The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm

Themes in
The learning organisation: literature
a meta-analysis of themes in
literature
123
Keith Thomas
School of Business, The University of New South Wales at the Australian
Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia, and
Stephen Allen
Graduate School of Management, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The need to create and apply knowledge has contributed to the prescription of a learning
organisation. However, there is no easy answer to what this concept means. Also a major criticism of the
concept relates to the yet unclear connection between learning and performance. The purpose of this paper
is to review the broad global literature to identify emergent themes, synthesised into a multilevel
framework of process and structural attributes that reflects key theoretical relationships and attributes
underwriting organisational learning and change
Design/methodology/approach – This paper is based on meta-analysis of literature published
about the learning organisation and organisational learning.
Findings – Finds a multilevel framework of process and structural attributes that reflects key
relationships and attributes associated with learning and change.
Practical implications – The multi-level model outlines a framework for future research that may
seek to link learning and performance. The causal relationships identified also suggest practical
implications for managers seeking to enact the learning organisation concept.
Originality/value – This paper synthesises the conceptual underpinnings of literature on the
learning organisation into a practical framework.
Keywords Learning organizations, Learning, Tacit knowledge
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
What is central to the concept of a learning organisation is both organisational
learning, defined as the intentional use of learning processes to continuously transform
the organisation (Dixon, 1999) and the related concept of knowledge (Argyris and
Schon, 1978; Pedler et al., 1997; Revans, 1982; Senge, 1995; Schein, 1993). Assuming
that well-developed core competencies serve as a launch point for new products and
services (Nevis et al., 1995), what underpins the general prescription that firms become
learning organisations is the capability to create, integrate and apply knowledge. Such
capability is critical to firms developing sustainable competitive advantage (Bierly
et al., 2000). Conversely, a criticism of the knowledge-based approach is the apparent
disconnect between learning and performance. While knowledge and knowledge The Learning Organization
Vol. 13 No. 2, 2006
management processes should impact organisational performance, there is evidence pp. 123-139
that suggests something is lacking (Bierly et al., 2000; Cavaleri, 2004). Questions also q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-6474
remain about how senior managers might apply specific leadership actions in order to DOI 10.1108/09696470610645467
TLO foster organisational learning (Johnson, 2002) or overcome barriers to organisational
learning (Argyris, 1992).
13,2 Arguably, part of the problem is in the assumptions underlying the terms
information and knowledge. These assumptions are hard to identify and difficult to
test and therefore the link with organisational performance, not surprisingly, remains
fuzzy. In this paper, the term information is defined as the flow of messages or data
124 that can be codified in some explicit form, which when written down or depicted in
some meaningful way can “inform” the recipient (Neef, 1999). Conversely, knowledge is
that information placed in context by virtue of human interpretation, or as Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1999) state, it (knowledge) is created by the anchoring of the beliefs and the
commitment to that flow of information by its holder. Accordingly, knowledge is
mainly embedded in people; it can be written down and made “explicit”, but rarely
without losing a good deal of its richness and applicability. Consequently, explicit
knowledge is often also relegated to the lowly title of information (Neef, 1999). More
often, knowledge remains tacit and invaluable in terms of innovation.
In this paper, we examine the literature on organisational learning and knowledge
within a broad framework of environmental, structural and management-oriented or
processual factors. Rather than investigate specific aspects of organisational learning
or commit to a particular point-of-view of the learning organisation concept, this study
provides a synthesis of literature in order to develop a deeper, more practical
understanding of the related concepts. This integrated approach is founded on the
belief that organisations are complex, ambiguous and paradoxical and the challenge is
in dealing with this complexity. The multi-layered model developed provides a simple,
yet rich view of the dynamic links between learning, knowledge and performance.

