The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ext archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm

TLO
12,4 Revisiting the roots of learning
organization
A synthesis of the learning organization
368 literature
Roland K. Yeo
Temasek Engineering School, Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to provide a literature synthesis of the learning organization and discuss
several pertinent theoretical concepts on the subject.
Design/methodology/approach – A range of works mainly from 1990-2004, which aim at
providing a variety of perspectives on the learning organization, have been analyzed and discussed
based on its theoretical roots and ontological perspectives.
Findings – The synthesis of the literature reveals several common themes from the various learning
organization definitions and discovers the greater significance of systems thinking in Senge’s five
disciplines.
Research limitations/implications – It is not an exhaustive coverage of the learning organization
literature. However it offers great research implications where several key concepts can be further
explored. For example, is systems thinking really crucial to organizational learning?
Practical implications – Practitioners may find the analysis of the various models in relation to
Senge’s five disciplines useful, as there are concepts that can be implemented in practice.
Originality/value – It is the amalgamation of several key concepts in the learning organization and
the analysis of these concepts in relation to The Fifth Discipline which readers will be familiar and able
to identify with. People who are interested in pursuing research in the learning organization will find
this paper handy as it provides a useful overview of the subject.
Keywords Learning organizations, Literature
Paper type Research paper

The Learning Organization
Vol. 12 No. 4, 2005
pp. 368-382
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-6474
DOI 10.1108/09696470510599145
Introduction
The notion of organizational learning emerged during the 1960s and 1970s when the
challenge of change was uppermost in the minds of most managers. During this era,
there was growing emphasis placed on taking an outside-in view of behavioral science
predicated on the perspective that organizations could be viewed as machines that
would require constant repair and upgrading (Cummings and Huse, 1996; Garratt,
1995). Hence, the notion of technological advancement was regarded as the panacea for
organizational transformation at that time. On the other hand, with the introduction of
the Addison Wesley-Process Consultation series in the late 1960s, another emphasis
was given to the way organizations were being defined; that of organic metaphors
being associated with the medical model centered on the concept of organizational
health (Bennis, 1969). From this view, managers and consultants were seen as playing
The author would like to thank reviewers Anders Ortenblad and Jim Grieves for their precious
comments, and Professor Steven Cavaleri, Editor of The Learning Organization, and Professor
Michael Marquardt of the George Washington University for their editorial advice.
the role of physician charged with the responsibility of curing disease and promoting Learning
healthfulness (Schein, 1988). As such, it was argued that organizations should be organization
viewed as organic systems rather than mechanical ones – where relationships between
and within groups involving mutual confidence, trust, interdependence and shared literature
responsibility would be emphasized (Bennis, 1969).
Unlike organic systems, mechanical systems are concerned with
authority-obedience relationships and the rigid delegation of responsibilities (Bennis, 369
1969). However, experience with this model suggests that this mechanical focus offers
only temporary benefits – as it fails to account for the human dynamics, inherent in all
organizations that are so crucial for growth and development (Schein, 1988). Hence, it
was through the writings of pioneers, such as Cangelosi and Dill (1965), and March and
Simon (1993) that the notion of organizational learning emerged. This philosophical
breakthrough would gain further prominence through the work of Argyris and Schon
(1978), and Revans (1980). However, it was not until the 1990s that Peter Senge (1990)
popularized the notion of the learning organization that these ideas became more
widespread in their application. Since then, many other researchers (Buckler, 1996;
Reynolds and Ablett, 1998; Steiner, 1998; Teare and Dealtry, 1998) have used Senge’s
(1990) five disciplines of the learning organization as catalysts for the development of
tools that aim at providing a practical theory of the learning organization with specific
applications. Central to this approach and implicit in the organization-as-organism
metaphor (Bennis, 1969; Morgan, 1997; Schein, 1988) is the need to achieve “a
balancing inside-out focus of development and transformation of what is already
there” (Garratt, 1995, p. xi).

