Introduction

The learning The notion of the “learning organization” has

organization: a review
and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
The author
Thomas Garavan is with the Department of Personnel
and Employment Relations, University of Limerick,
Limerick, Republic of Ireland.
Abstract
Undertakes a critical review of the confused and confusing
literature on the learning organization. Draws on both
psychological and organizational perspectives, and
focuses on the distinction between organizational learning
and the concept of the learning organization. Concludes
with a consideration of the issues involved in creating a
learning organization.
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · pp. 18–29
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0969-6474
18
become one of the new buzzwords in the
management, psychological and human
resource development literature. Senior
management in many organizations have also
come to believe that the way in which an
organization learns is a key index to its effec-
tiveness and potential to innovate and grow.
The question must be raised: why an inter-
est in the learning organization at this time?
This is not an easy question to answer, howev-
er. It may represent a corrective to the many
efficiency driven concepts presented in the
1980s, specifically total quality management
and business process re-engineering. These
ideas emphasized the notion of the lean orga-
nization (Burgoyne, 1995). Burgoyne argues
that such organizations may become vulnera-
ble because they have little spare capacity to
come through a crisis. Therefore, the learning
organization idea represents a shift to organi-
zational development and growth. Within the
training and development literature, however,
there was a strong emphasis on staff develop-
ment and individual learning. The learning
organization is viewed as representing a shift
to collective learning.
There is a great deal of confusion in the
way the learning organization concept is
considered within the literature. Mabey and
Salaman (1995) suggest that the learning
organization is often a piece of shorthand to
refer to organizations which try to make a
working reality of such desirable attributes as
flexibility, teamwork, continuous learning and
employee participation and development.
The literature on the learning organization
falls into two broad categories: first, that
which treats the learning organization as a
variable and something that can be designed
into an organization and which has a signifi-
cant influence on other organizational out-
comes. Second, that which treats the learning
organization as a metaphor to describe an
organization. It basically views the organiza-
tion as culture and sees the learning organiza-
tion as a particular variant of culture.
Beyond this, however, the concept is very
elusive and the extant literature illustrates a
multiplicity of perspectives. A central conun-
drum of the learning organization concept is
the issue of whether learning can be managed.
Swieringa and Wierdsma (1992) insist that
one has to be prescriptive on the meta-level in
order to keep the organization a learning one,
 The learning organization: a review and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
especially where the handling of learning
principles is concerned. They contrast the
effort required to sustain learning with the
temptation to sink into the calm security of
the prescriptive organization and, because of
this, they advise that the desire to remain a
learning organization should be non-nego-
tiable. The precise meaning of the phrase
“remain a learning organization” is, therefore,
difficult to ascertain. It could mean that the
organization is continually changing and,
therefore, in a state of continuous learning, or
that it is even responsive to learning opportu-
nities when they arise but in the meantime is
in a state of flux. This perhaps represents a
fatal internal contradiction in the concept of
the learning organization and is one of the
many problems with the concept which tend
not to receive the discussion they merit within
the literature.
Much of the current literature on the learn-
ing organization relates to manufacturing or
private sector organizations. There is also a
tendency to use the term “learning company”
in some of the writings. Pedlar et al. (1991)
argue that the use of the word “company” is
more appropriate than the word “organiza-
tion” because they view the latter as essential-
ly a mechanical concept. The former allows
for the idea of any group of people who seek
to explore collectively how best people may
work and learn together. The word “organiza-
tion” is preferred in this paper because not
many non-profit or public sector organiza-
tions readily view themselves as companies.
This article undertakes a critical review of
the learning organization literature drawing
on psychological and organizational perspec-
tives. The article initially examines some of
the general problems inherent in the learning
organization literature and then considers the
possible differences between organizational
learning and the concept of the learning
organization. It finally focuses on the issue of
whether it is possible to create a learning
organization.
Some general problems with the
literature on the learning organization
Many notions of the learning organization
are emphasized. Some writers put emphasis
on the learning of all an organization’s
members (Pedlar et al., 1991); others on the
organization’s competitiveness in all functions
(Hayes et al., 1988; Slater and Narver, 1995),
while others put emphasis on the skills and
19
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · 18–29
functions of the business (Lessem, 1990).
Some authors such as Senge (1990) adopt a
broader approach and bracket all of the other
perspectives together. Senge tends to suggest
a composite theoretical ideal.
There are a number of specific difficulties
with the literature. These include the neglect
of intra-organizational phenomena and the
lack of clarity with respect to the treatment of
the organization, the nature of learning itself,
the lack of an accepted theory of what com-
prises the culture and climate of a learning
organization, the influence of organizational
size, the role of teamwork within the learning
organization concept and a fundamental
question of whether the learning organization
is a variable or a root metaphor. Some of these
issues are worth considering here.
The learning organization as variable or
root metaphor
Those who view the learning organization as a
variable tend to have an objective and func-
tional view of reality, whereas those who see
the learning organization from a root
metaphor approach view organizations as if
they are essentially learning cultures. Those
who treat the learning organization as a vari-
able also believe that specific traits can be
identified and such traits influence the behav-
iour of employees and the performance of the
organization. The idea that a “strong learning
organization” has a distinct and positive
impact on performance is very popular, and
commentators have identified a range of
benefits of developing such an organization
(Garrett, 1987; Mayo and Jank, 1994;
Mumford, 1995). The key question from this
perspective is how to design the organization
so as to create a learning organization.
The less popular perspective stresses that
the learning organization is a type of culture
and that the organization is essentially a cul-
ture. It views the organization as an expres-
sive, idealistic and symbolic phenomenon
(Jones, 1994).
