What is a Learning Organization?

The Learning Organization is becoming another business cliche term like change management
but scratch the surIace and what can it tell us about organisational learning?
A couple oI deIinitions oI the learning organisation:
Learning organi:ations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they
truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective
aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.
(Peter Senge 199)
%he Learning organi:ation is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought about simply
by training individuals, it can only happen as a result of learning at the whole organi:ation
level. Learning Company is an organi:ation that facilitates the learning of all its members and
continuously transforms itself. (Pedler et. al. 1991: 1)
A learning organisation thereIore is an organisation whose people are in a continuous search Ior
new and better ways to adapt to change and enhance perIormance.
Inherent in a learning organization is an environment that values learning and where
inquisitiveness and creativity are a way oI organisational liIe.
There is an optimistic view oI change and thinking about new possibilities is the norm.
They are also organizations where a degree oI risk taking and experimentation is encouraged and
some Iailure is expected.
enefits of being a Learning Organization
There are many beneIits to improving learning capacity and knowledge sharing within an
organization. The main beneIits are;

Adapting better than your competitors to external pressures
Systemising innovation and new ideas
Having the knowledge to better link resources to customer needs
Improving quality oI outputs at all levels
Increasing the pace oI change within the organization
Improving company image by becoming more people-orientated

ecoming a Learning Organization
According to Peter Senge the 5 dimensions that distinguishes learning Irom more traditional
organisations is the mastery oI certain basic disciplines or component technologies`. Are:


$stems thinking
The ability to see the big picture and identiIy patterns and themes instead oI individual events.
Senge argues we tend to apply overly simplistic Irameworks to complex systems; Iocusing on the
parts instead oI the whole. Classically we look to actions that produce improvements in a
relatively short time span. However, when viewed in systems terms short-term improvements
oIten involve very signiIicant long-term costs. We may learn Irom experience but a simplistic
short term view may mean we never learn. The argument runs, a better appreciation oI systems
will lead to more appropriate action.
Personal master
Organisations only learn when individuals learn but individual learning does not guarantee
organisational learning. People with personal mastery are continual learners and are aware oI
their short comings, development needs and ignorance yet they have the selI-conIidence to be
active learners.
ental models
This is about understanding that our assumptions and generalisations proIoundly inIluence how
we see the world and the decisions and actions we make. The process here is to uncover those
assumptions or mental models and test them. It is also about balancing advocacy and inquiry and
avoiding non-productive corporate games and politics. It is also about more distributed and local
team ownership In other words it is about Iostering a mental Ilexibility and openness.
:ilding shared vision
The emphasis is on a 'shared vision which means collaborative development to Ioster genuine
engagement and commitment rather than just compliance. This is the exact opposite oI a CEO
selling a vision. Visions spread because oI a reinIorcing process. Increased clarity, enthusiasm
and commitment rub oII on others in the organization. As people talk, the vision grows clearer.
As it gets clearer, enthusiasm Ior its beneIits grow. Shared visioning build commitment Ior the
Iuture.
%eam learning
This is about discussion and team alignment; it is about creating the results that the team desires.
It builds on vision and personal mastery but these are not enough. Teams have to learn to work
and learn together. It is about team disciplines and the quality oI the team`s discussions and
insights. When teams learn together, Peter Senge suggests, not only can there be good results Ior
the organization; members will grow more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise.

Organizational barriers to learning
Typical as organisations grow and mature they develop more rigid systems and processes and
ways oI thinking. This has a impact on the organizational learning.When problems arise in the
company, the solutions that are proposed oIten turn out to be only short term
While all people have the capacity to learn and all organizations are learning organizations to a
degree, the structures in which many organisations have to Iunction are oIten not conducive to
reIlection and engagement.
urthermore, people may lack the tools and guiding ideas to make sense oI the situations they
Iace.
Personal mastery can be a diIIicult concept Ior some leaders and quite remote Irom the nuts and
bolts oI the business. It can also be dangerous to empower people iI the organisation doesn`t
know what it wants to do. In other words, iI individuals do not engage with a shared vision,
personal mastery could be used to advance their own vision
In some organizations a lack oI a pro-learning culture can be a barrier to learning. It is important
that an environment is created where individuals can share learning without it being devalued
and ignored, so more people can beneIit Irom their knowledge and the individual becomes
empowered
Shared knowledge and vision can be undermined by overly hierarchical structures.

