses. As Malhotra (1977:3) puts it, the learning organization and the knowledge management on which it relies "embodies organizational processes that seek a synergistic combination of data and information processing technologies and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings." With these transformations, Senge argues, the learning organization will provide a more suitable environment and a more secure foundation for the effective implementation of management reforms. WHAT IS THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION? Although there is fairly widespread recognition of the need for learning organizations, there is less agreement on exactly what a learning organization means. Garvin (1993)

PAQ FALL 2003

(315)

notes that many discussions of learning organizations have been "reverential and Utopian" and filled with near mystical terminology. Gavin (1993:71) offers a serviceable, if still somewhat vague, definition of his own and defines the learning organization as "... an organization skilled in creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights." More insight into the meaning of the learning organization can be gained by looking at the type of learning usually associated with the concept of the learning organization: individual, organizational, adaptive, and generative. At its most basic level, the learning organization is simply an organization that facilitates individual learning processes and cultivates new capabilities by either teams or individuals (Schein, 1997). The more controversial concept is organizational learning. Most agree that individuals can leam in an organization but some question whether organizations themselves can leam. According to Lawson and Ventriss (1992), organizational learning is based upon individual learning which is then shared with other members of the organization by capturing the individual learning in organizational policies, standard operating procedures, cultural norms, and organizational stories and ceremonies {Ibid.). The third type is adaptive learning which can occur at either the individual or organizational level but is usually associated with organizational learning. Adaptive learning takes the existing system of organizational values and action frames as given (Argyris and Schon, 1996) and relies on continuous experimentation and feedback to produce change within that framework (Senge, 1990). Argyris and Schon (1996) refer to this as "single-loop learning." The fourth type is generative learning which requires new ways of looking at the world and entails change in the

(316)

PAQ FALL 2003

organization's values and implicit mental models of how the organization works (Senge, 1990). Whereas adaptive learning involves specific activities ad behavior within existing cultural norms, generative learning's aim is to adjust the overall rules and norms (Lawson and Ventriss, 1992). This is what Argyris and Schon (1996) call "doubleloop" learning. All of these types of learning were included in the intervention detailed below. This conceptualization of the learning organization as one that emphasizes action, feedback, and response suggests a different research strategy. Typically, a combination of approaches involving both reflective learning (observing and assessing) and action learning (implementing learning interventions) is recommended (Roth and Senge, 1995). However, it is action learning that has received primary attention in the learning organization approach. Most broadly, the research approach may be described as clinical in nature (Schein, 1997). In this approach the data are analyzed based on in-depth observations of real phenomena. Analysis is concerned with both pathology and health but focuses on puzzles and anomalies in systemic dynamics. More specifically, action theory stresses participatory, interactive research in which members of the organization are engaged, in effect, as co-researchers in attempts to implement the learning perspective (Hendry, 1996). Action theory attempts to capitalize on the "tacit knowledge" and "local theory" of individuals in the organization under examination. The method focuses on group processes (communities-of-practice) and experiential learning to effect change in the organization {Ibid.). The most successful strategies are those that talk about learning with learner's vocabulary, make learning more tangible, and address the worker's priorities (Calvert, 1994). The approach used by the authors in implementing the

PAQ FALL 2003

(317)

learning organization was strongly conditioned by the considerations outlined above. The ambiguity of the concept led them to seek a more precise definition based on the experiences of individuals in the organization. They tried to implement techniques that would lead to all types of learning: individual, organizational, adaptive, and generative. Finally, they adopted an action theory approach of experimentation and direct intervention. OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES The authors' effort to introduce elements of the learning organization took place in the Office of Information Resources (OIR) in the state of South Carolina. OIR is part of the South Carolina Budget and Control Board whose operations include functions such as human resource management, budget oversight, property management, and purchasing and procurement. The formal mission of OIR is to provide integrated management and oversight of all facets of information technology: telecommunications, data processing, office systems, and reprographics. The Office is funded from internally generated revenues and employs just less than 300 people. There are several attributes of OIR that have a bearing on these efforts. First, although the organization is small, it has four separate physical locations. That places a premium on effective communications to allow information sharing and teamwork. Thus the staple of OIR's existence and a vital element of the learning organization, communications and information technology, is critical to its own internal functions. Second, there is a high percentage of technical personnel employed by the Office. From the perspective of the learning organization, this means that there is considerable emphasis on training in the organization and a general