Treating the learning organization from a
root metaphor perspective essentially means
conceptualizing organizations in terms of
their expressive, ideological and symbolic
aspects. Effectively the learning organization
is not viewed as a piece of the puzzle, but the
puzzle itself. The research issue is then one of
exploring organizations as subjective
experience, a phenomenological rather than
an objectivist perspective. The learning cul-
ture is not seen as objective but as constructed
 The learning organization: a review and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
by people and reproduced by a network of
symbols and meanings that unite people and
make shared learning possible.
A root metaphor view of the learning orga-
nization, therefore, plays down the pragmatic
results that may follow from having one in
favour of a more general understanding of
what it is. This, however, is not the way in
which many of those who embrace the learn-
ing organization notion think about it.
The nature of an organization
While there is a tendency to state that organi-
zations do not learn, people do; many writers
emphasize the organization as the basic unit
of analysis. Bate (1990) points out that it is
not possible to investigate the notion of a
learning organization without considering
whether the organization has an existence of
its own which is separate from those of its
members, or whether it is simply a sum of the
component parts. The problem is further
compounded by what Hendry et al. (1994)
describe as an “indiscriminate application of
psychological theory to organizations”.
They specifically highlight the tendency to
use the language of stimulus-response theory.
Hendry (1991) and Morgan (1993), among
others, consider the notion that organizations
learn, as opposed to individuals in organiza-
tions learning together, which introduces an
unnecessary level of abstraction to the debate.
The notion of the learning organization is
unhelpful if it leads to the attribution to the
organization of systems properties which are
in some way independent of its members.
Viewing organizations as systems is essen-
tially adopting the metaphor of organizations
as organisms. Such a metaphor has significant
limitations primarily its assumption of func-
tional unity, whereas in reality organizations
are not normally characterized by harmony.
Organizations are products of visions, ideas,
norms and beliefs so that their shape and
structure is much more fragile and tentative
than the material structure of an organism.
Argyris and Schon (1981), in recognition of
this problem, invoke the notion of agency to
suggest that organizational learning can and
does occur. They argue that members act as
learning agents for the organization. They act
as agents when they detect a match or mis-
match of outcome to expectations.
By means of collaborative inquiry, individ-
uals identify the sources of error and attribute
them to the theory in use within the organiza-
tion. It may also be argued that the learning
20
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · 18–29
organization idea represents an acknowledge-
ment that the vision movement has failed, in
that there was a tendency to overdo vision
with the result that people fail to learn
because they are blind to other ideas.
Hoyle (1995) suggests that to speak of
organizations learning is in effect a shorthand
way of articulating that organization members
are not only individual learners but also have
the capacity to learn collaboratively. Such
collaborative learning allows organizational
members to become more knowledgeable,
skilful and more open to future learning
opportunities. There is a considerable body of
research which highlights the effectiveness of
learning in teams, for example. However, as
we shall see later, attitudinal problems may
inhibit team learning.
Hoyle also draws attention to the problems
of collaborative learning in the form of struc-
tures, procedures and cultures which can be
regarded as properties of the organization.
Other contributors explore learning in
descriptive-organization-level terms
(Hofstede, 1992) or focus on specific aspects
of the organization such as procedures and
regulations intended to control the flow of
information (Shrivastava, 1983). Much of the
literature fails to recognize the uniqueness of
organizations in terms of their membership
and those with influence within the organiza-
tion.
The nature of a learning organization
culture
Much of the discussion in the management
literature is clearly written from the perspec-
tive that the learning organization can be
designed and managed effectively to produce
positive outcomes for the organization. Many
commentators have attempted to specify what
the learning organization culture should
consist of. Burgoyne (1995), for example,
talks about an appropriate learning culture as
an attribute of a learning organization. He
defines it as a culture which supports shared
learning from experience.
Although numerous authors (Garvin,
1993; McGill et al., 1992; Senge, 1990) have
considered the notion of a learning organiza-
tion culture, there is no widely accepted
theory or view on this issue. Some have
identified specific aspects of a learning organi-
zation culture such as entrepreneurship and
risk taking (Kanter, 1989; Naman and Slevin,
1993; Sykes and Block, 1989) facilitative
leadership (Meen and Keough, 1992; Slater
 The learning organization: a review and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
and Narver, 1995) organic structures (Gupta
and Govindarajan, 1991; Woodman et al.,
1993) decentralized strategic planning
processes (Day, 1990; Hart, 1992;
Mintzberg, 1994) and individual develop-
ment is valued as an end in itself (Garvin,
1993) but there has been little attempt to test
their existence empirically or how they may
contribute to learning activities within the
organization and ultimately to enhanced
organizational performance.
Indeed the literature on learning culture
characteristics is extremely broad, drawing on
work from sociology, psychology and anthro-
pology as well as business disciplines, which
perhaps makes the task of formulating such a
theory a monumental one.
The nature of the learning process
Mumford (1995), commenting on the work of
Senge (1990) and Pedlar et al. (1991), points
out that the aforementioned writings take
such a wide view of the structures in which an
organization does or needs to learn, that the
idea of learning becomes lost. Jones and
Hendry (1992) focus on a similar issue when
they consider the many questions raised by
current definitions of the learning organiza-
tion. They cite four questions which are of
relevance here: What is learning? Are there
types or levels of learning in organizations and
how are they recognized? What are the differ-
ent levels of learning? How does an organiza-
tion facilitate or inhibit learning?
They suggest that there is a need to hold on
to the idea of the learning organization as a
direction, while organizational learning,
which is a fundamental component of the
learning organization, is seen as a heuristic
device to explain or quantify learning activi-
ties. This suggests that emphasis should be
put on understanding how learning is defined,
acquired and used at the individual and
organizational level.