ndivid:al barriers to learning
Resistance to learning can occur within a Learning Organization iI there is not suIIicient buy in
at an individual level.
Learning and personal mastery is a question oI individual choice and cannot be Iorced. Change
Iatigue and cynicism about change are not uncommon in our organizations. Those who Ieel
threatened by change are more likely to have closed mindsets.
Unless implemented coherently across the whole organisation, learning can be viewed as elitist
and restricted to more senior levels within the organisation.
II training and development is compulsory, it can be viewed as a Iorm oI control, rather than a
Iorm oI personal development.
A critiq:e of the Learning Organization
hile there has been a lot of talk about learning organi:ations it is very difficult to identify real-
life examples. This might be because the vision is too ideal` or because it isn`t relevant to the
requirements and dynamics oI organizations
Focuses mainly on the cultural dimension, and does not adequately take into account the other
dimensions oI an organization. To transIorm an organization it is necessary to attend to
structures and the organization oI work as well as the culture and processes. ocussing
exclusively on training activities in order to Ioster learning. Iavours this purely cultural bias`
(ibid.: 146).
Favours individual and collective learning processes at all levels oI the organization, but does
not connect them properly to the organization`s strategic objectives. inger and Brand argue this
makes a case Ior some Iorm oI measurement oI organizational learning so that it is possible to
assess the extent to which such learning contributes or not towards strategic objectives.
Remains rather vague.The exact Iunctions oI organizational learning need to be more clearly
deIined. In our view, organizational learning is just a means in order to achieve strategic
objectives. But creating a learning organization is also a goal, since the ability permanently and
collectively to learn is a necessary precondition Ior thriving in the Iuture.
4: can arg:e ab4:t the practicality 41 a learning 4rganisati4n b:t it d4es represent
s42ething inspirati4nal.
The emphases on building a shared vision, team working, personal mastery and the challenging
oI assumptions and 'sacred cows does have the potential oI allowing workplaces to be more
open, aligned engaging and creative.

L|ght Character|st|cs of the 1rad|t|ona| Crgan|zat|on

Versus tbe Learning
Urganization Element
Traditional Urganization Learning organization
hared Va|ues Lff|c|ency
Lffect|veness
Lxce||ence
Crgan|zat|ona| kenewa|
Management ty|e Contro| Iac|||tator Coach
trategy]Act|on |an 1op down approach
koad map
Lveryone |s consu|ted
Learn|ng map
tructure n|erarchy I|at structure Dynam|c
networks
taff Character|st|cs eop|e who know (experts)
eop|e who |earn
know|edge |s power M|stakes
to|erated as part of |earn|ng
D|st|nct|ve taff k|||s Adapt|ve |earn|ng Generat|ve |earn|ng
Measurement ystem I|nanc|a| measures 8oth f|nanc|a| and
nonf|nanc|a| measures
1eams Work|ng groups Departmenta|
boundar|es
Cross funct|ona| teams

Enviionment
entralized, mechanistic str:ct:res do not create a good environment ndivid:als do not have a
comprehensive pict:re of the whole organization and its goals %his ca:ses political and parochial
sstems to be set :p which stifle the learning process %herefore a more flexible, organic str:ct:re
m:st be formed organic, we mean a flatter str:ct:re, which enco:rages innovations %he flatter
str:ct:re also promotes passing of information between workers and so creating a more informed
work force
t |s necessary for management to take on a new ph||osophy to encourage openness ref|ect|v|ty and
accept error and uncerta|nty Members need to be ab|e to quest|on dec|s|ons w|thout the fear of
repr|mand 1h|s quest|on|ng can often h|gh||ght prob|ems at an ear|y stage and reduce t|me
consum|ng errors Cne way of overcom|ng th|s fear |s to |ntroduce anonym|ty so that quest|ons can
be asked or suggest|ons made but the source |s not necessar||y known

EENTATN STRATEuES
An organization that wants to implement a learning organization philosoph req:ires an overall
strateg with clear, well-defined goals Once these have been established, the tools needed to
facilitate the strateg m:st be identified
t is clear that everone has their own interpretation of the "Learning Organization" idea, so to
prod:ce an action plan that will transform gro:ps into Learning Organizations might seem
impossible However, it is possible to identif three generic strategies that highlight possible ro:tes
to developing Learning Organizations %he specific tools req:ired to implement an of these
depends on the strateg adopted, b:t the initiatives that the represent are generic thro:gho:t
%hese initiatives are abl described :sing Peter $enge's Five Disciplines of Learning Organizations
($enge, 1990) %he three strategies are:
Acciuental
Ior many compan|es adopt|ng a |earn|ng organ|zat|on ph||osophy |s the second step to ach|ev|ng th|s
no|y Gra|| 1hey may a|ready be tak|ng steps to ach|eve the|r bus|ness goa|s that |n h|nds|ght f|t the
framework for |mp|ement|ng a Learn|ng Crgan|zat|on 1h|s |s the acc|denta| approach |n that |t was
not |n|t|ated through awareness of the Learn|ng Crgan|zat|on concept
Subveisive
Cnce an organ|zat|on has d|scovered the Learn|ng Crgan|zat|on ph||osophy they must make a dec|s|on
as to how they want to proceed 1h|s |s a cho|ce between a subvers|ve and a dec|ared strategy 1he
subvers|ve strategy d|ffers from an acc|denta| one |n the |eve| of awareness but |t |s not secret|ve!
1hus wh||e not open|y endors|ng the Learn|ng Crgan|zat|on |dea| they are ab|e to exp|o|t the |deas
and techn|ques
eclaieu
1he other opt|on |s the dec|ared approach 1h|s |s se|fexp|anatory 1he pr|nc|p|es of Learn|ng
Crgan|zat|ons are adopted as part of the company ethos become company speak and are man|fest
open|y |n a|| company |n|t|at|ves