(318)

PAQ FALL 2003

receptivity to leaning processes. Third, since OIR is funded from internally generated revenues rather than appropriations, it is afforded a greater degree of flexibility both structurally and financially than most other state agencies. This flexibility engenders an entrepreneurial attitude and allows the development of the kind of responsive and adaptive organization so integral to the notion of a learning organization. Finally, the organization's responsibility for telecommunications and computing and network operations places OIR in a strategic position which means that the organization must keep pace with a rapidly changing technological, economic, and political environment and maintain a response capability commensurate with heightened expectations and demands. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Discussion Groups: The first objective was to translate the general notion of the learning organization into something both more concrete and more relevant to the experience of the members of the organization. The first step was to make a series of presentations to various groups in OIR about the learning organization which focused on defining the learning organization and relating it to the total quality management effort already in place and the strategic process that had just begun. That was followed by a series of small-group discussions designed to translate the concept into terms more resonant with actual experiences of people in the organization. Participants were asked first to think about the best learning experiences they had encountered and to identify common characteristics of those experiences. The characteristics identified were adequate resources, clear performance expectations, an open and supportive environment.

PAQ FALL 2003

(319)

participatory decision processes, and good feedback with adaptive response. Next, participants were asked what OIR would be like if it were to afford the opportunity for that kind of leaming experience. Those attributes were nurturing, supportive, goal-oriented leadership; inclusive, participatory decisionmaking processes; mission-oriented, creative, trusting organizational culture; open and frank communications; supportive, collaborative interpersonal relationships; and responsible, well-trained individuals Participants were then asked what obstacles would have to be overcome if OIR were to become a better learning organization. Although there was a tendency for this portion of the discussion to degenerate into a gripe session, there was a recognition that there is a shared responsibility for problems in the organization and that some matters were beyond the immediate control of the organization. The obstacles identified were management style (reactive, poor communications, controlling, no follow-through); individual attitudes (resistant, fearful, complacent, suspicious); inadequate resources; and external influences (including "politics"). Finally, participants were asked what could be done to overcome these obstacles. Here the hope of the authors was to frame a strategic agenda for action in the organization. Discussants made recommendations and then ranked them on a scale of importance ranging from one to five. There were a total of fifty-five recommendations, most of which were non-duplicative. The recommendations fell into four general categories: social initiatives, management initiatives, training initiatives, and planning initiatives. Social initiatives {e.g.., group activities, quarterly meetings, and a common coffee place) were ranked as most important to the organization and ranked second in number of items

(320)

Low Uncertainty

High Uncertainty Analyze/ Negotiation (17, 4.30) More Analysis (10, 4.13)

High Resistance

Negotiate (11, 3.74)**

Low Resistance

Do It (12, 3.85)

PAQ FALL 2003

C3
O

PAQ FALL 2003

(321)

proposed. Management initiatives [e.g., team empowerment, better performance measures, monthly evaluations) ranked second in importance and was the third largest category as to number of recommendations. Training ranked third in order of importance but was the largest category as to number of suggested items. The category of planning was lowest in terms of importance and prompted the fewest recommendations. In an effort to translate these recommendations into an action agenda, participants ranked the most important recommendations along two dimensions: uncertainty about whether the measure would be effective and resistance expected if it were carried out and resistance expected if it were carried out. Recommendations ranked low on the uncertainty dimension and low on the resistance dimension were considered immediately actionable. Recommendations high on resistance and low on uncertainty needed to be further negotiated in the organization. Those low on resistance and high on uncertainty require further analysis. The final combinationhigh resistance and high uncertainty are the most problematic, requiring both more analysis and further negotiations (Figure 1). The results of the discussions were revealing. The sheer number of recommendations indicates that participants believe that something can be done to improve the organization. Since most of the recommendations were ranked as important, they believe that something should be done. The absence of significant duplication among the recommendations signifies a lack of consensus about exactly what to do. The fact that the largest single category is one in which resistance is expected and uncertainty is great means that those in the organization understand that change will be difficult. Learning Initiatives: In response to the discussions, a

(322)