Mumford (1995) likewise addresses the
learning issue. He argues that an essential
requirement is to understand that organiza-
tional learning is not just a matter of whether
one believes in first level versus deeper level
learning; incremental versus transformational
learning, but also the necessity to understand
levels in the sense of participants in the
process. He advocates a learning pyramid
starting with the individual learner, then one-
to-one learning, group learning and then the
learning organization. He sees the learning
organization as the final level of the pyramid.
21
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · 18–29
The idea of a hierarchical ordering or levels
of learning is popular within the learning
organization literature. The idea is described
in different ways by several authors: Argyris
and Schon’s (1981) notion of single and
double loop learning is perhaps most com-
monly cited, however, other variations include
first- and second-order learning (Bartunek
and Reed, 1992; Watzawick et al., 1974) Zero
learning and Learning I, II, III and IV (Bate-
stone, 1972; Palmer, 1979), habit formation
learning, adaptive organization learning and
creative proactive learning (Burgoyne, 1995).
Many commentators on the learning organi-
zation tend to emphasize learning in the
context of the organization transforming itself
in relation to its environment and a reciprocal
process of individual learning and develop-
ment.
Hoyle (1995), however, argues that the
notion of learning which is advocated within
the learning organization literature is limited.
He suggests that the emphasis is on the estab-
lishment of routines whereby managers learn
to manage the organization more efficiently. It
is noticeable that the developing orthodoxy
within the learning organization literature is
the view that management is learning (Bur-
goyne, 1991). It is suggested that such a view
is one-sided and limited. Hoyle prefers a
notion of the learning organization which
advocates exploratory learning and which
puts emphasis on the generation and use of
organizational knowledge. It must be admit-
ted, however, that knowledge generation and
its use is inadequately addressed within the
relevant literature.
A related issue is the question of how learn-
ing in organizations is to be evaluated.
Cullingford (1990) suggests that to study and
understand learning is to enter “that no-
man’s land between thinking as a capacity,
and development as a process of change”.
The concept of learning itself is, therefore, too
casually and indifferently used (Jones, 1994)
and many organizations try to quantify learn-
ing in very prescriptive ways. It is tenable to
suggest that because so many varieties and
kinds of learning go on in organizations, to
attempt a rigorous assessment of it in terms of
outcomes may be inappropriate.
Jones (1994) also comments that when
learning is measured by organizations, rarely
do they have an understanding of what it is
they are measuring and, when they do, they
may be only measuring activities as part of an
organizational control system. Slater and
 The learning organization: a review and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
Narver (1995) also acknowledge the difficulty
of measurement. They point out that a major
challenge will be to develop valid measures of
learning outcomes specifically to assess
whether an organization has actually learned.
Learning versus teaching
French and Bazalgette (1996) argue that the
other side of learning is teaching. However,
there is no recognition of teaching as a core
experience within organizations. They argue
that while learning has been analysed in great
detail and applied not only to individuals but
also to organizations, the notion of teaching is
restricted in organizational analysis. This, it is
argued, is reflected in the preference towards
using softer terms such as facilitating learning
and the creation of development opportuni-
ties. French and Bazalgette essentially argue
that the learning organization concept will
continue to be distorted unless the teaching
component of management and of the organi-
zation generally is given as serious considera-
tion as the learning function.
The role of organizational size
There has, in general, been little attempt to
address the issue of organizational size in
discourse on the learning organizations. Fiol
and Lyles (1985) identify culture, strategy,
structure and the external environment as
important contextual influences on the learn-
ing organization but fail to consider size in any
explicit way.
Shrivastava (1983) gives implicit recogni-
tion to size in his consideration of various
levels of learning but does not specifically
examine how size characteristics may influ-
ence the capacity to become a learning
organization. There is, in general, a large
organization mentality underpinning much of
the writings on the learning organization and
Hendry et al. (1994) are among the few
writers to consider size explicitly as an
important organizational variable. They
specifically argue that small size may have
distinct advantages in terms of building a
learning organization. They do not, however,
point out what these may be.
The notion of teams in a learning
organization
The notion and role of teams in the learning
organization literature gets mixed treatment.
Jones (1994) points out that influential work
by Quinn (1992) and Hampden-Turner
(1990) make little or no reference to teams,
22
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · 18–29
and Huber (1991), in a major review of orga-
nizational learning processes, neglects the role
that teams may play.
It has, however, been argued that different
team interpretations contribute to organiza-
tions’ learning difficulties (Levitt and March,
1988) and that teamwork may contribute to
the advancement of the organization’s know-
ledge base. Teams, it is suggested, provide
mechanisms for collective learning of organi-
zational members and they need ways to
practise together so that they can develop
their collective learning skills (Senge, 1990).
While organizations are being encouraged
to focus on teams, the reality is that teams
may inhibit learning. Team learning and
performance is a team skill which needs to be
practised if it is to result in improved individ-
ual and organizational effectiveness. De Guse
(1988) suggests that team learning is more
difficult to mobilize than individual learning
in that it is essentially a process of language
development. West (1994) argues that as the
implicit knowledge of each learner becomes
explicit, their mental model becomes a
building block of the team.
There is a tendency to underestimate,
within the learning organizational literature,
the extent to which individuals may embark
on defensive routines which limit their ability
to learn as a team. Argyris (1987) suggests
that the more effective the defensive routines
are, the better they mask the problems and the
more the team will come to rely on them. The
paradox is that when defensive routines pre-
vent immediate pain, they also inhibit the
power of learning how to reduce what causes
the pain in the first instance.