Current challenges for organisations

Given the rate of change and the changing nature of work, organisations have come to
view learning as a more critical variable than it might have been in the past. The
landscape in which today’s organisations must operate is characterised by continual
and disruptive change (Senge, 1995; Kotter and Cohen, 2002). To remain relevant and
competitive, organisations must continuously adapt and transform through the
process of learning at all levels of the organisation (Senge, 1995). Moreover, making the
transition from doing to knowing in business, from capacity of effort to capacity of
insight, is both challenging and hazardous. To illustrate the downside risk, as Housel
and Bell (2001) point out, the fact is that more than half of the companies listed as
members of the Fortune 500 in 1993 are not on that list today.
For companies competing in the knowledge economy, the capacity to leverage
knowledge is critical. Industry now faces a dramatically new competitive environment
that offers opportunity, possibility and challenge. One challenge is to ensure employees
and systems have access to the knowledge that is crucial to supporting and sustaining
organisational visions for success. To thrive in the new environment, companies must
invest in knowledge tools and processes that contribute to strategic direction, while
overcoming knowledge gaps (Housel and Bell, 2001). Another challenge is to shift
management’s focus from people and resources as tangible resources to be moved,
replaced or eliminated as business needs dictate, to seeing the organisation as a set of
knowledge assets deployed through people, process and technology. The capacity to
accelerate the learning-knowledge-value cycle presents a further challenge (Housel and
Bell, 2001). What this idea implies is the need to monitor knowledge application within Themes in
the organisation to determine how well knowledge produces value in corporate literature
processes. These insights must in turn transform into actionable activities within core
processes, to develop and produce better or newer products and/or services that more
effectively solve the problems of the customers (Örtenblad, 2002).
Organisations in advanced economies are changing dramatically in the face of an
overwhelming techno-economic shift, with the trend in companies for low- and 125
medium-skill manufacturing to transfer to developing labour markets (Neef, 1999). The
key to negotiating the path between servicing existing markets and developing new
initiatives is in knowledge, specifically the knowledge assets held within each firm. Not
surprisingly, post-industrial organisations usually associated with innovative and robust
companies within the high-skill, high technology sector, are knowledge intensive or
knowledge based (Housel and Bell, 2001). The way these organisations ensure success is
not just through their ability to leverage their resources, but also through their ability to
create, invent, adapt and innovate. Such capacity provides organisations, both at the
individual and organisational level, strategic agility and the capacity to respond quickly
to market opportunities (Neef, 1999; Martins and Terblanche, 2003; Ghosh, 2004). Another
characteristic of such organisations is the marked increase in “cognitive complexity” and
consequent general up-skilling in job requirement (Neef, 1999, p. 7). Overall, as Housel and
Bell (2001) suggest, first, there is a need for a conceptual framework that treats knowledge
as a core corporate asset, rather than an expense; and second, there is heightened pressure
for organisations to adopt knowledge management techniques that can leverage both
knowledge and knowledge-workers.

The learning organisation and its constructs

If the capacity to learn is a critical variable in an organisation’s ability to respond to
market opportunities in a knowledge-based economy, understanding the dynamics of
learning is as important as reorganising knowledge management processes around
new principles and techniques. In this regard, there appears a general consensus in
literature that organisational learning can help achieve sustained competitive
advantage (Ghosh, 2004). Importantly though, while organisations learn through
individuals learning, organisational learning is not a cumulative result of individual
learning. Rather, organisations learn when discoveries, evaluations and insights by
individuals are successfully embedded in the organisation’s mental models or
cognitive systems and memories (Simon, 1991; Argyris, 1992; Argyris, 2000).
Moreover, while all organisations learn to a greater or lesser extent what distinguishes
learning organisations from other organisations is their ability to continually expand
their respective capacities to create their future or learn and transform themselves
(Watkins and Marsick, 1993). While this definition captures the fundamentals of a
learning organisation, a qualitative distinction between adaptive or single-loop
learning and generative or double-loop learning is necessary. Adaptive learning is
associated with simple or first-order change and thus on its own may not sufficient for
a firm’s survival. For a learning organisation, adaptive learning must also be joined by
a generative learning capacity that can enhance the organisation’s creative capacity
through second-order change (Senge, 1995). Adding further robustness to the concept
is the implicit understanding that second-order change, includes a capacity to transfer
TLO knowledge and modify behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights from
13,2 experience (Garvin, 1993).
In this review of organisational learning constructs, two other issues require
emphasis. First, while most discussion is primarily in the context of individual learning
processes, there is at best only a functional equivalence between the concepts of
individual and collective learning. As Mirvis suggests this interaction “requires
126 conceptual refinement” (Mirvis, 1996, p. 21), but the issue invites a merging of
individual and organisational learning that provides an insight into why learning has
become a strategic initiative (Senge, 1995; DiBella, 2001). While learning at the
individual level is a complex and somewhat hard to quantify concept, at an
organisational level what seems needed, over and above a greater capacity for
processing information, is the capacity for “generating and absorbing” information
through mechanisms such as feedback and self-regulation (Wheatley, 1994, p. 107).
Other considerations include full participation by workers in the innovation process, in
order to access their tacit knowledge. Organisational learning also requires stability of
the workforce. Only then does it become rational for the individual to transfer his/her
tacit knowledge to the organisation, and for the company to diffuse explicit knowledge
among its workers through information technologies that enable complex
organisational links between tacit and explicit knowledge (Castells, 2000). Second,
the terms organisational learning and learning organisation, while used
interchangeably are not functional equivalents (see Figure 1). The learning
organisation concept is about building learning and knowledge creating capacity in
individuals and enabling the effective dissemination of this knowledge through the
organisation. In essence then, the learning organisation is the product or result of a
critical combination of internal change mechanisms concerned with structure, process
and human capability allied to continuous environmental reviews intended to maintain

