See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305098528

An Integrated Organizational Learning Models Perspective: Eight Ways to

Learn

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATIONS READS

4 3,822

2 authors, including:

Philip William Sisson

George Washington University
27 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Verifying the Unified Competency Theory of Knowledge Management: A System Engineering Verification Using Generalizations in the Literature View project

Research Summary View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Philip William Sisson on 07 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

An Integrated Organizational Learning Models Perspective: Eight Ways to Learn
Philip Sisson, Julie Ryan, D. Sc.
The George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States
sissonp@aol.com
jjchryan@email.gwu.edu

Abstract: Purpose – This article examines organizational learning models to develop a mental model
integrating them as an input to generalizing Knowledge Management (KM). Before Senge’s coining of the term
learning organization, and more recently with Marquardt’s (2002) Systems Learning Organization Model
(SOLM), researchers have presented different aspects of organizational learning. These models present
interesting but differing viewpoints. This paper investigates their common aspects and how this can be visually
displayed. It then moves past these models to identify eight ways (to prepare) to learn.
Approach – Qualitative approaches were used to find and partition models discovered using seeds from an
in-work KM domain term model. System engineering approaches were also applied, helping to identify which
concepts to further evaluate and present.
Findings – Crossan, Lane, and White’s (1999) framework of four processes across the three levels of
organizational learning provides the best overall generalization of organizational learning and is used to
differentiate the others. Marquardt’s (2002) SOLM provides an organizational level framework. Schwandt’s
(Schwandt and Marquardt, 2002) and Lewis’s (2014) provide multi-level models from different perspectives.
Parts of other organizational models seem to apply more at the individual or group levels. The eight identified
ways to learn: be taught, study, discuss, reflect, practice, experiment, sense/experience, and question,
collectively, directly address options in common English words.
Originality/Value –This integrated perspective provides a mental model for relating selected organizational
models. The eight ways to learn represent a more complete view of learning in common terms. Ways they can
be considered offer a range of opportunities for organizations to learn that might not otherwise be considered.

Keywords: Organizational Learning, Learning Models, Individual Learning, Group Learning, Ways to Learn

1. Introduction
Gaining a better mental model of organizational learning is seen as a useful precursor to understanding
relationships between learning and Knowledge Management (KM) and a prerequisite to completing a good KM
model.

According to Hill (2012), organizational learning is in its 2nd century since it “was implicitly applied by Henry
Ford in developing the Model T.” Olsen-Sanders (2007) identifies it in public administrations organizational
learning theories in the 1950s and in organizational-change-focus in the 1960s. Crossan, Lane and White
(1999) say the term “organizational learning has existed in our lexicon at least since Cangelosi and Dill (1965).”
During the mid-1980s, efforts to define it became more descriptive. Shrivastava (1983) identified four views:
adaptive learning, assumption sharing, development of knowledge and institutional experience (Schwandt and
Marquardt, 2002).

Then in 1990, Senge coined the term “learning organization” identifying a new way of thinking about
organizational learning and leadership (Caldwell, 2012) and dominating much of the organizational learning
discussion. Von Kutzschenbach (2006) presented the “Integrated Organizational Learning Model (adapted from
Kim)” (Kim, 1993) which centers around single and double loop learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978).

This paper explores learning and organizational learning in order to understand the models holistically and
seeks to be able to explain learning in the organization using common terms. Qualitative approaches were
used to find and partition models discovered using seeds from an in-work KM domain term model. System
engineering approaches were also applied, helping to identify which concepts to further evaluate and present.
Published literature, the KM model database, and brainstorming were used to identify examples of individual,
group, and organizational learning ways to learn.

Sisson, P.W., and Ryan, J., J.C.H., An Integrated Organizational Learning Models Perspective: Eight Ways to Learn,
in 17th European Conference on Knowledge Management, September 1-2, 2016, Ulster University, Northern
Ireland, UK, Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading, UK, pp. 1143-1148. Pagination differs
from actual proceedings.
This paper integrates models by organizing different viewpoints in a graphic that differentiates learning at
individual, group, and organizational levels. It follows by showing that the eight ways of learning (be taught,
study, discuss, reflect, practice, experiment, sense/experience and question) can apply to all levels.

