Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
38
CHAPTER 3: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter will be to explore the theoretical literature
related to the notion of learning organization. Since organizational learning
is embedded within an organization’s culture, the significance of the
relationship between organizational culture and organizational learning will
be discussed followed by the discussion of how culture and learning is
related to organizational identification.
The Growth of Interest in the Notion of Organizational Learning
The growth of interest in the notion of organizational learning over the past
decade has been rapid and extensive. Easterby-Smith et al., (1998)46
cite
three reasons for the growth of interest in organizational learning: 1) the
speed of change in technology, 2) globalization, and 3) increased
competition. Easterby-Smith and Araujo (1999)45
have identified two
additional forces that have driven the upsurge in the number of articles
written on organizational learning and learning organizations: 1) An
increased interest in the organizational learning concept on the part of
academics from multiple disciplines, and 2) A recognition on the part of
organizations and consulting firms that an emphasis on organizational
learning and learning organizations may bring about more effective
learning processes and/or may inspire increasingly ideal organizational
39
models that will enhance business competitiveness. Dodgson (1993)41
emphasize that the increased interest in organizational learning relates to
organizations’ need for environmental adaptation. With reference to the
complexity of environmental change and its relationship to organizational
learning processes, Wenger (1998)142
observes: “In a world that is
changing and becoming more complexly interconnected at an accelerating
pace, concerns about learning are certainly justified”. Thus, organizational
learning must be equal to or greater than changes occurring in the
environment - if not, the organization will not survive (Appelbaum &
Reichart, 1997)4.
Thomas Garavan (1997)137
states that the literature on the learning
organization falls into two broad categories: first, that which treats the
learning organization as a variable and something that can be designed into
an organization and which has a significant influence on other
organizational outcomes. Second, that which treats the learning
organization as a metaphor to describe an organization. It basically views
the organization as culture and sees the learning organization as a particular
variant of culture.
Some general problems with the literature on Learning Organization
Many notions of the learning organization are emphasized. Some writers
put emphasis on the learning of all an organization’s members (Pedler et
al., 1991)108
; others on the organization’s competitiveness in all functions
40
(Hayes, Wheelwright & Clark, 198860
; Slater and Narver, 1995130
), while
others put emphasis on the skills and functions of the business (Lessem,
1990)83
. Some authors such as Peter M. Senge (1990)111
adopt a broader
approach and bracket all of the other perspectives together and tend to
suggest a composite theoretical ideal. Though the concept of learning
organization is described in many ways by various authors, there are also a
number of specific difficulties with the literature. These include the neglect
of intra-organizational phenomena and the lack of clarity with respect to
the treatment of the organization, the nature of learning itself, the lack of an
accepted theory of what comprises the culture and climate of a learning
organization, the influence of organizational size, the role of teamwork
within the learning organization concept and a fundamental question of
whether the learning organization is a variable or a root metaphor. Some of
these issues are discussed below.
The Learning Organization as Variable or Root Metaphor
Thomas Garavan (1997)137
states that those who view the learning
organization as a variable tend to have an objective and functional view of
reality, whereas those who see the learning organization from a root
metaphor approach view organizations as if they are essentially learning
cultures. Those who treat the learning organization as a variable also
believe that specific traits can be identified and such traits influence the
behavior of employees and the performance of the organization. The idea
41
that a “strong learning organization” has a distinct and positive impact on
performance is very popular, and commentators have identified a range of
benefits of developing such an organization (Garratt, 198751
; Mayo and
Jank, 199492
; Mumford, 199599
). The key question from this perspective is
how to design the organization so as to create a learning organization.
The less popular perspective stresses that the learning organization is a type
of culture and that the organization is essentially a culture. It views the
organization as an expressive, idealistic and symbolic phenomenon (Jones,
1994)76
. Treating the learning organization from a root metaphor
perspective essentially means conceptualizing organizations in terms of
their expressive, ideological and symbolic aspects. Effectively the learning
organization is not viewed as a piece of the puzzle, but the puzzle itself.
The learning culture is not seen as objective but as constructed by people
and reproduced by a network of symbols and meanings that unite people
and make shared learning possible.
The Nature of the Learning Process
Mumford (1995)99
argues that an essential requirement of the learning
process is to understand that organizational learning is not just a matter of
whether one believes in first level versus deeper level learning; incremental
versus transformational learning, but also the necessity to understand levels
in the sense of participants in the process. He advocates a learning pyramid
starting with the individual learner, then one-to-one learning, group
42
learning and then the learning organization. He sees the learning
organization as the final level of the pyramid. The idea of a hierarchical
ordering or levels of learning is popular within the learning organization
literature. The idea is described in different ways by several authors:
Argyris and Schon’s (1981)6 notion of single and double-loop learning is
perhaps most commonly cited, however, other variations include first-order
and second-order learning (Bartunek and Reed, 199217
; Watzawick,
Weakland & Fisch, 1974141
) zero learning and learning I, II, III and IV
(Batestone, 197219
; Palmer, 1979105
), habit formation learning, adaptive
organization learning and creative proactive learning (Burgoyne, 1995)26
.
Many commentators on the learning organization tend to emphasize
learning in the context of the organization transforming itself in relation to
its environment and a reciprocal process of individual learning and
development. Hoyle (1995)70
, however, argues that the notion of learning
which is advocated within the learning organization literature is limited. He
suggests that the emphasis is on the establishment of routines whereby
managers learn to manage the organization more efficiently. It is noticeable
that the developing orthodoxy within the learning organization literature is
the view that management is learning (Burgoyne, 1991)25
. It is suggested
that such a view is one-sided and limited. Hoyle (1995)70
prefers a notion
of the learning organization which advocates exploratory learning and
which puts emphasis on the generation and use of organizational
43
knowledge. It must be admitted, however, that knowledge generation and
its use is inadequately addressed within the relevant literature.
Organizational learning is generally characterized as a three-stage process
which includes information acquisition, information dissemination and
shared implementation (Sinkula, 1994)129
. First information may be
acquired from direct experience, the experience of others or organizational
memory. Mabey and Salaman (1995)89
characterized learning from
experience as either internally focused (exploitation) or externally focused
(exploration).
Second, it is suggested that organizations must continually balance learning
from exploitation and exploration, because too much reliance on the former
is unlikely to lead to generative learning. Organizational learning is
distinguishable from personal learning by information dissemination and
accomplishing a shared interpretation of the information. Effective
dissemination increases information value where each piece of information
can be seen in its broader context by all organizational players who might
use or be affected by it (Quinn, 1992)118
. The final stage of organization
learning is shared interpretation of the information. Day (1990)34
and Dess
and Origer (1987)39
point out that for organizational learning to occur in
any business unit there must be a consensus on the meaning of the
information and its implications for the organization.
44
A related issue is the question of how learning in organizations is to be
evaluated. Jones (1994)76
comments that when learning is measured by
organizations, rarely do they have an understanding of what it is they are
measuring and, when they do, they may be only measuring activities as
part of an organizational control system. Slater and Narver (1995)130
also
acknowledge the difficulty of measurement. They point out that a major
challenge will be to develop valid measures of learning outcomes
specifically to assess whether an organization has actually learned.
The role of Organizational Size
There has, in general, been little attempt to address the issue of
organizational size in discourse on the learning organizations. Fiol and
Lyles (1985)50
identify culture, strategy, structure and the external
environment as important contextual influences on the learning
organization but fail to consider size in any explicit way. Shrivastava
(1983)128
gives implicit recognition to size in his consideration of various
levels of learning but does not specifically examine how size
characteristics may influence the capacity to become a learning
organization. There is, in general, a large organization mentality
underpinning much of the writings on the learning organization and
Hendry, Jones with Cooper (1994)62
are among the few writers to consider
size explicitly as an important organizational variable. They specifically
45
argue that small size may have distinct advantages in terms of building a
learning organization. They do not, however, point out what these may be.