PAQ FALL 2003

number of initiatives have been undertaken. An Intranet has been created to serve as a repository for a wide range of information including organization policies and procedures and electronic forms. An automated library has been established with links to Intranet sites and references to documents held in the organization. There has been some experimentation with chat rooms to encourage dialogue among members of the organization. A training needs assessment has been conducted and a database has been developed to designate sources of training, costs, and the means by which it can be delivered (e.g.., classroom, onsite, distance education, etc.). Cooperative ventxires with other state agencies in computer-based training have been established. The preceding measures were designed primarily to facilitate individual learning. The more challenging task has been to enable learning by the organization itself. That effort has been guided by the concept of "deeper learning cycles." A concern expressed by the members of the organization as we proceeded the group discussions was that they were already fully occupied in doing their jobs and that additional activities, even if under the rubric of the learning organization, would not be well received. It was requested that learning organization activities be coordinated wdth other management initiatives so as to interfere as little as possible with the performance of normal duties in the organization. That led to the deeper learning cycle perspective as the strategy focused on ways that other organizational activities could be transformed into learning experiences by capitalizing on the latent deeper learning cycles underlying those activities. This is perhaps best explained by illustration. A Process Review. One such effort related to a process review of computer hardware and software procurement.

PAQ FALL 2003

(323)

The review was conducted in conjunction with the organization's quality management program but the broader objective was to transform the process review into a continuous improvement process based on organizational learning. The review afforded a niunber of opportunities for learning. The process to be reviewed was chosen in an inclusive and participatory manner which gave members of the organization the opportunity to learn about highleverage change possibilities in the organization and to experience a consensual group decision-making environment. The review itself involved a team process with substantial discriminatory discretion authority. However, the most compelling learning opportunity presented itself at the end of the process. As part of the implementation and evaluation of the new process, the review team had established a tracking system which simply tracks the time required to complete one stage of the new process to determine whether improvements have been made. Though feedback permits the possibility of some learning and adaptive change that requires a rather cumbersome process in which data must be formatted, reports written, the team assembled, a review conducted, and remedial action taken. The system can be transformed fairly easily into a deeper learning process with the use of readily available information techniques. The strategy was to take the process as redefined, identify the decision points, and establish standards (with appropriate tolerances) for how long it should take for the activity to move from point to point. The electronic system has a number of advantages. First, cycle time can be reduced by expediting "handoffs" as the paperwork is automatically fbrwarded through the process. Second, the system allows parallel processing as the work can be at several decision points simultaneously. Third, if

(324)

PAQ FALL 2003

the system is remotely accessible, customers could check the system to determine the status of their request and contact a designated person is further information is needed. From a learning standpoint, the system can become virtually "self-regulating." Time parameters can be established at each stage of the process, indicating, within agreed tolerances, how long it should take a request to get from one point to another in the process. If the tolerance is exceeded, an "alarm" would be activated prompting someone in the system to contact the customer, identify the nature of the problem, describe what is being done about it, and inform the customer of the new anticipated delivery date. Finally, if a parameter is exceeded regularly, the team would be reassembled to investigate the problem and redesign the system if necessary. At this point, there would be both a deeper learning cycle and a continuous improvement process. From a learning perspective, the tracking system is a self-regulatory process that provides continuous feedback to the system and permits prompt, remedial change. It encourages both adaptive and generative learning in the organization as communication and information techniques are used to foster deeper learning cycles and to support, and institutionalize change in the organization. Strategic Planning Process. A second opportunity to capitalize on a deeper learning cycle presented itself with the strategic planning process. In this case, the strategy was to transform an environmental scan into a continuous learning process. The organization already collects, stores, and distributes information from its environment and, to some extent, uses it in its decision-making processes. It subscribes to many printed publications, most dealing with the field of information and communications techniques. Most members

PAQ FALL 2003

(325)

have access to the Intranet and are encouraged to attend conferences, seminars, and training sessions to keep up with current developments in techniques and management. A number of sections administer customer surveys to keep track of satisfaction with the services provided. Tlie organization also has a full range of mechanisms for the storage and distribution of information. Some technology is old but much of it is new. For instance, organization-wide staff meetings are transmitted by group teleconferencing to all locations of the organization. Minutes are available on the organization's local area network. Common drives are used to store information, making it available to anyone on the network. The organization also has a network-based communications package that can be used for sharing information throughout the organization. Despite the array of devices, there has been little systemic effort to determine what information is of interest and to whom and appropriate storage and distribution processes. The learning organization initiative was intended to rationalize and regularize information gathering, storage, and distribution and to take better advantage of existing information and communications in the process. This started with a series of discussions conducted in each work group by managers to identify categories of information, persons interested in each category, and the level of individual interest. The level of interest was specified as those willing to gather information, those willing to participate in discussions of the information gathered, and those simply interested in receiving information. Managers submitted the types of information identified in their work groups and the persons interested in each category (including level of interest) to the organization's Communications Committee which then defmed the categories of information for the organization as a whole.

