Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
Povilas Brilius Baifoteka Ltd, Lithuania, povilas@baifoteka.com
Abstract: Organizational Learning (OL) is recognized to have established itself as a discipline. However, it remains unclear what it is primarily focused onto – practical problem solving or theoretical descriptive analysis. Due to largely fragmented literature, sometimes interweaving concepts and a variety of attitudes, practitioners find it difficult to easily apply this field, meantime theorists call for more comprehensive understanding of OL. This article focuses on contemporary trends in OL research. It argues and unveils that current OL investigation has made a shift towards holistic and integrative approach in which individual has more powers to make a decision. Article illustrates such contemporary shift of mind by (a) summarizing most important literature in the field (b) providing examples of latest research in OL area. For a smoother analysis, author builds and applies working framework of dichotomies between concepts (dialectical approach). Keywords: organizational learning, contemporary trends, holism. JEL Classification: D800, D830

1. Introduction During the last 50-60 years Organizational Learning (OL) has undoubtedly established itself as a discipline – a number of concepts have been constructed and applied theoretically, numerous schools with distinct models have emerged. However, a question may be posed – to what extent OL may be viewed a fruitful discipline in the eyes of the very organizations? Here one should jump into assessment, in other words, normative approach. One should admit that in current society normative and descriptive approaches coexist – and to extent, complement each other. However, on one hand, in OL literature these two approaches have been regarded as largely opposite ones, and on the other hand, practitioners seek a uniformed view suitable to apply OL in practical situations. Therefore recently more and more scientists are calling for a more comprehensive holistic approach as far as OL is concerned (Chiva et al., 2008). This article is about to illustrate the contemporary profound shift of OL literature to holism. To achieve this goal author firstly builds a working framework for succeeding OL literature categorization. Secondly, author scan typologized OL literature through the working framework and analyses the holistic aspect of the literature . Thirdly, several examples contemporary holistic approach are presented. In the end conclusions are drawn. 2. Introducing working framework As this article seeks to illustrate the difference between traditional more or less mechanistic thinking and emerging (contemporary) holistic approach about OL, a framework has to be constructed which would allow such comparison. Firstly, one has to pre-define expected differences between traditional and contemporary integrated views. Author argues, that it is possible to determine such a system in which separate traditional branch of theories would possess system‘s variables with a less loose values whereas contemporary holistic

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

approach would encompass one or more variables with less restricted values. In other words, author expects traditional theories to be concrete parts of framework; meantime holistic approaches would constitute major part of framework or even would be regarded as the very framework. To put it more clearly, author moves towards creating the framework. Various authors have performed exhaustive OL literature reviews and categorizations from different angles (e. g. Martin 2008; Kezar 2001; Shipton 2006; Karatas-Ozkan and Murphy 2010) and have used different typologies in identifying core directions in OL research. The more detailed literature review will be presented in section 5 and 6, and in this section author by himself will define three variables for construction of working framework. The first variable, which allows categorising OL theories, is the presumed goal of organization. The two extremes of this variable are that goal of organization may be non-existing (e.g. evolutionary theory) or it may be strictly defined by the organization (e. g. teleological theory). The second variable is presumed adaptiveness of an organization. The two extreme values of adaptiveness variable are non-adaptiveness and full adaptiveness of organization. In this place it is worth mentioning that goal and adaptiveness variables are not necessarily negatively correlated (and thus are not the same variable) because organization may be adaptive when it has formulated goal (its goal may be to adapt) and it also can be adaptive when it does not have a goal. Finally, the third variable of the framework is the power of organization manager to affect the values of previous two variables – to increase or decrease organization‘s adaptiveness and goal seeking. The extreme values of power variable are that manager may not have direct power at all or, alternatively, manager may have necessary power to affect organization‘s development. Thus, based on those three variables (organization‘s goal seeking, adaptiveness and power of manager), pre-constructed framework may be suitable for comparison of the traditional and contemporary theories in OL field. Traditional theories would have less flexibility in the values of variables whereas contemporary holistic theories would possess greater flexibility in the values of variables or even encompass the whole framework. It has to be mentioned, however, that many other variables could be added to the framework (e.g. level of OL, scale of OL, temporal and spatial dimensions of organizational change etc. (Kezar, 2001)), but the aim of article is not a thorough investigation of the evolvement of OL theories over time, but an illustration of the shift from mechanistic towards holistic views. Therefore only most distinct characteristics of OL (that allow to discern differences between mechanistic and holistic views) have been included into working framework. Another point worth consideration is that holism implies broader practical application (Chiva et al., 2008) therefore one may state that the more practically applicable theory is the more it is holistic. In next sections by working framework application author will investigate the contemporary direction towards holism in organizational learning field. 3. Domain of Inquiry The aim of this section of article is to clarify domain of inquiry – discuss and insulate distinct concepts. Firstly, one may observe some discrepancy in the early use dichotomy between ―traditional‖ and ―contemporary‖ concepts because, according to the pre-defined framework, one will be able to call specific theory traditional or contemporary only after investigation through the framework. In this place author decides to make an early hypothesis that all (or majority) of OL theories can be called ―traditional‖ except those that have strong

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

links to complexity or chaos theories and those, that deal specifically with practical problem solving (operate with OL properties, not organizational characteristics). Of course, strict separation between those two sections of literature is impossible, but for the purpose of this article, this loose presumption will be adopted. Secondly, the necessity to bunch together plethora of OL theories into one single review and into two sections puts limitations to the depth of analysis. However, as the goal of analysis is not a thorough scrutinizing of OL mind evolvement, but a crystallization of traditional theories‘ quite static (and holistic theories quite dynamic) place in the working framework, author will constrict the review. The focus will be on the values of three defined variables (organization goal and adaptiveness and the role of manager) within separate theories. Before starting to examine separate models it is worthwhile to look into some metathesis or meta-issues differently regarded in various OL models. Firstly, a very much related concept to OL is knowledge. In this field ontological and epistemological positions can be broadly categorised as positivist or objective on one hand and subjective or constructivist on the other (Martin, 2008). This positivist-constructivist dichotomy is reflected respectively in epistemologies of possession and of action. Knowledge as an objective possession is recognized in works of many positivist authors (Assudani, 2005; Bahra, 2001; Blackler, 1995; Bukowitz & Williams, 1999), whereas constructivist affirm relationist perspective in which knowledge emerges from practise of knowing – it is a process, not a possession (Cook & Brown, 1999). Consequently, as knowledge is inherent part of OL (Crossan et al. 1999), two distinct categories in ontology and epistemology of knowledge largely affect understanding of OL. Another important distinction between approaches is dichotomy of normative and descriptive views on OL (Shipton, 2006). Protagonists of normative approach stress by default the beneficial nature of OL to the organization (e. g. Argyris and Schon, 1978; Argote and Epple, 1990, Shipton et al., 2005), whereas advocates of descriptive view on OL do not see OL as necessarily positive process and focus more on its dysfunctional aspects (e. g. Huber, 1991; McGrath, 2001). These and other diversified views on principal ontology of OL induce the need to clearly define domain of literature review. Thus fields of inquiry of similar and sometimes overlapping concepts have to be distinguished clearly. The concept of Organizational Learning has been firstly introduced in Cyert and March work in early 1963 and since then a plethora of schools have emerged as well as discussion of the usability of the term has evolved. However, some scholars have suggested that the concept of OL have been intentionally ―mystified‖ to lend spurious academic credence (Friedman et al., 2005). Despite that, OL is still attracting increasing amount of attention of researchers, especially in recent years (Bapuji and Crossan 2004; Easterby-Smith et al. 2000). Some widely cited OL definitions are the following: ―Organizational learning can be defined as the capacity or processes within an organization to maintain or improve performance based on experience‖ (Nevis et al. 1995; Wang and Ahmed 2003) or ―the process of change in individual and shared thought and action, which is affected by and embedded in the institutions of the organization‖ (Bierly, Kessler, & Christensen, 2000; Vera & Crossan, 2003) or ―the development of knowledge held by organizational members, that is being accepted as knowledge and is applicable in organizational activities, therewith implying a (potential) change in those activities‖ (Berends et al., 2003). In general, there is no single definition of OL and scholars agree that such one would be not practical as the most useful definition for organization is one which organization has chosen by itself (Karatas-Ozkan and Murphy 2008).