Key assumptions
The literature on organizational learning and the learning organization offers a wide
range of definitions and perspectives (Budhwar et al., 2002; Denton, 1998; Pedler et al.,
1997; Wang and Ahmed, 2003). As such, it is essential that the key assumptions of
these two terms be clearly laid out. It will be assumed that the term “learning
organization” is a collective entity which focuses on the question of “what”; that is,
what are the characteristics of an organization such that it (represented by all
members) may learn? The “learning organization” embraces the importance of
collective learning as it draws on a larger dimension of internal and external
environments. On the other hand, “organizational learning” is a process which answers
the question of “how”; that is, how is learning developed in an organization? In this
paper, the term “organizational learning” is used to refer to the process of learning
while the idea of “learning organization” refers to a type of organization rather than a
process (Yeo, 2003).
This paper is also predicated on the assumption that organizations behave in many
respects like organisms. That is, their behavior is not static, but rather is governed by a
set of dynamically active processes of organizing that rely fundamentally on human
cognitive process (Bennis, 1969; Morgan, 1997; Schein, 1988). According to this view,
individuals are continually engaged in trying to know how things work in producing
effects within the organization and its larger context including its external
environment. This process is, to a large extent, one based on reflective inquiry
(Argyris and Schon, 1978). According to this view, it is argued that the greatest
leverage for moving toward becoming a learning organization lies in capturing the
TLO artifacts of the collective cognition of organization members. On this basis,
12,4 organizational learning is considered to depend on the collective cognitive processes
of individuals. Organizational learning requires both the individuals’ competence and
organizational culture to work hand in hand, involving the necessary level of
commitment, trust and understanding to ensure possible productive cooperation
(Watson, 1994). As such, organizational learning can be regarded as being reflected in
370 the observable extent to which changes are manifested in individual expressions of
attitudes, improved knowledge and use of specific skills to meet organizational needs.
Ultimately, what is expected is a shift in the behavior of both the individuals and the
performance of the organization (Kirkpatrick, 1994).
In the light of these assumptions, this paper provides a synthesis of the theoretical
literature on the learning organization and further identifies several conceptual issues
by using Senge’s (1990) seminal work, The Fifth Discipline, as a basis for discussion.
The main reason Senge’s work is used is that it has been widely referred to as the
leitmotif of learning organizations in both the academic and professional arenas.

Ontological perspectives of organizational learning

It has been observed that both the realist and nominalist positions derive from
competing and mutually exclusive meta-theoretical perspectives, leading to different
concepts of organizational learning and alternative practices (Sheehan, 2004). However,
over the years, many theories lacking in practical implications have been attributed to
the epistemological pretensions of many researchers (Prange, 1999). As such, it is
useful to understand the disjunction between theory and practice by making references
to the philosophy-of-science literature. As an example, Burrell and Morgan (1979)
identify four major paradigms within social science, which separate them according to
the fundamental assumption of epistemology and ontology. Epistemology refers to
assumptions made about how organization members accumulate knowledge and the
potential limitations of this knowledge. In contrast, ontology refers to the assumptions
made about the rudiments of reality that make up the fundamental phenomenon of
organization. Criticisms concerning the practical relevance of organizational learning
seem to be associated with the positivist epistemology (Prange, 1999), which falls
within the ontological premise of realism.

Realist and nominalist positions

This section discusses the ontological and epistemological differences between the
realist and nominalist positions. The distinction between the two positions is that
realists are more positivistic while nominalists, anti-positivistic in nature. Realists, like
objectivists, regard knowledge as hard, explicit and capable of being transmitted in
tangible form whereas nominalists, similar to subjectivists, perceive knowledge as
tacit, softer, spiritual and even transcendental based on the insight of the unique
individuals (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).
The realist position proposes that any given theory actually mirrors existing
features of the real world. However, if one assumes organizational learning to be an
organic and dynamic process, theories and models are not necessarily as
straightforward or simple as realist models. This often makes them less attractive to
practitioners due to their complexity. In such theories, a variety of processes are
incorporated that can potentially obscure the transparency of these models to
practitioners (Bennis, 1969; Schein, 1988). Still, the nominalist position is arguably a Learning
more appropriate ontological perspective for an organizational learning theory because organization
it holds greater capacity to capture more of the subtleties of the process. As opposed to
the realist position, nominalism assumes that observations are theory-dependent and literature
that we cannot have real direct access to knowing the real world due to innate human
sensory limitations. In other words, the nominalist position is concerned with the
process of making sense of the perceived real world. This negotiation with the reality is 371
a meta-cognition that is commonly found in organizational learning practices
influencing members to acquire knowledge strategically and be involved in process
evaluation (Kay and Bawden, 1996).