(326)

PAQ FALL 2003

Three categories of information were identified: information about the organization (policies and procedures, project reports, etc.); work-specific information (information technology plans of customers, building codes, etc.); and information on general trends in technology (wireless communications, voice communications on the Intranet, security and encryption, etc.). The Committee also assigned persons interested in each category to "communities of interest," most of which crossed organizational divisions. The Director and Associate Director assigned facilitators for each community of interest based on their level of interest and/or expertise. The plan was for facilitators to call meetings of their communities of interest which were to identify sources of information within the category of interest, assign responsibility to individuals for getting information, and adopt strategies for the storage and/or distribution of the information acquired. A number of strategies were considered for the storage and/or distribution of the information assembled. For information such as worksites, the source could simply be referenced and stored in the organization's automated library or broadcast via E-mail. Hard copies could be stored in one of the three library locations. Information in electronic form could be stored on common drives or on OIR's Intranet. These strategies represent the "pull" theory of information sharing in which information is simply made available and members are invited to access it. A more active "pull" theory could also be adopted. Here, instead of waiting for members to be drawn to the information, it is "pushed" at the members. For instance, when information from the websites is downloaded, instead of merely saving it on a common drive, storing it in the automated library or placing it on the Intranet, the information could be distributed as an attachment to an E-mail

PAQ FALL 2003

(327)

message and sent to an address list of interested parties. In this way, information pushed to an individual's workstation, not simply stored, should enhance the possibility that the information will actually be used in determining decisions or actions in the organization. It was anticipated that the process would be as important as the outcomes in this information system. Initial discussions of information could lead to a definition of common interests in the organization and the identification of communities of interest could lead to the development of cross-cutting (horizontal) groups which would serve to tie together an organization beset by strong centripetal forces. Moreover, the discussions should be a continuous process as interests are refined, old information sources discarded, and new sources identified. RESULTS The effort to transform OIR into a more effective learning organization has mirrored the experience encountered elsewhere. There has been a mixture of successes and failures both of which could be instructive to those who would attempt a similar undertaking. As mentioned previously, many of the mechanisms intended to facilitate individual learning in the organization have been put in place. The Intranet is in operation, automated libraries have been established, a training need assessment has been conducted, and progress has been made on the computer-based training initiatives. Encouraging organizational learning has proven to be more difficult. The process review for the procurement of computer hardware and software has been completed and a tracking system put in place. However, the new process has not been fully implemented and the tracking system is not

(328)

PAQ FALL 2003

yet automated. The latter severely limits the learning potential of the changes implemented. A change in leadership in the section most involved and some resistance to change among other individuals in the process account for most of the difficulty. Software to automate the process is now available but the resistance poses the greatest obstacle. The attempt to transform the strategic planning process into a continuous learning process has achieved similar, limited success. The authors found that people were interested in receiving information but not acquiring or distributing it. Nor were they interested in meetings. As a result, a less ambitious approach has been adopted. Selected members have distributed items to all of the members of the organization and asked for individuals to respond if they were interested in additional information. This method could eventuate in meetings and cross-cutting dialogue but apparently the process cannot start there. SOME LESSONS Although there is still much work to do, some tentative conclusions can be drawn from what has been done so far. Lesson 1: Change is likely to take longer than one thinks. In this effort to install the learning organization, the authors encountered the seemingly pervasive phenomenon of resistance to change which stems from a number of sources. Perhaps the primary source is that members of the organization are already fully occupied with their normal activities. The organization has undertaken a number of important tasks and initiatives such as the learning organization are often viewed as just something else members have to do. On the other hand, those charged with encouraging change often seem to expect total commitment. That expectation and the resulting demands on the time of busy