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

Organizational Learning is a concept that has been used interchangeably with other concepts in the past. One of the terms that OL has overlapped in the past is Learning Organization (LO) (Ortenblad, 2001). As a result, clear distinction between OL and LO has disappeared (Burgoyne, 1999; Kiechel, 1990). However, many attempts have been made to distinguish the two concepts (Kontoghiorghes et al., 2005). According to Ortenblad (2001), three normative distinctions between OL and LO have been identified in the literature. First, OL is viewed as a process or set of activities, whereas LO is understood as a form of organization (Tsang, 1997). Second, a view prevails that learning takes place naturally in organizations, whereas it requires effort to develop a learning organization (Dogson, 1993). Finally, literature on OL emerged from academic inquiry, while the literature on LO developed primarily from practise (Easterby-Smith, 1997). Several other not so unquestionable distinctions between OL and LO have been made – they are based on question who learns (Cook & Yanow, 1993) and on the location on the knowledge (Backler, 1995); it is stated that in OL the focus is on individual learners, while in LO group and organizational levels are recognized too. It is also viewed that in organizational learning knowledge resides in individuals, whereas in LO knowledge also resides in organizational memory. Another concept that has attracted much attention in line with organizational learning and has been used interchangeably with OL is Knowledge Management (KM). Several authors express different opinions regarding OL and KM usability aspects – for example Martin (2008) perceives many similarities between OL and KM: both fields include the same potential for lack of coherence in research and the existence of both prescriptive and descriptive approaches to the subjects (Argote et al. 2003; Vera & Crossan, 2003). It has been also argued that there is no substantial difference between these two concepts at all and that it is pointless to differentiate between them (Stacey, 2000). However, other authors strictly differentiate fields of OL and KM concepts (Shipton, 2008). As far as the concept of Learning Organization is concerned, knowledge management is seen as one of characteristics of LO (Kontoghiorghes et al., 2005; Loermans, 2002; Selen, 2000). This article sees OL, LO and KM concepts as featuring distinct domains of research, although in some areas usability of these terms may interact and interchange. As OL is a process occurring in organizations, it is possible to discuss properties or characteristics of this process. Different authors variously characterize OL process and plethora of structurizations of OL properties have been presented (Kezar, 2001; Chiva et al., 2008; Martin, 2008; Yoon et al., 2009; Moynihan and Landuyt, 2009; and various other). Author of this article does not seek to scrutinize all of structurizations or deduce their pros and cons, to say nothing of distinguishing plethora of overlapping concepts used in those structurizations. Instead, author finds it more useful to device a simple structure of OL properties specifically suited for this article. Thus OL may be characterised according to why OL occurs (defined by sources and forces of OL), what OL changes (first and second order learning (Goodman, 1982; Levy and Merry, 1986), scale of OL, timing of OL etc.) and how OL occurs (adaptive/generative, planned/unplanned, active/static OL) (Kezar, 2001). The meanings of aforementioned properties of OL will not be discussed in depth separately, but will be exposed in further discussion of different categories of OL theories and models. 4. Applying working framework This section of article is dedicated to enabling to connect constructed working framework to the content which will be passed through the framework (OL theories) ant to the

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

proper conduct of analysis of results. To begin with, the term Organizational Learning comprises of two separate terms – organizational and learning. Organizing and learning have traditionally been considered antithetical processes, which qualify OL as an oxymoron (Weick and Westley, 1996). However, Clegg et al. (2005) consider learning as just one element in the process of organizing. Chiva et al. (2008) review relevant literature and also consider organization and learning as closely linked concepts. On this basis, as learning is part of organizing and ―organizational‖ is an adjective of ―learning‖, a notion may be derived that different organization characteristics define different learning characteristics. In fact, for example, Kärreman (2010, 1406) acknowledges that very particular organizations ―engage in very particular ways of learning‖. As described in Section 2, working framework includes three organization‘s characteristics – organization‘s adaptiveness, organization‘s teleology (goal seeking) and organization manager‘s power (ability) to affect values of parameters of last two characteristics. Separate OL theories and models (for a discussion of differences between theory and model in OL context see Kezar (2001)) may possess certain inner presumptions concerning organization‘s characteristics – for example teleological branch of OL theories state that organization has a clearly defined goal (Carnall, 1995; Carr et al 1996). By contrast, a certain theory or model may not necessarily possess presumptions concerning aforementioned organization‘s characteristics – in such instance organizational characteristics will remain undefined. In this article models (theories) which will define working framework characteristics will be called ―traditional‖ or ―non-holistic‖ or ‖mechanistic‖ theories (models). In turn, such models or theories that in advance will not define strict parameters of working framework characteristics will be called ―holistic‖. Of course, one has to admit that absolute certainty and absolute uncertainty in organization‘s characteristics values are only extreme cases and that position in between extreme cases in defining organizations characteristic values may be present. Further, one may penetrate a link between holism and practical usage of OL theories – the more holistic OL model is, the wider range of organizational types it may be suited (regarding the uncertainty in defining organization‘s characteristics) and thus the more broadly such model may be applied. In sections 5 and 6 author will scan through multiple OL literature reviews to illustrate the recently occurring shift of OL investigation from traditional mechanistic into holistic manners. Illustration will be performed by identifying which OL theories define working framework characteristics in advance and which theories leave these characteristics less certain. A tendency is expected to be observed that over time OL theories leave more and more space for uncertainty in regard to organization‘s characteristics. 5. Non-holistic views In this section a body of OL theories and models will be reviewed in the context of three working framework variables – only excluding complexity and integrative models, which will be reviewed in section 6. To begin with, different authors variously categorize OL literature basing their contributions on substantial amount of points of views. One of the most comprehensive typologies, offered by Van de Ven and Poole (1995) employs the following categories: life cycle, evolutionary, dialectical and teleological theories. Kezar (2001) extends the typology by adding two more categories – social-cognition and cultural approaches. Another scholar, Martin (2008) sees evolving discussion between positivist and constructivist views. Shipton (2006) designs a framework of theories that contains two axes representing

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

continuum between normative and descriptive approaches and continuum between organizational level based studies and studies based on individual learning within organizational context. Additionally, Karatas-Ozkan and Murphy (2010) distinguish critical, postmodernist and social constructionist paradigms in the field or OL research and Moynihan and Landuyt (2009) talk about dichotomy between cultural and structural OL perspecti ves. Each author enriches the understanding of diversity in OL research field, though some of the categories of their typologies interfere and the same theory or model may fall into different categories. This article synthesizes multiple literature employing typology suggested by Van de Ven and Poole (1995) and extended by Kezar (2001). Six categories of OL literature are discussed – (1) teleological models; (2) dialectical models (3) life cycle models (4) evolutionary models (5) social cognition models and (6) cultural models. OL properties (see section 4) will be discussed briefly, but main foci will lie on working framework (see sections 2 and 4) variables. Evolutionary theories. According to Kezar (2001), many individual models in this category have developed within this tradition: adaptation, resource dependence, selforganization, contingency and systems theory, strategic choice, punctuated equilibrium, and population ecology. The term environmental is also used referring to evolutionary theories. The main assumption underlying all these theories is that change is dependent on circumstances, situational variables, and the environment faced by each organization (Morgan, 1986). Social systems as diversified, interdependent, complex systems evolve over time naturally (Morgan, 1986). But evolution is basically deterministic, and people have only a minor impact on the nature and direction of the change process (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1985). These models focus on the inability of organizations to plan for and respond to change, and their tendency to instead ―manage‖ change as it occurs. The emphasis is on a slow process, rather than discrete events or activities (Kieser,1989). Change happens because the environment demands change for survival. Some later models suggest that adaptation can be proactive and anticipatory (Cameron, 1991). The assumptions in evolutionary theories range from managers having no ability to influence adaptability to managers having significant ability to be proactive, anticipating changes in the environment (March, 1994). Processes are inherently less important within evolutionary models than in other models, and change is mostly unplanned – instead it is an adaptive or selection-based process. According to Kezar (2001), the earliest examples of evolutionary models are modified theories of natural selection applied to organizational change. Later, unique models developed, such as the resource-dependence model. Within resource-dependence models, leaders make choices to adapt to their environment. The organization and its environment have an interdependent relationship, and the analytical focus is on transactions that occur as part of this relationship. This model differs from natural selection in its focus on leaders as active agents able to respond to and change the environment (Goodman, 1982). Some models of strategy are also reflected within the evolutionary tradition, focusing on the effect of the environment. In the strategic choice approach, managers can choose which environm ents they operate within, scanning, predicting changes, and steering the course of the organization (Cameron, 1991). Population-ecology models are also reflected within this tradition, examining how decisions and actions made by groups of organizations affect their survival and success. This model focuses on environmental niches and the relative success of specialist organizations or generalist populations under change forces such as diminished resources or loss of support for certain organizational activities. One notion that has