Nominalist position and the learning organization

As an organic system, the learning organization is concerned with the process of
gaining, sharing and utilizing the knowledge accumulated by individuals and
transferring it through the organization in order to meet its strategic goals (Braham,
1996; Murray, 2002). The belief in the organic model of organizational learning
presupposes that learning is experienced by and channeled through each individual
within an organization. This perspective resembles the nominalist position on
knowledge creation with its emphasis placed on the importance of individuals and
social relationships in organizational learning. Here, learning is normally viewed as
taking place via close and interactive relationships with the people who possess the
relevant knowledge.
Senge (1990) builds on the work of Forrester and suggests that managers make
decisions on the basis of internal representations of the world called “mental models”.
In a variety of ways, the mind creates inner representations that correspond to reality.
In this view, knowledge is considered a mirror of reality and conveys the idea of the
human mind (cognition) as a container (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).
Cognition can be taken to operate at three levels: the first includes activities such as
reading, perceiving and memorizing; the second known as meta-cognition, involves the
acquisition of knowledge about particular strategies to solve problems and the
evaluation of success or failure of the process; and the third, epistemic cognition, is a
process which an individual learns to understand the nature of the problems and the
value of alternative solutions (Kay and Bawden, 1996).
According to Stewart (2001), organizational learning is a type of collective cognition
where individuals constantly make sense of the environment and negotiate each other’s
learning experiences. In such systems that are defined by collective learning, such as
communities of practice, there is a constant interplay of new meanings created, which
is a reflexive and dynamic process as experienced by individuals. As such, the
nominalist position is closely aligned to the organic emphasis given to organization.
Learning should not be treated as a separate endeavor that occurs only in classrooms
or training settings; rather it is concurrent with work (Fearon and Cavaleri, 1994).
Learning also does not apply to only one level of organization members either those of
lower ranks or those with managerial functions. It takes “a new form of labor”
(Marquardt, 1996, p. 17), which should necessarily take place as a by-product of
individuals (every level) doing their work, as opposed to gaining new knowledge just to
perform a particular task. As such, learning should be seen as being integrated into
everything people do, forming a regular part of the job and not something extra that
TLO has been deliberately added on (Braham, 1996). At the core of organizational learning is
12,4 the co-operation among members, which is fundamental to all relationships and team
building.

Overview of the learning organization

This section discusses the various definitions of the learning organization and the
372 function of organizational learning. Table I presents nine definitions of the learning
organization from some of the prominent researchers. These definitions are linked by a
common theme – viewing organizational learning as a driver of organizational
performance and competitive advantage. This theme reinforces the earlier view that as
members learn collectively, they (as an organization) will react more strategically to
external challenges and perform better than their competitors.
In any organic-system, learning is vital to the growth and development of an
organization. The focus here is on improving the problem solving abilities of its
members. Further, processes involving continuous improvement are viewed as
naturally chaotic as the constant weaving of relationships and energies emerges and
changes according to market conditions (Ketelhohn, 1994; Levitt and March, 1995;
Wheatley, 1992).
Seen in a much broader perspective, organizational learning deals with the process
of change and transformation. Such processes more often focus on increasing the
overall adaptability of the organization as opposed to solely seeking short-term
solutions to problems. Ideally, learning and development within an organization
should take a systemic approach that involves all types of organization members to
participate in change processes. What does it really mean to change an organization?
One of the fundamental sorts of change involves the expansion of people’s values and
beliefs about what is possible and how things work. When all these changes are viewed
together as a collective whole, its effects on transforming toward being more of a
learning organization can be observed (Cummings and Huse, 1996; Harung et al., 1999;
Rothwell et al., 1995). Despite the wide spectrum of organizational learning concepts,
few researchers have incorporated this organization-wide systemic perspective into
their models. These include Argyris’ (1982) Single-Loop and Double-Loop Learning,
Deming’s (1990) System of Profound Knowledge and Hitt’s (1995) Organizational
Renewal.