Figure 1.
Discerning shared and
specific characteristics
or improve performance. Conversely, organisational learning might be described Themes in
simple as the capacity or processes to get to that product or result (DiBella, 2001). literature
The illustration in Figure 1 presents a composite view of systems-based research
findings described in some detail by Mirvis (1996). It also includes consideration of
several variants of what Wheatley (1994) calls new science: the aptly named “strange
attractor” that Wheatley suggests its human equivalent is meaning (accessed through
shared vision); the notion of learning communities and collaborative learning (Kofman 127
and Senge, 1993; Mirvis, 1996); and Senge’s fifth discipline, systems thinking (Senge,
1995). The illustration also highlights factors that can negate effective learning
initiatives, such as emotions, linear cause-effect maps and defensive routines, as well as
common themes with organisational learning including new language, the importance
of mental models or beliefs held in people’s heads and the need for double-loop learning
(DLL). This complex learning-process perspective with its rich mix of analytical
metaphors can be contrasted with a functional view of organisational learning that
comprises the three stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing or
dissemination, and knowledge utilisation (Nevis et al., 1995). Suffice to say, a
learning organisation is not built overnight (Garvin, 1993).
Reflecting on the literature and content in Figure 1, it is apparent that there are no
easy answers to questions such as what is a learning organisation and how might a
manager introduce the concept into a mature, large organisation. The concern with
organisational learning appears to focus on the gaps in learning capacity and on
structures that generate new information, what Margaret Wheatley called the “fuel of
life” (Wheatley, 1994, p. 105). However, as Wheatley also suggests, enabling information
to function as a self-generating source of vitality requires new structures. Moreover, if we
are seeking resilient organisations – a property prized in self-organising systems – then
a new relationship with information is required, one that will make no sense from the
viewpoint of machine imagery. From a managerial viewpoint, Charles Savage takes a
similar stance to Wheatley saying although we may have fifth-generation technology,
organisations still only use second-generation management systems (Savage, 1996).

Regarding organisations as metaphors

The discussion so far highlights an important point, there is a close relationship
between the way we think and the way we act (Morgan, 1997). The challenge for many
organisations is in the form of thinking behind action. This is similar to the point by
Argyris and his colleagues on espoused and in-use theories-of-action, referring to the
mental models held in people’s heads (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Argyris, 1992).
Understanding this relationship has important consequences. First, and perhaps most
importantly, it encourages people and organisations to own the part they play in
shaping the problem. Assuming this ownership can open up lines of action, such as
examining defensive routines that would otherwise be closed. Second, an appreciation
of the relationship between thought and action can help create new ways of organising.
To illustrate, a bureaucratic system would remind us of the need for structure and
rules, while a cultural system would point to norms and beliefs, and to organising
development interventions around the creation of meaning.
The core diagnostic benefit of viewing organisations through the lens of differing
metaphors or ways of thinking is to see and understand organisations in new ways.
Shifting from diagnosis, metaphors also provide a frame of action. Thus, a machine
TLO metaphor would invite a mechanistic or structured approach; an organismic metaphor
13,2 would add the need to organise to meet the demands of the environment; a brain
metaphor would organise strategies to support learning and innovation; and a cultural
metaphor would add and remind how to manage meaning and so on. Each metaphor
has its own injunction or directive, a mode of understanding that suggests a mode of
action (Morgan, 1997), which collectively would present a richer basis for action than
128 actions informed by a single organisational perspective.
Using metaphor to inform action in terms of learning more effectively, companies
need to create systems and processes that support learning and transfer of the
knowledge quickly and efficiently through the organisation (Garvin, 1993). Noting the
disconnect between learning and performance, Mirvis (1996) explains this is due to the
cumulative effect of a gap between simplified, linear cause-effect maps that underlie
planned change and the complex, interconnected terrain that people and organisations
encounter in actual practice. Similarly, Argyris and his colleagues (Argyris, 1976;
Argyris and Schon, 1978) who look deeper into learning deficiencies of human systems,
point to a gap between people’s espoused theories-of-action and their in-use-theories.
These in-use theories, that reflect extant mental models, are important as they
influence individual and organisational behaviour. Argyris’ conceptualisation of
learning also makes clear that the dominant organisational culture and its sub-cultures
strongly influences the nature of learning and the way learning occurs or does not
occur in organisations. The point is, while modes of action may differ between
entrepreneurial and bureaucratic organisations, common factors such as socialisation,
emotions and defence mechanisms can support or hinder collaborative enquiry and so
the organisation’s capacity for generative learning and consequent creativity.