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

developed from this theory is diversification – that is, the idea that generalist organizations perform better under certain environmental conditions because they have ―diverse‖ customers, products, and services, and thus are less likely to feel the impact of changes in one part of the market (Kezar, 2001) This type of adaptation can only be seen when viewed at the population level; hence the term population ecology. Evolutionary attitude towards organizational learning is quite abstract one and may encompass many models, theories and attitudes that possess distinct and different characteristics. However, looking to a general tendency, previously described evolutionary category characteristics involve common ones that can be passed through the working framework. It may be stated that evolutionary OL theories regard organizations as (a) adaptive (b) it is emphasized that organizations do not seek pre-defined goal but rather try to adapt to environment. As far as the role of organization‘s manager is concerned, evolutionary OL theories tend to de-emphasize individual manager‘s power in modifying organizational goals or changing organization‘s adaptiveness. Therefore in this context it is suitable to call evolutionary organizational learning theories as mechanistic or traditional ones. Teleological theories. According to Kezar (2001), this category has several different common names, including planned change, scientific management, and rational models. Strategic planning, organizational development, and adaptive learning approaches come under the teleological umbrella. It is assumed that organizations are purposeful and adaptive. Change occurs because leaders, change agents, and others see the necessity of change. The process for change is rational and linear, as in evolutionary models, but individual managers are much more instrumental to the process (Carnall, 1995; Carr et al. 1996). Internal organizational features or decisions, rather than the external environment, motivate change. T hese models are subjective and reflect intentionality. Key aspects of the change process include planning, assessment, incentives and rewards, stakeholder analysis and engagement, leadership, scanning, strategy, restructuring, and reengineering (Brill and Worth, 1997; Carnall, 1995; Huber and Glick, 1993). At the center of the process is the leader, who aligns goals, sets expectations, models, communicates, engages, and rewards. Strategic choices and human creativity are highlighted (Brill and Worth, 1997). Goal formation, implementation, evaluation, and modification based on experience are an ongoing process. New additions to the repertoire of management tools include collaborative culture definition, large group engagement processes, and individual in-depth interventions (Brill and Worth, 1997). The outcome of the change process is similar to that in evolutionary models: new structures or organizing principles. Perhaps the best-known strategy within the teleological tradition is organizational development (Golembiewski, 1989; Goodman, 1982). Organizational development tends to address first-order change and does not challenge current organizational paradigms. It starts by diagnosing the problems within the organization on an ongoing basis (so it is generative) and searching for solutions (change initiatives). Goals are set for addressing the change, yet there is a heavy cultural emphasis on values, attitudes, and organizational norms. Many group meetings are conducted to help the change initiative develop momentum and to overcome resistance (Carr et al., 1996). The individual factors that inhibit change are a major emphasis; an analysis of obstacles is typically conducted. Organizations proceed through distinct stages, and it is the leaders‘ role to effectively manage the transition from one stable state to another (Golembiewski, 1989).Transition is a homogenous, structured, step-by-step process.

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

Another very popular scientific management approach is continuous quality improvement, or total quality management (TQM), which emerged from studies of how to improve the manufacturing sectors of U.S. businesses struggling to compete with Japanese companies (Kezar, 2001). These models assume that change is prevented because institutions are based on long-standing traditions, practices, and values. Authors within this tradition point out that most organizations pursue quality, but that they have not examined the obstacles that prevent the change necessary to create quality, such as embedded values and structural or cultural hindrances (Freed et al. 1997). In order to challenge these barriers to change, a set of principles has been developed for leaders who create a new quality culture. Principles include many typical teleological strategies, such as (1) develop and focus on the vision, mission, and outcomes of the institution; (2) creative and supportive leadership; (3) retrain individuals on an ongoing basis or implement systematic individual development; (4) make data-driven decisions based on facts; (5) ensure collaboration; (6) delegate decisionmaking; and (7) proactively plan change. Quality experts say that they use ―scientific management measurements and techniques‖ to alter personal philosophies and create a new organizational culture (Freed et al. 1997). There is an assumed plasticity among people. TQM does adopt assumptions from biological theories in taking a systems approach, but the overall principles reflect the teleological tradition. Not embarking on a deeper discussion about the variety of teleological organizational learning models, one may distinguish their predefined set of values of characteristics in the working framework. Teleological theories tend to emphasize and presume goal -seeking nature of organization. These theories also reflect adaptive nature of organization as evolutionary theories. And finally, unlike evolutionary theories, teleological OL models emphasize and assume organization manager’s distinguishable power to align and stress organization‘s goals – however, it is not unambiguously clear if organization‘s manager may affect the very adaptiveness of organization. On this basis one may find it suitable to call teleological OL theories more mechanistic than holistic – teleological theories clearly presume strict values of almost all parameters of working framework characteristics. Life Cycle theories. Life cycle OL models share many assumptions with evolutionary models in terms of adaptation and a systems approach. They differ in being less objective, focusing on the importance of human beings in the change process, and viewing changes that occur within the life cycles of people as well as those of the organizations they create. Life-cycle or developmental models emphasize systematic individual change (Kezar, 2001). Some scholars view life-cycle and developmental models as a branch of evolutionary models that focus on human development theories rather than broad biological theories (Van de Ven and Poole,1995).Within these models, change is typically seen as part of a stage and is progressive and rational (Miller and Friesen,1980). Organizations are born, then they grow, mature, go through stages of revival, and eventually decline (Goodman,1982). Change does not occur because people see the necessity of or even want change; it occurs because it is a natural progression that cannot be stopped or altered (Miller and Friesen,1980; Morgan,1986). Change occurs as individuals within the organization adapt to its life cycle. Management is much more central than in evolutionary models and assists members of the organization to grow through training and motivational techniques (Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1996). The environment is ambiguous and threatening within this model. To adjust to this environment, processes include training and development, communication, and other

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

structures that allow growth (Bolman and Deal, 1991; Miller and Friesen, 1980). The outcome within this change process is a new organizational identity. Identity is strongly emphasized in these models as a reason that people resist change (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). Identification with the organization and personalization of work is also referenced. The major metaphor is the teacher or guide. Theories that focus more on learning and unlearning habits would fit within the life-cycle category. Some recent models of emotional intelligence and adaptability to change also fall within the life-cycle model (Collins,1998). For example, certain abilities make one more able to or open to change, such as sensitivity to the motivations and perspectives of others (often termed emotional intelligence). Cameron (1991) tries to integrate the findings of ten life-cycle models into a metamodel. Within his model are four stages: (1) entrepreneurship, (2) collectivity, (3) formalization and control, and (4) elaboration of structure. As in other models, the first stage is a time of little coordination, extensive ideas, and marshaling resources. As the organization passes into the collectivity stage, there is a greater sense of shared mission and strong commitment while innovation continues. However, during the formalization and control stage, rules and stable structures are put in place, innovation is rare, and procedures and efficiency are the foci. As the organization enters the elaboration-of-structure stage, it begins to go through a series of renewals through decentralization, expansion, or other adaptation. The human resource tradition in companies reflects the life-cycle model as well (Bolman and Deal, 1991). Developmental theories examine human motivation, individual and group interaction, retraining, and development as central to organizational processes and change. Although human resource theories enjoy a long tradition, Bolman and Deal popularized this approach to analyzing organizations with their notion of the human resource lens. Seen through the human resource lens, organizational change is difficult for individuals because they have to change their current approach, which is tied to their identity and strengths. As far as identification of life cycle organizational learning theories as mechanistic or holistic is concerned, the major similarity to evolutionary approach is that adaptive nature of organization is presumed. Considering extent of organization‘s goal seeking, life cycle theories neither emphasize teleological nature of organization, nor do they, on the other hand, neglect to for organization to set goal for its activities. The third variable – manager‘s ability to shape organization‘s goals and adaptiveness is partially recognized, at least in the field of organization‘s adaptiveness. On this basis it is possible to call life cycle theories mechanistic; however, their mechanistic nature is far less apparent, compared to teleological or evolutionary theories. Thus life cycle organizational learning theories may be applied by a broader range of organizations. Dialectical models. The name dialectical refers directly to the Hegelian-Marxian perspective in which a pattern, value, ideal, or norm in an organization is always present with its polar opposite (Kezar, 2001). These two forces are always influencing each other, and over time change is created through the interaction of opposing forces. Organizations pass through long periods of evolutionary change (as the dialectical interaction between the polar opposites occurs) and short periods of second-order or revolutionary change, when there is an impasse between the two perspectives (Morgan,1986). An organization‘s polar opposite belief systems eventually clash, resulting in radical change. Conflict is seen as an inherent attribute of human interaction. The outcome of change is a modified organizational ideology or identity. Predominant change processes are bargaining, consciousness-raising, persuasion, influence and power, and social movements (Bolman and Deal,1991). Leaders