Significance of systems thinking

This section discusses the merits and limitations of several models introduced by
Senge (1990), Buckler (1996), and Reynolds and Ablett (1998), the latter two being
representative of Senge’s systems thinking applications. To begin, Senge’s (1990)
notion of the learning organization as nothing more than a vision has generated
considerable discussion among researchers about the dichotomy between the practical
(learning organization as an outcome) and the metaphorical (learning organization as a
vision) (Fulmer and Jeys, 1998). Subsequently, such researchers as Crossan et al. (1999),
Garratt (1999), Marsick and Watkins (1999), and Smith (1999) have come to the
realization that the notion of the learning organization is an elusive concept,
recognizing that there is a possible gap in the literature. This will be further assessed in
the paper by drawing on the work of Buckler (1996), Reynolds and Ablett (1998) and
Steiner (1998).
Themes Theorists Definitions
Learning
organization
Theory in action Argyris (1993) In a learning organization, individuals are the key
where they are acting in order to learn, or where they literature
are acting to produce a result. All the knowledge has
to be generalized and crafted in ways in which the
mind and brain can use it in order to make it
actionable
373
Renewal Braham (1996) Organizational learning is learning about learning.
The outcome will be a renewed connection between
employees and their work, which will spur the
organization to create a future for itself
Organizational Denton (1998) Organizational learning is the ability to adapt and
change utilize knowledge as a source of competitive
knowledge. Learning must result in a change in the
organization’s behavior and action patterns
Action learning Garratt (1995) A learning organization is linked to action learning
processes where it releases the energy and learning
of the people in the hour-to-hour, day-to-day
operational cycles of business
Technological Marquardt and A learning organization has the powerful capacity to
Kearsley (1999) collect, store and transfer knowledge and thereby
continuously transform itself for corporate success.
It empowers people within and outside the company
to learn as they work. A most critical component is
the utilization of technology to optimize both
learning and productivity
Growth and Pedler et al. (1997) A learning organization is like a fountain tree where
survival the image of energy and life is characteristic of
growth and survival. Organizational members are
constituents of this fountain tree
Cultural Schein (1996) The key to organizational learning is helping
executives and engineers (groups representing basic
design elements of technology) learn how to learn,
how to analyze their own cultures, and how to evolve
those cultures around their strengths
Systems Senge (1990) Organizational learning involves developing people
who learn to see as systems thinkers see, who
develop their own personal mastery, and who learn
how to surface and restructure mental models
collaboratively
Team-building Watkins and A learning organization is one that learns Table I.
Marsick (1993) continuously and transforms itself where the Nine themes of
organizational capacity for innovation and growth is organizational learning
constantly enhanced and learning organization