Method
This study is based on a meta-analysis of literature. A meta-analysis is an analytical
framework that allows the analysis of relevant theory in order to establish thematic
relationships. As Rosenthal (1991) suggests, meta-analytic procedures include
approaches to summarise relationships, determining moderator variables in
relationships and establishing relationships, as well as more recent approaches to
compare and combine studies, the basis of this study. While a meta-analytic approach is
essentially a qualitative process that may be less than perfect, the alternative systematic,
explicit quantitative procedures are equally likely to be prone to flaws. Moreover, all the
thoughtful and intuitive procedures employed in a traditional review of literature can be
employed in a meta-analytic review, a process that is more systematic, more exhaustive,
and quantitative. For these reasons, it is accepted that meta-analytic reviews can lead to
summary statements of greater thoroughness, greater precision and greater
inter-subjectivity or objectivity (Rosenthal, 1991, citing Kaplan, 1964).
In order to complete a broad theoretical integration of literature, such as intended by
this study, a necessary first step is a narrower integration of the literature to allow
some basic facts to be established. However, more generally and consistent with the
methodology implicit in the process of meta-analysis, this study follows three basic
steps: “search and gather studies”, then “extract [or glean] information” and finally
“cumulate the information extracted” (Hunter et al., 1982, p. 27). This accumulation of
results is possible whenever there are at least two studies with data bearing on the
same relation. Ideally, a culmination of results works best when there is a large number
of studies, though sampling is arguably also valid for what Hunter et al. (1982) describe Themes in
as “convenience” samples of studies that just happen to be at hand. Qualitative studies literature
are also clearly benefited by the use of published over unpublished studies, because of
the better methodological quality of published material and the effects of editorial
review that collectively enable stronger research results.

Search and gather 129

In this first step, over a hundred documents comprising books and journal articles in
reference to the concept of learning organisation were examined in order to attain a
starting point in terms of key themes or facts. As this body of literature was
progressively investigated, the emergent key themes were sorted into broad groups
then re-sorted into general thematic lists related to their apparent core focus. This
review of business literature was completed via a comprehensive search of electronic
databases. The synthesised set of five broad categories identified is shown below:
(1) Learning – the nature of learning at the individual level, where the individual is
the creator, its effect and application through the team as the synthesising
mechanism and organisational learning as the amplifier.
(2) Structure – the basis and composition necessary to enable the desired
organisational learning processes and systems.
(3) Shared vision – the binding component and catalyst, which along with effective
leadership can guide an organisation through change.
(4) Knowledge management – the capture, structuring and re-conceptualisation of
the individual and group’s implicit and explicit knowledge.
(5) Strategy – by which the organisation identifies potential to increase
shareholder value and then develops competencies that enable it to capitalise
on these opportunities.

Using these five broad themes as a base, a number of sub-theme propositions were
developed to represent distinct ideas evident within each theme. These propositions
were in turn tested and integrated against a selected set of twenty key journal articles
and books on organisational learning – in effect a sampling population (see Table I).
Although the selected literature was drawn from a wide a range of sources, it is
accepted that certain risks of bias are inevitable, particularly in, for example, the
reliance on material written only in the English language.
This limitation aside, there were several notable trends identified. The resultant
sub-themes are shown in Table II. Based on publication date, it is apparent that early
research is overwhelmingly from North America, with the earliest literature seemingly
focused on organisational learning as opposed to the learning organisation concept.
From 1995, there is a noticeable extension of organisational learning by European and
Australasian authors, with European based literature appearing to focus on applied
themes such as storytelling and sustainable development. Conversely, Australasian
research appears focused on the application of the concept in terms of knowledge.

Gleaning information
The second step in the meta-analytic procedure synthesised the emergent sub-themes
by agreement levels. Agreement or disagreement with a sub-theme proposition was
 13,2

130
TLO

Table I.

(sampling population)
Selected set of literature
Year Literature title Author(s) N. America Europe Asia and Aus