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

are key within any social movement and are a central part of these models, yet collective action is usually the primary focus. Progress and rationality are not necessarily part of this theory of change; dialectical conflict does not necessarily produce a ―better‖ organization. Political or dialectical models sometimes share assumptions with cultural models. Political models examine how a dominant culture shapes (and reshapes) organizational processes; this culture is referred to as the power culture (Benjamin, 1996). Organizations are perceived as political entities in which dominant coalitions manipulate their power to preserve the status quo and maintain their privilege. Another way that political models overlap with cultural models is in their emphasis on social movements and subgroups or subcultures. Early dialectical scholars studied interest groups and social movements within organizations (Levy and Merry, 1986). Later, studies took two general directions, seeing politics as negative (exploitation and dominance) or positive (creating vision and collective goals). Kotter (1985) provides an analysis of the skills needed to create political change: (1) agenda-setting, (2) networking and forming coalitions, and (3) bargaining and negotiation. Setting an agenda is different than establishing a vision, a typical process within teleological models that is usually leader-derived. Instead, setting an agenda involves listening to people throughout the organization and including their interests; agendas are responsive to stakeholder concerns (Bolman and Deal, 1991). Networking is the next step for creating change. In order to build coalitions, change agents need to identify key people who will facilitate change as well as individuals who will resist the change. One of the primary purposes of networking is developing relationships with key people who can overcome resistance, so that they can be used to influence other people when necessary. Change agents must also develop a power base by succeeding at certain efforts and aligning themselves with other powerful individuals. Once the change agent has an agenda, a network, coalitions, and a power base, then he or she is ready to bargain and negotiate in order to create change. Bolman and Deal (1991) review several bargaining strategies that have been found effective in creating change. Empowerment approaches to change represent an even more positive spin on the political approach to creating change. In these approaches, change agents are encouraged to examine whether the change has mutually beneficial consequences for all involved parties, is moral, and demonstrates caring for employees (Bolman and Deal,1991). A few studies have illustrated that empowerment models are instrumental in facilitating change (Astin and Leland, 1991; Bensimon and Neumann, 1993). Looking to dialectical theories through the lens of working framework, on may suppose that dialectical models do not hold strict presumptions about the adaptiveness of organization – this variable does not have strict value in this case. As far as organization‘s goal seeking is concerned, dialectical models affirm organization seeks goals – therefore this variable has clearly defined value. Further, dialectical models clearly recognize organization manager‘s power to align organization‘s goals. The undefined variable remains organization manager‘s ability to define organization‘s adaptiveness, as adaptability is the term that tends to slide out from dialectical models foci. In general, dialectical models may be considered more mechanistic and traditional ones, as they leave little space for uncertainty in the context of working framework variables. Social cognition models. Social-cognition models have gained popularity since 1980s. A variety of models emphasize cognition, from sensemaking to institutionalism to imaginization (Morgan, 1986; Scott, 1995; Weick, 1995). These models tend to come from a phenomenological or social-constructivist view of organizations (hence the term social in

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

combination with cognition), although not all of them do (Kezar, 2001). The earlier typologies (teleological, evolutionary, life cycle, political) emerged from functionalist approaches to viewing organizations. Functionalists hold that there is a single organizational reality that all people generally perceive similarly. Prior to the development of cognitive models, the process of learning and development had already been coupled with change through life-cycle models (Argyris, 1982). Cognitive models built on the foundation of life-cycle models by examining in greater detail how learning occurs and even tying the notion of change m ore directly to learning. Studies of resistance to change illustrated the need for people to learn new approaches and examined how such learning might occur. New phenomena related to cognition and change were discerned, such as knowledge structures, paradigms, schema, cybernetics, sensemaking, cognitive dissonance, cause maps, and interpretation, which are all key concepts within these theories (Bushe and Shani, 1991; March, 1991; Morgan, 1986). Research on how the brain works revealed that knowledge is usually developed by building on past information called knowledge structures or schema, prompting theorists to contemplate how proposals for institutional change could build on prior organizational knowledge (Hedberg, 1981). Learning also occurs as two pieces of conflicting information are brought together, in a phenomenon often labelled cognitive dissonance (Argyris, 1994). Theorists wondered how dissonance helped facilitate change. The reasons for change in organizations are tied to appropriateness and an organizational reality that all people perceive similarly. Functionalists hold that there is a single reaction to cognitive dissonance (Collins, 1998). There is not necessarily an environmental necessity, a developmental challenge, a leader‘s vision, or dialectical or ideological tension. Instead, people simply reach a point of cognitive dissonance at which values and actions clash or something seems outmoded, and they decide to change. Cybernetics is the term used to describe the complex approach to change within social cognition; it is an interactive model, with tensions and strains common within circular systems (Morgan, 1986). Social-cognition models examine how leaders shape the change process through framing and interpretation, and how individuals within the organization interpret and make sense of change (Harris, 1996). The environment cannot be objectively determined, but is interpreted by leaders. This is why the environment is seen as a lesser force, because it is socially constructed and multiple (March, 1991). Social-cognition theorists tend to be interested in how employees frame the organization or how worldviews can be shaped and changed through learning. Change can be understood and enacted only through individuals (Harris, 1996; Martin, 1992). These theories reject a shared reality or organizational culture. Leader‘s role to facilitate change is sometimes explored as the process of allowing people to let go of the identity attached to past strategies and successes (Morgan, 1986). Argyris‘ single-and double-loop learning theory reflects the social-cognition perspective and is a key concept in organizational learning and change. Single-loop learning refers to retaining existing norms, goals, and structures and improving on current methods (Argyris, 1982, 1994). This is often associated with first-order change and an internal standard of performance such as employees‘ views of quality. In contrast, double-loop learning refers to the process by which existing norms, goals, and structures are reformulated to create innovative solutions. It is usually associated with second-order change and employs external standards of performance such as state-mandated regulations of quality. In doubleloop learning, people or organizations come to terms with problems or mismatches in the

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

governing variables (beliefs) that guide their actions (Hedberg, 1981). The common assumption that people are driven to fix inconsistencies between their thoughts and actions or between their actions and consequences was shown to be invalid. An environment of trust must be created in order to have double-loop learning, as people on their own will not challenge or examine inconsistencies (Argyris, 1982). Sensemaking is another example of this category and emerged from the focus on paradigms, cognition, and multiple realities (Weick, 1995). It emphasizes how people interpret their world and reconstruct reality on an ongoing basis. Constructing this reality is an effort to create order and make retrospective sense out of what happens. Sensemaking focuses on how worldviews are shaped and altered. But there is a strong contextual rationality (the sense made is appropriate to the context) and a focus on intersubjective meaning (individuals‘ perspectives). Weick distinguishes sensemaking from interpretation; sensemaking is about how people generate that which they interpret (Weick, 1995, 13). Change situations may evoke sensemaking by altering the order that people have created. Weick emphasizes the roles of wisdom, acceptance of a high level of ignorance, and learning and resilience within organizations as facilitators of change (Weick, 1993). Learning, humility, resilience, and wisdom help enable individuals to alter their current reality. Judging social cognition models from the working framework perspective, on one hand, teleological nature of organization is not emphasized, however, goal-seeking is not neglected either. One may presume value of goal seeking variable is not pre-defined. On the other hand, little is said about organization‘s adaptiveness, though it is acknowledged, that organization‘s members do react to environment and thus organizational learning occurs. Therefore it may be assumed that social cognition models lean towards defining adaptive nature of organization. Thirdly, power of manager question is variously addressed in social cognition models whereby some models attach little power to managers while others attach greater power. In general, social cognition models affirm leader does have some ability to facilitate organizational learning – and thus leader may change extent of adaptiveness of an organization, even though manager‘s ability to change goal-seeking of an organization is little discussed. In general, social cognition models seem to be less mechanistic than dialectical models while attaching less restricted values to working framework parameters – however, author does not call them fully holistic, as enough working framework parameters are predefined by social cognition models. Cultural models. According to Kezar (2001), most models of change describe organizations as rational places with norms and rules. The major contribution of cultural models to the change literature is their emphasis on irrationality (also emphasized in dialectical models), the spirit or unconscious, and the fluidity and complexity of organizations (also noted in social cognition). Cultural models blend the assumptions of the social-cognition and dialectical methods. The earliest types of models within this category were paradigm shifting and future-envisioning. Early models attempted to move away from the static view of organizations provided within teleological models such as organizational development and to examine fluid, dynamic, and complex processes that shape change, such as unconsciousness, energy, spirit, mission, purpose, belief systems, myths, worldview, symbols, and state of being (Kezar, 2001). Some cultural theories purport to create change managers who understand the symbolic nature of organizations; Kanter‘s book, The Change Masters (1983), epitomizes this tradition. Paradigm-shifting originally represented a cultural approach and social-cognition model, but over time, the rational management techniques that