The notion of Teams in a Learning Organization
The notion and role of teams in the learning organization literature gets
mixed treatment. Jones (1994)76
points out that the influential work by
Quinn (1992)118
and Hampden-Turner (1990)57
make little or no reference
to teams, and Huber (1991)71
, in a major review of organizational learning
processes, neglect the role that teams may play. It has, however, been
argued that different team interpretations contribute to organizations’
learning difficulties (Levitt and March, 1988)84
and that teamwork may
contribute to the advancement of the organization’s knowledge base.
Teams, it is suggested, provide mechanisms for collective learning of
organizational members and they need ways to practice together so that
they can develop their collective learning skills (Peter M. Senge, 1990)111
.
While organizations are being encouraged to focus on teams, the reality is
that teams may inhibit learning. Team learning and performance is a team
skill which needs to be practiced if it is to result in improved individual and
organizational effectiveness. De Guse (1988)35
suggests that team learning
is more difficult to mobilize than individual learning in that it is essentially
a process of language development.
46
The nature of Organizational Knowledge
A central issue, in the context of notions of the learning organization, as
identified earlier, is the nature of organizational knowledge. If
organizational learning is defined as the development of new knowledge or
insights that has potential to influence behavior (Huber, 199171
; Sinkula,
1994129
), what is knowledge and how does it develop as well as what are
the conditions for knowledge to develop? These issues have received
limited attention in the learning organizational literature. There seems to be
a consensus as to the role of experience in forming knowledge structures
(Lyles and Schwenk, 199287
; Prahalad and Bettis, 1986113
). Knowledge
structures appear to evolve and change as organizational members reach
agreement on interpretations of their individual and shared common
experiences. Second, it appears that only in rare instances will
organizational members question core elements as opposed to peripheral
elements of the knowledge structure. The learning organization literature
also tends to assume shared understanding. This assumption does not
always stand up because, as Lukmann (1990)86
points out, people might
say yes to something they do not understand and no to something they
understand. Organizational members continually introduce new ideas and
concepts but the key question is how they are incorporated into the
organization and sustained. Von Krogh, Roos & Slocum (1994)139
refer to
this process as languaging, and argue that any consideration of the learning
47
organization must analyze the period of time in which the learning
organization is sustained and how the process may be interrupted.
What is a Learning Organization?
The most frequently-cited definition of the learning organization in the
European literature is that of Pedlar et al., (1991)108
. They define a learning
organization as, “one which facilitates the learning of all of its members
and continuously transforms itself”. Whether this amounts to a description
or a definition it has four important notions inherent in it. First it
emphasizes that aspects of the organization operate to facilitate and
encourage individual learning actively. Second, the description puts an
emphasis on all members of the organization, as it is insufficient to focus
on selected groups. The notion is that individuals learn together in a
collective system where the learning of one individual or sub-group is
likely to have knock-on effects for the learning of another. When an
organization attempts to restrict this transfer of learning it is unlikely to be
the characteristic of a learning organization (Bahrami, 1992)15
. Third, the
definition implies that the organization is experiencing a process of
continuous change and adaptation and focuses on learning about the
change process itself, while at the same time enabling individuals’
learning. Finally, the definition implies that the organization does not have
all the right answers in terms of how to direct individuals’ learning and
suggests that there is no success formula each organization needs to
48
discover its own learning organization. Pedler et al., (1988)107
elaborate
further on the concept of a learning organization as one which:
• has a climate in which individual members are encouraged to learn and
to develop to their full potential;
• extends this learning culture to include customers, suppliers and other
significant stakeholders;
• makes human resource development strategy central to business policy;
• is a continuous process of organizational transformation.
Defining Learning Organization
Some of the popular definitions of Learning Organization are as follows:
• A Learning Organization is an organization skilled at creating,
acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to
reflect new knowledge and insights. (David A .Garvin, 1993)33
• In a Learning Organization, individuals are the key where they are
acting in order to learn, or where they are acting to produce a result. All
the knowledge has to be generalized and crafted in ways in which the
mind and the brain can use it in order to make it actionable. (Argyris,
1993)10
• A Learning Organization is linked to action learning processes where it
releases the energy and learning of the people in the hour-to-hour, day-
to-day operational cycles of business. (Garratt, 1995)52
49
• A Learning Organization has the powerful capacity to collect, store and
transfer knowledge and thereby continuously transform itself for
corporate success. It empowers people within and outside the company
to learn as they work. A most critical component is the utilization of
technology to optimize both learning and productivity. (Marquardt and
Kearsley, 1999)91
• A Learning Organization is one that learns continuously and transforms
itself where the organizational capacity for innovation and growth is
constantly enhanced. (Watkins and Marsick, 1993)140
Peter M. Senge and the Learning Organization
The most influential commentator in the US context is Peter M. Senge
(1990)111
. He describes the blueprints for building a learning organization
in terms of disciplines. He maintains that these disciplines must be
practiced, otherwise nothing will be learned. His philosophy behind
incorporating these disciplines lies in understanding that the way in which
organizations are a product of how people think and interact; organizations
cannot change in any fundamental way unless people can change their
basic processes of thinking and interacting. Senge’s view of organizations
is essentially optimistic. His creative tension principle, for example, tends
to assume that individual employees will be motivated by a given
organization’s vision once it has been clearly articulated and the current
reality has been accurately portrayed. His statement that negative visions
50
carry a subtle message of powerlessness may have some validity, but it
neglects the plurality of many modern organizations in which powerless
people cannot create positive visions (Mabey and Iles, 1994)88
.
The Learning Organization, according to Peter M. Senge (1990)111
:
“organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the
results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are
nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are
continually learning to see the whole together”. The basic rationale for
such organizations is that in situations of rapid change only those that are
flexible, adaptive and productive will excel. For this to happen, it is argued
that the organizations need to ‘discover how to tap people’s commitment
and capacity to learn at all levels’. While all people have the capacity to
learn, the structures in which they have to function are often not conducive
to reflection and engagement. Furthermore, people may lack the tools and
guiding ideas to make sense of the situations they face. Organizations that
are continually expanding their capacity to create their future require a
fundamental shift of mind among their members. For Senge, real learning
gets to the heart of what it is to be human. We become able to re-create
ourselves. This applies to both individuals and organizations. Thus, for a
traditional organization that is enough to survive, “survival learning” or
what is more often termed “adaptive learning” is important, indeed it is
necessary. But for a learning organization, “adaptive learning” must be
51
joined by “generative learning”, learning that enhances our capacity to
create. The dimension that distinguishes learning organizations from more
traditional organizations is the mastery of certain basic disciplines or
‘component technologies’.
If a learning organization were an engineering innovation, such as the
airplane or the personal computer, the components would be called
technologies. For an innovation in human behavior, the components need
to be seen as disciplines. A discipline is a developmental path for acquiring
certain skills or competencies. Some people have an innate “gift,” but
anyone can develop proficiency through practice. “The more an individual
learns, the more he becomes aware of his ignorance”. Thus, a corporation
cannot be “excellent”: in the sense of having arrived at a permanent
excellence; it is always in the state of practicing the disciplines of learning,
of becoming better or worse. Any organization can benefit from
disciplines, which is not a totally new idea. After all, management
disciplines such as accounting have been around for a long time. But the
five learning disciplines differ from management disciplines. Each has to
do with how we think, what they truly want, and how they interact and
learn with one another. In this sense, they are more like artistic disciplines
than traditional management disciplines. As the five component learning
disciplines converge they will not create the learning organization but
rather a new wave of experimentation and advancement will occur.