1976 Management and the Learning Process Kolb, D.A. U

1983 A Typology of Organisational Learning Systems Shrivastava, P. U
1985 Organisational Learning Fiol, M.C., and Lyles, M.A. U
1988 Organisational Learning Levitt, B. and March, J.G. U
1990 The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Senge, P.M. U
Organisation
1991 Organisational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Huber, G.P. U
Literatures
1991 The Non-traditional Quality of Organisational Learning Weick, K.E. U
1992 Becoming a Learning Organisation Swieringa, J. and Wierdsma, A. U
1993 Building a Learning Organisation Garvin, D.A. U
1993 How Can Organisations Learn Faster – the Challenge of the Schein, E. U
Green Room
1993 The Link between Individual and Organisational Learning Kim, D. H. U
1995 Action Science and Organisational Learning Argyris, C. U
1995 The Learning Organisation: Some Reflections on Organisational Hitt, W. D. U
Renewal
1995 The Knowledge Creating Company Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. U
1997 Learning and Storytelling: The Next Stage in the Journey for the Gold, J. U
Learning Organisation
1997 The Learning Company, a Strategy for Sustainable Development Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. U
1999 Knowledge Management in the Learning Organisation Hong, J. and Kuo, C. U
1999 The Organisational Learning Cycle Dixon, N. U
2000 Organisational Learning and Knowledge Assets – an Essential Pemberton, J.D. and Stonehouse, G.H. U
Partnership
2002 Systemic Thinking and the Learning Organisation Olsen, J.E. and Haslett, T. U
 Themes in
Theme Code Sub theme proposition
literature
Learning 1.1 Current organisational inability to learn stems from institutional norms
of power and control
Learning 1.2 The team is the critical unit for the organisation
Learning 1.3 The understanding of mental models is critical to develop an individuals
learning 131
Learning 1.4 Double loop/generative learning is fundamental to the creation of a LO
Organisational 2.1 There is one fundamental structure which needs to be created to support
structure a LO
Organisational 2.2 The organisation structure critically needs to promote informal
structure networking and socialisation
Organisational 2.3 Structure should focus on core competencies, portfolio of skills not
structure business units
Shared vision 3.1 Shared vision is what provides the underlying motivation and security to
the individuals learning
Shared vision 3.2 Without leadership and shared vision individual and team learning will
not create a LO
Knowledge 4.1 A LO captures and synthesises individual and team knowledge for the
management benefit of the entire organisation
Knowledge 4.2 Knowledge cannot be created without the individual and group
management
Knowledge 4.3 Knowledge is information anchored in the belief and commitment of the
management holder
Knowledge 4.4 Mental models reside in the cognitive dimension of tacit / implicit
management knowledge
Knowledge 4.5 Technology is critical to the effective capture of organisation knowledge
management
Strategy 5.1 A LO strategy is emergent Table II.
Strategy 5.2 The shifting of individuals mental models is the key to LO competitive Sub theme propositions –
advantage and sustainable competence listed under each theme

recorded for each of the 20 articles and books when a quotation could be referenced
that clearly supported or contradicted the given sub-theme. Each article and book was
given an equal weighting in its statistical significance to the results. The sub-themes,
which showed the highest agreement levels under each theme, measured in terms of a
percentage of those in referenced agreement across the sample population, are
presented in Table III. The presentation of results in Table III also reveals the next step
in this analysis, with the attribute types that these sub-themes encompass being made
explicit. The further categorisation of the attributes, in terms of process or structural,
enables the extrapolation and synthesis of the results into an illustration that
conceptualises a learning organisation.

Causal relationships between key attributes

Key messages from systems theory include first, a need to move away from looking at
isolated events and their causes towards a system made up of interactive parts and
second, an appreciation that structural influence on behaviour in human systems is
subtle (Senge, 1995). Structure includes how people make decisions and operating
policies whereby people in organisations translate perceptions, goals and norms into
actions. In developing a practical and effective conceptualisation of the learning
 13,2

132
TLO

Table II.

listed under each theme

Sub theme propositions –
Agreement level Attribute classification
Emergent theme (%) Attributes types Process Structural

The team is the critical unit for the organisation 40 Team U

The understanding of mental models is critical to develop 65 Mental model U
an individuals learning
Double loop /generative learning is fundamental to the 75 Double-loop learning U
creation of a LO
The organisation structure critically needs to promote 40 Informal networking and socialisation U
informal networking and socialisation
Without leadership and shared vision individual and 30 Leadership U
team learning will not create a LO Shared vision U U
a
A LO captures and synthesises individual and team 27.5 Implicit knowledge U
knowledge for the benefit of the entire organisation
Knowledge cannot be created without the individual and
group Explicit knowledge U
Technology is fundamental to the capture of organisation
knowledge Technology driven knowledge capture U U
A LO strategy is emergent 35 Emergent strategy U
Note: aAggregated figure across the four sub-theme proposition data points
organisation, the next step is to move beyond considering the emergent attributes Themes in
identified in this study in isolation, towards a holistic appreciation of the literature
interrelationships and potential strength of connection between the emergent attributes.
The interrelationships or unifying loops identified represent the feedback that
would be expected to occur between the various attributes. Every influence is both
cause and effect; nothing is purely influenced in just one direction (Senge, 1995).
However, the polarity of a causal loop reflects the loop’s tendency either to reinforce or 133
counteract a change in any one of its elements. Thus, a causal loop that reinforces or
amplifies a change in one of the elements is a “positive loop”, shown symbolically as a
“ þ ”, while a causal loop that tends to diminish or counteract change in an element is
called a “negative loop”, shown symbolically as a “-” (Richardson, 1991, p. 5). Citing
Weick, who applies causal loops in an organisational context, Richardson (1991) says it
is often the specific situation, which will determine loop polarity. Consequently, certain
causal relationships depending on the circumstances can exert both positive and
negative re-enforcing tendencies.