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

became associated with it have made many scholars identify these models as part of the teleological tradition. However, models of changing consciousness and rechanneling energy, which focus on spirit and the symbolic and deeper realities of organizations, remain embedded within the cultural perspective (Kezar, 2001). Schein (1985) is perhaps one of the best-known theorists of cultural change. Culture is a collective and shared phenomenon; it is reflected at different levels through the organizational mission, through individual beliefs, and subconsciously. Change occurs as various aspects of the organizational culture are altered; for example, if the mission is realigned or new rituals or myths are developed. His perspective on culture is reflected in the symbolic action approach, in which managers create change by modifying organizational member‘s shared meaning—in other words, leaders re-create aspects of the symbolic system and culture. For example, leaders interpret events and history for people and create ceremonies and events that alter culture, thereby creating change (Cameron, 1991). Schein believes that certain cultures can be developed that are more open or prone to change. Cultural theories, like social-cognition models, tend to emphasize the collective process of change and the key role of each individual. The most popular cultural models focus on leaders‘ ability to shape organizational culture and on culture as collective or shared. Some cultural theories focus on all organizational participants as unique in their interpretation of organizational culture and illustrate the difficulty of creating change (Martin,1992). The key activities to create change include modifying the mission and vision, creating new myths and rituals, leaders performing symbolic actions, using metaphors, assessing the institutional culture, tapping into energy, developing enthusiasm, altering motivations of people through spirituality, and communicating values and beliefs. In the context of working framework variables, cultural models deal little with most of them. Cultural models do not clearly defined whether organization is teleological or not – different models acknowledge distinct positions (Chaffee, 1983; Dawson, 1994); it is also ambiguous whether organization is adaptive – however, it seems more that cultural models lean towards adaptive organization‘s definition. As far as the role of manager is concerned, cultural models generally do see managers as holding power to facilitate organization‘s learning and change. Thus cultural models may be considered as rather holistic then mechanistic – however, too many variables are presumed in advance to let cultural models call truly holistic ones – author of this article perceives cultural models somewhere in the middle between mechanistic and holistic ones Multiple models. In addition to models that have been strictly categorised to six categories, scholars have developed models that share assumptions from many categories of theories. The advantage to multiple models is that they combine the insights of various change theories. For example, Morgan (1986) suggests that a combination of evolutionary, dialectical, and cognitive theories best represents change within organizations. Rajagopalan and Spreitzer (1996) combined cognitive, evolutionary (rational), and scientific management (learning) theories into a model of strategic change for businesses, exploiting the theoretical synergy of the models. Rajagopalan and Spreitzer argue that the perspectives are not irreconcilable, as others have critiqued. One popular example of multiple models is Bolman and Deal‘s four frames of organizational change (1991). They note that the different organizational theories also represent unique ways people approach or act in organizations, and that by combining the various theories or lenses, leaders can more accurately assess situations and move toward

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

solutions (Bolman and Deal, 1991). Multidimensional thinking is identified as characterizing the best and most successful managers. The four lenses examined are: human resource, structural, political, and symbolic. For example, through a symbolic lens, leaders can see how change results in a loss of meaning and purpose—people form attachments to symbols and have difficulty letting go. Senge‘s model of learning organizations (1990) blends evolutionary, social-cognition, cultural, and teleological models even though it is mostly a reflection of teleological assumptions. Learning organizations characterize managers as using systems thinking to create change by examining interrelationships that shape system behavior, and acting in tune with larger natural and economic processes (notice the similarity to evolutionary assumptions). He also notes the importance of examining our mental models in order to foster change. Managers are to reflect, clarify, and improve the internal pictures of the world and notice how they shape actions (also described by Bolman and Deal, 1991; Morgan,1986). A cultural approach is exemplified by the need to create a culture in which all members develop so that they can achieve their goals and purposes, ideally aligned with institutional change efforts. Life-cycle models are reflected, to some degree, through the emphasis on human development. Last, the model illustrates teleological assumptions about the manager as the active force that enacts the core disciplines of a learning organization: (1) developing your personal mastery (personal vision, holding creative tension, commitment to truth, and the like); (2) identifying and altering mental models; (3) creating shared vision; (4) systems thinking; and (5) fostering team learning. The emphasis on vision, working in teams, and the leader creating a shared vision for the organization reflects the teleological tradition. This may account for the popularity of Senge‘s model: it responds to the research on change, incorporating many of the key principles that we know, but takes a teleological approach and provides organizations with a rational model that managers can enact (Kezar, 2001). The multiple models that combine insights from various perspectives on OL reveal generally occurring shift towards holistic attitude in OL research. Generally, in this section author discussed several popular OL literature categories in their relation to holistic attitude. In the next section author will focus attention towards contemporary attitudes on OL – and illustrate that nowadays researchers tend to acknowledge great extent of uncertainty. Concrete methods illustrating how OL is processed in organizations will be also included in the literature review as it will contribute to the illustration of the shift to holistic approach. 6. Contemporary holism In recent years a research direction towards holistic approach on organizational learning may be observed. Scholars have acknowledged that literature in OL field is largely fragmented (Arthur and Aiman-Smith 2001; Miner and Mezias 1996; Snell 2001; Schimmel and Muntslag, 2009), that plenty of indistinct OL definitions exist (Taylor et al., 2010; Shipton, 2006; Karatas¸-Özkan, 2010) and that in general OL concept tends to be mystified (Friedman et al., 2005; Lipshitz et al., 2006). The diversified nature of OL literature places impediments for practitioners to OL literature findings practically (Schimmel and Muntslag, 2009). Therefore scholars have begun to search for more integrated approach concerning organizational learning. A two-way direction towards holistic view on OL may be discerned – on one hand, scholars tend to abate from discussing ontological aspects of organization and rather concentrate onto practical problem solving – in other words, they integrate multiple models

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

without presuming strict ontological organizations properties (Crossan et al., 1999: 4i framework; Schimmel and Munstslag, 2009; Schilling and Kluge, 2009). One the other hand, researchers put efforts to develop a more organic understanding about organization, its environment, organizational change and organizational learning (Martin, 2008; Chiva et al., 2010) – the previous attempts could be labelled under such names as cybernetics, chaos and complexity theories applications. In this section both directions towards holistic approach will be illustrated by several models which also will be scanned through the working framework. Practical approach. On of the most famous model that integrates three learning levels into organizational learning framework and expresses it in a cyclical recurrent process is 4i framework, developed by Crossan et al. (1999) and extended by Lawrence et al. (2005). In 4i framework OL is viewed as a process incorporating thought and action shaped by the institutional mechanisms that are the basis of every established organisation. Crossan et al . define the four social and psychological micro-processes which link learning at individual, group and organisational levels in the following manner:  Intuiting is the pre-conscious recognition of the pattern and/or possibilities inherent in a personal stream of experience. The process can affect the intuitive individual‘s behaviour, but it only affects others as they attempt to (inter)act with that individual.  Interpreting is the explaining of an insight or idea, to oneself or others. This process goes from pre-verbal to verbal, and requires the development of language.  Integrating is the process of developing shared understanding and coordinated action through mutual adjustment. Dialogue and joint action are crucial to the development of shared under- standing. This process will initially be ad hoc and informal, but if the action is recurring and significant it will be institutionalized.  Institutionalising is the process of ensuring that actions become routinized. Tasks are defined, action specified and organizational mechanisms established to ensure that certain actions occur. Institutionalising is the process of embedding individual and group learning into the organisation‘s systems, structures, procedures and strategy. The process of OL is illustrated in Figure 1, which also distinguishes between stocks (knowledge retained at individual, group and organizational levels) and flows (knowledge shared between the various levels) of learning. Intuiting and interpreting occur at the individual level; interpreting and integrating occur at the group level; integrating a nd institutionalising take place at the organizational level. At the individual level, employees constantly seek ways of decreasing their effort by improving the efficiency with which they perform their work-tasks (Jones and Macpherson, 2006). Feed-forward learning takes place when such individual gains are shared with other employees and with managers (interpreting and integrating) so improvements can become institutionalized into the firm‘s operating procedures, allowing efficiency gains made by individual employees to become an organizational asset via cost reductions or quality improvements. A key managerial role is the creation of a climate in which employees share their tacit knowledge (Boiral, 2002). Feedback flows occur as a result of tacit knowledge being codified so that it can be disseminated throughout the organization. In the 4i model, the institutionalisation of learning promotes further insights as employees exploit new knowledge through feedback flows from the organizational level via groups back to the individual level. Lawrence et al. (2005) complements these four processes with four sociopolitical processes called influence, force, discipline and dominance (Figure 1). Influence involves a wide range of political tactics such as moral suasion, negotiation, ingratiation or persuasion.