The nature of organizational knowledge
A central issue, in the context of notions of
the learning organization, as identified earlier,
is the nature of organizational knowledge. If
organizational learning is defined as the devel-
opment of new knowledge or insights that has
potential to influence behaviour (Huber,
1991; Sinkula, 1994), what is knowledge and
how does it develop as well as what are the
conditions for knowledge to develop? These
issues have received limited attention in the
learning organizational literature.
There seems to be a consensus as to the
role of experience in forming knowledge
structures (Lyles and Schwenk, 1992; Prahal-
ad and Bettis, 1986). Knowledge structures
appear to evolve and change as organizational
members reach agreement on interpretations
 The learning organization: a review and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
of their individual and shared common expe-
riences. Second, it appears that only in rare
instances will organizational members ques-
tion core elements as opposed to peripheral
elements of the knowledge structure.
Eventually, however, wholesale criticism
may lead to changes in the core of the knowl-
edge structures of the organization. Agree-
ment and disagreement are apparent at many
levels of the organization at all times, and as
organizational members try to reach
agreement or settle for disagreement they
continue to develop organizational
knowledge, enabling finer and finer
distinctions.
The learning organization literature tends
to assume shared understanding. This
assumption does not always stand up because,
as Lukmann (1990) points out, people might
say yes to something they do not understand
and no to something they understand.
Organizational members continually intro-
duce new ideas and concepts but the key
question is how they are incorporated into
the organization and sustained. Von Krogh et
al. (1994) refer to this process as languaging,
and argue that any consideration of the learn-
ing organization must analyse the period of
time in which the learning organization is
sustained and how the process may be
interrupted.
The issues discussed so far illustrate the
difficulties which are faced when the concept
of the learning organization is subjected to
academic study. Two further issues relate to
the relationship between the notion of the
learning organization and organizational
learning and the fundamental question of
whether it is possible to create a learning
organization.
Organizational learning and the learning
organization
Organizational learning
There is a tendency within the business and
economics literature to equate learning with
competitive advantage. However, the concern
in the psychological context is to go beyond
issues of competitive advantage and consider
the process of learning as well as the outcomes
of the learning process. It is usually assumed
that learning generally has positive outcomes,
that organizations have the capacity to learn
collectively and that organizational learning
occurs at different speeds and levels within
the organization (Mabey and Salaman, 1995).
23
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · 18–29
In basic terms, organizational learning is
conceptualized in the literature to be con-
cerned with the development of new knowl-
edge or insights that have the potential to
influence behaviour (Fiol and Lyles, 1985;
Sinkula, 1994). There is also a perception that
learning facilitates behavioural change which
in turn leads to improved performance
(Garvin, 1993; Senge, 1990). Two types of
organizational learning are most often cited;
adaptive and generative learning (Argyris,
1987; Leonard-Barton, 1992; Stalk, 1988).
Adaptive learning or single-loop learning is
the more basic form of learning and occurs
within a set of recognized and unrecognized
constraints that reflect the organization’s
assumptions about its environment and itself
(Prahalad and Bettis, 1986). The constraints
limit organizational learning to the adaptive
variety, which usually is sequential, incremen-
tal, and focused on issues and opportunities
that are within the traditional scope of the
organization’s activities.
Generative learning or double-loop learn-
ing occurs when the organization is willing to
question long-held assumptions about its
mission and capabilities, and it requires the
development of new ways of looking at the
world based on an understanding of the sys-
tems and relationships that link key issues and
events. It is argued that generative learning is
frame-breaking and more likely to lead to
competitive advantage than adaptive learning
(Slater and Narver, 1995).
Argyris and Schon (1978) have drawn
attention to how individual learning in organi-
zations can be harnessed positively to produce
collective learning. They describe the value
of moving beyond single-loop learning
where errors are detected and corrected to
double-loop or generative learning which
results in a deeper level of collective knowl-
edge and understanding. They portray this
movement in cyclical and mechanistic terms.
However, this is called into question by Petti-
grew and Whipp (1991). They found that the
way in which organizations learned was in fact
a highly intricate and complex process, with
vital skills and knowledge often being
acquired in hidden and unnoticed ways. They
suggest that it is insufficient for organizations
to regard the creation of knowledge and
judgements of their external world as simply a
technical exercise.
Generative learning is generally considered
an elusive goal. Bhide (1986) agrees that
revolutionary periods of generative learning
 The learning organization: a review and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
may provide a window for competitive advan-
tage but they can be kept open only through
continuous improvement.
West (1994) argues that in both single- and
double-loop learning, organizational learning
consists of restructuring the theory of action.
However, Batestone (1972) suggests deutro-
learning or second-order learning. He draws a
distinction between the process of learning
and the process of learning to learn. Individu-
als have the capacity to learn how to learn in
that they can reflect and enquire into previous
contexts for learning or failure to learn and
can question and evaluate the appropriateness
of their actions.
Argyris and Schon (1978) argue that there
can be no organizational learning without
individual learning, but that individual learn-
ing is a necessary but insufficient condition
for organizational learning. They suggest that
it is necessary for individuals to embed their
discoveries, challenges and results of their
enquiries into the organization’s memory
which encodes the theory-in-use. There is a
clear implication here that the organizational
climate is receptive to such changes. However,
the creation of such a climate may be very
difficult to achieve in practice.
Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) dislike the
single/double-loop learning idea, characteriz-
ing it as mechanical and cyclical. They sug-
gest that the focus should be on what they
term “organizational capability”. This, they
argue, focuses on the intricate and often
unnoticed or hidden learning that takes place
and which influences what occurs within the
organization. This hidden learning is the skills
and knowledge that human resources acquire
and develop in the course of their work and
which is the result of experiential learning. It
follows then that the organization’s capability
is the sum total of its learning activities, both
hidden and revealed. The notion of organiza-
tional capability also incorporates that which
remains undeveloped and which needs
expanding and developing.
Organizational learning is generally charac-
terized as a three-stage process which includes
information acquisition, information dissemi-
nation and shared implementation (Sinkula,
1994). Information may be acquired from
direct experience, the experience of others or
organizational memory. Mabey and Salaman
(1995) characterized learning from experi-
ence as either internally focused (exploita-
tion) or externally focused (exploration).
24
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · 18–29
Organizations, it is suggested, must contin-
ually balance learning from exploitation and
exploration, because too much reliance on the
former is unlikely to lead to generative learn-
ing. Organizational learning is distinguishable
from personal learning by information dis-
semination and accomplishing a shared inter-
pretation of the information.
Effective dissemination increases informa-
tion value where each piece of information
can be seen in its broader context by all orga-
nizational players who might use or be affect-
ed by it (Quinn, 1992).
The final stage of organization learning is
shared interpretation of the information. Day
(1990) and Dess and Origer (1987) point out
that for organizational learning to occur in any
business unit there must be a consensus on
the meaning of the information and its impli-
cations for the organization.
Behaviour change is put forward as the link
between organizational learning and organiza-
tional performance. Menon and Varadarajan
(1992) suggest three ways in which learning
can influence employee behaviour; the direct
application of knowledge to solve problems;
using knowledge to influence organizational
members’ perspectives on problems, and
affective use which increases satisfaction or
decreases dissonance with a change that
already has been made.
The learning organization
So far in the discussion the “building blocks”
of the learning organization have not been
considered. This perhaps is more problematic
than a discussion of organizational learning.
Much of the debate is couched in the context
of organizational culture and there have been
several attempts to delineate the cultural and
climate characteristics of the learning organi-
zation.
The most influential commentator in the
US context is Senge (1990). He describes the
blueprints for building a learning organization
in terms of disciplines. He maintains that
these disciplines must be practised, otherwise
nothing will be learned. His philosophy
behind incorporating these disciplines lies in
understanding that the way in which organiza-
tions are a product of how people think and
interact; organizations cannot change in any
fundamental way unless people can change
their basic processes of thinking and interact-
ing.
Senge’s view of organizations is essentially
optimistic. His creative tension principle, for
 The learning organization: a review and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
example, tends to assume that individual
employees will be motivated by a given orga-
nization’s vision once it has been clearly artic-
ulated and the current reality has been accu-
rately portrayed. His statement that negative
visions carry a subtle message of powerless-
ness may have some validity, but it neglects
the plurality of many modern organizations in
which powerless people cannot create positive
visions (Mabey and Iles, 1994).
A more useful US contribution is provided
by Slater and Narver (1995). They suggest
five critical components of the learning orga-
nization – two elements of culture and three
elements of climate. They do recognize,
however, that the demarcation line between
culture and climate is somewhat ambiguous.
They suggest that the culture elements consist
of a market orientation and entrepreneurship,
whereas the climate features include facilita-
tive leadership, an organic and open structure
and a decentralized approach to planning.
Deshpande et al. (1993) view leadership as an
element of culture rather than climate, how-
ever, is what is included in each category may
not be the issue. The key concern is that
culture and climate must reinforce one
another.
The most frequently-cited definition of the
learning organization in the European litera-
ture is that of Pedlar et al. (1991). They define
a learning organization as “one which facili-
tates the learning of all of its members and
continuously transforms itself”. Whether this
amounts to a description or a definition it has
four important notions inherent in it. It
emphasizes that aspects of the organization
operate to facilitate and encourage individual
learning actively. It is insufficient for members
with a learning orientation to be called a
learning organization. The description puts
an emphasis on all members of the organiza-
tion. It is insufficient to focus on selected
groups. The notion is that individuals learn
together in a collective system where the
learning of one individual or sub-group is
likely to have knock-on effects for the learning
of another. Where the organization attempts
to restrict this transfer of learning it is unlikely
to be characteristic of a learning organization
(Bahrami, 1992).
Third, the definition implies that the orga-
nization is experiencing a process of continu-
ous change and adaptation and focuses on
learning about the change process itself, while
at the same time enabling individuals’ learn-
ing.
25
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · 18–29
The definition also implies that the organi-
zation does not have all the right answers in
terms of how to direct individuals’ learning
and suggests that there is no success formula –
each organization needs to discover its own
learning organization.
One must conclude at this stage that the
notion of the learning organization is in a state
of evolution and its precise form is yet to be
defined. Mabey and Salaman (1995) suggest
that perhaps the most significant contribution
of the learning organization debate is the
attention it has brought to three areas of
learning.
Previous discussion of organizational
learning has tended to concentrate on formal-
ized and prescriptive learning, whereas the
learning organization switches attention to the
process of learning; the individuality of learn-
ing styles and the creation of the appropriate
environment for learners. The debate has also
prompted a realization that learning is as
much acquired through emotions, attitudes,
communication and habit mediated through
imitation of role models, experience and
memory. Jones and Hendry (1994), for
example, contrast this self learning with the
hard pragmatic formal training typically
undertaken by many organizations. Learning
organization notions have also put emphasis
on regenerative and transformational learning
processes.