52
The five disciplines that Peter M. Senge (1990)111
identifies are said to be
converging to innovate learning organizations. They are:
1. Personal Mastery
Mastery might suggest gaining dominance over people or things. But
mastery can also mean a special level of proficiency. A master craftsman
doesn’t dominate pottery or weaving. People with a high level of personal
mastery are able to consistently realize the results that matter most deeply
to them in effect; they approach their life as an artist would approach a
work of art. They do that by becoming committed to their own lifelong
learning. Personal mastery is the discipline of continually clarifying and
deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing
patience, and of seeing reality objectively. As such it is an essential
cornerstone of the learning organization’s spiritual foundation. An
organization’s commitment to and capacity for learning can be no greater
than that of its members, but surprisingly few organizations encourage the
growth of their people in this manner. This result in vast untapped
resources: “people enter business as bright, well-educated, high-energy
people, and a desire to make a difference”, says Hanover’s O’Brien. By the
time they are 30, a few are on the “fast track” and the rest ‘put in their
time’ to do what matters to them on the weekend. They lose the
commitment, the sense of mission, and the excitement with which they
started their careers. And surprisingly few adults work rigorously to
53
develop their own personal mastery. When most of the adults are asked,
what they want from their lives, they often talk first about what they’d like
to get rid of: “I’d like my mother-in-law to move out” or they say, “I’d like
my back problems to clear up.” The discipline of personal mastery, by
contrast, starts with clarifying the things that really matter to us of living
our lives in the service of our highest aspirations.
2. Mental Models
“Mental models are deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even
pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we
take action”. Very often, we are not consciously aware of our mental
models and its impact on our performance. The discipline of working with
mental models starts with turning the mirror inward; learning to unearth
our internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and hold
them rigorously to scrutiny. It also includes the ability to carry on
“learningful” conversations that balance inquiry and advocacy, where
people expose their own thinking effectively and make that thinking open
to the influence of others.
3. Building Shared Vision
If any one idea about leadership has inspired organizations for thousands of
years, it is the capacity to hold a shared picture of the future we seek to
create. One is hard pressed to think of any organization that has sustained
some measure of greatness in the absence of goals, values, and missions
54
that become deeply shared throughout the organization. IBM had
“service”; Polaroid had “instant photography”; Ford had “public
transportation” and Apple had “computing power” for the masses. Though
radically different in content and kind, all these organizations managed to
bind people together around a common identity and sense of destiny. When
there is a genuine vision (as opposed to the all-too-familiar “vision
statement”), people excel and learn, not because they are told to, but
because they want to. But many leaders have personal visions that never
get translated into shared visions that galvanize an organization. All too
often, a company’s shared vision has revolved around the charisma of a
leader, or around a crisis that galvanizes everyone temporarily. But people
opt for pursuing a lofty goal, not only in times of crisis but at all times.
What has been lacking is the discipline for translating individual vision
into shared vision, not a “cook-book” but a set of principles and guiding
practices. The practice of shared vision involves the skills of unearthing
shared “pictures of the future” no matter how heartfelt.
4. Team Learning
How can a team of committed managers with individual Intelligence
Quotient (IQ) of above 120, have a collective Intelligence Quotient of 63?
The discipline of team learning confronts the paradox. We know that teams
can learn: in sports, in arts, in science, and even, occasionally, in business,
there are striking examples where the intelligence of the team exceeds the
55
intelligence of the individuals in the team, and where teams develop
extraordinary results. The discipline of team learning starts with
“dialogue,” the capacity of the members in a team to suspend assumptions
and enter into a genuine “thinking together”. To the Greeks, dialogues
meant a free flowing of meaning through a group, allowing the group to
discover insights not attainable individually. Interestingly, the practice of
dialogue has been preserved in many “primitive” cultures, such as that of
the American Indian, but it has been almost completely lost to modern
society. Today, the principles and practices of dialogue are being
rediscovered and put into a contemporary context. The discipline of
dialogue also involves learning how to recognize the patterns of interaction
in teams that undermine learning. The patterns of defensiveness are often
deeply engrained in how a team operates and if it is unrecognized, they
cannot actually accelerate learning. Team learning is vital because teams,
not individuals, are the fundamental learning unit in modern organizations.
This where “the rubber meets the road”; unless teams can learn, the
organization cannot learn.
5. Systems Thinking
A cloud masses, the sky darkens, leaves twist upward, and we know that it
will rain. We also know after that the storm the runoff will feed into
groundwater miles away, and the sky will become clear by tomorrow. All
these events are distant in time and space, and yet they are all connected
56
within the same pattern. Each has an influence on the rest, an influence that
is usually hidden from view. We can only understand the system of a
rainstorm by contemplating the whole, not any individual part of the
pattern. Business and other human endeavours are also systems. Invisible
fabrics of interrelated actions too bind them, which often take years to fully
play out their effects on each other. Since we are a part of it, it is doubly
hard to see the whole pattern of change. Instead, we tend to focus on
snapshots of isolated parts of the system, and wonder why our deepest
problems never seem to get solved. Systems’ thinking is a conceptual
framework, a body of knowledge and tools that has been developed over
the past fifty years, to make the full patterns clearer and to help us see how
to change them effectively. Though the tools are new, the underlying
worldview is extremely intuitive; experiments with young children show
that they learn systems thinking very quickly.
The Fifth Discipline
It is vital that the five disciplines develop as an ensemble. This is
challenging because it is much harder to integrate new tools than simply
apply them separately, but the payoffs are immense. This is why “Systems
Thinking” is the fifth discipline. It is a discipline that integrates the other
disciplines, fusing them into a coherent body of theory and practice. By
enhancing each of the other disciplines, it continually reminds us that the
whole can exceed the sum of its parts. Systems thinking make
57
understandable the subtlest aspect of the learning organization; the new
way individuals perceive themselves and their world. At the heart of a
learning organization is a shift of mind-from seeing ourselves as separate
from the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems as caused
by someone or something “out there” to seeing how our own actions create
the problems we experience. A learning organization is a place where
people are continually discovering how they create their reality and how
they can change it. As Archimedes has said, “Give me a lever long enough
… and single-handed I can move the world.”
Difference between Training and Organizational Learning
There is, however, a significant difference between a learning organization
and an organization which simply pays attention to training – although the
latter is important and is almost certainly part of every learning
organization. In most organizations which have good training programs,
training is something given to employees by the organization. It is the
organization (in the shape of the management and supervisory hierarchy)
that determines and then fulfils training needs. Within a learning
organization, on the other hand, employees are likely to have some
significant degree of self-determination of their own development rather
than simply having the training imposed on them.
58
Creating a Learning Organization
Of course, we cannot turn an organization into a learning organization
overnight. A learning organization may well have different divisions/
departments at different “maturity” stages. Neither can we turn an
organization into a learning organization unless it wants to be transformed.
This means that the very top levels of management must understand the
nature of the change that must be made, and how to make it. It can be seen
to be “a good idea” in isolation. However, many organizations (or parts of
organizations) become learning organizations, not because they identify it
as a strategy for organizational development, but as a result of a set of
circumstances. Often this includes the existence of an external threat,
although this is not regarded as a pre-requisite. One common characteristic
of learning organizations is the existence of a key individual who
champions the move towards becoming (and remaining) a learning
organization. This key individual is likely to be near the top of the
management structure, but not necessarily at the very top. His/her pivotal
role is in establishing ownership of the concept throughout the
management team and in keeping enthusiasm going when the benefits have
not yet accrued and some people are losing faith. All learning organizations
deal with individuals. Individuals are valued for what they are and for what
they can contribute. However, the learning organization goes further. It
attempts to set individual learning in a framework that values all learning
59
and attempts to learn additional lessons and add additional value to the
individual learning that takes place. The value of individual learning is
maximized and multiplied by systems that allow the organization to learn
from the process of learning and to collect that learning for the benefit of
others.
An analysis of the learning organization concept suggests that it is more
useful to approach it in terms of organizational values and processes that
adopt a learning-based approach than in terms of specific structures and
models of good practice. This suggests that developing a learning
organization is not a matter of adopting procedures and practices used
elsewhere because to do so runs contrary to the processes of learning and
change. Many of the issues and choices raised by the idea of the learning
organization relate to broad questions of culture and learning structures.