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

By affecting the costs and benefits that other organizational members associate with a certain idea, the creator or the champion can convince others to adapt to his/her view. The process of force is characterized by creating circumstances that restrict the options available to organizational members using formal authority to implement the new idea. The institutionalization of new ideas implies embedding them in the structures, routines and strategies of the organization. To overcome potential resistance to institutionalizing changes, domination is regarded as a particularly effective strategy. The range of available actions is restricted by changing material technologies (e.g. production machines, physical layout of workplace) and information systems (i.e. restricted access to data bases or providing predetermined decision paths; Lawrence et al. 2005). Finally, the process of discipline implies altering the costs and benefits associated with the actions available to organizational members. It involves practices such as recruitment, socialization (i.e. enculturation, Nonaka 1994), compensation (i.e. which behaviours are rewarded or punished), training and teambased work.

Figure 1. The social psychological and political processes of organizational learning Source: Lawrence et al. 2005, 183

In the context of current OL literature, Schilling and Kluge (2008) discern several advantages of 4i model. According to them, the model: (1) is dynamic in nature and articulates sub-processes in the course of OL (process character of the model); (2) brings together individual, group and organizational levels of analysis (multilevel character of the model: takes into account interplay of individual and OL); (3) integrates the important tension between exploration and exploitation in OL (March 1991); and (4) is relatively open to different kinds of experience based changes (i.e. lower- and higher-level learning). Other

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

authors have recognized integrative nature of 4i framework and have applied it in further integration of OL research. For example, Schilling and Kluge (2009) have developed an integrative model of collective learning processes in social systems basing it on 4i model. Authors have synthesized wide amount of OL literature into an integrative OL concept and developed a framework for identifying barriers for organizational learning. An integrative definition of OL is expressed in a Table 1:
Table 1. Integrative concept of organizational learning. Source: Schilling and Kluge (2009), 339 Organization as social system Collective process of learning: Structured process of learning: • Groups (building communities of practice) information in social systems by ITtools) • Organizational development (changing the shared mental models of organizational members) • Information processing (acquiring, processing, and distributing shared organizational knowledge) • Organizational politics (preventing the acquisition, processing, and distribution of shared knowledge by micro political activities) Collective learning result:  Organizational culture (culture as a symbol and store of created, learned, and distributed material and immaterial artefacts) Organization as structures and rules

Learning as process

Structured process of learning: • Information technology (distributing and storing information in social systems by IT-tools) • Knowledge management (planning, managing, and controlling of information and knowledge in social systems)

Learning as result

Learning result by implemented structures and rules: • Strategic management (competitive advantages based on systems of scanning of and adapting to the environment) • Production management (rises in efficiency and productivity based on institutionalized systems of continuous improvement)

Such view on OL is an illustration that instead of strictly sticking to a concrete OL view, authors rather develop an integrated framework for identifying which OL approach best suits for further analysis of it. An analysis is then performed for identification of key barriers for OL in three levels, accordingly with 4i framework learning levels (actional-personal, structuralorganizational and societal-environmental). Authors unveil the complex and interrelated nature of OL barriers within the organization. Another attempt to develop a practically valid model for OL enhancement within organizations is performed by Taylor et al. (2010). Authors apply the multi-faceted model (MFM) of OL presented in Demystifying Organizational Learning (Lipshitz et al. 2006) in order to place OL in the context of normal daily activities rather than as a distant vision. The first facet discussed by Lipshitz et al. (2002) in MFM is the structural component. Structural learning is conceptually necessary to distinguish between explicit and tacit knowledge in the

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

firm; it ―addresses the problem of distinguishing between learning by organizations and learning in organizations‖ (Lipshitz et al., 2002, 80). T his distinction between learning in organizations and learning by organizations is critical, because it challenges to view learning not only as something that occurs in the heads of individuals, but also as processes and routines that become embedded within the organization (Lipshitz et al., 2002; Popper and Lipshitz, 2000). The cultural facet, their second component, consists of five norms (transparency, integrity, issue orientation, inquiry and accountability) which function as the observed manifestations of a set of shared values associated with an organizational culture conducive to productive learning. This facet contributes normative behaviours that stimulate productive learning among members. The third facet is the psychological, which is composed of two sub-dimensions: psychological safety and organizational commitment. Psychological safety is the state in which people perceive it is safe to make errors and honestly discuss what they think and how they feel. Organizational commitment is the degree to which members identify with the goals and values of the organization and equate the promotion of its interests with their own. The psychological facet adds specific member OL behaviours to the model. The fourth facet is policy, which includes formal and informal guidelines that management uses to promote its values. This facet articulates how management may control the ongoing OL effort. The final facet is contextual, which includes exogenous factors over which management can exert little if any control. This facet is necessary because of possible learning confounds that managers should understand and may be able to mitigate. Policies are an important organizational artefact through which abstractions (such as OL) find formal expression. Policies are also manifested in more specialized organizational characteristics such as rules, budgets, procedures and systems (Taylor et al., 2010). The MFM, as conceptualized by Lipshitz et al. (2006), provides the general context surrounding the policy facet. According to the MFM, policies that promote OL are designed to communicate three things clearly to organizational members: (1) commitment to learning; (2) tolerance for error; and (3) commitment to the workforce. Taylor et al. develop 10 propositions for the aforementioned three policy directions and thus ground way forward for managers to practically influence productive learning in organizations. Their work is another example of practical approach towards OL literature integration. Among other recent articles that seek to explore practical aspects of OL it is worth mentioning Kontoghiorghes et al. (2005) empirical research which unveiled that learning characteristics have to pertain structural, cultural and information systems of the organization. Also Trim and Lee (2007) constructed a conceptual model outlining how organizational learning underpins the strategic management process, and as a result top management could put in place a number of management systems and structures that facilitate the strategic decision-making process. Moynihan and Landuyt (2009) have discussed OL aspects in public organizations and concluded that OL is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon in which distinction between cultural and structural approaches is flawful. Besides, Yoon et al. (2009) contributed by linking learning and knowledge in supportive learning culture. They proposed holistic framework which, according to them, ―allows practitioners to examine suggested cultural and system components that encourage not only supportive learning organization but also dynamic knowledge creation activities‖ (Yoon et al., 2009, 64) In general, previously discussed models and other models, frameworks that do not emphasize organizations ontology but rather focus on practical usage of OL and its facilitation

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

contribute to integrating OL literature. Firstly, such models do not have presumed strict values of working framework variables – extent of organization goal seeking, adaptiveness or manager‘s ability to change them both are not extensively discussed in these models and remain more or less open questions. Secondly, as these models primarily focus on practical aspects of OL, they represent seeking for advantages of holistic attitude because holistic approach implies broader applicability of a certain theory. Therefore such direction of research clearly contributes to building holistic approach on OL. Complexity and cybernetics. Another set of OL theories (models) which lean towards holism are those that represent efforts to develop a more organic understanding about organization, its environment, organizational change and organizational learning. Complexity, chaos and cybernetics are common concepts used by researchers of this direction. Tsoukas (1998, 293) justifies the appearance of a new scientific approach, complexity theory: ―If nature turns out to be much less deterministic than we hitherto thought ... then perhaps our hitherto mechanistic approach to understanding the messiness we normally associate with the social world may need revising‖. Tsoukas (1998, 291) also states that the Newtonian, traditional or mechanistic style is gradually receding in favour of the complex, holistic or emergent style, characterized by the ability to notice instability, disorder, novelty, emergence and self-organization. Indeed, an increasing number of academics have started to use complexity theory to aid them in understanding organizations better (Chiva et al., 2008). Complexity theories, generally referring to ideas and concepts at a distance from the mechanistic view, represent a research approach that makes philosophical assumptions about the emerging world view, which include wholeness, perspective observation, nonlinearity, synchronicity, mutual causation, relationship as a unit of analysis, etc. (Dent 1999). Complexity theories are increasingly being seen by academics and practitioners as a way of understanding organizations and promoting organizational change (Burnes 2005, 74). This is so because complexity theories deal with the nature of emergence, innovation, learning and adaptation (Houchin and MacLean 2005). Complexity theories serve as an umbrella term for a number of ideas, theories and research programs that are derived from a range of scientific disciplines (Burnes 2005, 73). Consequently, and according to this author, there is not one theory, but a number of theories (chaos theory, wholeness theory, dissipative structures, fractals, complex adaptive systems, etc.) developed by different scientific disciplines, which are gathered under the general heading of complexity research. A good example of complexity theory adaptation to OL is a work of Chiva et al. (2008). Chiva et al. (2008) focus mainly on two concepts from complexity theories - self-organization (Gell-Mann, 1994; Kauffman, 1993); and implicate order (Bohm, 1980; Bohm and Peat, 2000). Based on these concepts, authors propose and explain some characteristics that describe both adaptive and generative learning. Through these characteristics authors also explain the process of generative and adaptive learning. Scholars conclude that that adaptive learning aims to improve knowledge (explicate order), whereas generative learning implies the search for implicate order, which might involve avoiding previous knowledge (as generative learning is beyond knowledge, because the latter is rooted in the past and would obviously prevent new things being seen) (Chiva et al., 2008). An example from complexity theories indicates what crucial this view is for constructing holistic attitude to OL. Although authors presume that basic assumption within complexity theories is that organizations can be viewed as complex adaptive systems (e.g. Anderson, 1999; Axelrod and Cohen, 1999; Coleman, 1999; Gell-Mann, 1994; Houchin and