Culmination of information
Applying causal loops to the attributes isolated and categorised by the study so far,
Figure 2 illustrates the theoretical feedback connections that appear to exist between
the emergent key attributes. This model is a multilayered conceptual expression of the
relationships between structural and process attributes of a learning organisation. The
representation shows the interrelationships between the ten emergent attributes
identified by this study. The generative response by the organisation is shown in
Figure 2 as an output, shaped by the attribute emergent strategy that goes beyond the
creation of a static document to “strategy making” – an iterative, continuous process
that offers a prescription for action emerging from the represented causal relationships.
In the illustration, the two causal loops that together constitute the model are shown
as being connected through the individual’s mental model and implicit knowledge. Due

Figure 2.
The learning organisation
multilayered system of
causal attributes
TLO to the inherent connectivity between these two attributes – implicit knowledge is very
13,2 much a component of mental models – the causal connections are evidently reciprocal
and re-enforcing. Thus, the process of codification that takes place within the mental
model is also inherent in the creation of implicit knowledge. Moving counter clockwise
around the left loop from mental model, the first causal relationship highlighted is with
the attribute double-loop learning. This attribute was heavily supported in the analysis
134 due to its strong positive tendencies in the creation of an effective generative mental
model, hence the re-forcing loop that feeds into this attribute. The causal relationship in
the other direction is not as straight-forward and its effects would appear to be
situational specific. This situational specificity appears to be created by the mental
model, which represents the individual’s determination of cognitive meaning. Thus,
depending on temporal or permanent cognition, both a positive and negative response
can be derived toward double-loop learning.
The leadership attribute, placed on the left side of this causal-loop, is arguably
responsible for creating the environment that in turn nurtures the positive potential for
double-loop learning. As the leadership process ultimately impacts on the individual, a
favourable or unfavourable situational cognitive response can produce the dual
polarity of the causal relationship with double-loop learning. The attribute of
double-loop learning is illustrated as having a reinforcing relationship with leadership
and the individual’s ability to effectively lead or follow. Continuing around this
causal-loop counter clock wise, from leadership we arrive at the final attribute, shared
vision. This attribute introduces a consideration of the direction, security and cultural
tendencies in the organisation and, within this context, the effect will be positive
through double-loop learning, which ensures the necessary testing of underlying
assumptions and beliefs of that vision. Shared vision positively reinforces the act of
leadership; however, leadership as well as the attribute mental model can also have a
negative impact on shared vision.
Turning next to the causal-loop on the right in Figure 2, this loop shows the
connection between learning, and knowledge creation and dissemination. Implicit
knowledge, which is situated at the left of this loop, has causal connection to both team
and informal networking, and socialisation. Implicit (or tacit) knowledge, an attribute
resident in the individual, is made explicit through formal and informal synthesis that
occurs between individuals engaged in dialogue, collaborative learning and sharing of
information. The processes in this causal loop are reinforcing, however like the
negative polarities noted in the previous (left) causal-loop, a diminishing effect can
occur through the formal and informal group where, for example, collectively the group
may incorrectly reject an individual’s knowledge creation or the person’s synthesis of
other peoples’ knowledge. At the base of the right causal-loop, explicit knowledge is
linked to the attribute technology driven knowledge capture, which represents the
knowledge repository for capture and re-conceptualisation of the knowledge generated,
within the learning organisation.

Examining the loops

The causal relationships presented are not intended as an exhaustive list. Rather, the
relationships illustrate what appeared to be the most potent connections between the
emergent attributes in terms of producing a capacity for learning and knowledge
creation. Figure 3 illustrates the strength of casual connections between eight core
 Themes in
literature

135

Figure 3.
Multilayered system of
causal attributes with
frequency of connected
attributes cited in
database literature

attributes based on a search of literature. The attributes emergent strategy and

technology driven knowledge capture are not included in this examination as they
were determined not to be in causal relationship with other attributes. Three electronic
databases were used in this search: ABI Inform (1971 to current), Emerald Full-text
(1989 to current), and Expanded Academic ASAP (1980 to current). The figure at the
top shows the number of articles found with direct reference to the attributes in a
search that looked at keywords in the citation and abstract of the paper. The second,
lower placed figure shows the results of a less discriminating full text search, where the
selected attributes may be mentioned at some point in the text. To illustrate using
double-loop learning and mental model, 55 articles mention both attributes in the
citation and abstract, with the number increasing in a full text search to 754 articles.
While all relationships between attributes appear to have a degree of implied support,
there are some notable trends. Most notable is the apparent lack of research in the area
connecting mental model and implicit knowledge and between implicit knowledge and
team; both areas are identified as having causal connectivity and from theoretical
fundamentals an inherent strong relationship. To illustrate, human behaviour is not
influenced exclusively by reason; emotions and pre-conceptions play a role and so
human behaviour is not completely rational and logical. This is a significant cause for
the discrepancy between espoused and in-use theory, and a failure to understand
prevailing mental models can diminish the overall value and effectiveness of implicit
knowledge. For example, managers may claim to be open and participative, however,
observation of in-use theory may reveal meetings structured so there is no time for
discussion and outside these formal times, managers may in effect avoid contact by
being unavailable. Similarly, where emotion, uncertainty and conflict are avoided in a
team, subsequent defensiveness can diminish the effect of implicit knowledge. What this
suggests is a gap in current research, specifically in areas pivotal to individual and team
learning. In contrast, perhaps reflecting the generally in vogue nature of the concepts,
TLO there is a high volume of research on the attributes leadership, shared vision and
13,2 double-loop learning. The data also appears to support the connection of implicit and
explicit knowledge with information networking and socialisation.
Shifting from diagnosis to action, critical examination of the loops appears a useful
area for workplace-based research. The key issue in the first instance includes
determining the validity of the causal relationships as identified. Subsequent work
136 might aim at devising metrics to measure and assess learning effectiveness against
organisational performance. Another consideration relates to organisations learning to
learn, particularly in moving beyond single-loop learning and typical “activity trap”
type responses, where management dismiss staff or announce new structural changes.
Finally, noting information is a key resource for knowledge-workers, the importance of
devising clear and specific language to support the enactment of the learning
organisation, is evident. Language, after all, provides the foundations for action,
feedback and synthesis in organisations.