The essential task appears to be the creation of enabling cultures and
structures which are needed at organizational and individual levels. It is
perhaps more appropriate to suggest that organizations can develop in a
progressive manner towards a learning organization but it is an idealized
state which may never be attained. Such a perspective is sustainable if one
views the learning organization as a variable. Three issues appear relevant
in the context of a movement towards characteristics of a learning
organization: the creation of a learning culture; structural issues and the
psychological maturity of individuals and the learning process.
60
Learning cultures
The concept of culture itself is intangible and the notion of a learning
culture is perhaps easier to experience than describe. Argyris (1985)8
suggests that an organization’s defense routines may be both anti-learning
and over-protective. He argues that such patterns of behavior may become
so embedded in the culture that they are rarely questioned or challenged.
Deshpande & Webster (1989)38
and Schein (1990)123
emphasizes the
importance of culture to develop learning behaviours which suggests a
synergistic relationship between the elements of culture and learning
activities. Denison (1990)36
suggests that culture often embodies an
accumulation of prior learning, based on earlier success, which usually
constrains and biases an individual’s capacity to perceive and understand a
new vision.
Structures / Socio-structures
West (1994)143
warns that the development of a learning organization
requires profound realignment of existing structures and socio-structures.
Pedlar et al., (1991)108
suggest that the impetus for transformation must
come from within clearly-defined boundaries for decision making.
Responsibility and accountability are embedded in the social and
organizational structure of an organization and are very difficult to change.
Honey (1991)69
is of the view that many organizations are unwittingly
designed to encourage the acquisition of procedures and behaviors they
61
wish they had less of. There is a clear recognition in the learning
organization literature that many organizations have structures which
would not facilitate progression towards the learning organization ideal.
Psychological maturity and learning
Much that is written on the learning organization assumes a certain level of
psychological maturity on the part of human resources within the
organization. However, Argyris (1987)9 suggests that systems and
procedures within many organizations prevent individuals from reaching
maturity or releasing their full psychological energy. West (1994)143
argues
that human resources are often short-sighted in outlook, unable to see
future consequences and possess negative or apathetic attitudes to work.
Learning organization ideas firmly rest on the notion that individuals are
receptive to greater accountability and responsibility in the organization
and that it is possible to achieve this end.
Mumford (1995)99
examines the nature of a learning organization and
suggests how to achieve it by “Creating an environment where the
behaviors and practices involved in continuous development is actively
encouraged”. He sees the main benefits of creating a learning environment
as:
• ensuring the long-term success of the organization;
• making incremental improvements a reality;
• ensuring that successes and best practices are transferred and emulated;
62
• increasing creativity, innovation and adaptability;
• attracting people who want to succeed and learn and retaining them;
• ensuring that people are equipped to meet the current and future needs
of the organization.
Role of Managers in the Learning Organization
Peter M. Senge (1990)111
argues that the leader’s role in the learning
organization is that of a designer, teacher, and stewards who can build
shared vision and challenge prevailing mental models. He / she are
responsible for building organizations where people are continually
expanding their capabilities to shape their future – that is leaders are
responsible for learning.
Richard Teare and Richard Dealtry (1998)121
in their study identifies that
the first step in diagnosing the interactions that occur in the “learning
environment” is to examine the active roles of managers and the related
behaviors. Beyond this, Mumford (1996)100
define four roles that managers
should adopt so that opportunities for learning can be prioritized:
1. Role model – demonstrate (behavior and actions) personal enthusiasm
for learning and development.
2. Provider – be a conscious and generous provider of learning and
development opportunities for others and an active supporter and
encourager whenever opportunities are taken up.
63
3. System builder – build learning into the system so that it is integrated
with normal work processes and embedded in the conscious agenda.
4. Champion – the importance of learning for other parts and the
organization as a whole.
Buckler (1996)24
observes that learning effectiveness is dependent on the
environment for learning and the efforts of organizational leaders and
managers in creating, sustaining and encouraging the appropriate
conditions for learning to occur. He believes that “… the quest for
knowledge by individuals is the main driving force …” and that the
individual’s personal journey can be channeled via team learning and
ultimately organizational learning with the aid of facilitators and mentor
support. He adds that the team leader should be a “disseminator of
opportunity” and thereafter the learner should be encouraged to
disseminate to the wider team by sharing newly acquired insights and
knowledge. He views this as the most difficult but ultimately the most
rewarding aspect of team working.
Mumford (1980)98
studies that managers need to take the responsibility for
the performance of their employees by rendering continuous support to
enhance their ability to learn. He suggests that managers who are good
developers of their staff:
• draw out the strengths and weaknesses of their staff rather than
suppressing them;
64
• reward their people both materially and psychologically for the risks
that they take in attempting to develop themselves;
• positively seek to identify learning opportunities for staff;
• give personal time to the development of staff - for example in
reviewing and analyzing activity associated with learning;
• involve their subordinates in some of their own tasks and do not simply
delegate tasks that they do not wish to do themselves;
• share some of their problems and anxieties with their staff as one way
of enhancing staff development;
• listen rather than talk;
• do not seek to shape individuals as replicas of themselves;
• take risks on the desired results of their departments in pursuit of
relevant learning opportunities for their people.
Jennifer Rowley (1998)73
states that in order to exhibit these
characteristics, managers need to develop appropriate adult-to-adult
relationships and the language and behavior that are used in these
relationships. Individual learning, then, to a significant extent rests on the
relationships that managers collectively within an organization have with
their staff.
Levels of Learning
It is usually assumed that learning generally has positive outcomes, that
organizations have the capacity to learn collectively and that organizational
65
learning occurs at different speeds and levels within the organization
(Mabey and Salaman, 1995)89
. Two types of organizational learning are
most often cited; single-loop learning and double-loop learning (Argyris
and Schon, 1978)5.
1. Single-loop Learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978)5 or Adaptive
learning (Peter M. Senge, 1990)111
It is the more basic form of learning and occurs within a set of recognized
and unrecognized constraints that reflect the organization’s assumptions
about its environment and itself (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986)113
. The
constraints limit organizational learning to the adaptive variety, which
usually is sequential, incremental, and focused on issues and opportunities
that are within the traditional scope of the organization’s activities. The
traditional values limit the organization to implement new and innovative
ideas.
2. Double-loop Learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978)5 or Generative
learning (Peter M. Senge, 1990)111
It occurs when the organization is willing to question long-held
assumptions about its mission and capabilities, and it requires the
development of new ways of looking at the world based on an
understanding of the systems and relationships that link key issues and
events. It appreciates the employees to bring out new and creative ideas
from various sources. The organization is more concerned towards
66
involving their employees in new assignments other than their regular
tasks. It is argued that generative learning is frame-breaking and more
likely to lead to competitive advantage than adaptive learning (Slater and
Narver, 1995)130
.
Argyris and Schon (1978)5 have drawn attention to how individual learning
in organizations can be harnessed positively to produce collective learning.
They describe the value of moving beyond single-loop learning where
errors are detected and corrected to double-loop or generative learning
which results in a deeper level of collective knowledge and understanding.
Generative learning is generally considered an elusive goal. Bhide (1986)22
agrees that revolutionary periods of generative learning may provide a
window for competitive advantage but they can be kept open only through
continuous improvement.
Argyris and Schon (1978)5 justifies saying that an organization can become
a learning organization only when it stimulates double-loop learning. They
argue that organizations generally perform single-loop learning well, but
do not typically perform double-loop learning well at all.
Mohammad Rezaei Zadeh (2009)97
compels the need for double-loop
learning for an organization to meet the changing demands of their
customers. He identifies that single-loop learning exists in all organizations
because errors are inevitable part of human activities. Correcting these
errors assist firms to achieve their plans as long as it matches with
67
organizational memories. But, sometimes the results do not match with the
organizational plan and the current governing variables need to be changed,
which could only be achieved by developing double-loop learning.