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

MacLean, 2005), they point out, that adaptation occurs also in the higher level of learning, which is beyond knowledge, thus it may be anything. In general, complexity theories interwoven with OL ground way forward for truly holistic and integrated perspective on this field. An example of cybernetics application to OL could be Schimmel and Muntslag‘s (2009) work. In systems theory (Boulding, 1956; in‘t Veld, 2002), a single control loop consists of four elements: a norm, a measuring unit, a comparator (to detect differences between measurements and norms), and a correction unit (to correct the process when differences are detected). As an analogy, the following preconditions are required for single loop learning in a social system (Schimmel and Muntslag, 2009) (see Figure 2):  The availability of a stable norm, The norms (cognitions, attitudes) that guide organizational behavior should no change too quickly. The duration of the interval between two subsequent change should be typically longer than the response time the organization‘s members need to adjust their behavior to a new norm.  T he availability of a comparator – feedback should be compared with an existing organizational norm to detect errors.  The availability of feedback on collective actions – feedback on collective or individual action is required to learn from mistakes.  The availability of a correction mechanism – if deviations between organizational norms and actual performance are detected, an organization‘s members should have ample opportunity to correct these errors (if these errors are not corrected in time, they may be taken as correct organizational behaviors) (Argyris, 1992). In systems theory, a double control loop system consists of six elements—all the elements of a single control loop control system plus an evaluation mechanism that examines the applicability of norms that guide the single loop control system and a recalibration mechanism that adjusts the norms that guide the single loop mechanism. An example of such a system is adjusting a thermostat‘s temperature setting because another temperature may feel more comfortable.  The availability of an evaluation mechanism – the applicability of the norms (cognitions, attitudes) that guide organizational behavior should be evaluated frequently in order to establish the effectiveness of current organizational practices. This is typically done in an intraorganizational dialogue in which the premises and conclusions in current organizational knowledge systems can be discussed and perhaps falsified.  The availability of a recalibration mechanism – when the applicability of current organizational norms is no longer considered valid, experiments are needed in order to justify the use of alternative sets of norms. The underlying assumption is that an organization‘s members can only experience the usefulness of new cognitions (Kolb, 1984). Thus, attitudes toward new cognitions are primarily rooted in concrete experience.

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

Figure 2. The Role of Cybernetics in Single Loop and Double Loop Learning Source: Schimmel and Muntslag, 2009, 402

Integrating previously defined pre-conditions Schimmel and Muntslag develop framework for synthesis of OL literature into a way that is conceivable by practitioners and applicable in real situations. Authors link organizational change to a change in cognitions and attitudes, and demonstrate that organizational change requires double loop learning. They further discuss the problems with the phenomenon of organizational learning and y constructing a framework learning barriers described in literature are made explicit (i.e., translated into cybernetic terms) they conclude that the different contributions in literature do not in fact contain any contradictions. According to authors, this allows human resources management practitioners to develop more realistic policies because they can more accurately analyze the gap between individual learning and organizational learning (or organizational growth). As one may see, such approach when cybernetics are applied to OL, leaves much space in terms of organization‘s adaptiveness, goal seeking and power of manager‘s variables values (working framework variables) and thus contributes to holistic approach of OL. 7. Conclusions In this chapter author have set to achieve several goals. The primary objective of this article was to discuss contemporary trends in organizational learning research field. The second objective was to briefly explain most relevant models of OL so that it could be a handy collection of references for further research. Considering the first aim, author distinguished

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

the most obvious trend in OL research which is literature integration and shift to holism. In this article a working framework was constructed to illustrate the profound shift of OL literature towards holism. Working framework constituted several ontological organizational characteristics – (1) organizational adaptiveness (2) organizational teleology (goal seeking) and (3) organization manager‘s ability to affect the previous two variables. A body of literature was scanned through the framework and a distinction was made that traditional mechanistic views on OL leave little space of uncertainty in working framework variables, whereas contemporary models tend to acknowledge much greater level of uncertainty in organization‘s characteristics. On this basis a conclusion may be derived that holism is truly a clearly observed direction in OL research – scholars have already acknowledge the need to demystify OL concept and approach it to a more practical way of understanding. Future research will probably address questions of schedule problem – that is, how to define concrete organization‘s characteristics in a concrete time – which is necessary for practical application of any holistic model. However, last proposition remains only an opinion of the author of this article – a more widely acceptable proposition perhaps would be that direction towards holism will allow scientists and practitioners generate intriguing and innovative future research results.

8. References 1. Anderson, P. 1999. Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10: 216–232. 2. 3. Argote, L. and Epple, D. 1990. Learning curves in manufacturing. Science, 247: 920–924. Argote, L., McEvily, B., Reagans, R. 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49: 571–586. Argyris, C. 1994. On Organizational Learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Argyris, C. 1982. How learning and reasoning processes affect organizational change. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Change in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. and Schon D. 1978. Organisational Learning: a Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Arthur, J. and Aimant-Smith, L. 2001. Gainsharing and organizational learning: an analysis of employee suggestions over time. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 737–754. Assudani, R. 2005. Catching the chameleon: Understanding the elusive term knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2): 31–44. Astin, H. S., and Leland, C. 1991. Women of influence, women of vision: A cross generational study of leaders and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

10. Axelrod, R. and Cohen, M.D. 1999. Harnessing Complexity. NewYork: The Free Press. 11. Bahra, N. 2001. Competitive knowledge management. London: Palgrave. 12. Bapuji, H. and Crossan, M. 2004. From raising questions to providing answers: reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning, 35: 397– 417. 13. Benjamin, M. 1996. Cultural diversity, educational equity and the transformation of higher education: Group profiles as a guide to policy and programming. Westport, CT: Praeger. 14. Bensimon, E. M., Neumann, A., and Birnbaum, R. 1989. Making sense of administrative leadership: The “L” word in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, no. 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 15. Berends, Hans, Kees Boersma, and Mathieu Weggeman. 2003. The Structuration of Organizational Leaning. Human Relations 56(9): 1035–56. 16. Bierly, P., Kessler, E., and Christensen, E. 2000. Organization, learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(6): 595–618. 17. Blackler, F. 1995. Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6): 1021–1046. 18. Bohm, D. 1980. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. New York: Routledge. 19. Bohm, D. and Peat, F.D. (2000). Science, Order and Creativity. NewYork: Routledge. 20. Boiral, O. 2002. Tacit Knowledge and Environmental Management. Long Range Planning 35(3): 291-317. 21. Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. 1991. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 22. Boulding, K. E. 1956. General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science, 2: 197–208. 23. Brill, P. L., and Worth, R. 1997. The Four Levers of Corporate Change. New York: American Management Association. 24. Bukowitz, W. R., and Williams, R. L. 1999. The knowledge management fieldbook. London: Pearson Education 25. Burgoyne, J. 1999 June 3. Design of the times. People Magazine, pp. 38–44. 26. Burnes, B. 2005. Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7: 73–90.

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

27. Bushe, G. R., and, Shani, A. B. 1991. Parallel learning structure: Increasing innovation in bureaucracies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 28. Cameron, K. S. 1991. Organizational adaptation and higher education. In M. W. Peterson, E. E. Chaffee, and T. H. White (Eds.), ASHE Reader on Organization and Governance in Higher Education (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press. 29. Carnall, C. A. 1995. Managing Change in Organizations (2nd ed.). London: Prentice Hall. 30. Carr, D., Hard, K., and Trahant, W. 1996. Managing the change process: A field book for change agents, consultants, team leaders, and reengineering managers. New York:McGraw-Hill. 31. Chaffee, E. 1983. Three models of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10(1): 89–98. 32. Chiva R., Grandio A and Alegre J. 2008. Adaptive and Generative Learning: Implications from Complexity Theories. International Journal of Management Reviews 12(2): 114-129, DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00255.x 33. Clegg, S.R., Kornberger, M. and Rhodes, Learning/becoming/organizing. Organization, 12: 147–167. C. 2005.