PAQ FALL 2003

(329)

people can generate resistance, even resentment. Another source of resistance is the size of the "performance gap" (March and Simon, 1958). More precisely, it is differences in the size of the performance gap at different levels of the organization. At the top of the organization the gap is small and there is little sense of urgency for change. The organization has undertaken some immense tasks over the last decade and the success the organization has achieved has bred some complacency. The aspiration of leadership was limited to "taking the organization to the next level." Changes in the external environment have raised expectations regarding organizational performance but have not been sufficient to provoke fundamental changes in a management style that has been successful in the past. At the lower levels of the organization, the perceived need for change is large but the likelihood of change is seen as small. Previous recommendations for change had encountered resistance and seldom proved to be lasting. As this pattern recurred, it produced what Senge (1990) calls a negatively reinforcing process in which cynicism about the possibility of change produces resistance even to propose it. OIR is surely not unique in regard to resistance to change. Indeed, the literature is replete with examples of similar situations in both public and private organizations. The lesson to be learned is not that there will be resistance to change but that implementation of management reform cannot be taken for granted and that strategies for overcoming resistance to change must be developed if reform is to be successful. Lesson 2: Technology has its limits as a catalyst for change. Drawing inspiration from Hammer and Champy's (1993) characterization of technology as a disruptive and enabling force in the organization, the authors' strategy was to use technology as a catalyst for change which was seen

(330)

PAQFALL 2003

as an alternative to the previous reliance on training to change attitudes which, it was believed, would then produce changes in the individual behavior. The difficulty with that course of action was that the presumed linkages were either truncated or nonexistent. Training may have resulted in some changes in attitudes but those changes, even when they occurred, were seldom accompanied by a change in actual behavior. Thus, a different strategy seemed advisable. However, the alternative chosen (i.e., the technological strategy) proved to have problems of its own. As it turns out, some things were done differently but attitudes did not always follow and the resistance was simply driven underground. It now appears that relying on technology as a change agent and defining the learning organization simply in terms of deeper learning was overly narrow and incomplete. There are other important forces of the learning organization most of which were ignored in this intervention. Establishing a learning organization involves preparing the individual to leam, individual learning in the organization, preparing the organization to leam, and organizational learning. The deeper cycle perspective dealt only with the last facet of the learning organization and even there only partially. This does not mean that the deeper learning cycle perspective is not useful. However, additional strategies are probably necessary to effect meaningful organizational change. Lesson 3: Grand strategies versus small steps. Willard (1995) has described three strategies for implementing the learning organization: the "declared/marquee," the "subversive/backstage," and the "coincidental/accidental" strategies. The declared/marquee strategy is the organization declaring its intentions and publicly attempting to

PAQ FALL 2003

(331)

introduce the approach in its operations. The subversive/backstage strategy is being aware of learning organization ideas and consciously choosing to use them as background techniques but not making public declarations about intentions. The coincidental/accidental strategy is doing the right things to implement the learning organization but not being aware of what is being done. All of these strategies were employed at one time or another in this intervention. The initial approach was clearly the declaration/marquee strategy. Both the presentations and the dialogues were open commitments to the learning organization perspective. The process review was designed to begin a series of reviews of critical organizational functions and develop an internal capacity to carry out these reviews on a continuing basis. The continuous learning exercise in which communities of interest were to be developed across the organization was also announced as a grand strategy. The coincidental/accidental strategy occurred when activities were undertaken and independent of the learning organization initiative but related to that initiative. This was the case, for instance, with the development of the organizational Intranet and the automated library. Neither was undertaken specifically as a learning organization activity but both turned out to be important to learning in the organization. As work has progressed, this strategy has turned increasingly to the subversive/backstage approach. There is some value as well as cost attached to each of these approaches. The declared/marquee strategy may have been necessary to give members of the organization some idea about the concept and provide a sense of direction to the activity. However, the cost was some skepticism particularly among those who had participated in previous management reforms and had not been impressed by the

(332)

PAQ FALL 2003

results. There was also resistance from those who felt that they had enough to do already without this additional burden. The coincidental/accidental strategy had the advantage of spontaneity but needed to be related to some broader and more conscious strategy to realize fully the benefits of those undertakings. The subversive/backstage strategy did not threaten people or produce resistance but lacked an energizing vision.