Few other theorists have also explored that double-loop learning is
essential for an organization to become a learning organization. Rosemary
Hill (1996)122
explored that while many organizations can and do achieve
single-loop learning, the more valuable learning engendered through
questioning and challenging the norm is more difficult to accomplish. The
process of continually questioning and challenging the strategic norm is the
norm within a learning organization. Ashok Jashpara (2003)14
identifies
that organizational learning in the form of double-loop learning does lead
to competitive advantage and provides evidence to support the assumption
underlying the learning organization literature. It is the cognitive
dimension of double-loop learning that will aid organizations sustain
competitive advantage rather than the behavioral dimensions of single-loop
learning. Single-loop learning has an adverse effect on organizational
performance.
John Seddon and Brendan O’Donovan (2010)74
, believes that double-loop
learning is a necessary condition for the development of what Senge called
‘generative learning’ and thus essential in the progression towards
becoming a ‘learning organization’. They identify that it is the command
and control ‘prevailing system of management’ which prevents
68
organizations from creating generative learning. They suggest that Argyris
and Schon’s (1978)5 concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning
explain how a command and control outlook prevents managers from
learning and improving. “Single-loop learning occurs when matches are
created, or when mismatches are corrected by changing actions. Double-
loop learning occurs when mismatches are corrected by first examining and
altering the governing variables and then the actions” (Argyris, 1999)11
.
Only in this way can the ‘governing variables’ like culture and
management thinking could be surfaced and subsequently altered for
effective organizational performance.
Having understood that double-loop learning is more essential for a
learning organization, it is also required to understand the organizational
factor that stimulates this learning. It is understood from the literature that
organizational learning is embedded within the culture of an organization.
Hence there is need to explore the concept of organizational culture and its
relationship with learning.
Defining Organizational Culture
A key question underpinning the field of organizational learning relates to
the conditions and climate that best promote learning processes. Such an
inquiry seeks not only to identify the mechanisms underlying an
organization’s learning processes, but also considerations related to an
organization’s culture.
69
According to Schein (1996)124
: culture is defined as: “The set of shared,
taken-for-granted implicit assumptions that a group holds and that
determines how it perceives, thinks about, and reacts to its various
environments”. Schein remarks that the members of organizations are
typically unaware of their own organizational culture until they have
encountered another one. Understanding organizational culture is critical to
acquiring an understanding of learning processes to the extent that culture
is also a product of collective learning through experience (Schein,
1996)124
. Cook and Yanow (1996)30
define organizational culture as: “A set
of values, beliefs, and feelings, together with the artifacts of their
expression and transmission (such as myths, symbols, metaphors, rituals),
that are created, inherited, shared, and transmitted within one group of
people and that, in part, distinguish that group from others”.
Managing Organizational Culture
“The issue of managing culture is of key importance within management
theory and practice” (Ogbonna & Harris, 1998)104
. Numerous studies
reported that the most frequent reason given for failure of most planned
organization changes was due to avoidance of an organizations culture.
Studies revealed that the most significant, distinguished and differentiated
attributes, as well as a firm’s most competitive advantage to be highly
successful included their organizational culture. Also, an organization
culture needs to be managed (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28
. “Most
70
organizational scholars now recognize that organizational culture has a
powerful effect on the performance and long-term effectiveness of
organizations” (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28
. Empirical research generates
an array of findings that reflect the importance of culture to enhance
performance (Lisa Marie Kangas, 2005)85
. Kotter and Heskett (1992)79
interviewed seventy-five highly regarded financial analysts who followed
specific industries and companies closely. The results indicated that all of
those interviewed, acknowledged culture as a critical aspect in long-term
financial success. Other research study conducted by Cameron and
Freeman (1991)27
generated different types of cultures like strong and
weak cultures and congruent and incongruent cultures to study
organizational effectiveness. But their study did not show significant
difference between strong and weak culture and between congruent and
incongruent cultures. Later the study conducted by Cameron and Quinn
(1999)28
identified 4 types of cultures, Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy and
Market to study their relationship on difference dimensions of
organizational effectiveness. The study showed a significant difference
between the 4 types of culture. The theoretical framework is initially
discussed to understand the 4 cultural types followed by the reviews
relating culture and learning.
71
Types of Organizational Culture
Organizational Culture includes those qualities of the organization that
give it a particular climate or feel. The distinct qualities of an organization
may manifest through two dimensions, where one dimension differentiates
an orientation towards flexibility, discretion, and dynamism from an
orientation toward stability, order, and control. The second dimension
differentiates an orientation toward an internal focus, integration and unity
of processes, from an orientation toward an external focus, differentiation
and rivalry regarding outsiders. According to Cameron and Quinn (1999)28
,
“Together these two dimensions form four quadrants, each representing a
distinct set of organizational effectiveness indicators”. The relationship
between these two dimensions is shown in figure 3.1. These indicators of
effectiveness signify what people value about the performance in an
organization and define the core values of culture that subside in
companies. Each quadrant in figure 3.1 has been given a label to
distinguish its most notable characteristics - clan, adhocracy, market, and
hierarchy. Each quadrant represents basic assumptions, orientations, and
values that comprise an organizational culture.
72
Figure 3.1 - The relationship between the two dimensions of
Organizational Culture
Source: Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture, Cameron and
Quinn (1999) 28
.
Clan Culture
According to Cameron and Quinn (1999)28
the clan culture is called “a
clan” because of its similarity to a family-type organization. The clan
culture is typified by a friendly place to work where people share a lot
about themselves. It is like an “extended family”. The clan culture
concentrates on internal issues and values flexibility and discretion instead
of stability and control, interest for others, and compassion for customers.
The goal of clan culture is to manage a surrounding through teamwork,
participation, and harmony (Cameron & Quinn, 199928
; Berrio, 200320
).
“The organization is held together by tradition and loyalty. Commitment is
Clan Adhocracy
Hierarchy Market
Flexibility, Discretion, Dynamism
Internal Focus,
Integration and
Unity
External Focus,
Differentiation
and Rivalry
Stability, Order and Control
73
high. Leaders are thought of as mentors and, perhaps, even as parent
figures”.
Adhocracy Culture
According to Cameron and Quinn (1999)28
, “the root of the word
adhocracy is ad hoc–referring to a temporary, specialized, dynamic unit”.
The adhocracy culture concentrates on external issues and values a high
degree of flexibility, individuality, and discretion with key values of
creativity and risk taking, instead of stability and control. The adhocracy
culture is based on an assumption that typifies an organizational world of
the twenty-first century responsive to hyper-turbulent conditions that
innovates new initiatives for the future that leads to success. It is also based
on assumptions that organizations are in business to develop new products
and services and prepare for the future, and that goals of management and
effective leadership are to generate vision, entrepreneurship, creativity, and
activity on the cutting edge (Cameron & Quinn, 199928
; Berrio, 200320
).
“The adhocracy culture is characterized by a dynamic, entrepreneurial, and
creative workplace. People stick their necks out and take risks” (Cameron
& Quinn, 1999)28
. The organizations long-term goals for success include
rapid growth and acquisition of new resources to produce unique and
original products and services (Cameron & Quinn, 199928
; Berrio, 200320
).
74
Hierarchy Culture
The hierarchy culture is established on Weber’s theory of bureaucracy and
values tradition, consistency, cooperation and conformity (Cameron &
Quinn, 199928
; Berrio, 200320
). “Until the 1960s, almost every book on
management and organizational studies made the assumption that Weber’s
hierarchy or bureaucracy was the ideal form of organization, because it led
to stable, efficient, and highly standardized products and services”
(Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28
. Also, lines of decision-making that are
confined to top level managers and harmonized rules and procedures were
valued as keys to success. “The organizational culture compatible with this
form is characterized by a formalized and structured place to work.