34. Coleman, H.J. Jr 1999. What enables self-organizing behaviour in business? Emergence, 1: 33–48. 35. Collins, D. 1998. Organizational change: Sociological perspectives. London: Routledge. 36. Cook S. N and Brown J. S. 1999. Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4):382–400. 37. Cook, S.D.N., & Yanow, D. 1993. Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2 (4): 373–390. 38. Crossan M., Lane H., and White R. 1999. An organizational learning framework: From institution to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 522–538. 39. Cyert, R.M. and March, J. 1963. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 40. Dawson, P. 1994. Organizational change: A processual approach. London: Paul Chapman. 41. Dent 1999. Complexity science: a worldview shift. Emergence, 1(4): 5–19. 42. Dodgson, M. 1993. Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organizational Studies, 14(3): 375–394.

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

43. Easterby-Smith, M. 1997. Disciplines of organizational learning: Contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50 (9): 1085–1106. 44. Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicolini, D. 2000. Organizational learning: debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37: 783–796. 45. Freed, J., Klugman, M., and Fife, J. 1997. A culture for academic excellence: Implementing quality principles in higher education. Washington, D.C.: ASHEERIC Higher Education Report Series, 25-1. 46. Friedman, V.J., Lipshitz, R. and Popper, M. 2005. The mystification of organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1):19–30. 47. Gell-Mann, M. 1994. The Quark and the Jaguar Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New York: W. H. Freeman. 48. Golembiewski, R. T. 1989. Ironies in Organizational Development. London: Transaction. 49. Goodman, P. S. 1982. Change in organizations: New perspectives on theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 50. Harris, S. G. 1996. Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based perspective. In J. R. Meindl, C. Stubbart, and J. F. Poroc (Eds.), Cognition in Groups and Organizations. London: Sage. 51. Hedberg, B. 1981. How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. C. Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Design. New York: Oxford University Press. 52. Houchin, K. and MacLean, D. 2005. Complexity theory and strategic change: an empirically informed critique. British Journal of Management, 16: 149–166. 53. Hrebiniak, L. G., and Joyce, W. F. 1985. Organizational adaptation: Strategic choice and environmental determinism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 336–349. 54. Huber, G. 1991. Organisational learning: the contributing processes and the literature. Organisation Science, 2(1):88–115. 55. Huber, G. P., and Glick, W. H. 1993. Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance. New York: Oxford University Press. 56. Jones, O., and Macpherson, A. 2006. Inter-Organizational Learning and Strategic Renewal in SMEs Extending the 4I Framework. Long Range Planning 39: 155-175. 57. Kanter, R. 1983. The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster. 58. Karatas-Ozkan M. and Murphy W. D. 2009. Critical Theorist, Postmodernist and Social Constructionist Paradigms in Organizational Analysis: A Paradigmatic

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

Review of Organizational Learning Literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12: 453–465, DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00273.x 59. Karreman, D. 2010. The Power of Knowledge: Learning from ‗Learning by Knowledge Intensive Firm‘. Journal of Management Studies 47(7): 1405-1416. 60. Kauffman, S.A. 1993. Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 61. Kezar A. J. 2001. Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 28, Number 4. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. 62. Kiechel, W. 1990, March. The organization that learns. Fortune, pp. 133–136. 63. Kieser, A. 1989. Organizational, institutional and societal evolution: Medieval craft guilds and the genesis of formal organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 540–564. 64. Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S. M., Fleurig, P. L. 2005. Examining the Relationship Between Learning Organization Characteristics and Change Adaptation, Innovation and Organizational Performance. Human Resource Development Quatterly, 16(2):185-212 65. Kotter, J. 1985. Power and influence: Beyond formal authority. New York: Free Press. 66. Lawrence, T.B., Mauws, M.K., Dyck, B. and Kleysen, R.F. 2005. The politics of organizational learning: integrating power into the 4I framework. Academy of Management Review, 30: 180–191. 67. Levy, A., and Merry, U. 1986. Organizational transformation: Approaches, strategies, theories. New York: Praeger. 68. Lipshitz, R., Popper, M. and Friedman, V. 2006. Demystifying Organizational Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 69. Lipshitz, R., Popper, M. and Friedman, V.J. 2002. A multifacet model of organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38: 79–98. 70. Loermans, J. 2002. Synergizing the learning organization and knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6 (3): 285–294. 71. March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. 72. Martin, B. 2008. Knowledge management. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42: 369–424. doi: 10.1002/aris.2008.1440420116

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

73. Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. 74. McGrath, R.G. 2001. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 118–131. 75. Miller, D., and Friesen, P. 1980. Archetypes of organizational transition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2): 268–299. 76. Miner, A. and Mezias, S. 1996. Ugly duckling no more: pasts and futures of organizational learning research. Organizational Science, 7(1), 88–99. 77. Morgan, G. 1986. Images of Organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 78. Moynihan, D. P., Landuyt, N. 2009. How Do Public Organizations Le arn? Bridging Cultural and Structural Perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6): 1097-1105. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02067.x 79. Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J. and Gould, J.M. 1995. Understanding organisations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review, 36: 73–90. 80. Nonaka, I. 1994. Adynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5: 14–37. 81. Ortenbald, A. 2001. On differences between organizational learning and learning organization. Learning Organization, 8 (3,4): 125–133 82. Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (2000). Organizational learning: mechanisms, culture, and feasibility. Management Learning, 31(2): 181–196. 83. Rajagopalan, N., and Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens perspective and integrated framework. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 48–79. 84. Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 85. Schilling, J., Kluge, A. 2009. Barriers to organizational learning: And integration of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews 11(3):337360, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00242.x 86. Schimmel, R., and Muntslag, D. R. 2009. Learning Barriers: a Framework for the Examination of Structural Impediments to Organizational Change. Human Resource Management, 48(3): 399–416. 87. Scott, R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. London: Sage. 88. Selen, W. 2000. Knowledge management in resource-based competitive environments: A roadmap for building learning organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4 (4): 346–353.

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

89. Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. 90. Shipton H. 2006. Cohesion or confusion? Towards a typology for o rganizational learning research. International Journal of Management Reviews 8(4):233-252, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00129.x 91. Shipton, H., Fay, D., West, M., Patterson, M. and Birdi, K. 2005. Managing people to promote innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2): 118–128. 92. Snell, R.S. 2001. Moral foundations of the learning organization. Human Relations, 54(3): 319–342. 93. Stacey, R. 2000. The emergence of knowledge in organizations. Emergence, 2(4): 23–29. 94. Taylor, G. S., Templeton, G. F., Baker, T. L. 2009. Factors Influencing the Success of Organizational Learning Implementation: A Policy Facet Perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12: 353–364. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00268.x 95. Tsang, E. 1997. Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50 (1): 73–89. 96. Tsoukas, H. (1998). Introduction: chaos, complexity and organization theory. Organization, 5: 291–313. 97. Van de Ven, A. H., and Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 510–540. 98. Veld, J. in‘t (2002). Analyse van organisatieproblemen: Een toepassing van denken in systemen en processen. Groningen, The Netherlands: Stenfert Kroesse. 99. Vera, D., and Crossan, M. 2003. Organizational learning and knowledge management: Toward an integrative framework. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (pp. 122–141). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 100. Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P. 2003. Organizational learning: a critical review. The Learning Organization, 10(1): 8–17. 101. Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 102. Weick, K.E. and Westley, F. 1996. Organizational learning: affirming an oxymoron. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (eds), Handbook of Organizational Studies: London: Sage, pp. 440–458.

Knowledge Management. Contemporary Trends and Issues

103. Yoon, S. W., Song., J. H., Lim, D. H. 2009. Beyond the Learning Process and Towards Knowledge Creation Process: Linking Learning and Knowledge in the Supportive Learning Culture. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(3): 49-69, DOI: 10.1002/piq.20060.

Povilas Brilius is project manager for innovations at Baifoteka Ltd (ICT company). His research interests pertain investigation of problematics of scientific research application to business processes. His current research areas include cross-discipline inquiry into sustainable development, knowledge processing and its application via IT tools. His recent project encompasses coordinating e-learning application development and implementation together with universities and business partners from EU.