Steiner’s (1998) organizational learning model

Senge’s (1990) propositions have to some extent been proven empirically ineffective by
Steiner (1998). From a practical perspective, Steiner (1998) observes that the three
levels of learning – individual, team and organizational – have in turn caused three
barriers due to inappropriate collaboration among organization members. She has
identified them to be individual, managerial and organization structure barriers. The
TLO underlying organizational symptom is found to be dilemma experienced by its
12,4 members. Perceived as both a conceptual and practical weakness, she further argues
that Senge’s propositions do not adequately explicate the relationship between
individuals’ dilemma and the process of learning. After all, learning is intimately
bound in the process of communicating and organizing. Further, the relationship
between the five disciplines and the way each discipline impacts on one another, need
374 to be closely examined. If this relationship is not carefully examined, the five
disciplines may be regarded as a set of disciplines acting independently on its own.
When interacting with organizational dynamics including the internal and external
environments, these disciplines may ultimately fail to function together as a system by
itself (Marquardt, 1996; Steiner, 1998).
With this in mind, Steiner (1998) recognizes that such a linkage can be realized by
considering a holistic approach to learning. This is in many ways similar to Senge’s
(1990) notion of systems thinking. Systems thinking allows one to see underlying
structures and patterns of behavior that are obscured in the complexity of daily events
and activities. It also helps one to understand why conventional solutions are failing
and where higher leverage actions may be found (Senge, 1990). Hence, systems
thinking emphasizes the importance of seeing the big picture associated with the
overall organizational goals other than the individual myopic job functions. Most
significantly, it is proposed that systems thinking should be given much greater
functional emphasis in facilitating organizational learning processes (Griffey, 1998;
Rifkin and Fulop, 1997). It is astounding that the learning organization literature
largely treats the subject as if it can be practiced independently from systems thinking.
However, by placing systems thinking as the fifth discipline, Senge sets it off as being
distinctly greater in importance. Senge (1990) notes:
It is vital that the five disciplines develop as an ensemble. This is challenging because it is
much harder to integrate new tools than apply them separately. But the payoffs are immense
(p. 12).
As acknowledged by Steiner (1998), there needs to be a holistic approach which is
systemic in nature, to help bridge the perceived disjunction between the five disciplines
and subsequently overcoming organizational barriers.
An alternate way of looking at this relationship is – systems thinking could play a
dual role: one as a skill to help organization members in their learning process, and two
as an integrative approach to a more effective operation of the five disciplines. This
proposition will further reinforce the facilitation of shared vision and team learning
where the importance of a collective will is emphasized. Both personal mastery and
mental models are individual assets to be utilized as part of the interaction process
with the other three elements in Senge’s five disciplines.
The importance of systems thinking is further reinforced in Harrison’s (1993)
proposition that corporate vision, mission and strategy are the key drivers of
continuous learning and development in a learning organization. These drivers will
motivate organization members to build learning into their daily routines and promote
team learning. This type of simultaneous learning through a collective effort is a
manifestation of systems thinking. Examples of international organizations that have
achieved great business successes through the practice of systems thinking include
Arthur Anderson, Honda, Shell, Toyota and Xerox (Guns, 1996; Marquardt, 1996).
Buckler’s (1996) learning process model Learning
The notions of adaptive and generative learning are important characteristics of organization
Senge’s (1990) organizational learning theory. Although both these notions are
concerned with the process of reflection, the difference between the two is that the literature
former seeks to remain (in the original organization structure) while the latter, create
(opportunities for development and growth). Even so, the notion of reflection is the key
driver that facilitates these two types of learning. In Buckler’s (1996) learning process 375
model (see Table II), he places reflection as the sixth and ultimate component among
ignorance, awareness, understanding, commitment and enactment. The six
components are suggested to be a complete cycle of organizational learning. The
aim of this model is to help organizations achieve better business results.
In addition, Buckler incorporates the role of leadership as a catalyst for the
enforcement of shared vision – a similar discipline in Senge’s five disciplines.
However, the difference between the notion of shared vision in Senge’s and Buckler’s
propositions is that for the former, it is left unclear who is responsible for
communicating this shared vision (Yeo, 2004). For the latter, it is clear in his learning
process model that shared vision should be communicated by organizational leaders in
any capacity as long as its members respond to learning according to the
organization’s strategic objectives. In this light, Buckler’s model presents a different
perspective of shared vision and is perhaps an extended application of Senge’s five
disciplines.

Reynolds and Ablett’s (1998) molecular development model

Reynolds and Ablett’s (1998) model (see Figure 1) is an amalgamation of a variety of
theories, such as human resource development, management development and
organizational development. This model seeks to integrate the diverse range of
organizational activities for the achievement of organizational learning.
To a large extent, the five levels of integration in the molecular development model
parallel Senge’s (1990) five disciplines (Table III).

Leadership: develop
Common ownership and
No. Stages responses remove barriers Desired responses

6. Reflection Nil “What have we learnt? “I now have a better

How have we learnt it?” understanding”
5. Enactment “I’m not good Enable “I want to know more”
enough to do this”
4. Commitment “I don’t believe this Allow risk taking “I want to try this”
will work”
3. Understanding “This isn’t my job” Develop shared vision “I want to know about this”
“whys”
2. Awareness “I don’t need to Develop shared vision “I need to know about this”
change” “whats”
1. Ignorance “I don’t know and Question “I ought to know about this”
I don’t care”
Table II.
Source: Buckler (1996, p. 19) Learning process model
TLO
12,4

376

Figure 1.
Molecular development
model

Molecular development model Senge’s five disciplines

Team-building Team learning – group dynamics

Commitment Personal mastery – willingness to learn new skills
Business focus Systems thinking – big picture of the business
operations
Human resource integration Mental models – Influencing others with
Table III. independent thinking
Five disciplines Internal energy Shared vision – shared energy

The notion of business focus in the molecular development model appears to be

narrower in application than the notion of systems thinking in Senge’s five disciplines
as it is concerned with business rather than the overall organization. However, it does
appear that the Reynolds and Ablett’s model is a subset of Senge’s five disciplines. In
fact, the molecular development model functions more like a specific application of
systems thinking. Further to Buckler’s (1996) model, Reynolds and Ablett’s model is an
illustration of the importance of systems thinking as being the catalyst for the
integration of organizational learning practices.
Different stages of learning Learning
In trying to draw a correlation between the various three-stage organizational learning organization
models proposed by several researchers, Senge’s (1990) systemic approach –
comprising individual, team and organizational learning – will be used as a basis for literature
comparison. This approach can be said to complement Watkins and Marsick’s (1993)
team-building model, Hawkins’ (1991) triple-loop learning and Griffey’s (1998)
three-stage conceptual hierarchy (refer to Table IV). Although different in emphasis, 377
taken together they share a common theme – the hierarchical but interconnected
structure of a learning cycle.
At the systemic level, Watkins and Marsick’s (1993) model resembles Senge’s
systemic approach in that it deals with the people sub-system – individual, team and
organization – in facilitating learning. However, at the operational level, Senge’s
approach focuses more on work processes rather than systems of knowledge,
technology and the organization. Here, the emphasis is, to a larger extent, in line with
Hawkins’ (1991) triple-loop learning, and Garratt’s (1987) operational and strategic
learning cycle, both of which are also concerned with work processes as dealing with
organizational learning.

Individual, team and organizational learning

Organizational learning can be seen to be taking place at three stages. In stage 1,
learning is associated with activities managed by individuals. These activities are
usually routine-based including the repetition of tasks. Here, individuals try to solve
problems on their own in order to maintain existing rules, structures or systems within
their work unit. Argyris (1993) labels this type of inward individual learning as “Model
I Theory-in-Use”. This theory suggests that individuals often craft their positions and
make evaluations on issues that restrict inquiry and reduce interaction. Individuals
demonstrating Model I characteristics tend to be defensive and self-fulfilling and are
often misunderstood by people. In a different light, Bateson (1971) regards these
behavioral traits as “Level 0 learning” where individuals respond to changes by
following rules in a given system. However, no true learning is likely to take place as
minimized uncertainty and very little trial-and-error are involved. Bateson (1971)
proposes that true learning can only result in the genuine changes of an individual’s
behavior and attitude.
In stage 2 of learning, individuals often try to solve problems by drawing on the
strengths of other members in a team with the aim of altering existing rules, structures
or systems. This type of team problem-solving and learning activities is usually
non-routine and more complex than those in the previous stage (Garratt, 1987). Unlike
Model I, Argyris’ (1993) Model II Theory-in-Use is concerned with behaviors that lead
to action strategies. This theory illustrates how learners reach certain evaluations
about situations and how this process encourages further inquiry. Individuals who
follow Model II theory are more likely to interrupt defensive routines and begin to
create organizational learning processes that encourage interactive learning. Bateson
(1971) identifies this type of learning as demonstrating Level I Learning characteristics
where learning occurs when actions do not seem to work as expected. As such,
individuals will have to act according to their given means and alternatives to help
reduce the errors that have emerged. Here, learning takes place first through the

thread
Table IV.
Organizational learning
constructs – a common
Stages of learning
Circular and cyclical approach
(Garratt, 1987; Swieringa and
Wierdsma, 1992)
Hierarchy of learning
Three-stage conceptual hierarchy
(Griffey, 1998)
Levels of learning
Treble-loop learning (Hawkins, 1991) Operations
Processes of learning
Systemic approach and five
disciplines (Senge, 1990, 1992)
Levels of interaction
Team-building approach (Watkins
and Marsick, 1993)
Level I: single-loop learning
Activities are at the individual level
Concerned with existing rules and
systems
Activities are routine and repetitive
Level 1: pre-personal
Learning
Level I: efficiency
Independent view
Level I: individuals
Mental models and personal mastery
Change front-line workers, work
towards continual improvement,
removing impediments and support
new practices
Level I: individuals
Promote inquiry
Create continuous learning
opportunities
Level II: double-loop learning
Activities at the team/group level
Concerned with changing rules and
systems
Activities are non-routine and
complex
Level II: personal
Wisdom
Level II: effectiveness
Strategy
Helicopter view
Connected to level I by a business
“brain”
Level II: teams
Team learning
Improve the way people work, think
and interact with a focus on
managers
Level II: sub-groups/teams
Collaborate and share the gains
12,4
378
TLO
Level III: triple-loop learning
Activities are at the company level
Concerned with company’s vision,
aims, identity and business direction
Activities are complex and deal with
external environments
Level III: trans-personal
Enlightenment
Level III: evolutionary need
Service
Satellite view
Connected to level II by a business
“soul”
Level III: organization
Systems thinking and shared vision
Institutionalize learning as an
inescapable way of life
Level III: management
Empower people
Integrate quantity and quality of
work life
Create free space for learning
understanding of the individual’s limitations and second through the creation of Learning
opportunities for action. organization
Finally, activities in stage 3 are associated with the organizational level and its
external environment. According to Bateson (1971), learning at this stage tends to be literature
complex and demonstrates Level II Learning characteristics. Here, learning occurs
when an error cannot be easily resolved by any acceptable means within the given
limitations of the organization. Unlike the first two stages, individuals try to solve 379
problems collectively by focusing on external resources. Their main objective is to
develop new principles, positions, aims, roles and identity in preparing the
organization for the dynamic changes of the external environment (Hawkins, 1991;
Swieringa and Wierdsma, 1992).
In summary, the three learning stages are concerned with the cognitive processes of
individuals when they engage in problem-solving and learning activities (Argyris and
Schon, 1978; Hawkins, 1991). According to Argyris and Schon (1978):
Each of whose cells [represented by individuals] contains a particular, partial, changing
image (represented by cognition) of itself in relation to the whole [organization] (p. 16).
This is an example of how an organization functions like an organism through the
collective cognition of individuals who constantly learn at different stages.

Conclusions
Organizational learning is more than a metaphorical vision that resides in the minds of
individuals. From an organic perspective, an organization can be compared to a
learning system with distinctive characteristics that are able to meet the demands of its
internal and external environments. As reinforced in Senge’s (1990) systemic approach
in his five disciplines, learning involves a variety of contexts and paradigms involving
individuals, teams, processes, structures and strategies. What is important is the
interaction dynamics of these contexts that influence organizational learning. As
discussed, the work of Buckler (1996), Reynolds and Ablett (1998), and Steiner (1998)
seems to suggest that systems thinking is the unifying force that can adequately
account for the complexity of these interaction dynamics in organizational learning. It
is no wonder Senge places systems thinking as his fifth discipline. It is hoped that some
of the issues raised in this literature synthesis will encourage future researchers to
further explore a combined body of theory and practice for the learning organization.

References
Argyris, C. (1982), Reason, Learning and Action, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Argyris, C. (1993), Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational
Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bateson, G. (1971), Steps in an Ecology of Mind, Ballantine Books, New York, NY.
Bennis, W.G. (1969), Organization Development: Its Nature, Origins and Prospects,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Braham, B.J. (1996), Creating a Learning Organization, Kogan Page, London.
TLO Buckler, B. (1996), “A learning process model to achieve continuous improvement and
innovation”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 31-9.
12,4
Budhwar, P., Crane, A., Davies, A., Delbridge, R., Edwards, T., Ezzamel, M., Harris, L.,
Ogbonna, E. and Thomas, R. (2002), “Organizing/theorizing: developments in organization
theory and practice”, Management Research Review, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 1-193.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Social Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heinemann,
380 London.
Cangelosi, V.E. and Dill, W.R. (1965), “Organizational learning: observation toward a theory”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 175-203.
Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W. and White, R.E. (1999), “An organizational learning framework: from
intuition to institution”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 522-37.
Cummings, T.G. and Huse, E.F. (1996), Organization Development and Change, 4th ed.,
West Publishing Company, New York, NY.
Deming, W.E. (1990), “A system of profound knowledge”, British Deming Association Booklet,
No. A9, Salisbury.
Denton, J. (1998), Organizational Learning and Effectiveness, Routledge, London.
Fearon, D. and Cavaleri, S. (1994), “Systems integration through concurrent learning”, Industrial
Management, Vol. 36, July/August, pp. 27-30.
Fulmer, R.M. and Jeys, J.B. (1998), “A conversation with Chris Argyris: the father of
organizational learning”, Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, pp. 21-32.
Garratt, B. (1987), The Learning Organization, Fontana, London.
Garratt, B. (1995), “Helicopters and rotting fish: developing strategic thinking and new roles for
direction-givers”, in Garratt, B. (Ed.), Developing Strategic Thought: Rediscovering the Art
of Direction-giving, McGraw-Hill, London.
Garratt, B. (1999), “The learning organization 15 years on: some personal reflections”, The
Learning Organization, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 202-6.
Griffey, S. (1998), “Conceptual frameworks beyond the learning organization”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 68-73.
Guns, B. (1996), The Faster Learning Organization: Gain and Sustain the Competitive Advantage,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Harrison, R. (1993), Human Resource Management: Issues and Strategies, Addison-Wesley,
Wokingham.
Harung, H.S., Heaton, D.P. and Alexander, C.N. (1999), “Evolution of organizations in the new
millennium”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 198-207.
Hawkins, P. (1991), “The spiritual dimension of the learning organization”, Management
Education and Development, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 172-87.
Hitt, W.D. (1995), “The learning organization: some reflections on organizational renewal”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 17-25.
Kay, R. and Bawden, R. (1996), “Learning to be systemic: some reflections from a learning
organization”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 18-25.
Ketelhohn, W. (1994), “Act and think to create the learning organization of the 1990s”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 265-9.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1994), Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, Berrett-Koehler,
San Francisco, CA.
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1995), “Chester I. Barnard and the intelligence of learning”, in Learning
Williamson, O.E. (Ed.), Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and
Beyond, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 11-37. organization
March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1993), Organizations, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford. literature
Marquardt, M.J. (1996), Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum
Improvement and Global Success, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Marquardt, M.J. and Kearsley, G. (1999), Technology-based Learning: Maximizing Human 381
Performance and Corporate Success, St. Lucie Press, Boston, MA.
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (1999), “Looking again in the learning organization: a tool that
can turn into a weapon”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 207-11.
Morgan, G. (1997), Imaginization: New Mindsets for Seeing, Organizing and Managing,
Thousand Oaks, San Francisco, CA.
Murray, P. (2002), “Cycles of organizational learning: a conceptual approach”, Management
Decision, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 239-47.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1997), The Learning Company: A Strategy for
Sustainable Development, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London.
Prange, C. (1999), “Organizational learning – desperately seeking theory?”, in Easterby-Smith, M.,
Araujo, L. and Burgoyne, J. (Eds), Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization:
Developments in Theory and Practice, Sage, London.
Revans, R.W. (1980), Action Learning: New Techniques for Management, Blond & Briggs,
London.
Reynolds, R. and Ablett, A. (1998), “Transforming the rhetoric of organizational learning to the
reality of the learning organization”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 24-35.
Rifkin, W. and Fulop, L. (1997), “A review and case study on learning organizations”,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 135-48.
Rothwell, W.J., Sullivan, R. and McLean, G.N. (Eds) (1995), Practicing Organization Development:
A Guide for Consultants, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schein, E.H. (1988), Process Consultation Volume I: Its Role in Organization Development,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Schein, E.H. (1996), “Three cultures of management: the key to organizational learning”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 9-20.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Century Business, London.
Senge, P.M. (1992), “Building learning organizations: the real message of the quality movement”,
Journal of Quality and Participation, Vol. 15, March, pp. 30-6.
Sheehan, M.J. (2004), “Learning as the construction of a new reality”, Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 179-96.
Smith, P.A.C. (1999), “The learning organization ten years on: a case study”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 217-23.
Steiner, L. (1998), “Organizational dilemmas as barriers to learning”, The Learning Organization,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 193-201.
Stewart, D. (2001), “Reinterpreting the learning organization”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 8
No. 4, pp. 141-52.
Swieringa, J. and Wierdsma, A. (1992), Becoming a Learning Organization: Beyond the Learning
Curve, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.
TLO Teare, R. and Dealtry, R. (1998), “Building and sustaining a learning organization”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 47-60.
12,4 Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2003), “Organizational learning: a critical review”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 8-17.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons for the
Learning Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
382 Watson, T.J. (1994), In Search of Management: Culture, Chaos and Control in Managerial Work,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Wheatley, M.J. (1992), Leadership and New Science, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Yeo, R. (2003), “Linking organizational learning to organizational performance: Singapore case
studies”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 70-83.
Yeo, R. (2004), “Understanding the stages of organizational learning and development: an
integrative framework”, Management Development Journal of Singapore, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 14-37.