Procedures govern what people do” (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28
. The
hierarchy culture concentrates more on internal versus external issues and
values stability and control rather than flexibility and discretion. “The
long-term concerns of the organization are stability, predictability, and
efficiency. Formal rules and policies hold the organization together”
(Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28
. In the hierarchy culture the leadership style
consists of a coordinator, monitor, and organizer.
Market Culture
The market culture became popular in the late 1960’s as organizations were
faced with new competitive challenges. This type of culture was based on
work primarily done by Oliver Williamson, Bill Ouchi, and their
75
colleagues (Cameron & Quinn, 199928
; Berrio, 200320
). “These
organizational scholars identified an alternative set of activities that they
argued served as the foundation of organizational effectiveness” (Cameron
& Quinn, 1999)28
. The market culture values stability and control;
however, concentrates more on external (market) instead of internal issues.
This culture tends to view the external environment as threatening, and
seeks to identify threats and opportunities as it pursues competitive
advantage and profits. The major focus of markets is to conduct
transactions (exchange, sales, and contracts) with other constituencies to
develop competitive advantage. The primary objectives of a market culture
organization are profitability, bottom line results, strong market niches,
stretch targets, and secure customer bases. The core values that dominate
market type organization are productivity and competitiveness. This type
of culture is a result-oriented workplace. In this culture, leadership type
includes that of hard-driving, competitive, and productive manager with an
emphasis to win (Cameron & Quinn, 199928
; Berrio, 200320
). “Success is
defined in terms of market share and penetration. Outpacing the
competition and market leadership are important”.
Culture and Organizational Learning
Much of the discussion in the management literature is clearly written from
the perspective that the learning organization can be designed and managed
effectively to produce positive outcomes for the organization. Many
76
commentators have attempted to specify what the learning organization
culture should consist of. Burgoyne (1995)26
, for example, talks about an
appropriate learning culture as an attribute of a learning organization. He
defines it as a culture which supports shared learning from experience.
Although numerous authors (David A. Garvin, 199333
; McGill, Slocum &
Sei, 199293
; Peter M. Senge, 1990111
) have considered the notion of a
learning organization culture, there is no widely accepted theory or view on
this issue. Some have identified specific aspects of a learning organization
culture such as entrepreneurship and risk taking (Kanter, 198978
; Naman
and Slevin, 1993102
; Sykes and Block, 1989134
) facilitative leadership
(Meen and Keough, 199294
; Slater and Narver, 1995130
) organic structures
(Gupta and Govindarajan, 199156
; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993145
)
decentralized strategic planning processes (Day, 199034
; Hart, 199258
;
Mintzberg, 199496
) and individual development is valued as an end in itself
(David A. Garvin, 1993)33
but there has been little attempt to test their
existence empirically on how they may contribute to learning activities
within the organization and ultimately to enhanced organizational
performance. A more useful US contribution is provided by Slater and
Narver (1995)130
. They suggest five critical components of the learning
organization – two elements of culture and three elements of climate. They
suggest that the culture elements consist of a market orientation and
entrepreneurship, whereas the climate features include facilitative
77
leadership, an organic and open structure and a decentralized approach to
planning. Anona Armstrong and Patrick Foley (2003)3 identify the
Organizational Learning Mechanisms (OLMs) that can create or improve
learning opportunities in an organization. They say that OLM’s are the
cultural and structural facets of an organization that facilitate the
development of, improvement to and renewal of a learning organization.
Without these mechanisms, a learning organization is likely to emerge.
Parkinson and McBride (1992)106
stress the need for a strong culture to
support learning. They put forth five preconditions of an organization’s
culture that had to be met for an organization to stimulate learning, like
organizational acceptance of the process, the essential need for support
mechanisms, including a structure, a clear evaluation of outcomes and a
strong orientation to learning. They further identify that employees in an
organization are much aware of the cultural issues in implementing the
learning process than the structural issues. They relate the culture to the
learning process and if they find any mismatch between them, the
employees are not willing to accept their organization as a learning
organization. Cook and Yanow (1996)30
agree that organizational learning
processes are rooted in culture. DiBella and Nevis (1998)40
relate culture
and learning in organizations, saying that, “The nature of learning and the
way [learning in organizations] takes place are determined to a great extent
by the culture of the organization”. Consistent with the view of Cook and
78
Yanow (1996)30
, DiBella and Nevis (1998)40
view learning processes as
being embedded within an organization’s culture, and note that they are
relative, multiple, and complex. Thus, organizational culture provides the
context through which organizational learning occurs (Popper & Lipshitz,
2000)112
.
Josh Bersin (2008)77
in his research study identifies the key trends and
drivers of high-performing learning organizations. He identifies 18
predictors of high-impact learning and one of the biggest predictors of
high-impact learning is the learning culture. He defines an organization’s
learning culture as the whole set of processes, behaviors and investments
that support the individual’s and organization’s ability to learn.
Organizations that strongly value learning have excellent development
planning processes; they commit high levels of funding to learning &
development over many years, they fund programs for coaching and other
forms of informal training and they empower employees and organizations
to make mistakes and put in place formal processes to learn from these
mistakes — without necessarily punishing errors. Such openness to
learning drives organizational flexibility and adaptability and creates what
is called an enduring organization.
Hishamuddin bin Md.Som & Roland Yeow Theng Nam (2009)64
recommends the need to develop a culture which empowers individual
79
learning and knowledge sharing as they have direct benefits toward the
implementation of organizational learning and missions’ attainment.
Reza Najafbagy and Homa Doroudi (2010)120
try to present a model of
learning organization by identifying the characteristics that stimulate
learning. The model shows that creating a vision and organizational culture
based on learning and staff development will eventually lead towards
organizational learning.
There have been few explorations done by some researchers to study the
type of culture that facilitates learning. Slater and Narver (1995)130
identify
market oriented culture as a foundation to become a learning organization.
They identify that the critical challenge for any business is to create the
combination of culture and climate that maximizes organizational learning
on how to create superior customer value in dynamic and turbulent
markets, because the ability to learn faster than competitors is the only
source of sustainable competitive advantage. They further argue that
though market orientation provides strong norms for learning from
customers and competitors, it must be complimented by entrepreneurship
and appropriate organizational structures and processes for higher-order
learning (double-loop learning in Argyris, 19777; generative learning in
Peter M.Senge 1990111
) to occur. They summarize saying that cultural
values of a market orientation are necessary, but not sufficient, for the
creation of a learning organization. Richard Teare and Richard Dealtry
80
(1998)121
observe that many organizations try to build a learning
environment on top of a culture that is traditional, hierarchical and
competitive and then they wonder why their efforts fail. They conclude
saying that an organization that gives more importance to traditional values
are likely to become a learning organization. Shirley (1994)127
in his study
identifies that changing an organization into a learning organization, is
unlikely to take place in a “traditional”, heavily-hierarchical organization
in which the line structure is seen as the only vehicle for communication
and control. Rosemary Hill (1996)122
identifies certain aspects of a learning
organization which resembles the characteristics of adhocracy culture
identified by (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28
. She says that a learning
organization will be customer focused; will be highly creative and action-
oriented; allows people to make mistakes without apportioning blame; uses
detection and correction activities as a learning experience and as a
mechanism to transform the organization’s accepted values and practices;
provides and sustains a total environment (in terms of culture, recognition
and conditions) that positively encourages its people to seek learning and
self-development opportunities; finds a way of transferring and encoding
the individual learning of its people into a cohesive and beneficial whole.
Sonia Dasi, Fuan and Manuela (2003)132
explores that the differences
between national cultures are projected in the unequal attitudes regarding
work, in different languages, or in the different communication systems,
81
which in turn affect negatively the joint work and, logically, their own
process of organizational learning and the generation of knowledge as a
result. Ashok Jashpara (2003)14
explores that competitive or political
cultures in an organization are more likely to engender double-loop
learning than cooperative organizational cultures.