Concluding remarks
We live in a world that is increasingly complex, but our styles of thinking – mechanistic,
cultural, organisms, systems, etc. – may not match this complexity. Indication of this
failure is evident in the way fad and fashion dominates approaches to problem solving,
with interest in one type of solution or set of techniques quickly superseded by another.
Consequently, rather than investigate specific aspects of organisational learning, this
study has attempted a synthesis of knowledge and learning literature in order to develop
a deeper, practical understanding of concepts related to the learning organisation.
Although the literature pertaining to learning organisations is expansive, as
Johnson (2002) comments, the vast majority of the writing is descriptive. Moreover, as
Kim (1993) suggests, there is little agreement on what organisational learning means
and even less on how to create a learning organisation. There are also few suggestions
on how to transform organisations into a learning organisation or overcome the
barriers to organisational learning, nor any confidence in the advice being relevant in
practice. Clearly, successful implementation of the learning organisation concept is not
a quick fix, nor is it likely to be achieved without access to power and influence
(Johnson, 2002). Perhaps most of all, successful action requires access to a framework
that is not too abstract or difficult to use as well as one that supports ready
measurement of success against organisational performance measures. This paper
presents a model that integrates organisational metaphors or ways of thinking into a
practical framework that treats knowledge as a core asset and presents an approach for
organisations to enact the concept and to leverage knowledge and knowledge workers.
With a focus on core capabilities at individual, group and organisation structural
levels, this framework provides the building blocks for effective action, what Nonaka
called a knowledge-creating company.
In an economic system where innovation is critical, the ability to increase an
organisation’s sources of innovation from all forms of knowledge becomes a key
capability. This paper has identified five broad themes in literature: learning, structure,
shared vision, knowledge management and strategy. These themes were in turn tested
and integrated into a set of eight sub-themes or attributes, built around implicit (tacit)
knowledge and mental models, collectively reinforce or diminish the capacity within
organisations to learn, adapt and innovate. The integrative approach of this study is
not to suggest a “to do list” for practical enactment of the learning organisation Themes in
concept. Such a claim would be too bold for research that inevitably requires literature
refinement in terms of validity and reliability. However, it is argued that this paper
answers, in part at least, the need evident in literature for a framework that allows
practitioners to understand the learning organisation. The model also forms the basis
for the development of specific language and performance measures for specific
learning outcomes. As well, the gap noted in research deserves reiteration – there is a 137
relationship between mental model and implicit knowledge, and between implicit
knowledge and team. These attributes and their relationship at present appear not to
have been explored in the literature reviewed. By understanding and managing issues
related to these attributes, in both individual and team-based learning processes, an
organisation will be better able to enhance its capacity to create. These seemingly
ignored linkages are also a key connection between the often separately discussed and
researched fields of knowledge management and organisational learning. Moreover,
from the literature explored in this paper, the seeming assumption by some knowledge
management practitioners that the most valued knowledge exists outside of the
individual and that it can be captured and engineered is contrary to the antecedents
and constructs of the learning organisation concept.
In closing, it is apparent that the learning organisation concept can be
misappropriated and incorrectly attributed to organisations. The model illustrated in
Figure 2, provides a basis for understanding and grasping multiple meanings of the
situation and the basis for further research to refine and confirm the validity and
reliability of the indicated causal relationships. However, the more important general
point of this paper is to reframe learning in organisations, and by highlighting attributes
related to individual and team learning enabling a richer understanding to emerge of
Knowledge Management processes that can influence organisational performance.