2. Learning
Understanding learning can be challenging. “Dictionaries typically define learning [for the individual] as the act
of acquiring knowledge and skills through observation, study, or instruction” (Hohn, 2005). Learning is
recorded as knowledge which can lead to an ability, change in behavior, capacity to act differently (Huber,
1991), or direct action (observable behavior). Action can also result directly from a perception, as in an OODA
loop (observe, orient, decide, and act) kind of construct – conditioned response. [An “OODA loop is most
applicable for direct action, action which is taken by the decision maker” (Alberts et al., 2001).]

Definitions often talk about what precedes learning and the outcome of learning. For this paper, learning is the
understanding that comes from recognizing or discovering a pattern following a stimulus (request in Evans,
Dalkir and Bidian, 2015). Repeated learning conditions. See figure 1.

Figure 1: Learning results from a stimulus

2.1 Individual learning

Individual learning is the creation and retention of new knowledge for an entity and, in some cited definitions,
associated with experientially induced behavioral change, not aging. The outcome from learning is “the
development of insights, knowledge, and associations between past actions, the effectiveness of those
actions, and future actions” (Fiol and Lyles, 1985).

For this paper, learning is a process (in people "an internal neural process”) leading to or sustaining “relatively
permanent changes in behaviour" (Kent, 2006, learning), "knowledge, level of skill, or understanding"[.
Learning] is acquired through experiences" (Wallace, 2009, learning), conditioning (Scott and Marshall, 2009,
conditioning), or "reflection, study, or instruction" (Heery and Noon, 2008, learning), discussion (Eppler, 2011),
practice (Per Kimble, 1961, Sills 1968), or experimentation (Daft and Weick, 1984, Marquardt, 2002) “rather
than through the process of growth or ageing" (Wallace, 2009, learning), fatigue (Kent, 2006, learning), or
motivation (McFarland, 2006).

2.2 Organizational learning

Argyris and Schon (1978) asserted, “There is no organizational learning without individual learning, and that
individual learning is a necessary but insufficient condition for organizational learning” (Argyris and Schon,
1978, Marquardt, 2002). The authors agree that “the prime mover in the process of organizational knowledge
creation” (Nonaka, 1994) still involves the individual. This paper focuses on three models for organizational
learning at the organization level.

2.2.1 Crossan, Lane and White’s framework

Crossan, Lane, and White’s (1999) four framework processes are process pairs (intuiting & interpreting,
interpreting & integrating, and integrating & institutionalizing) associated with the three levels of
organizational learning. They clarify that “the process of institutionalizing sets organizational learning apart
from individual or ad hoc group learning” (Crossan, Lane and White, 1999). These processes provide a very
useful differentiator for group learning, providing a great conceptual explanation of overall organizational
learning.

2.2.2 Schwandt’s Organizational Learning Systems Model (OLSM)

Schwandt’s Organizational Learning Systems Model (OLSM) is important in revealing interaction aspects of
learning across all three organizational levels (human-based entities). The “interface, action/reflection,
dissemination and diffusion,” memory, and meaning subsystems explain how filtered knowledge is recognized
Sisson, P.W., and Ryan, J., J.C.H., An Integrated Organizational Learning Models Perspective: Eight Ways to Learn,
in 17th European Conference on Knowledge Management, September 1-2, 2016, Ulster University, Northern
Ireland, UK, Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading, UK, pp. 1143-1148. Pagination differs
from actual proceedings.
and triggers action or thinking. Knowledge is spread throughout and organization (providing an integrating
function) and is interpreted and saved. (Schwandt and Marquardt, 2002)