Thus it is clear from the literature that, what an organization learn as a
collective is preserved within the values, behaviors, and norms of an
organization (i.e., the organization’s culture) and within organizational
memory (Hedberg, 1981)61
- that is, organizational learning is influenced
by organizational culture.
Research gap
Although some theorists have related the notions of organizational learning
and organizational culture, such linkages have remained wholly
prepositional (e.g., Cook & Yanow, 1996)30
, leaving a surprising absence
of empirical research linking the two concepts (Michael S. Garmon,
2004)95
. The principal assumption that organizational learning and culture
leads to increased organizational performance have been examined by
Ashok Jashapara (2003)14
. “An important area for further research is to
understand how features of the organization’s culture facilitate learning
processes and whether these cultural features lead to superior learning
outcomes” was suggested by Thomas Garavan (1997)137
. Michael S.
Garmon (2004)95
suggests that future studies should also assess the direct
82
influence of an organization’s culture (as the independent variable) on
organizational learning.
Few explorations that have been done to study the impact of culture on
learning suggest that employees prefer to have adhocracy culture to
facilitate double-loop learning (Mohammad Rezaei Zadeh, 2009)97
. An
empirical study done by Fard, Hasan Danaee; Rostamy, Ali Asghar
Anvary; Taghiloo, Hamid (2009)49
to examine the relationship between
four types of culture (bureaucratic, competitive, participative and learning
organizational culture) and the degree of shaping the learning organization,
indicates that learning organizational culture has the highest influence on
learning. Though these studies proved that culture has an impact on
learning, there has not been any exploration to identify the level of learning
that is influenced by organizational culture. Hence this research has been
done to study how the different types of culture that exists in an
organization influence different levels of learning.
Affective Outcomes of Learning
While most theorists see the creation of a culture as a means of supporting
the learning organization, especially in its early stage, it can serve an
organization to achieve competitive advantage only when it stimulates the
required attitude and behavior among the employees to support the learning
that prevails in an organization. Such attitude and behavioral changes may
reflect in affective outcomes like job satisfaction, commitment or
83
identification. While job satisfaction deals with how much an individual is
happy with his job or organization, commitment deals with strong beliefs
in certain values and goals of an organization which need not be
organization specific. Whereas identification deals with how an individual
perceives himself in relation to the organization (Pratt, 1998)116
, which is
more specific to a particular organization. The more positive an individual
identifies himself with an organization, the more he will contribute towards
the achievement of organizational goals. Previous theories show that
identification is influenced by the employee’s perception about the
competitive position of an organization like market share and continuous
innovation, which is determined to a great extent by the rate of
organizational learning. Hence there is a need to test the relationship
between identification and learning. Some of the theorists have also
suggested a link between culture and identification (Ashforth and Mael,
1989)13
. The literature related to the concept of organizational
identification is discussed initially followed by the discussion of how
identification is influenced by culture and learning.
Organizational Identification: Who Am I in Relation to This
Organization?
Given that organizational identification has been defined as “a specific
form of social identification” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989)13
, Social Identity
84
Theory will initially be presented as a general framework to understand the
theoretical discussion of organizational identification.
Social Identity Theory
Because organizations are a specific form of social group, the use of social
identity theory has more recently been imported into the theoretical
organizational literature (Hogg & Terry, 2001)68
to explain how
organizations come to develop their own identity (or multiple identities),
and how the people working within an organization themselves come to
“identify” with that organization (Stets & Burke, 2000)133
. Hogg and Terry
(2000)67
cite Henri Tajfel’s (1972) introduction of social identity as “the
individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together
with some emotional and value significance to him of this group
membership”. Also citing the work of Tajfel (1981)136
, Pratt (1998)116
encapsulates the essence of social identity theory as follows:
Broadly defined, social identity theory (SIT) is about how social categories
serve as “a system of orientation which helps to create and define the
individual’s place in society” (Tajfel, 1981)136
. More specifically, SIT is
about how individuals incorporate knowledge of their group memberships
into conceptions of their self-identities. The literature on social identity
theory broadly emphasizes the assumption that the more favorably an
organization is viewed, the greater is the likelihood of identification.
Ashforth and Mael (1989)13
in their journal article, introduce social identity
85
theory into the body of theoretical organizational literature. They have
observed the following:
1) When an organization is more distinctive (i.e., the organization is
perceived to be unique in some way) as compared to other groups, the
potential for identification is enhanced (Ashforth & Mael, 198913
; Dutton,
Dukerich & Harquail, 199444
). Further, when individuals perceive an
organization’s identity as being increasingly attractive, self-esteem is
increased, and identification is more likely (Dutton et al., 1994)44
;
2) An increased awareness (salience) of other groups increases the
potential for identification (Ashforth and Mael, 1989)13
. For example, in
instances where inter-group competition has increased (and awareness of
other groups is exacerbated), identification strengthens in concert with the
increase in group cohesion (Pratt, 1998)116
;
3) Because social identification relates to an individual’s search for self-
esteem, the greater the prestige of an organization, the greater the potential
for identification (Ashforth and Mael, 1989)13
. When an individual
perceives an organization’s construed external image as being increasingly
more positive, the individual may be more inclined to identify with that
organization, in light of his or her perception that the organization is held
in higher esteem by external parties (Dutton et al., 199444
; Smidts, Pruyn &
van Riel, 2001131
); and
86
4) Although they are not necessarily required as antecedents of
identification, such things as commonality of goals, interaction, similarity,
and common history may enhance identification (Ashforth and Mael,
1989)13
.
Defining Organizational Identification
Some of the popular definitions of organizational identification are as
follows:
• Ashforth and Mael (1989)13
define organizational identification as, “the
perception of oneness with or belongingness to a group, involving
direct or vicarious experience of its successes and failures”.
• Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail (1994)44
define organizational
identification as, “the degree to which a member defines him or herself
by the same attributes that he or she believes define the organization”.
• Dukerich, Golden & Shortell (2002)42
“A member’s level of
organizational identification indicates the degree to which his or her
membership in an organization is tied to the content of his or her self-
concept”.
• Pratt (2000)115
defines organizational identification as, “an occurrence
in which an individual’s beliefs about his or her organization become
self-referential or self-defining”.
87
• Tajfel (1978)135
define organizational identification as, “the cognition
of membership of a group and the value and emotional significance
attached to this membership”.
Although there are many definitions of organizational identification, most
would concur that identification occurs when an individual perceives that
some aspects of his or her self-concept overlap with the characteristics of
an organization (Dukerich et al., 2002)42
. Consistent with social identity
theory, research has showed that an individual is more likely to identify
with a group when the composition of that group is increasingly consistent
with his or her self-concept, and when affiliation with a group enhances the
self-concept (Dutton et al., 1994)44
. In this respect, identification serves as
“a cognitive linking between the definition of the organization and the
definition of the self” (Dutton et al., 1994)44
, or as an “overlap” between an
organizational member’s self-identity and the “cognitive image” that the
individual has constructed with that organization (Scott & Lane, 2000)126
.
Scott and Lane (2000)126
have observed that: “to the extent that the group
category [or organization] is psychologically accepted as part of the self, an
individual is said to be identified with the group”. Dependent upon the
congruence of their personal experiences, values, and belief systems with
those of the collective organization, the people working within an
organization will come to identify with an organization with varying
degrees of intensity. Pratt’s (2000)115
emphasis on beliefs is very important
88
in the sense that the target of one’s identification occurs with beliefs as a
basis - people identify with other people, places and things (including
organizations), based on their beliefs about those people, places, or things.
Because individual belief structures are subjective, they may or may not be
accurate (Hogg, 1996)66
. Consequently, it is a person’s beliefs about a
person, place, or thing (or what is represented) that one sees as “self-
defining” or as “self-referential”. Moreover, if some event changes a
person’s beliefs about a person, place, or thing (or if the person, place, or
thing changes) then the state of identification may change as well (Pratt,
1998)116
.