The question, however, still remains – how
does organizational learning differ from the
learning organization? Organizational learn-
ing appears to be used as a descriptive or
heuristic device to explain and quantify
learning activities and events and therefore
can be subsumed under the broader concept
of the learning organization which refers to a
much less tangible direction of an organiza-
tion and its members. Fundamentally, the
concept of the learning organization raises the
issue of whether learning can and should be
managed and who is the ultimate custodian
and benefactor of new skills, knowledge and
attitudes. It highlights a fundamental paradox
– how does an organization release control
over the learning process while managing the
benefits which arise from it? One may likewise
ask whether it is possible to establish the
benefits, given that much learning is hidden
and insightful in nature.
The notion of the learning organization is,
therefore, elusive and perhaps self-contradic-
tory and it raises the question of whether it is
possible to create a learning organization.
 The learning organization: a review and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
The remainder of this paper will address this
issue.
Can a learning organization be created?
An analysis of the learning organization con-
cept suggests that it is more useful to
approach it in terms of organizational values
and processes that adopt a learning-based
approach than in terms of specific structures
and models of good practice. This suggests
that developing a learning organization is not
a matter of adopting procedures and practices
used elsewhere because to do so runs contrary
to the processes of learning and change. Many
of the issues and choices raised by the idea of
the learning organization relate to broad
questions of culture and learning structures.
The essential task appears to be the cre-
ation of enabling cultures and structures
which are needed at organizational and indi-
vidual levels.
It is perhaps more appropriate to suggest
that organizations can develop in a progres-
sive manner towards a learning organization
but it is an idealized state which may never be
attained. Such a perspective is sustainable if
one views the learning organization as a vari-
able.
Three issues appear relevant in the context
of a movement towards characteristics of a
learning organization: the creation of a learn-
ing culture; structural issues and the psycho-
logical maturity of individuals and the learn-
ing process.
Learning cultures
The concept of culture itself is intangible and
the notion of a learning culture is perhaps
easier to experience than describe. There is
evidence, however, to suggest that an organi-
zation’s culture may facilitate or inhibit learn-
ing depending on its characteristics (Argyris
1987; Bate 1990).
Argyris (1985) suggests that an organiza-
tion’s defence routines may be both anti-
learning and over-protective. He argues that
such patterns of behaviour may become so
embedded in the culture that they are rarely
questioned or challenged.
Deshpande and Webster (1989) and
Schein (1990) emphasize that it is important
for the organization’s culture to be supportive
because it is difficult to develop and sustain
appropriate learning behaviours if the corre-
sponding organizational values are not in
place, and similarly values are difficult to
26
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · 18–29
sustain if the appropriate incentives and
examples do not exist. This suggests a syner-
gistic relationship between the elements of
culture and learning activities within the
organization systems which support the learn-
ing organization. Denison (1990) suggests
that culture often embodies an accumulation
of prior learning, based on earlier success,
which usually constrains and biases an indi-
vidual’s capacity to perceive and understand a
new vision.
Structures/socio-structures
West (1994) warns that the development of a
learning organization requires profound
realignment of existing structures and socio-
structures. Pedlar et al. (1991) suggest that
the impetus for transformation must come
from within clearly-defined boundaries for
decision making. Responsibility and account-
ability are embedded in the social and organi-
zation structure of an organization and are
very difficult to change.
Honey (1991) is of the view that many
organizations are unwittingly designed to
encourage the acquisition of procedures and
behaviours they wish they had less of. There is
a clear recognition in the learning organiza-
tion literature that many organizations have
structures which would not facilitate progres-
sion towards the learning organization ideal.
Psychological maturity and learning
Much that is written on the learning organiza-
tion assumes a certain level of psychological
maturity on the part of human resources
within the organization. However, Argyris
(1987) suggests that systems and procedures
within many organizations prevent individuals
from reaching maturity or releasing their full
psychological energy. West (1994) argues that
human resources are often short-sighted in
outlook, unable to see future consequences
and possess negative or apathetic attitudes to
work. Learning organization ideas firmly rest
on the notion that individuals are receptive to
greater accountability and responsibility in
the organization and that it is possible to
achieve this end.
Conclusions and implications for
research
The notion of the learning organization, as
presently advocated, is an illusive concept and
is represented both as an ideal rather than a
reality and as something which can be
 The learning organization: a review and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
achieved. The advertising material for the
then new journal The Learning Organization
(1994) described the learning organization as
the “Holy Grail”. This characterization still
holds. This has not stopped the flow of litera-
ture on the learning organization, which is
extensive and expanding rapidly and, present-
ly, as a concept it is located somewhere on the
path from invention to innovation.
The expansive literature tends to view
learning as a hierarchically ordered sequence
of levels of learning. This notion is described
in many different ways by several authors.
There is also a recognition of the link between
individual learning and organizational
learning.
Learning occurs simultaneously at many
different levels and in many ways, some of
which are contradictory. Organizational
choices are influenced by hidden political
agendas, different perceptual models and
unconscious processes. The learning organi-
zation idea endeavours to stimulate the devel-
opment of approaches to learning which are
congruent across different levels within the
hierarchy of learning. Congruence with the
vision and mission of the organization is also
seen as essential.
A fundamental problem, however, relates
to the treatment of the organization. The
learning organization literature frequently
makes reference to organizations without any
mention of the individuals and groups which
make up the organization. The tendency to
view organizations as systems is considered
unhelpful because, while all organizations
have a degree of systemness, it is empirically
difficult to justify the notion that an organiza-
tion could constitute a system sufficiently
independent to think for itself. It is, therefore,
more appropriate to focus on individuals and
groups and examine how individual and
collaborative learning enables the organiza-
tion to change and transform itself while
creating a vision and idealized state towards
which its members should work.