2.2.3 Marquardt’s Systems Learning Organization Model (SLOM) framework

In Marquardt’s SLOM framework, there are five subsystems: learning, organization, people, knowledge and
technology (see figure 2). Marquardt puts Senge’s skills in the learning subsystem (dropping team learning and
shared vision and adding dialogue and self-directed learning). He also discusses the learning subsystem as
including levels: individual, group or team and organizational and types: adaptive, anticipatory and action
learning (mostly group learning). Marquardt’s framework of learning organization subsystems provides a good
view of the organizational environment necessary for “enabling conditions that promote a more favorable
climate for effective knowledge creation.” (Marquardt, 2002)

Figure 2: Marquardt’s Systems Learning Organization Model framework subsystems

Note: Constructed from figures on subsystems and discussion of the technology subsystem (Marquardt, 2002)

2.3 Group learning

As late as 2007, Wilson, Goodman and Cronin (2007) stated, “There currently is no integrated view of group-
level learning.” They then asserted the “basic features of group learning” were “sharing, storage and retrieval”
and published 12 propositions in those areas, which are basically KM activities (part of Marquardt’s knowledge
subsystem).

Senge’s five disciplines (Wagner, 1991) (although partially individual, not organizational level) provide a lens
through which group learning aspects can be viewed. The Innate Lesson Cycle™ extends traditional education,
training, drill and practice learning models, incorporating responding to disruptions with investigation, ideation
and new solution development (Lewis, 2013, Lewis, 2014). [Lewis and Moran’s (2015) ebook on using the
TM
Innate Lesson Cycle (ADIIEA) in leadership has pages that step through the concepts.] Groups also learn
through taking action by practice (projects). Participation (Duguid, 2003) through problem solving (Marquardt,
2002), coordinating, cooperating, and collaborating (Crawley, 2013) provide the “practice [that] is essential to
understanding work” (Crossan, Lane and White, 1999, Brown and Duguid, 1991). Interactions are also
addressed by Nonaka’s (1994) knowledge creation/conversion/transfer labels: Socialization, Internalization,
Combination and Externalization (SICE). An early viewpoint is Tuckman’s (1965) forming, storming, norming
and performing paradigm, which is associated with intra-group relationships. (See figure 3).

Sisson, P.W., and Ryan, J., J.C.H., An Integrated Organizational Learning Models Perspective: Eight Ways to Learn,
in 17th European Conference on Knowledge Management, September 1-2, 2016, Ulster University, Northern
Ireland, UK, Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading, UK, pp. 1143-1148. Pagination differs
from actual proceedings.
Figure 3: An integrated organizational learning models perspective
Note: Selected organizational learning models are differentiated using Crossan, Lane, and White’s (1999) levels
and processes.

3. Eight ways to learn

The eight ways (to prepare) to learn were selected by modeling candidate ways (see figure 4). While many of
the selected terms came from individual learning sources, some were first identified by researching group
learning. Table 1 lists the eight ways to learn which are applicable across all three levels of organizational
learning. While the entries in the table are predominately errors to be “detected and corrected,” a few, like
awards and successes, are positive. Detecting and recognizing a positive (“match between intentions and
consequences”) (Argyris, 1995) for reinforcement is the other half of learning not as often used for
organizations by external entities, but could be.