CONCLUSION
It is clear that the authors have made a beginning in defining and implementing the learning organization perspecive in OIR. If fully implemented, learning would pervade the business processes, even the culture. That has not yet happened. The authors do believe that the idea of building deeper learning cycles into day-to-day business processes is a useful way of thinking about the learning organization and one that can be meaningful to managers in public agencies. As stated at the outset, the burden of this analysis is not so much to prove that a certain technique or set of techniques will work but to suggest techniques that might be tried elsewhere to see if they might improve organizational performance. This is not only true to the spirit of the learning organization but is also a logical culmination of a long trail of research in public administration and organization theory going from the Classical search for "principles" of administration to the Behavioralist quest for the "The Theory" of the organization. The principles have now been relegated to the status of mere proverbs while the Behavioralist quest failed to find predicted, consistent relationships among management change, satisfaction, and

PAQ FALL 2003

(333)

productivity. The response was contingency theory that has left us with a proliferation of contingencies, each of which offers partial, but not a full, explanation for variation in productivity. However, the implied message of contingency theory may be accurate. The success of a particular management technique may be dependent on a wide range of contingenciesthe personalities of the subordinates, the power position of the superior, the objective of the organization, the technology employed in the organization, the culture in which the organization resides, etc. In that case, the appropriate strategy is not to adopt a "one size for all" approach but to experiment with a variety of techniques to determine which one(s) will work in a particular situation. In a world of chaos and complexity, the results, although perhaps determined, are not predictable. Under these conditions, the appropriate advice is simply to try something and see if it works. Does this return us to the "brute empiricism" that Wilson (1987) wished to avoid? The authors think not. What the learning perspective demands is that a spirit of innovation and experimentation be fostered in the organization, that feedback mechanisms be systematized, that flexibility and responsiveness be maintained, and that processes for continuous improvement and continuous learning be institutionalized.

REFERENCES
Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon (1996). Organizational Learning H: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, Beer, Michael and Russell A. Eisenstat (1996). "Developing an Organi2ation Capable of Implementing Strategy and Learning." Human Relations 49 (May):597-619. Calvert, Gene, Sandra Mobley, and Lisa Marshall (1994). "Grasping and Learning Organizations." Training and Development Ai (June):

(334)

PAQ FALL 2003

40-43. Deming, W. Edwards (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Drucker, Peter (1994). "The Age of Social Transformation." Atlantic Monthly 214 (November):53-46+. Garvin, David A. (1993). "Building a Leaming Organization." Harvard Business Review 71 (July-August):78-91. Gilder, George (1997). "The Nine-Inch Nanosecond." Government Technology, Special Edition, 10 (September): 19-23. Hammer, Michael and James Champy (1993). Reengineering the Corporation. New York. Handy, Charles (1995). "Managing the Dream," in Sarita Chawla and John Renesch (eds.). Leaming Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow's Workplace. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. Koflfrnan, Fred and Peter M. Senge (1995). "Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Leaming Organizations," in Sarita Chawla and John Renesch (eds./ Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow's Workplace. Portland. OR: Productivity Press. Lawson, Robert B. and Curtis L. Ventriss (1992). "Organizational Change: The Role of Organizational Culture and Organizational Leaming." Psychological Record 42 (Spring):205-219. Malhotra, Yogesh (1997), "Knowledge Management for the New World of Business." [WWW Document]. URL http://www.brin..com/km/km.htm. March, James G. and Herbert A. Simon (1985). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Mechling, Jerry (1995). Information Technology and Government Procurement Priorities for Reform. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Govemment. Micklethwait, John and Adrian Woolridge (1996). TAe Witch Doctors. New York: Times Books. Osbome, David and Ted Gaebler (1992). Reinventing Government. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley. Peters, Tom (1992). Liberation Management: Necessary Disorganization for the Nanosecond Nineties. New York: Knopf Roth, George and Art Kleiner (1997). "Leaming about Organizational LeamingCreating a Leaming History." [WWW Document]. URLhttp.//www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/18001 .html.

PAQ FALL 2003

(335)

Roth, George and Peter M. Senge (1995). "From Theory to Pactice:Research Territory, Processes and Structure at the MIT Center for Organizational Learning." [WWW Document]. URL http.//www. sol-ne.org/wp/ResTerr.html. Schein, Edgar H. (1997). "Organizational Learning: What is New?" [WWW Document]. URL http.//www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/1001 l.html. Senge, Robert M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York; Currency Doubleday. Waldo, Dwight (ed.) (1971). Public Administration In a Time of Turbulence. Scranton, PA: Changler Publishing Company. Willard, Bob (1995). "3 Strategies for Learning Organizations." [Internet Department]. URL http.//192.75.177.236/-bwillard/lostat,htm. Wilson, Woodrow (1987). "The Study of Administration." Political Science Quarterly 2 (June): 197-222.