The learning organization notion is not
new. It has been implicit in many early writ-
ings on the management of change. However,
what is new about it is that it has become an
explicit and widely used metaphor and is seen
as something for which organizations should
consciously aim. This metaphor is, however,
open to numerous interpretations. Many
commentators see learning in routinized
terms, manifest in routines whereby
organization members learn to manage the
27
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · 18–29
organization more efficiently. Much of this
literature is managerialist in tone and intent in
that it is solely concerned with organizational
improvement. A more comprehensive and
useful perspective on the learning organiza-
tion might be to view it from an exploratory
learning perspective. Such a view would
advocate that organizations are rich in knowl-
edge and there should be encouragement in
terms of its generation and use. Senge (1990)
has placed knowledge at the centre of his ideas
about the learning organization. However, the
place of knowledge generation in the debate
has been downplayed. This paper highlighted
the importance of the social processing of
knowledge and the significance of the organi-
zational paradigm in terms of making sense of
the knowledge generated.
The learning organization literature does
not give sufficient attention to the type of
individual which is suited to a learning organi-
zation. There is clearly a need for employees
who have the appropriate level of psychologi-
cal maturity to be reflective. The potential to
develop these and other attributes in employ-
ees is significantly ignored. It is argued that
such attributes are difficult to develop even in
organizations where employee development
initiatives put an emphasis on collaboration.
In terms of the research agenda, a number
of areas merit investigation. Future research
must address itself both to the notions of
organizational learning and the learning
organization. Because the evidence concern-
ing the benefits of and antecedents to organi-
zational learning is primarily anecdotal, there
is significant scope for research in this area,
specifically in the area of generative learning.
There is also a need to develop valid
measures of learning outcome. Some authors
have suggested the use of indirect measures
such as new product development, etc. How-
ever, there is a need to develop more direct
measures.
An important area for further research is to
understand how features of the organization’s
culture facilitate learning processes and
whether these cultural features lead to superi-
or learning outcomes. Likewise, there is a
need to focus on understanding individual
and group learning processes.
Essentially the research challenge is to
validate/invalidate much of the sentiment and
the significant claims that one reads for the
learning organization concept within the
literature. Such research will, in the long run,
provide a better service to managers and those
 The learning organization: a review and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
involved in trying to build learning organiza-
tions than will literature which is anecdotal
and generalist in nature.
At the practitioner level there remains the
issue of whether it is possible to create a learn-
ing organization. The author tends towards
the view that it is perhaps more useful to
consider the learning organization in terms of
organizational values and processes that adopt
a learning-based approach than in terms of
specific learning structures or interventions.
Many of the issues raised by the learning
organization are equally relevant in the con-
text of the management of change and the
introduction of continuous improvement and
other quality initiatives.
References and further reading
Argyris, C. (1985), Strategy, Change and Defensive
Routines, Pitman, New York, NY.
Argyris, C. (1987), Social Science Approaches to Business
Behaviour, Garland Publishing, London.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1981), Organizational Learn-
ing, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bahrami, H. (1992), “The emerging flexible organization:
perspectives from Silicon Valley”, California Man-
agement Review, Vol. 34, Summer, pp. 34-52.
Bartunek, T.M. and Reed, R.D. (1992), “The role of conflict
in a second order change attempt”, in Kolb, D.B. and
Bartunek, T.M. (Eds), Hidden Conflict in Organiza-
tions, Sage, London.
Bate, P. (1990), “The cultural paralysis of innovation”,
paper presented to the 7th International Conference
on Organization, Symbolism and Corporate Culture,
Saarbrücken, June.
Batestone, G. (1972), Steps to an Ecology of the Mind,
Ballantine, New York, NY.
Bhide, A. (1986), “Hurdle as strategy”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 16, September/October, pp. 59-65.
Burgoyne, J.G. (1991), “Managing by learning”, Inaugural
Lecture, Lancaster University, 15 May.
Burgoyne, J.G. (1995), “Feeding minds to grow the busi-
ness”, People Management, 21 September.
Burgoyne, J.G. (1996), “The Learning Organization”, an
address to HRD Week, London, March.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms
and Organizational Analysis, Heinemann Education-
al Books, London.
Cullingford, C. (1990), The Nature of Learning, Cassell,
London.
Dale, M. (1993), Developing Management Skills, Kogan
Page, London.
Day, G.S. (1990), Mental Driven Strategy: Processes for
Creating Value, The Free Press, New York, NY.
de Guse, A. (1988), “Planning as learning”, Harvard
Business Review, March/April, pp. 70-4.
Denison, D.R. (1990), Corporate Culture and Organization-
al Effectiveness, Wiley, New York, NY.
28
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · 18–29
Deshpande, R. and Webster, F.E. (1989), “Organizational
culture and marketing: defining the research
agenda”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, January,
pp. 3-15.
Deshpande, R., Farley, F.A. and Webster, F. (1993), “Corpo-
rate culture, customer orientation and innovative-
ness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 23-37.
Dess, G.B. and Origer, N.K. (1987), “Environment structure
and consensus in strategy formulation: a conceptual
integration”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 12, April, pp. 313-30.
Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), “Organizational learn-
ing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 803-13.
French, R. and Bazalgette, J. (1996), “From learning
organization to teaching. Learning organization”,
Management Learning, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 113-28.
Garrett, B. (1987), The Learning Organization, Fontana,
London.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organisation”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, July/August,
pp. 78-91.
Glazer, R. (1991) “Marketing as an information-intensive
environment: strategic implications of knowledge as
an asset”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, October,
pp. 1-19.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991), “Knowledge
flows and the structure of control within multi-
national corporations”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 16 No 4, pp. 768-92.