Figure 4: Eight ways (to prepare) to learn

Sisson, P.W., and Ryan, J., J.C.H., An Integrated Organizational Learning Models Perspective: Eight Ways to Learn,
in 17th European Conference on Knowledge Management, September 1-2, 2016, Ulster University, Northern
Ireland, UK, Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading, UK, pp. 1143-1148. Pagination differs
from actual proceedings.
Table 1: Examples of ways to prepare to learn – activities, events and state changes
Organizational Learning
Ways to Learn Individual Learning Group / Team Learning Organizational Learning
Be taught Education and training Stories2; EEO and team Awards | Judgments; riots
(teaching generically)1 training
Study That, how, the 5 W’s3 Sports post-game videos Scanning4; Exploitation and
exploration5
3 6
Reflect Know-what and know-why Option/consequence outlines Lessons re-learned
Discuss Feedback / Listening Cycle “Dialogue;” AHP7 Strategy brainstorming
Practice Sports8, Interpersonal Skills Role playing Military exercises
Experiment Dance step variation Forming, storming, & New product testing
norming 9; Tailoring
Sense/ Hot Stove Nasty tweets; Hubble10 Successes11 | Destructive
Experience technologies; consent degrees
Question A name; know what, etc. 12 Avoiding erroneous denial13 Survey
1 7
”Teach is a general term for causing one to acquire Analytic hierarchy process
8
knowledge or skill” (Webster's third new international Know-like (Sisson and Ryan, 2015).
9
dictionary (unabridged), 2013-2015) for all manner of (Tuckman, 1965, Bonebright, 2010)
10
instruction from education and training through Hubble main mirror flaw due to cost saving
indoctrination, condition, and demonstrate, etc. decisions (Capers, 1994).
2 11
Gelman (GWU) learn/story search: 378,978 articles. Success trap (Levinthal and March, 1993) as
3
Know-that, know-how, know-when, know-where, negative, but positive reinforcement and
know-why, know-who, and know what (Sisson and Ryan, conditioning is important too.
12
2015). Know-valid, know-why (basis), know-competent
4
(Daft and Weick, 1984, Huber, 1991) (Sisson and Ryan, 2015); “8 Degrees of Reason”
5
From product development perspective, tension between (Lewis, 2015a).
“feed forward and feedback” (Crossan, Lane and White, 13
Repeated failure to accept questions and
1999, March, 1991) “survival requires a balance” indications of Hubble mirror technical issues
(Levinthal and March, 1993). (Capers and Lipton, 1993); overlooking failures
6
(Lewis, 2015b). (Levinthal and March, 1993).

4. Conclusion
This paper differentiates selected organizational learning models by comparing them to Crossan, Lane, and
White’s (1999) three levels and four processes, with many parts of some models allocated to individual and
group learning levels. The paper identifies eight ways of looking at learning that can create opportunities to
learn by consolidating words discovered by theoretical sampling based on different characteristics as shown in
figure 4. Table 1 then identifies the results of brainstorming and examining organizational learning literature to
display ways each of the eight might be applicable at the three levels of organizational learning. The model
groupings and the eight common English words provide ways for people to understand organizational learning
and for organizations, and others, a framework that could be extended to consider how organizations might
learn in different ways.

References

Alberts, D. S., Garstka, J. J., Hayes, R. E. and Signori, D. A. (2001) Understanding Information Age Warfare,
[online], DTIC Document.
Argyris, C. (1995) Action Science and Organizational Learning, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 6,
pp. 20.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Bonebright, D. A. (2010) 40 Years of Storming: A Historical Review of Tuckman's Model of Small Group
Development, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 111-120.