Why Organizational Identification Matters?
As it relates to the contemporary business world, the importance of the
strength in which a firm’s people identify with an organization cannot be
understated. As today’s economy continues to grow progressively more
nonlinear, dynamic, and complex, organizations must change their internal
structures, systems, technologies, and processes to adapt effectively to
increasing degrees of environmental turbulence. Such adaptive
organizational change is likely to influence the intensity of identification
that an organization’s members have with the organization.
The capacity for identifying with the organization serves to provide
meaning for employees as they work within an organization, since
members’ personal identities and the identities of the organizations within
89
which they work are closely aligned (Scott & Lane, 2000)126
. Pratt
(2001)117
refers to the identification process as a sense-making endeavor to
the extent that, when individuals are successful in finding meaning through
the organizations in which they work, they begin to “identify” positively
with the organization. Members who more strongly identify with an
organization experience an increased “connectedness” with the
organization - they define themselves in terms of, and develop increased
loyalty to, the organization within which they are employed (Bhattacharya,
Rao & Glynn, 1995)21
. Moreover, the stronger one’s identification with an
organization, and the more that one views the organization as an extension
of oneself, the greater the potential for increased motivation, and the
greater the likelihood that the individual’s actions, behaviors, and decision-
making will be consistent with the interests of the organization (Albert,
Ashforth, & Dutton, 20002; Cheney, 1983
29). As the intensity of social
identification is increased, the greater will be the likelihood that individuals
will be more inclined to conform to the norms of a particular group (Pratt,
1998)116
, and the greater is the probability that individuals will be more
highly motivated towards accomplishing the goals and objectives of the
group (Ashforth & Mael, 198913
; Dutton et al., 199444
). Thus, the strength
of identification with an organization has been linked with individual
propensity toward cooperative organizational behaviors, to an increased
level of motivation to fulfill an organization’s needs, and to decreases in
90
employee turnover (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 2001)144
. In contrast,
the failure of individuals to identify with an organization may lead to
indifference, to reduced trust, and to reductions in their support to the
organization, inducing organizational members to more actively focus
upon and pursue personal needs (Scott & Lane, 2000)126
. The process of
disidentification, in which an individual chooses to actively distance him-
or-herself from the organization (Dukerich, Kramer, & Parks, 1998)43
, may
result in an individual’s attempts to physically separate from the
organization (Lee, 197182
; Scott & Lane, 2000126
). At its extreme,
disidentification may result in negative behaviors that are purposefully
intended to undermine or even discredit an organization (Scott & Lane,
2000)126
. Much of the extant research performed on the topic of
organizational identification has concluded that there are relationships
between organizational identification and prestige, communications, and
perceived worker involvement (Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001)131
.
Additionally, organizational identification has been correlated with
organizational work teams (Hennessy & West, 1999)63
, organizational
commitment and morale (Schrodt, 2002)125
, and “emotional exhaustion”
(Grice, Jones, & Paulsen, 2002)54
. Aamir and Finian (2010)1 in their study
indicates that organizational identification can play a pivotal role in
enhancing organizational effectiveness.
91
Why do people identify with organizations?
Pratt (1998)116
contends that the increased uncertainty associated with
today’s business environment may prompt the members of an organization
to look to the organization within which they work to help them make
sense of the complex world in which they live, and to find purpose and
meaning in their lives. Individuals may also be primarily motivated to
identify with organizations to the extent that they wish to fulfill needs
relating to safety, affiliation, and self-enhancement (Pratt, 1998)116
.
Ashforth and Mael (1989)13
have suggested that threats from external
groups may increase identification with one’s own group. For example, in
periods of hyper-competition, organizational members become increasingly
more aware of other competing organizations. To the extent that an
organization’s members feel threatened by other organizations (out-
groups), member identification may be strengthened, as individuals look to
their organization as a safe haven.
Organizational Learning and Organizational Identification
Organizational identification is not an unambiguous and stable concept.
The dynamic and fluid nature of identification suggests that the strength of
an individual’s identification with an organization may also change over
time (Schrodt, 2002)125
. Identification, therefore, is a conceptually
dynamic, fluid and perhaps characteristically elusive event that is subject to
change with the advent of new experiences (Bartel, 2001)16
. Many theorists
92
have reported that the strength of organizational identification is apt to
change with changes that occur in organizational learning.
Michael S. Garmon (2004)95
suggests that the learning opportunities
provided to the employees in an organization enhances their sense of
belongingness (identification) towards that organization. When an
organization is perceived as being prestigious in providing unique learning
opportunities, the organizational members “may feel proud of being part of
a well-respected company, as it strengthens their feelings of self-worth to
‘bask in reflected glory” (Smidts et al., 2001)131
. Thus, Smidts concluded
that individuals are apt to more strongly identify with an organization to
the extent that the organization has greater visibility and prestige in terms
of organizational learning. Ashforth and Mael (1989)13
relate self-esteem to
organizational identification. When members of an organization perceive
organizational learning as increasingly attractive and held in higher esteem
by external parties, they will be likely to identify more strongly with that
organization.
Research Gap
Like organizational learning, the concept of organizational identification
has garnered extensive attention in the theoretical literature, and yet
relatively few empirical studies relating to identification have been
published (Dukerich et al., 2002)42
. Moreover there appears to be only one
research study (Aamir and Finian, 2010)1 that links organizational learning
93
and organizational identification. Aamir and Finian (2010)1 in their study
examines the impact of learning goal orientation on organizational
identification. The findings reveal that learning goal orientation mediates
the effects of organizational identification on the three outcome variables,
namely job performance, feedback seeking and error communication. But
there has been no exploration done so far to analyze how different levels of
learning influence the strength of organizational identification. Hence this
research tends to study the impact of different levels of learning on
organizational identification.
Organizational Culture and Organizational Identification
The fundamental concept underlying social identity theory is that
individuals cognitively assess their own personal attributes (values, beliefs,
perceptions), and consequently develop self-constructs (or self-identities).
Such self-constructs continue to evolve and change in concert with changes
in, and relationships with, the environment. Individuals assign themselves
into groups with which they most closely define themselves, or those
groups with which they “identify” (Hogg & Terry, 2001)68
. Based on
perceived similarities or dissimilarities with such individuals or groups,
individuals come to choose to associate or disassociate with them (Gioia,
1998)53
. Individuals when they perceive their values and beliefs to be
common with the culture of the organization, their potential for
94
identification are enhanced (Ashforth and Mael, 1989)13
. Thus culture has
been conceptually found to influence identification.
Research Gap
There have been some explorations done to suggest that there exists a
relationship between culture and identification, but there is no evidence to
test the direct impact of culture on identification. Notably, only few
research studies (Schrodt, 2002125
and Michael S. Garmon, 200495
) have
attempted to link organizational culture to the strength of organizational
identification. Hence this research tends to study the influence of different
types of culture on identification.
Culture, Learning and Organizational Identification
The notions of organizational learning, organizational identification, and
organizational culture are widely recognized in the literature of
management. However, there have been relatively few empirical studies
relating these concepts. Rosemary Hill (1996)122
in her model of the
learning process identifies that if the process inputs like values and
attitudes (culture) are addressed correctly, then probably the learning
process will produce outputs like attitude and behavioral change that is
required for a learning organization. This suggests a synergetic relationship
between learning, culture and identification.
95
Research Gap
Only one research (Michael S. Garmon, 2004)95
has been done to show that
there exists an interrelationship between learning, culture and
identification. But there has not been any such effort to study the
interaction effect of learning and culture on identification. Hence this
research tends to study the influence of learning and culture together on
identification.
Conclusion
Chapter 3 has provided the theoretical background relating to the notions
of organizational learning, organizational culture and organizational
identification. Chapter 4 will discuss the research design and
methodologies used in carrying out the study.