Hampden-Turner, C. (1990), Charting the Corporate Mind,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Hart, S.L. (1992), “An integrative framework for strategy-
making processes”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 17, April, pp. 327-51.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1988),
Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the Learning
Organization, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Hendry, C. (1991), “International comparisons of human
resource management: putting the firm in the
frame”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 415-39.
Hendry, C., Jones, A.M. with Cooper, N. (1994), Creating a
Learning Organization: Strategies for Change,
Sutton Coldfield Man-made Fibres Industry Training
Organization.
Hofstede, G. (1992), “Cultural dimensions in people
management: the socialisation perspective”, in
Pacik, N.M., Tichy, C.K. and Burnett, P. (Eds), Global-
ising Management; Creating and Leading the
Competitive Organization, Wiley, New York, NY.
Honey, P. (1991), “The learning organization simplified”,
Training and Development, July, pp. 30-3.
Hoyle, E. (1995), “The school as a learning organization”,
paper presented at the AERA Conference, San
Francisco, CA, April.
Huber, G.P. (1991) “Organizational learning: the contribut-
ing processes and the literatures”, Organization
Science, Vol. 2, February, pp. 88-115.
Jones, A. (1994), “A learning in organizations model”, in
Bradshaw, D.C.A. (Ed.), Bringing Learning to Life:
 The learning organization: a review and evaluation
Thomas Garavan
The Learning Revolution, the Economy and the
Individual, The Falmer Press, London.
Jones, A.M. and Hendry, C. (1992), The Learning Organiza-
tion: A Review of Literature and Practice, HRD
Partnership, London.
Jones, A.M. and Hendry, C. (1994), “The learning organiza-
tion: adult learning and organizational transforma-
tion”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 5,
pp. 153-62.
Kanter, R.M. (1989), When Giants Learn to Dance, Unwin,
London.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), “Core capabilities and core
rigidities: a paradox in managing new product
development”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 13, Summer, pp. 111-25.
Lessem, R. (1990), Developmental Management: Princi-
ples of Holistic Business, Blackwell, Oxford.
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), “Organizational learn-
ing”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 4,
pp. 319-40.
Lukmann, N. (1990), Essays in Self-reliance, University
Press, Columbia, New York, NY.
Lyles and Schwenk, C.R. (1992), “Top management,
strategy and organizational knowledge structures”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29, p. 155.
Mabey, C. and Iles (Eds) (1994), Managing Learning,
Routledge, London.
Mabey, C. and Salaman, G. (1995), Strategic Human
Resource Management, Blackwell Business, London.
McGill, M.E., Slocum, J.W. and Sei, D. (1992), “Manage-
ment practices in learning organizations”, Organiza-
tional Dynamics, Vol. 21, Summer, pp. 5-17.
Mayo, A. and Jank, E. (1994), The Power of Learning,
Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Meen, D.E. and Keough, M. (1992), “Creating a learning
organization”, The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 1,
pp. 58-81.
Menon, A. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1992), “A model of
marketing knowledge use within firms”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, October, pp. 53-71.
Mintzberg, H. (1994), The Rise and Fall of Strategic
Planning, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Morgan, G. (1993), Imaginization, Sage, London.
Mumford, A. (1995), “The learning organization in
review”, Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 9-16.
Naman, J.L. and Slevin, D.P. (1993), “Entrepreneurship and
the concept of fit: a model and empirical test”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 135-52.
Palmer, B. (1979), “Learning and the group experience”, in
Lawrence, W.G. (Ed.), Exploring Individual and
Organizational Boundaries, John Wiley, Chichester.
29
The Learning Organization
Volume 4 · Number 1 · 1997 · 18–29
Pedlar, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1991), The Learn-
ing Company, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Pettigrew, A.M. and Whipp, R. (1991), Managing Change
for Competitive Success, Blackwell, Oxford.
Prahalad, C.K. and Bettis, R. (1986), “The dominant logic:
a new link between diversity and performance”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 6,
pp. 485-506.
Quinn, J.B. (1992), Intelligent Enterprise, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Schein, E.H. (1990), “Organizational culture”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 45, February, pp, 109-19.
Schein, E.H. (1993), “How can organizations learn
faster?”, Sloan Management Review, Winter,
pp. 85-92.
Senge, P.M. (1990), “The leader’s new work: building
learning organizations”, Sloan Management
Review, Fall, pp. 7-23.
Shrivastava, P. (1983), “A typology of organizational
learning systems”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 7-28.
Sinkula, F.M. (1994), ” Market information processing and
organizational learning”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58, January, pp. 35-65.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and
the learning organization”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 59, July, pp. 63-74.
Stalk, G. (1988), “Time – the next source of competitive
advantage”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66,
July/August, pp. 41-55.
Swieringa, G. and Wierdsma, A. (1992), Becoming a
Learning Organization, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA.
Sykes, H.B. and Block, Z. (1989), “Corporate venturing
obstacles: sources and solutions”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 159-67.
Syles, M.A. and Schwerk, C.R. (1992), “Top management,
strategy and organizational knowledge structures”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29,
p. 155.
Von Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Slocum, K. (1994), “An essay
on corporate epistemology”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 53-71.
Watkins, K. and Marsack, V. (1993), Sculpting the Learning
Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Watzawick, P., Weakland, T.H. and Fisch, R. (1974),
Change: Principles of Problem Formation and
Problem Resolution, W.W. Norton, London.
West, P. (1994), “The learning organization: losing the
luggage in transit?”, Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 18 No. 11, pp. 30-8.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.L. and Griffin, R.W. (1993),
“Towards a theory of organizational creativity”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 293-321.