References
Argyris, C. (1976), Theories of Action that Inhibit Individual Learning, Experience and Learning:
Reflection at Work, Deakin University, Melbourne.
Argyris, C. (1992), On Organisational Learning, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
Argyris, C. (2000), Double Loop Learning, available at: www.gwu.edu 2000.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978), Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,
Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bierly, P., Kessler, E. and Christensen, E.W. (2000), “Organisational learning”, Journal of
Organisational Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 595-618.
Castells, M. (2000), The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Volume 1 – the Rise of
the Network Society, Blackwell Publishers Inc., Malden, MA.
Cavaleri, S. (2004), “Principles for designing pragmatic knowledge management systems”,
The Learning Organisation, Vol. 11 Nos 4/5, pp. 312-21.
DiBella, A.J. (2001), Learning Practices: Assessment and Action for Organisational Improvement,
Prentice Hall, Saddle River, NJ.
Dixon, N. (1999), The Organisational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively,
McGraw-Hill, Aldershot.
Garvin, D. (1993), “Building a learning organisation”, Harvard Business Review, July-August,
pp. 78-91.
TLO Ghosh, A. (2004), “Learning in strategic alliances: a Vygotskian perspective”, The Learning
Organisation, Vol. 11 No. 45, pp. 302-11.
13,2
Housel, T. and Bell, A.H. (2001), Measuring and Managing Knowledge, Irwin, Boston, MA.
Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L. and Jackson, G.B. (1982), Meta Analysis: Cumulating Research
Findings Across Studies, Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.
Johnson, J.R. (2002), “Leading the learning organisation: portrait of four leaders”, Leadership &
138 Organisational Development Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 241-9.
Kim, D.H. (1993), “The link between individual and organisational learning”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Kofman, F. and Senge, P.M. (1993), “Communities of commitment: the heart of learning
organisations”, Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 5-24.
Kotter, J.P. and Cohen, D.S. (2002), The Heart of Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
Martins, E.C. and Terblanche, F. (2003), “Building organisational culture that stimulates
creativity and innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 64-74.
Mirvis, P.H. (1996), “Historical foundations of organisational learning”, Journal of Organisational
Change, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 13-31.
Morgan, G. (1997), Images of Organisations, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Neef, D. (1999), A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, MA.
Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A. and Gould, J.M. (1995), “Understanding organisations as learning
systems”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 73-85.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1999), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Örtenblad, A. (2002), “A typology of the idea of learning organisation”, Management Learning,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 213-30.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1997), The Learning Company, a Strategy for
Sustainable Development, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London.
Revans, R.W. (1982), The Origins and Growth of Action Learning, Chartwell-Bratt, Bromley.
Richardson, G.P. (1991), Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory, University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Rosenthal, R. (1991), Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research, Applied Social Research
Methods Series 6, Sage Publications, London.
Savage, C.M. (1996), 5th Generation Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, MA.
Schein, E. (1993), “How can organisations learn faster – the challenge of the green room”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 134 No. 2, pp. 85-91.
Senge, P. (1995), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of a Learning Organisation, Random
House, Sydney.
Simon, H. (1991), “Bounded rationality and organisational learning”, Organisational Science,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 125-34.
Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organisation: Lessons in the Art
and Practice of a Systematic Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Wheatley, M. (1994), Leadership and the New Science, Berret-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Further reading Themes in
Fiol, M.C. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), “Organisational learning”, Academy of Management Review, literature
Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 803-13.
Gibbons, S. (1999), “Learning teams: action learning for leaders”, The Journal of Quality and
Participation, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 26-9.
Gold, J. (1997), “Learning and storytelling: the next stage in the journey for the learning
organisation”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 133-41. 139
Hitt, W.D. (1995), “The learning organisation: some reflections on organisational renewal”,
Leadership & Development Journal, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 17-25.
Hong, J.-C. and Kuo, C.-L. (1999), “Knowledge management in the learning organisation”,
Leadership and Organisational Development, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 207-215.
Huber (1991), “Organisational learning: the contributing processes and literatures”,
Organisational Science, Vol. 2, pp. 88-115.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983), Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference
and Consciousness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kim, D.H. (1993), “The link between individual and organisational learning”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Kolb, D. (1976), “Management and the learning process”, California Management Review, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 21-31.
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), “Organisational learning”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 319-40.
March, J. and Olsen, I. (1975), “The uncertainty of the past: organisational learning under
ambiguity”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 141-71.
Olsen, J.E. and Haslett, T. (2002), Systemic Thinking and the Learning Organisation, Working
Paper Series 11/02, Department of Management, Monash University, Caulfield East.
Pemberton, J.D. and Stonehouse, G.H. (2000), “Organisational learning and knowledge assets –
an essential partnership”, The Learning Organisation, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 184-93.
Shrivastava, P. (1983), “A typology of organisational learning systems”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Stacy, R. (1993), Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, Pitman Publishing,
London.
Swieringa, J. and Wierdsma, A. (1992), Becoming a Learning Organisation, Addison-Wesley
Publishers Ltd, London.
Weick, K.E. (1991), “The non-traditional quality of organisational learning”, Organisational
Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 116-24.

Corresponding author
Keith Thomas can be contacted at: k.thomas@adfa.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints