text:
Learning Theories/Organizational Learning: Triggers

Introduction
In order for organizations to learn, people must learn. Individuals within an organization learn as they carry out what is expected of them, both written and unwritten expectations. Written expectations are often delivered through job descriptions, memos, e-mails, and official documents. What is less clear for individuals within an organizational structure are the unwritten expectations. According to Maira and Scott-Morgan (1997), there are three groupings within organizations that best support an understanding of unwritten expectations: (1)motivators, (2)enablers and (3)triggers, delineated below.

Triggers, or triggering events, can be defined as circumstances which act as catalysts to organizational learning. As with human beings, organizations do not learn proactively (Watkins and Marsick, 1993). Given the tremendous pressures to perform and produce results, organizations tend to over-invest in exploiting existing knowledge and under-invest in learning or developing new knowledge (Levinthal, 1991).

Motivators are items that are important to individuals within an organization. "Motivators correspond to what is actually important to people, what they value" (p. 78). Maira and Scott-Morgan (1997)state that Enablers are those who are important to individuals within an organization. This may or may not be in line with an organizational chart, but involves those who are the actual "power brokers" within a firm. "Triggers are how people get what is important to them: the conditions that lead an enabler to grant a reward or impose a penalty" (Maira & Scott-Morgan, 1997, p. 78).

As motivators are items that stimulate individuals to learn, triggers (as explained above)serve as a kind of motivator to stimulate organizations to learn. Motivator tends to elicit the learning desire from individuals; however, trigger tends to force organizations to respond the changes of the environment such as socioeconomic changes. The learning motion motivated by motivators is more voluntary; rather, the learning motions motivated by triggers is more involuntary.

Do organizations learn specifically through operational learning, or is conceptual learning another facet of learning potential? Are these different levels of learning? Lane (2001) speaks to this saying “another preoccupation of organizational learning theory is the elaboration of a distinction between different levels of learning: between operational and conceptual learning” (p. 702). These two levels are referring to routine and imitation that comes from learning versus conceptual thought which assumes people will question processes they are learning. These are different forms of triggers within individuals and groups as they learn. Understanding these and other triggers will help a person, group, or company evolve into learning organizations.

An article by the Center for Development of Teaching & Learning titled Assessing Quality of Teaching in Higher Education, noted the following means to trigger learning and include the quality of "a) formulation of objectives and syllabuses, b) construction of handouts/selections of readings, c) classroom activities, d) choice of modes of assessment, e) feedback to students, and design of exercises, f) design of assignments, projects, quizzes, and g) design of final examinations" (Mohanan, 2006, p.2).

According to Brookfield (1987, 1994), “triggers” are life events “that prompts a sense of inner discomfort and perplexity." A life event such as a birth of a new child, divorce or corporate downsizing can trigger the adult learner to critique their existing knowledge through reflection and determine what additional education is needed for improvement and job security. Knowing and understanding the triggers that motivate adult learners can aid educators in the development and design of learning modules, whether they be educators in the academic sense or leaders and educators within operating organizations.

According to Mohanan (2006), the characteristics of the teacher who is likely to trigger learning include: "a) has a deep knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, b) is committed to teaching and is hard working, c) continually seeks ways to improve, innovate, and be up to date, d) has a strong passion for subject, e) has a high enthusiasm for teaching, f) is an inspirational role model to students, g) has a high emotional intelligence to empathize with students, and h) is eminently approachable" (p.3). Again, this need not be in the academic arena alone. The organizational leader is in a sense the teacher and must demonstrate these same characteristics to trigger organizational learning.

Changes in socioeconomic values as triggers
Jurgen Kadtler discusses how ‘social movements’ and ‘interest groups’ act as Triggers for organizational learning. Some organizations are forced to adapt to surrounding social, environmental, or regulational factors (Dierkes, Antal, Child, & Nonaka, 2003). Often these factors are outside their control and they must react to them. “Whether the organization acquires the capacity to manage the crisis and deal with the concern of social movements or interest groups is determined by organizational learning. This refers to the tension between and analytical and a normative perspective on organizational learning” (p. 221).

One such trigger is the change of socioeconomic values of society as a whole and within an organization. Von Rosenstiel and Koch (2003) contend that for the past several decades there has been a shift in socioeconomic values that have played a role in how organizations learn and adapt within a greater societal context. In other words, as values change, so must the organization change to be able to effectively interface internally (within the organization) and externally (with stakeholders outside of the organization, such as customers, vendors, etc). The changes that an organization must go through to operate effectively are facilitated by necessary learning. Put bluntly, the organizational learning would not occur were it not for the values shift, which acts as a trigger in this instance.

Akin to the concepts presented by Von Rosenstiel and Koch (2003), Kädtler (2003) suggests that, "organizational learning that is triggered by social movements or interest groups is a form of involuntary learning" (p. 221). The broad spectrum of social movements and the clear identification of such is not easy to define. Kädtler (2003) contends that neither the academic community nor the general public can easily define a social movement. Perhaps Kädtler (2003)attempts to bring some clarity by suggesting, "Social movements are public activities...(who) strive to integrate their general aspirations into the system of values and norms that constitute legitimacy in a society" (p. 223). Essentially, as the social culture changes, predicated by social movements, the values of an organization may change to coincide with societal change.

Unlike the learning that trickles through an organization as necessitated by (usually slow) socioeconomic changes, transformation processes typically require rapid learning that is neither forgiving or without anxiety for those going through the process. Merkens, Geppert, and Antel (2003) delineate the types of triggers for organizational learning both in the context of ‘structuralist learning’ and ‘constructionist learning.’ Structuralist learning can be thought of as learning that is the result of one way communication and fixed content; whereas, constructionist learning is the result of interaction between the learner and the environment. Listed below are some examples of these two types of triggers.

Triggers of structuralist learning during organization transformational
(adapted from Merkens, Geppert, and Antel, 2003)

 * Privitization and opening of markets
 * Mergers and acquisitions
 * Implementation of new technologies
 * Influx of capital

Triggers of Constructionist Learning During Transformational
(adapted from Merkens, Geppert, and Antel, 2003)

 * Need for legitimacy
 * Culture Clash
 * Social embeddedness of values and ideals
 * Inquisitive and well-educated workforce
 * Implementation of new technologies

The above lists are not intended to be exhaustive. They are merely examples of triggers that can encountered during times of organizational transformation.

Technological Visions as Triggers
Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary (2001) defines vision as a “mental picture – an image or concept in the imagination [and as] far-sightedness – the ability to anticipate possible future events and developments” (p. 1606). Although visions have been heralded as an all important component of organizational leadership, there has been – up till now, little research conducted to better understand the concept of visions. New insight, however, confirms that visions facilitate vicarious learning and serve as “points of orientation…based on core values and shared perceptions….[and that they] do more than just appeal to the logical and rational mind; they touch upon the internalized norms, values, and preconceived notions underlying people’s perceptions, thinking, and decisions” (Dierkes, et al., 2004, pp. 284-285).

Metaphorically, overarching visions may be thought of as stars in the night’s sky used as points of orientation for navigating the organization. It is important to note, however, that visions – even overarching visions, are not necessarily fixated. This is especially true of technological visions because of the inherent unpredictable nature of technological advancements. It is within this context that Dierkes, et al., support Collins and Porras’ (1994) “argu[ment] that organizational visions must transcend existing products and practices or they can easily become obsolete” (pp. 294-295).

Cognitive and Experiential Triggers
Clark and Mirabile (2004) put forth the concept of “knowledge mapping”, a process of quickly and consistently organizing the mountain of information that faces an organization. After devising a framework of categories into which organizational information can be logically placed, a mapping strategy is essential to identify and classify the information. Clear and accurate mapping would require triggers – words, topical labels, or key indicators in order to differentiate the knowledge sharing into appropriate categories. Clark and Mirabile would suggest a listing of triggers that in turn would create a dictionary of categories.

Clark and Mirabile (2004) use the term triggers to emphasize the cognitive content of established knowledge as the basis for adding or “mapping” additional information to the current body of shared knowledge. This is in contrast to Brookfield who stresses the context of experience and the impact of certain events, often painful and negative, in the adult learning process (Merrian & Caffarella, 1999). These events serve as triggers that motivate adults toward change, evaluation, and renovation of the personal fabric of life. It is advisable that when any discussion or research done in reference to triggers, care should be taken to define the term in order for all to understand the context and framework of the concept.

Creativity as a Trigger
Cunha, Cunha and Kamoche (2002) suggest that an open minded and, indeed, creative approach to errors may serve as the trigger for organizational improvisation and learning. Rather than simply rewarding employees and managers for fixing problems, we should encourage their use as stimuli for further learning. Consider, they say, “an example from Nordstrom's department store where employees are encouraged to "respond to unreasonable customer requests." Stories circulate about an employee paying a customer's parking ticket when the store's gift wrapping took too long” (p. 148). This type of accommodation should be rewarded and viewed as a departure point for a learning journey aimed at discovering what caused the process to fail to produce the desired result.

Anxiety as a Trigger
Edgar Schein, as cited in Coutu, (2002), provides a useful and realistic view of the essential triggers of organizational learning. He maintains that anxiety is necessary as a trigger for learning. In this interview, he maintains that little is actually known about organizational learning and that true organizational learning is more than the sum of individual learning. Adopting a distinctly unpopular stance, Schein maintains that learning is coercive. He believes that anxiety, or more correctly, “learning anxiety” (p. 6) occurs when we are afraid of trying something new out of fear of failure, embarrassment, or the desire not to give up old paradigms. Conversely, “survival anxiety” (p. 6) is the realization that survival of the individual or the organization depends on change. Schein tells us that “the evidence is mounting that real change does not begin to occur until the organization experiences some real threat of pain that in some way dashes its expectations or hopes” (p. 6).

Summary
Stopford (2003) posits that "Organizational learning is a central component of the process of guided selectivity in response to market signals" (p. 264). He suggests that a learning trigger for most organizations is the market in which an organization functions. That includes technological advances, global environment, and competition. Stopford (2003) contends that organizations must follow any market changes that are relevant and change according to the results of market study. One area that tends to hold up the response to market changes is the administrative systems in organizations. The structural systems set up in may organizations serve to insulate the organizations "from changes in the market environment, or at least acts to delay responses" (Stopford, 2003, p. 271). He further suggests, "The primary role of the system is to ensure that the variety of signals received from the external environment and the processes of selection are continuously informed by the knowledge and perspectives of individuals and communities of practice within the firm" (p. 272).

Case studies & workplace examples
My “trigger event” occurred four years ago. My high school was accused of recruiting international students for our athletic program. The only truth in the allegations involved some inaccurate information shared on I-20 requests for the students to spend time at our school. There was also some misunderstanding concerning the guardianship requirements for international students staying with host families. Nonetheless, the accusations were picked up by the media and the state High School Athletic Association. We were placed on a 3-year probation and issued a substantial fine.

The “appraisal” stage for me involved a great deal of guilt. I was discouraged because I was not better aware of documents being signed and the overall process of enrolling international students (both responsibilities were given to other administrators). I was embarrassed for the school and my position.

The third stage “exploration” involved an internal investigation into the process, the recognition of our responsibilities, seeking the forgiveness of our student body and athletic teams, and the absorbing of the falsehood and untruth printed in the media. The school chose not to challenge the ruling of the state, but to submit to their decision.

The “developing of alternative perspectives” took some time as the consequences of the ruling produced many ripples into the integrity of the school. After some further personal investigation I began to regain my confidence in the school’s motive and purpose for enrolling international students. Our missionary outreach program and our desire to offer a Christian education to international students allowed me to recommit my confidence in the global interests of my school. The revamping and revisiting of various policies involving foreign exchange student has renewed a positive perspective in this part of our educational program.

The “integration” of these new ways of thinking into the fabric of my educational ministry took place with an increase of sensitivity to athletic eligibility issues and an awareness of the microscope under which Christian schools are viewed. I was amazed at the vindictive, aggressive, and destructive position that the media took on this issue. This experience brought into our thinking the need for extreme care in dealing with student enrollment and the acceptance of student athletes into the school system. We successfully completed the probationary period and have been reinstated with no restrictions.

Ford Motor Company
Two specific factors facing organizations today include social movements and special interest groups. For example, Ford Motor Company has been advertising in gay and lesbian magazines, recently. Some in the special interest evangelical movement has strongly objected to Ford’s advertising practices and see it as a promotion of a lifestyle to which they object. They have sought to use boycotts to convince Ford to change it advertising policies. How Ford responds can have negative financial implications on either side. However Ford reacts in the above situation will be a learning organization challenge. In whatever direction it goes, “new organizational competencies have to be acquired if critical issues are to be addressed successfully” (p. 221).

U.S. auto industry
Schein states that “survival anxiety” is the realization that survival of the individual or the organization depends on change (Coutu, 2002). This is demonstrated very clearly when one studies the U.S. auto industry and changes made for the sole purpose of "survival". All domestic competitors have undergone significant changes as a means of surviving the attack of foreign competition within our own market. U.S.-based manufacturers have had to work collaboratively with the unions that represent their workforces to make changes in wages, benefits, operating practices, and work rules. They have also had to make significant changes in product development, styling, value, and quality, in efforts to maintain a presence in the market. When there were only few competitors in the market, just 20 years ago, the "need" for change was not as great. Now, with well over 300 nameplates competing in the U.S. market, dramatic changes have had to been made just as the "price of admission" -- for example without excellence in product quality and safety, a manufacturer cannot even hope to get in the market. The threat to survival of individuals and organizations has become a reality, and has driven changes that are ultimately good for the customer. One wonders if, without this threat to survival, would the changes have occurred at all.


text:
Learning Theories/Organizational Learning: Influencing Factors

Typical general influencing factors in organizational learning
The factors for gathering and managing knowledge are many and diverse within a learning organization. Three of the typical general issues or influencing factors in learning organizations are context, history, and survival. The idea of context is intrinsically tied to socially constructed elements. Lane (2001) discusses this factor saying, “assumption of most organizational learning theory is that learning is socially constructed, that is, what is learned and how learning occurs are fundamentally connected to the context in which that learning occurs” (p. 704). How the culture, or context, of an organization functions is part of an influencing factor on the type of learning organization it will be.

One key aspect of organizational learning to remember is that an organization should not lose out on its learning abilities when members of the organization leave. The concept of organizational memory means that effective learning organizations should not only influence the current members, but also future members due to the experiences, beliefs, and norms that are accumulated along the way. Creating a learning organization is only half the solution to a challenging problem (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994). Equally important is unlearning some of the past that has not moved the company forward on a path of healthy growth.

Developing a work culture that values creativity and encourages innovation is imperative to an organization that desires to learn and produce new ideas or products (Kiely, 1993; Prather, 2000; Sternberg, 2003; Thompson, 2003). In an early article, Shallcross (1975) shares the role of the leader in creating an open environment to new ideas - “the role of the leader in creativity training is one of providing a climate that is nonjudgmental, of helping each individual to realize personal uniqueness and the uniqueness of others” (p.626). Suh (2002) concurs with the importance of managerial encouragement for the innovating thinking of the worker in the areas of planning, learning, and production.

Amabile (1998) points to six general categories of effective management practice in creating a learning culture within an organization: (1) providing employees with challenge; (2) providing freedom to innovate; (3) providing the resources needed to create new ideas/products; (4) providing diversity of perspectives and backgrounds within groups; (5) providing supervisor encouragement; and (6) providing organizational support.

Second is the issue or factor of history. The implications of past endeavors and attempts at growth or learning will affect the long-term view of learning overall within that organization. Lane (2001) wrote, “A related aspect of the process of learning is a view of the organization as an embodiment of past learning. The concept of memory as the storehouse of either individual or organizational knowledge is further explicated by reference to the there term ‘mental models’… guide the acquisition and organization of new knowledge” (p. 702). The ability of an organization to assimilate and diffuse both new and old information will determine the longevity of developing a learning organization through healthy means.

Lastly, the issue of survival is the basic premise for becoming a learning organization. Ortenblad (2002) says, “according to the critical literature most or all organizational learning theorists indicate that survival is an important object for learning” (p. 95). This concept is basic to human nature, survival of the fittest. In order for an organization to exist long term, it must learn more than just new fads or moments of knowledge, it must learn consistently over time for this is a learning organization.

Neilson and Pasternack (2005) provide a convincing example of this survival anxiety in their account of Caterpillar’s change from what they term to be an over-managed organization to a resilient organization. Komatsu’s early 1980’s attack on Caterpillar and the first losses in Caterpillar’s history were anxiety provoking to the point that excessive bureaucracy, centralized authority and a highly political culture were jettisoned successfully.

Human resource factors influencing organizational learning
Organizations vary greatly in all aspects. Establishing an understanding of what influences organizational learning for the vast majority of organizations is extremely valuable. This would allow individuals in many different organizations to benefit from examining some key factors that would increase organizational learning in their setting.

Lohman (2005) found the factors of initiative, positive personality traits, commitment to professional development, interest in the profession, self-efficacy and love of learning enhanced the motivation for informal organizational learning. Conversely, an unsupportive organizational culture, others who were unwilling to participate, lack of time, and lack of proximity with colleagues negatively impacted this organizational learning.

Shipton, Dawson, West, and Patterson (2002) investigated the manufacturing environment and found that only two of five variables were associated with organizational learning: approach to human resources management and quality orientation. Profitability, environmental uncertainty, and structure were not significantly related to organizational learning. Albert (2005) found that top management support and involvement of consultants also facilitated organizational learning and change.

A European study showed that lack of motivation, extra work, unclear roles, lack of confidence, perception of role, insufficient learning culture, lack of innovation, lack of time, and lack of resources negatively impacted organizational learning (Sambrook & Stewart, 2000). From the positive perspective, motivation, enthusiasm, involvement, clarity and understanding of role, increased responsibility, perception as a strategic partner, a developed learning culture, senior management support, organization re-structure, job redesign, and investment in human resources, and the learning environment made a significant difference in organizational culture.

Time factors influencing organizational learning
Weber and Berthoin Antal (2003) describe six key dimensions of time that influence organizational learning: the organization’s time perspective and orientation to time, time pressure, simultaneity, synchronization and windows of opportunity, learning cycles and life cycles, and history (p. 354).

 * Time perspective : Within an organization, individuals, groups, departments, or functions, may all hold very different perspectives of time and the implications time horizons hold for the necessity of learning. Therefore, it is important that the top leadership of the organization clearly determine the time orientation for the organization as a whole, such that decision-making and learning take place in a manner consistent with the organization-wide time orientation and perspective.

 * Time pressure : Time pressure can influence learning from within the organization (top-down, bottom-up, peer-to-peer) as well as from external sources such as competitors, suppliers, customers, and communities. Time pressures can actually slow learning, as in the case when the organization is threatened by internal or external forces that paralyze the organization for fear that taking action could risk undesirable consequences.  Likewise, learning and performance can be accelerated, for example, by the threat of deadlines or competitive maneuvers in the market.

 * Simultaneity : External events and opportunities happen simultaneously and at a pace so frenetic that no organization can take advantage of all of them, given finite resources and levels of knowledge. This aspect of time presents a risk to organizations that they will lose control over the timeframes of those activities they pursue.

 * Synchronization and windows of opportunity : This dimension refers to the sequence of events or the specific windows of time when organizations are best positioned and open to learning. The sequence refers to knowing which learning activities are best for certain times. Simply put, the right activity or learning moment at precisely the right time will lead to more effective learning. Windows of opportunity are relevant because there are times when organizations may be better positioned to embrace learning, for example during periods when the perceived threat to their survival is greater than the difficulty of learning.

 * Learning cycles and life cycles : Just as individuals learn through observation, experience, reflection, and transference to other situations, so too do organizations incorporate learning cycles into their culture and behaviors. The success of an organization often depends on how quickly the learning cycles can take place. The life cycle of the organization also has implications for organizational learning. For example, the age of an organization - especially the older that it is, can lead to difficulty when adopting new practices and new learning because these organizations can become set in their ways. At times an older organization will battle "legacy" behaviors and cultural norms that are contrary to change and learning and adoption of new practices.

 * History : Weber & Berthoin Antal (2003) state, "History has an identifying effect for organizations" (p. 358). How an organization has applied learning in the past can be used to apply to learning opportunities in the future. The history, or identity, of an organization is in part built on the collective learning of individuals and groups within the organization over time.  It is this historical dimension of time that actually captures all of the others and presents them as a composite of the effects of time on the organization’s ability to learn. Weber and Berthoin Antal (2003) state that “the influence of history on the organization can be positive as well as dysfunctional" (p. 358).  Organizations can use to their advantage and potential success their collective and stored knowledge.  However, they must beware of obsolescence that may come with strict adherence to past practices and procedures, without the consideration of new learning and opportunities.

Individuals, when given time, opportunity, and resources are quite often capable of implementing change 'expediently' when compared to teams or organizations. The lag in time that so often hinders organizational change is called 'organizational inertia' – a situation Starbuck and Hedberg say can arise from “slow sense-making processes and ineffective information systems...[or when] individuals learn without their organizations also learning” (Dierkes, et al., 2003, p. 335). One possible resolve to this dilemma is the Japanese concept of Kaizen – an applied system for implementing continuous improvement through small steps (Maurer, 2004). If we conceive of organizational learning as a necessary means for continuous improvement, then it is not a far stretch to also realize that learning – taken in small, applied steps, makes sense. Starbuck and Hedberg state that “continuous improvement, the daily challenging of status quo, supports the notion that everything can be improved….[and that] evolutionary learning in small steps seems to work better than does revolutionary learning, [especially] during periods of repeated success” (Dierkes, et al., 2003, p. 337).

Group factors influencing organizational learning
Factors that influence group learning are explored by McConnell and Zhao (2004). In their study, they designed a diagram to show group learning in by integrating factors together. The first step was group planning. The planner has to be very clear about the learning task and the objectives. The learning community has elements that must be considered such as "creativity, norms, belief, and status"(p.7). Factors that must be considered "interaction, communication, negotiation, skills, strategies, feedback, leader, role play, brainstorming, and motivation" (p.7).Lastly in evaluation, the following factors must be considered, " performance, effectiveness, outcomes, contributions, history, experiences, and productivity" (p.7).

Follower factors influencing organizational learning
Though shallow on the surface, Maxwell's (1993) definition of influence substantiates the effect influence can have within an organizational structure, particularly as it relates to lower level employees affecting organizational change. Maxwell states, "Leadership is influence" (p. 1). Peter Drucker, as cited in Goldsmith, Morgan, and Ogg (2004), states, "‘the great majority of people tend to focus downward,' writes Peter Drucker. 'They are occupied with efforts rather than results. They worry over what the organization and their superiors owe them and should do for them'" (p. 19). What is missing in this mindset is the ability to affect, or influence, change within an organization regardless of position. Goldsmith, Morgan, and Ogg (2004), state, "Organizations in all fields suffer when key employees cannot effectively influence upper management" (p. 20). These authors go on to suggest 10 guidelines for affecting change in an upward fashion:
 * 1) When presenting ideas to upper management, realize that it is your responsibility to sell---not [upper management's] responsibility to buy.
 * 2) Focus on contribution to the larger good, not just the achievement of your objectives.
 * 3) Strive to win the big battles. Don't waste your ammunition on small points.
 * 4) Present a realistic cost-benefit of your ideas. Don't just sell benefits.
 * 5) "Challenge up" on issues involving ethics or integrity.
 * 6) Realize that your upper managers are just as human as you are.
 * 7) Treat upper managers with the same courtesy that you would treat partners or customers.
 * 8) Support the final decision of the team.
 * 9) Make a positive difference.
 * 10) Focus on the future--let go of the past (pp. 20-24).

The board of directors as an influence in organizational learning
Another area of influence is the Board of Directors. Tainio, Lilja, and Santalainen (2003) suggest, "Boards represent the interests of the firm's shareholders...they have the power to hire, fire, and compensate senior executives and to provide high level counsel.; By performing these tasks, boards can facilitate or limit organizational learning" (p. 428). The insurgence of shareholders involvement is due largely to the mismanagement of many high profile companies in the 1990s, according to Tainio et al. (2003). This insurgence in board activity and influence on organizations has prompted significant changes in organizational learning. In turn, the situation has redefined the role of boards in many organizations. Tainio et al. (2003) suggest, "There is actually a fine line between managing a company and contributing ideas for managing a company" (p. 432). Boards who have become more active do not manage the nitty-gritty of daily operation, they press organizations to maintain high standards, closely watch goals and planning, and take a more active role in management succession (Tainio et al., 2003).

Case studies & workplace examples
The factors for influencing organizational learning were evident in a significant change that took place in a school setting. The administration presented a challenge to the high school: students were apathetic in living what they acknowledged to be true; find a way to help students apply what they are learning. A relative newcomer to administration, the high school principal began talking with his teachers, students and other administrators and listening to the feedback. Out of this came a program which meant restructuring the whole high school week. Each Wednesday afternoon, the entire high school was going to participate in small group interaction and then go out into the community for community service. The school was able to secure four mini-buses dedicated for transportation during this time period. This program has re-vitalized the high school. The program has been embraced by the majority of students and the remaining students are facing positive peer pressure to grow and change. The key to success was presenting the challenge, giving the decision-makers the freedom to innovate, providing the resources necessary including time and transportation, listening to the diversity of perspectives, encouraging the principal with all the roadblocks that presented themselves, and committing to the program as an organization. (Amabile, 1998)

Organizational culture holds profound implications upon those organizations who wish to increase their effectiveness through organizational learning. Burke (1985) quotes Schein who theorizes that organizational culture is the "basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization, that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic 'taken for granted' fashion an organization's view of itself and its environment" (pp. 6-7). These assumptions and beliefs are learned responses to a group's problems of internal integration. They come to be taken for granted because they solve those problems repeatedly and reliably. "This deeper level of assumptions is to be distinguished for the 'artifacts' and 'values' that are manifestations or surface levels of culture, but not the essence of the culture" (Burke, 1992, p. 10-11).

When persons within organizations operate in and unconscious manner due to the organizational culture, one can readily see how attempting to develop organizational learning in a suspicious, distrusting environment could be highly difficult. Developing organizational culture that prizes learning, growth, and knowledge sharing must be tackled in order to promote organizational learning. Subtle and undermining forces in an organizational culture can sabotage attempts at improving components of the organization, or even attempts at organizational culture change. Leaders must be in touch with the pulse of their organizational culture prior to or while seeking to implement change.

Leaders do well to understand the history of their organization. In the process of making significant changes, one cannot fully or adequately understand the culture, relationships, nor underlying forces at work. In a local church organization with modest length of history, this author found it highly beneficial to do an elongated review of the full history of the nonprofit organization. Understanding our roots and driving values and forces across the years deepened our appreciation for our history in honest fashion.

Individuals who had been involved for several decades helped us appreciate our strengths and passions while candidly assessing difficulties and even failures. While listening to individuals share their individual, family, and organizational stories, we gained valuable insight into the past and some of the personalities who influenced for good or ill the culture of the organization. While understanding one’s history does not assume understanding of culture, it does at least help people gain a sense of where they fall within the history of the organization. While assessing the successes and becoming aware of failures, individuals and the whole of the participating persons discover more deeply the values, mission, and driving forces of the organization. In this instance, recalling previous instances of entrepreneurial behavior and resulting successes helped people to be open to new changes and new direction for the local church. Such success stories lessened the fears of change, while creating positive inclinations toward change in the future.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Learning Theories/Organizational Learning: Agents

Introduction
The organizational learning dynamic can be facilitated by one, or any combination, of "Organizational Learning Agents". Dierks, et al (2003), in "The Handbook of Organizational Learning" identifies five agents of organization learning: the individual, the senior leadership of the organization, boards and/or governing bodies, labor unions, and consultants. Each one of the aforementioned "Organizational Learning Agents" is able to contribute to the learning process and facilitate learning in a unique manner. Below are descriptions of various learning agents and the unique aspects they bring to the organizational learning dynamic.

The individual as agent of organizational learning
Victor J. Friedman defines organizational learning as “a process that can be fully understood only at the group or organizational level.” However, Friedman is also quick to acknowledge the fact that several “seminal theorists…have tended to agree that organizational learning begins and often ends, with the individual” (Dierkes, et al., 2003, p. 398). It would seem, from this author’s perspective, that common rationale would, without doubt, accept the notion that individuals are agents of learning in organizations. However, this author also contends that some individuals would appear to proffer more knowledge within their organizations than do others – this coming from personal experience. But what explains this phenomenon? Friedman suggests that from his own agent profiling studies, and that of others, there exists a “complexity and constructive tension of…contradictory attributes [i.e., proactive but reflective, and so on] that lead these persons to take on the role of agent despite the potential costs” (p. 404). In other words, it would appear that agents of organizational learning in all likelihood possess an ability or the characteristics to “move from contradiction – that painful condition where things oppose each other – to the realm of paradox [italics added], where [they] are able to entertain simultaneously two contradictory notions and give them equal dignity” (Johnson, 1991, p. 85); resulting in synthesis, exponentially.

Learning is an essential and continual function of the individual agent as he adapts in an ever-changing world. If the world would not be in a perpetual change, agents would not face new information and would not be induced to learn. On the other hand, because of frequent changes in the state of the world, agents have to perpetually modify their behavior in order to stay adapted to world evolutions. Because of these factors, individual agents play a critical role in the learning of the entire organization.

Maira and Scott-Morgan (1997) state that organizational learning "is the creation, adaptation, or replication of knowledge by an organization to improve its performance" (p. 203). The authors add that some companies have realized the importance of organizational learning to the extent of creating special executive positions to assist in focusing everyone's attention on organizational learning. These companies include Dow Chemical (U.S.), Skandia (Swedish insurance company), and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. According to Maira and Scott-Morgan (1997), these created positions have titles, such as Director of Intellectual Asset Management and are responsible for "measuring the value of knowledge in the firm and of developing ways to increase that value by improving the 'knowledge acquisition' or 'learning' processes of the organization" (p. 203).

The leader as agent of organizational learning
Sadler (2003) states that in the learning organization, the organizational leader has three distinct functions: designer, steward, and teacher. The design work is about creating systems, strategies and policies and making them come together in such a manner that makes the organization effective and efficient. The stewardship function relates to the leader’s responsibility to ensure the organization’s long-term survival. The teacher role is manifest by the leader helping others to see the ‘big picture’. The leader helps others understand the reality of the current situation and the vision of the organization. Filling the gap that lies between these two paradigms and creating a learning environment where that can occur is the focus of effective leaders (Sadler, 2003). Coutu (2002) places this role of teacher in the context of a continual learner. She would advocate that unless leaders become learners themselves then transformational learning can not take place. It is as leaders engage in self-directed, life-long learning that they can effectively teach others. Only by learning can they lead by good example and create a “safe” context for others to learn. The leader should hold the position of chief learner and carry the responsibility of maintaining an environment and culture where learning is valued and rewarded.

What kind of leader can facilitate the learning that is required of an effective organization in the 21st century? Surprisingly, it does not have to be the typical heroic or charismatic leader. In fact, Sadler (2003) suggests such leadership styles may be less effective at creating an environment where team learning and participation are practiced. This is not to say that such leaders cannot be learning agents, rather the type of learning they tend to facilitate is quite different from those who fit within the ‘Designer, Steward, Teacher (DST)’ model. Charismatic leaders tend to invite passive learning, whereas leaders who fit within the DST model tend to act as facilitators of active learning and serve more as a role model for learning than a teacher.

There is no question that learning is the ultimate responsibility of the individuals within the organization. And, there is no position that is more important for the individual to visibly and demonstratively value learning than that of the leader. The leader, and his/her understanding of his/her role as a facilitator of learning and an example of learning, can set the tone and create the environment for learning to take place. As agents of organizational learning, leaders can shape the culture and encourage learning to take place. Gigenrenzer (2006) purposefully designed a culture that would encourage members of the staff to talk, work, and publish with one another. Individuals were encouraged to interact as equals, often socially, and with everyone. As leader of the organization, Gigenrenzer instituted rituals to support each of these four principles for interaction to promote information sharing.

Boards/Governing bodies as agents of organizational learning
The governing authorities of organizations are often at the forefront of providing learning for their employees. Workshops, seminars, training sessions and other formal opportunities are often part of the learning plan developed by the governing body of the organization. Landy & Conte (2004) reference corporate universities such as General Motors University, Xerox’s Document University, and McDonald’s Hamburger University that provide lifelong learning opportunities for their workers. Many of these universities are well established and extensive in the training they provide. Hamburger University, for example, operates in Japan, Germany, England, and Australia and offers electronic and computer-based training courses in 22 languages (Landy & Conte, 2004).

Boards serve as unique agents in organizations. Boards fill wide varieties of roles as it relates to the overall oversight and or operation including organizational learning. In many cases, boards are not actively involved in knowledge management or organizational learning.

Tainio, Lilja, and Santalailen in Dierkes, Antal, Child, & Nonaka (2003) suggest that many boards have historically filled a more traditional role in organizations that tend to function more passively, reactively and normally only would increase their influence if problems arose, functioning in a type of ‘firefighter role’. These types of boards “monitor and control the firm’s performance and align the CEO and shareholder interests behind corporate renewal” (quoting Walsh and Seward, 1990) (p. 429).

Boards have increasingly become more proactive and “increasingly engaged in helping top management reduce environmental uncertainty though boundary-spanning, to secure critical resources for a company” (p. 429). This type of involvement would enhance organizational learning by creating awareness of other system factors that affect said organization. Furthermore, the capacity to respond to changes in the market, society, regulation, and economic conditions all are affected by organizational learning.

Two primary concerns of these proactive boards, which are often more future oriented, are their service to the organization and strategic planning and decision-making. As boards involve themselves in strategic planning, “Empirical evidence suggests that boards that take more strategic decisions are not very deeply involved in organizational learning” (p. 433).

Labor unions as agents of organizational learning
Globalization of national economies (Altvater and Mahnkopf 1997; Fricke 1997; Group of Lisbon 1995; Howells and Wood 1993; Kapstein 1996; Muldur and Petrella 1994) and advances in manufacturing technology are presenting new challenges for organized labor. Previously, organizations using mass production techniques required very little learning on the part of the union workers, as separation of duties and standard methods divided work into specific, repetitive tasks. Union workers often tended to view any new learning or training initiatives as suspicious or a scheme to replace them with more efficient, more reliable technology. The outsourcing of mass production operations to foreign countries and the closing of numerous manufacturing plants have forced unions to take on the role of learning agent in their organization in order to survive. Unions have had to learn in several different arenas in order to keep their organizations healthy. These include learning not only in technical skills and abilities or specific tasks, but also in other, more complex areas such as the impact of globalization; factors and features of the competitive market landscape; multi-disciplined and multi-functional approaches to task completion;, social processes such as team concepts, communications, conflict management, and negotiations; leadership philosophy; and many others.

Economics as an agent of organizational learning
Akin to labor unions and their impact on organizational learning, economics also have a significant part to play in organizational learning. Boerner, Macher, and Teece (2003) contend, "The process of a market reaching its equilibrium is fundamentally a learning process" (p. 106). Changing circumstances and uncertainty of economic environment provides a continual atmosphere for organizational learning and adaptation. Goldsmith, Morgan, and Ogg (2004) support the increased concept of economics in organizational learning. They contend, "Today we see another shift...after a prosperous economic decade in the 1990s, the recession that followed forced shareholders to reevaluate what they expected from the executives...Executives have gone from being judged using a measure of five-to-ten year periods to having their achievements assessed in mere months" (p. 137). The bottom line for shareholders is economics and the success of an organization to thrive to its maximum potential on their behalf. Keeping abreast of changing economic times is essential to growing a successful organization. Boerner, et al. (2003) suggest, "Few, if any, modern economists would question the paramount importance of learning and learning processes to a firm's competitive performance" (p. 111).

Consultants as agents of organizational learning
The greatest agent for organizational change is the socialization aspect of culture. If an organization takes on the identity of a growing, adapting, and learning organization, it becomes part of the fabric of how they operate. This is the greatest agent for a learning organization, authentic stimuli towards a common direction and common goals. It is an alignment issue for the individual and the organization. English and English (1958) stated that “the sign of learning is not a shift of response or performance as a consequence of change in stimulus-situation or in motivation, but rather a shift in performance when the stimulus-situation and the motivation are essentially the same” (p. 289).

However, in Rhodes' study it is contended that organizations are able to learn and this is demonstrated by the change in behavior of its members. These changes are noted collectively and are adaptations of their environment. Rhodes continues by noting that Argyris & Schon's research contends individuals act as "learning agents" by determining and fixing flaws in the organizations behavior and, in turn, change the culture.

HR manager
Quite often organizational learning comes about from the direct input of individual agents of learning – those individuals who champion new learning or new ways of learning within the organization. One example of this is that of an HR Manager who sought a newer, better way to train and educate employees through the concept of a corporate university - despite the fact that having a university seemed a bit far fetched for the not-for-profit entity employing just seventy employees. Nonetheless, the manger completed research on the subject matter, ending the study with a written and oral proposal to the Management Team. The concept was unanimously accepted and forwarded to the Board of Trustees whose members also voted unanimously to accept the proposal. The university has since been funded by grant monies through the Friends of the Library group and is formally seated with a committee responsible for its establishment and ongoing success.

The Canton Corps
The Canton Corps of The Salvation Army has moved through a process of organizational restructuring during the past two years. The process has been difficult for many employees who were satisfied with the status quo. The responsibility of educating the staff to the cultural change came from the Corps leaders. The process, while difficult, challenging, and at times nearly unachievable has resulted in a more efficient and cohesive staff, effective ministry, and an environment that is becoming a pleasant place to work. In this case, new learning was influenced by the leaders and they became the change agents.

Churches
Local churches utilize a wide variety of forms of governance and have significantly varying roles when it comes to board involvement and how they interact with the local minister and congregation. In some cases, boards fulfill a strong leadership role in the congregation, while others fill more functional and administrative roles. Board members must be aware of their role and how they are to function and interact within those roles. Without that information and clarified purpose, board members can have high levels of confusion or frustration regarding their responsibilities. In this author’s local church, we have begun to review annually our church board’s defined roles and responsibilities. This has enhanced our awareness of our purpose and improved our sense of responsibility as a group. Specific details and outlines are incorporated into a leadership notebook containing this information and reports, recommendations, and other materials from each meeting. Board members find this type of information helpful and it answers many of their questions. As they learn and identify their role as a board, organizational learning is taking place and enhanced. This improves their performance and input.

An example of leaders as agents of learning can be found at GM, where we have adopted an approach of leaders as teachers. The positional leader in the organization is often required to teach in a cascading process throughout the organization. Our feedback from employees provides evidence that most employees appreciate learning that is endorsed, even taught, by their immediate supervisor or leader. As such, all new initiatives, change processes, or other processes are accompanied by training that is led and taught by the leader. This is especially true when it comes to cultural or leadership training, as compared to technical skill training. Cultural or leadership training is typically delivered beginning with the CEO, and cascaded throughout the company by level, in a process we call "Leaders Teach". Naturally, since this approach is taken from top to bottom in the company, it could also be called "Leaders Learn".


text:
Development Cooperation Handbook/The development aid organization/Organizational Learning: Processes

Introduction
The purpose of organizational learning often leans toward positive organizational change. In some cases, entire organizational change is desired or necessary for increased effectiveness or just continued existence. Most organizations are imperfect, and positive change, even at significant levels would be welcomed. The agents of organizational change, organizational development, and organizational learning often work together in synchronous fashion. In fact, it may be difficult at times to distinguish between them. What kinds of processes are necessary to create a value for organizational learning, knowledge sharing, and even wholesale organizational change?

A study by Dr. V. Balasubramanianhe sites Huber's literature review as identifying four processes that contribute to organizational learning. The first process, knowledge acquisition, happens when the organization gains knowledge by observing the environment, using storage systems to maintain knowledge and carrying out research. Information distribution, the second process, occurs when the organization shares the knowledge they possess with their members. The third process, identified as information interpretation, is information that has shared meaning among the members. The fourth and final process - organizational memory process, encapsulates how knowledge is stored for future use and to what extent it is considered proprietary information belonging to the corporation.

Knowledge acquisition process
Buchel and Raub (2003) state that "A match between the learning process and media richness and scope is necessary in order to foster learning within organizations" (p. 531). There exists a tradeoff between rich media and media that is high in scope. For example, face-to-face communication is a medium-high in richness, but it has limited scope. Conversely, formal written communication has a broader reach, but lacks the richness that face-to-face communications can provide. New introductions of technologies have challenged the original scale, prompting consideration for other variables such as speed of communication, storage capability, interconnectivity between people and organizations, and the integration of multiple computer technologies and their effect on organizational learning.

Nonaka, Toyama, and Byosiere write that, historically, the knowledge-creation process has been considered within the context of two types of models: top-down or bottom-up. The top-down model is representational of a bureaucratic organizational learning system whereas the bottom-up model depicts autonomy with an emphasis on individual learning (Dierkes, et al., 2004). The authors suggest that “a third [model] - the middle-up-down management model, as the most suitable for knowledge creation…given the limitations of the top-down and bottom-up models…” (p. 505). While the new model does not discredit the need for top-down and bottom-up contributions, it does more clearly define the “cooperative relationships and interactions between top, middle, and lower managers” (p. 505) with an emphasis on the roles that each level plays in the organizational learning process.

Trompenaars and Hampton-Tuner (2004) agree that a middle-up-down approach can give a balance to organizational learning. The key to effective communication and knowledge sharing is the middle manager, who serves as an interpreter between the language of the "ivory towers" and the language of the "trenches." The middle manager must become fluent in corporate philosophy and policy as well as in grass-roots jargon that permeates the employee culture at any given time. For this approach to work there must be significant trust in the middle manager granted from both the top and the bottom. In pragmatic reality, the middle manager is the most important administrative position and the most valuable employee for without him/her organizational learning is ineffective or counter-productive. Trompenaars and Hampton-Tuner summarize the vital concept of middle-up-down by sharing, “middle management is the bridge between the standards of top management and the chaotic reality of those on the front lines.” (p.16).

Information distribution process
Based on theories that suggest adults learn largely through their experiences, organizations would be well served to develop learning processes that use experience and reflection as the foundational elements. Similar to Kolb’s learning cycle for individuals, organizations have developed learning processes based on the same assumptions; that is, learning comes from an event; reflection upon that event; extracting learning and planning for new actions; and finally, applications of the learning to the next cycle (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). For example, in manufacturing operations, new introductions (both product and process) often begin with the formal reflection of experiences with the current product or process. This formal reflection is started by assembling a cross-functional project team, responsible for the new introduction. To the extent that companies utilize these cross-functional teams to develop and introduce new products and processes, they elevate the learning and reflection from that which is meaningful to individuals, to that which involves and benefits the entire organization. New technologies, such as those discussed by Buchel and Raub (2003), can be enablers to improving the effectiveness of cross-functional teams that are increasingly global in nature and demand process capability for fast and effective storage and retrieval of organizational knowledge, history, and experience.

Many companies rely on media to help aid their organizational learning processes. In order to ensure the success of learning processes, organizations must consider two factors when selecting from various communications mediums such as face-to-face communication, tele-conferencing, telephone, voice mail, fax, electronic communication, and formal written communication. (Sitkin et al, 1992). Thus, they must find a balance between media richness and media scope. The proper selection of media richness provides organizations with the "ability to process information of appropriate richness to reduce uncertainty and clarify ambiguity" (Daft and Lengel, 1984, p. 194). As for media scope, this factor deals with how well followers "keep messages in memory, and reach, referring to the ability to address multiple people simultaneously" (Dierkes et al, 2003, p. 522). However, before selecting a communications medium to aid the organizational learning process, organizational leaders must determine each medium's ability to provide feedback, multiple cues, tailor messages, and express emotions.

In addition to the media, physical space is also a consideration for specific activities designed to encourage organizational learning. Lewis and Moultrie (2005) found that there are several factors important in the design and structure of the physical space dedicated to promoting organizational learning and innovation. They suggest that investing in a laboratory designed for the process not only produces better interaction, but also shows the organization’s commitment to the goal of organizational learning. The facility should remove the individual from ordinary daily activity, de-emphasize traditional hierarchy such as rectangular tables and traditional chairs, and encourage participation by all. This environment facilitates the process for organizational learning. Others would suggest that these "learning laboratories" should replicate the actual workplace in which the student will apply the learning. While this lab may be physically separate and removed from the routine daily activity, it should be similar enough that the adult learner can see the value; that is the learner must be able to see application opportunity in their return to regular duties as soon as possible after the new knowledge is gained.

Information interpretation process
According to Maira and Scott-Morgan (1997), organizations view learning more narrowly than they should. "Organizational learning actually needs to take place in many different parts of an organization and on many different subjects" (p. 211). The authors proceed to articulate the process of learning within an organization, suggesting that this process may be divided between two fields on a learning matrix:

 * 1) Who is learning (horizontal)?
 * 2) What the learning is about (vertical)?

The horizontal column establishes who is learning, which is delineated into four separate columns:

 * 1) Individual
 * 2) Team
 * 3) Organization
 * 4) Community (interorganizational)

According to the authors, what must be established are the learning needs of each of the four organizational subgroups. "[The organization] cannot assume that large investments in the education and training of individual employees will create effective organizational learning, nor can it ignore the need to invest in individual learning and growth" (p. 212). On the vertical dimension of this learning matrix are the details of what is being learned within the organizational sub groupings:

 * 1) Procedure
 * 2) Business process
 * 3) Mental model
 * 4) Vision

As an organization embarks upon a learning process, knowing who is learning and what is being learned should be gauged for measurable effectiveness.

Organizational memory process
Knowledge is the key asset of the learning organization. Organizational memory extends and amplifies this asset by capturing, organizing, disseminating, and reusing the knowledge created by its employees. The term organizational memory is sometimes used to refer to whatever exists today in the way of social conventions, individuals’ memories, etc.

There is an important step in the process of learning. This step is taken when there is a shift from being an individual learner to leading or managing an organizational learning scenario. An organization has to take specific steps in development to adopt or diffuse information from individuals to corporate routine. This is what Levitt and March (1988) refer to as the encoding of inferences from history into organizational routines. These “organizational routines are transmitted and improved upon through socialization, education, imitation, problem-solving, and personnel movement” (Levitt and March, 1988, p. 320).

In the global environment, a new learning dilemma faces organizations and firms. Macharzina, Oesterle, and Brodel (2003) contend, "It is maintained that the major characteristic of internationalization processes is the incremental nature of successive learning through stages of increased commitment to diverse foreign markets" (p. 638). This slow, tedious process that Macharzina, et al. (2003) suggest is essential to successful international involvement. However, the process is streamlined by organizations willing to invest human capital toward developing cross-border "synergies of knowledge" (Macharzina, et al., 2003, p. 640) that will facilitate a broader understanding of cultural, political and economic differences.

Anderson and Maize
Anderson and Maize (2005) share the story of Canon USA who experienced significant growth in an extended sales and distribution organization through the establishment of a system of learning and development. They have created the “Learning Zone”, utilizing cutting edge technology to blend product information, training and support. Motivated because of the increasing demands of product complexities, Learning Zone realized that high-quality training and information were keys for their learning organization.

The Canon Learning Zone was launched four years ago and supports five distinct distribution channels with 12,000 users, each of whom may need different courses and product information. Based upon the markets he/she serves and the products he/she sells, an individual will qualify to enter into a specific mix of courses. One Canon dealer shared the effectiveness of the training this way, “Now, within a span of 45 minutes in the Learning Zone, I can better understand the new product solutions I have to offer from Canon.” Direct salespeople have access to the Learning Zone for support and preparation of customer presentations. The Imaging System Group (ISG) at Canon USA has expanded views of the Learning Zone to extend the Canon brand and product training to all registered dealers, distributors and partners carrying Canon products.

Mitch Bardwell, assistant general manager of the sales training division stated, “By strategically targeting each new sector with relevant content and training appropriate to their business goals, in just a few years, we have doubled our size of our audience and increased the value of the Canon brand to a loyal community of users who rely on the Learning Zone.”

Schools
At the start of each school year, one school has an orientation which includes new staff and returning staff. At one of the orientation sessions, the question is posed to the returning staff, “What one thing would you like to share with the new staff that you think would be helpful?” The returning staff each shares a statement with the entire group of new and returning staff. The statements are sometimes as simple as “Keep the secretaries and janitors happy – they wield the real power” or as profound as “Don’t be afraid to ask questions – we all make mistakes and we all try to learn from them.” New staff is encouraged to record, evaluate and share their experiences because a newcomer often has the unique opportunity to help change an existing paradigm that the rest of the staff is too involved in to evaluate objectively. This process introduces the concept of organizational learning and encourages involvement in the process.

Burke (1992) proposes that the kind of change necessary to qualify as organizational development (OD) must happen at the cultural level. It is not enough to modestly change functions, or organize and communicate better. "For change in an organization to be OD it must (1) respond to an actual and perceived need for change on the part of the client, (2) involve the client in the planning and implementation of the change, and (3) lead to change in the organization's culture" (p. 8-9). Hence, the most effective change needed is at the core and culture levels. It is the norms and values which underlie basic assumptions, beliefs, and behaviors. Changing these underlying values is the ultimate goal of knowledge management and organizational development. This goes beyond “fixing a problem or improving a procedure” … it means, “That some significant aspect of an organization’s culture will never be the same” (p. 9). “It might be a change in the organization’s management style, requiring new forms of exercising authority, which in turn would lead to different conformity patterns, since new norms would be established, especially in decision making” (p. 9).

Change at this level requires significant planning as well as willingness to make difficult choices and adaptations to present norms, values and behaviors. It requires a willingness, especially of leaders, to look within themselves at what drives and motivates them as they seek to motivate an organization. The processes are internal and external, personal, relational, and organizational.

The process of learning in an organization, processing that learning into tangible change lies at the heart of effective leadership. Organizational ages and histories, among other factors affect the willingness to change in individuals, departments, and organizations. The processes used to develop learning organization and change can be widely varied. This case study offers a unique process of catalyzing learning and change.

Congregation
A local congregation had been experiencing meaningful decline in attendance and strength over a span of three decades. Engaging in a learning exercise became part of a change process. Members of the local church were asked to study the New Testament to discover various mental pictures and identities of the church. After a modest length of time, these individuals met to develop a list of ideas about what the church is. Many of the lists had repeated identity descriptors. When the lists were then compiled and synthesized, three specific categories seemed to cover adequately the full spectrum of suggestions. The three descriptors of the church included:

 * 1) The Bride of Christ
 * 2) The Body of Christ
 * 3) The Family of God/Fellowship of Believers.

The final identity listed here seemed to be looking at very similar qualities, yet convey them uniquely enough to be coupled together. We then processed these identity descriptors borrowing the idea of ‘BEING.’ We asked the question, if the church is the “Bride of Christ” in its being, what should it be DOING in its behavior … and if there is a gap between our BEING and DOING, what should change, what should we be BECOMING? For each of the three we detailed this question format of BEING, BECOMING, and DOING.

This process significantly challenged some assumptions about our values, mission, and function as individuals and as a church. Clearly, we are seeing ourselves differently. We are intending that our behaviors, our mission, vision, and values flow out of these elements of our identity. That identity is a faith issue, for this is what God calls his church. Significant changes came about because we needed to change and grow. However, this process drives change from an identity, values, and purpose vantage point.

Canton Salvation Army
The Canton Salvation Army is moving through a process that is introducing a new leadership structure within the local organization. The fundamental leadership structure is top-down autocratic. The move of the local Corps is toward a lateral leadership model with more open dialogue and input into the structure, process and decision-making that is involved in every day ministry. The results are on-going as the Corps attempts to integrate a seemingly foreign model into a structure that has been in place for over 100 years. However, there are some positive results that are presently being realized. Teams and team leaders have been developed and put in place. Monthly team leader's meetings are take place, as well as monthly full staff meetings. Each team meets at least monthly and some even meet weekly. Periodic fellowship luncheons are becoming routine. These specific steps are making the transition toward a lateral leadership process easier. This has become an organizational learning process that is unfolding as a continual process and not a quick movement into a new leadership structure.


text:
Learning Theories/Organizational Learning: Interorganizational

Introduction
Interorganizational learning presents an opportunity for an exponential learning process. The advantages of a learning process that takes place within an organization can be immensely multiplied when one considers the opportunities for organizations to learn from other organizations. However, there must be specific steps taken to learning interorganizationally that is different from traditional organizational learning processes.

Interorganizational learning, referred to as collaborative learning in a recent study conducted by Hardy et al (2003), requires a network of social interaction. The authors perpetuate their social constructivist view of knowledge by referring to it “as a property of community practice rather than as a resource that can be generated and possessed by individuals" (p. 326). The authors support their contention by citing Powell et al., 1996:

Knowledge creation occurs in the context of a community, one that is fluid and evolving rather than tightly bound or static…Sources of innovation do not reside exclusively inside firms; instead, they are commonly found in the interstices between firms, universities, research laboratories, suppliers and customers. (Powell et al., 1996, p. 121).

From this standpoint, the authors explicate two venues for collaborative learning: a strategic perspective and a knowledge creation perspective, each having their own benefits and tradeoffs. A strategic perspective is understood as having more structure, established goals, and a partner selection criteria; whereas, a knowledge creation perspective is understood to be less inhibitive – having little or no formality that may inhibit openness and synergy; both of which are necessary for going beyond the boundaries of knowledge transference.

As explained by Holmqvist (2003), a separate stream of organizational learning research focuses on how organizations in cooperation with each other through formal channels, learn. The research refers to it as interorganizational learning and it has conceptualized how members are able to learn by developing sets of rules that are separate from the rules of the persons organization. Therefore this learning group is indeed an unique learning group or interorganizational learning group.

A knowledge creation perspective: learning in multinational corporations
Since World War II the number of multinational corporations has grown dramatically (Macharzina, Oesterle, Brodel, 2003). This fact is indicated by the growth in global trade, which has consistently grown at a faster rate than the overall global economy. Multinational corporations (MNCs) have a number of unique challenges that they face, but the ability to learn and adapt best practices from within the company, yet across cultures, is among the greatest challenges MNCs must overcome if they are to be successful.

Organizational learning and knowledge management can facilitate the internationalization process and improve the competitiveness of a MNC (Macharzina, Oesterle, Brodel, 2003). If, however, a MNC fails to learn effectively or deploy learned knowledge across the organization, much of the efficiencies of size can go unrealized and actually cost the enterprise dearly in duplicative efforts and non-value added learning.

Interorganizational learning is the action of groups working together to discover a strategic and operational path to help all organizations involve improve their processes (Cohen & Sproull 1991; Weick & Westley 1996). Successful implementation of interorganizational learning involves collaboration, trust, and empathy (Uzzi 1996; 1997). Recent events such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks in North America have motivated various organizations in the public and non-public sector to work together to ensure adequate crisis response to American civilians. This is accomplished by having their emergency management components (e.g. Fire Department, Police, Explosive Ordnance, and Medical Services) engage in table topic exercises. As a result, trust increases among the organizations. In addition, the collaboration can create new scenarios which provide new learning abilities for all stakeholders involved.

The challenges of working and conducting business across international boundaries increases the challenges organizations face in cross-cultural interaction. Macharzina, Oesterle, & Brodel in Dierkes, Antal, Child, & Nonaka (2003) suggest “the diversity and complexity of managing a geographically dispersed system of value-added activities is greater than – and hence qualitatively different from that of managing operations with a single national market” (p. 632). Furthermore, while these challenges originate at the foreign local level, their “effects" are systemic, for they involve the characteristics of cross-border processes.

The authors though, further suggest that these increased challenges over time can actually benefit the whole of the organization as the challenges are studied and solutions found in multiple areas. These new solutions can be beneficial in other areas and new strategies formulated can be spread throughout the entire organization. Thus while the challenges may prove much larger than in singular national arenas, certainly an important factor given the increased globaliziation of companies and markets. When organizations apply problem-solving solutions to international challenges, the effectiveness of the group or organization increases its competitive advantage and organizational effectiveness.

A strategy perspective - learning in strategic alliances
Many organizations have come to rely on alliances with key players in the marketplace as strategic ventures for maintaining a competitive advantage. These key relationships can help foster organizational learning, thus giving an edge over the competition. This serves as a primary motivation for alliance formation. In addition to the motivation of furthering org learning, there are other benefits of alliance formation, such as the potential for significant partnership agreements (Lei, Slocum, and Pitts 1997).

Short-term and long-term strategic planning can flourish when collaborative partnerships with suppliers, customers, and even competitors are considered. Daft (2005) characterizes effective learning organizations as those who have permeable boundaries – companies that will often link themselves with other businesses providing each organization with a larger access to information about current needs and directional trends in the industry. Daft continues to state, “Some learning organizations… also openly share information with competitors or allow competitors to visit and observe their ‘best practices.’ These companies believe the best way to keep their organizations competitive is through a mutual sharing of ideas” (p. 613).

An often successful strategy for organizational learning in a cooperative effort between companies is in the sharing of a mutually beneficial marketing strategy. For example, Advanced Circuit Technologies in Nashua, New Hampshire, formed a coalition of 10 electronic firms to jointly market non-competing products - each member company still conducts its own business, but, as a coalition, they now can adopt a strategy of bidding on projects larger beyond what they could deliver as an individual company as they partner with other firms for services they can’t do themselves (Daft 2005).

Strategic alliances and joint ventures are hybrid arrangements that combine strategic objectives and cultures of partnered organizations (Child, 2003). Such alliances may incorporate the blending of management systems, sales and marketing strategies, or other potentially synergistic aspects of the partnered entities’ businesses. Organizations can benefit from strategic alliances and joint ventures by incorporating best practices from partnered organizations and employing what they have learned through their organizations as a whole. In the best alliances, mutual learning is achieved through knowledge transfer, and through the “dynamic synergy that may be stimulated” by experts coming from different backgrounds (Child, 2003).

One problem with such alliances, however, is the fact that there are substantial barriers to knowledge sharing that arise for any number of reasons. For example, the underlying relationship between the partners may be inherently competitive (e.g. General Motors and Toyota partnering on New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc –aka NUMMI) or one organization has the capacity to absorb large volumes of information and the other partner lacks that capacity (e.g. a large pharmaceutical company partnering with a small biotech company).

For the most part, however, such alliances are beneficial for all parties involved, especially if there is a substantial transfer of knowledge, transformation of that knowledge into usable information within the broader organization, and synthesis of new knowledge that is the direct result of the knowledge sharing that comes about as a result of the alliance.

As organizations continue to expand into new markets internationally, interorganizational learning will provide cost-effective measures that will assist companies as they expand into new global markets. Merriam and Caffarella (1999), citing Ulrich (1998) state, "Globalization requires companies 'to move people, ideas, products, and information around the world to meet local needs'" (p. 13). Meeting these local needs means understanding local logistics, culture, and languages. The authors, continuing to cite Ulrich, state that organizations '"must add new and important ingredients to the mix when making strategy: volatile political situations, contentious global trade issues, fluctuating exchange rates, and unfamiliar cultures'" (p. 14). If individual companies embark upon this enormous learning curve without attempting to learn from other organizations, even competitors, progress may be minimal and likely slow its advance. "'In short, globalization requires that organizations increase their ability to learn and collaborate and to manage diversity, complexity, and abiguity'" (p. 14).

Case studies & workplace examples
One of the silos of organizations that find it difficult to learn interorganizationally is unfortunately the church. There are moments and places where this kind of organizational learning can happen. One of the case studies for interorganizational learning is occurring in Springfield, Missouri. Two churches, Calvary Temple and Parkcrest Assembly, are combining efforts to create a learning organization. Rather than continuing separate organizations they are uniting their resources of land, congregations, and finances. They have created a step process plan considering all angles and problems that might arise. The greatest organizational learning tool they have is trust and united vision. This is how they are learning interorganizationally. They have a common goal, common direction, created together not independent of one another. They are building on what unites them, not concentrating on what might divide them.