Sisson, P.W., and Ryan, J., J.C.H., An Integrated Organizational Learning Models Perspective: Eight Ways to Learn,
in 17th European Conference on Knowledge Management, September 1-2, 2016, Ulster University, Northern
Ireland, UK, Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading, UK, pp. 1143-1148. Pagination differs
from actual proceedings.
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991) Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified
View of Working, Learning, and Innovation, Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 40-57.
Caldwell, R. (2012) Leadership and Learning: A Critical Reexamination of Senge's Learning Organization,
Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 39-55.
Capers, R. S. (1994) Nasa Post Hubble: Too Little, Too Late?, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8,
No. 2, pp. 68-72.
Capers, R. S. and Lipton, E. (1993) Hubble Error: Time, Money and Millionths of an Inch, The Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 41-57.
Crawley, S. M. (2013) Cooperative/Collaborative Learning in Multicultural America: A Multimedia Encyclopedia,
SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, pp. 583-585.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W. and White, R. E. (1999) An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to
Institution, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 522-537.
Daft, R. L. and Weick, K. E. (1984) Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems, Academy of
Management. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 284-295.
Duguid, P. (2003) Communities of Practice in Encyclopedia of Community, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand
Oaks, pp. 234-237.
Eppler, M. J. (2011) Knowledge Communication in Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, 2nd ed. ed,
Information Science Reference, Hershey, pp. 515-526.
Evans, M., Dalkir, K. and Bidian, C. (2015) A Holistic View of the Knowledge Life Cycle: The Knowledge
Management Cycle (Kmc) Model, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 47.
Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M. A. (1985) Organizational Learning, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No.
4, pp. 803-813.
Heery, E. and Noon, M. (2008) A Dictionary of Human Resource Management, [online], Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK; New York.
Hill, S. D., ed. (2012) Organizational Learning, Gale, Detroit.
Hohn, R. L. (2005) Learning in Encyclopedia of School Psychology, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp. 283-289.
Huber, G. P. (1991) Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures, Organization
Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Kent, M., ed. (2006) Learning, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kim, D. H. (1993) The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning, Sloan Management Review, Vol.
35, No. 1, pp. 37.
Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993) The Myopia of Learning, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, No.
S2, pp. 95-112.
Lewis, J. (2015a) 8 Degrees of Reason™, [online], www.explanationage.com/8-degrees-of-reason.html.
Lewis, J. (2014) Adiiea: An Organizational Learning Model for Business Management and Innovation, Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 98-107.
Lewis, J. (2013) The Explanation Age, United States.
Lewis, J. (2015b) Option Outline™, [online], www.explanationage.com/option-outline.html.
Lewis, J. and Moran, D. (2015) Leading Transformational Change: Using the Cohero Leadership Framework,
[online], The CoHero Institute, United States.
March, J. G. (1991) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Organization science, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp. 71-87.
Marquardt, M. J. (2002) Building the Learning Organization: Mastering the 5 Elements for Corporate Learning,
[online], www.ebscohost.com/ebooks, Davies-Black, Palo Alto.
McFarland, D. (2006) A Dictionary of Animal Behaviour, [online], Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK,
Nonaka, I. (1994) A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1,
pp. 14-37.
Olsen-Sanders, T. (2007) Class 1 - HRD 290 - Learning Organization, Alexandria, George Washington University.
Schwandt, D. and Marquardt, M. J. (2002) Organizational Learning: From World-Class Theories to Global Best
Practices in, St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton.
Scott, J. and Marshall, G. (2009) Cognition - Not Needed, [online], Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sills, D., Ed, (TBR) (1968) Introduction (in Learning) in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,
Macmillan, New York, pp. 113-188.

Sisson, P.W., and Ryan, J., J.C.H., An Integrated Organizational Learning Models Perspective: Eight Ways to Learn,
in 17th European Conference on Knowledge Management, September 1-2, 2016, Ulster University, Northern
Ireland, UK, Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading, UK, pp. 1143-1148. Pagination differs
from actual proceedings.
 Sisson, P. W. and Ryan, J., J.C.H. (2015) What Do We Know? - Building a Knowledge Concept Map, in 16th
European Conference on Knowledge Management, September 3-4, 2015 2015 Udine, Academic Conferences
and Publishing International, Reading, UK, pp. 1028-1033.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965) Developmental Sequence in Small Groups, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63, No. 6, pp.
384-399.
Von Kutzschenbach, M. (2006) Organizational Learning and Social Network Structures, Doctor rer. nat. of the
Faculty, Albert-Ludwigs-University.
Wagner, C. G. (1991) The Learning Organization -- the Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization by Peter M. Senge, The Futurist, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 41.
Wallace, S., ed. (2009) A Dictionary of Education, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) (2013-2015), [online], http://unabridged.merriam-
webster.com/, Merriam-Webster, Springfield.
Wilson, J. M., Goodman, P. S. and Cronin, M. A. (2007) Group Learning, The Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 1041-1059.

Sisson, P.W., and Ryan, J., J.C.H., An Integrated Organizational Learning Models Perspective: Eight Ways to Learn,
in 17th European Conference on Knowledge Management, September 1-2, 2016, Ulster University, Northern
Ireland, UK, Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading, UK, pp. 1143-1148. Pagination differs
from actual proceedings.

View publication stats