7
63 Introduction Being a trainee gestalt psychotherapist for seven years, I have sensed a strong similarity between the concepts and practice of the learning organisation and gestalt therapy. What I have started to understand as I experi- ence and learn about the learning organisa- tion is not only the connection between these two ideas and practices, but also the contribu- tions gestalt theory and practice can make to the learning organisation. In this paper, I will be making connections between these ideas and practices and my managerial learning experience. This, I hope, will contribute towards enriching the concepts of the learning organisation. Learning: the cognitive model and gestalt way The ideas of both the learning organisation and gestalt theory touch on the concept of learning. It is important for the author to explore the concept of learning, because there is a fundamental difference in defining learn- ing. As we all experience in this world, learn- ing cannot happen in a vacuum. Learning happens in relation to an environment. The mainstream argument is that, from one aspect, the learning happens on the cognitive level, the “mental act”. Revan’s (1982) model of determiningly rational learning (see Figure 1) follows the line of a cognitive and rational method of learning. His cycle diagram of the determiningly rational model starts with observation, experiment, audit and review. One will learn cognitively how to go about resolving the identified problems and issues (Raelin, 1997). But, what happens to the irrational, emotional and spiritual dimensions of learning? Max Weber argues that, in a bureaucratic organisation, one simply cannot only address the rational aspect of bureaucracy but also must address the irrationality of the organisa- tion (Albrow, 1992). Vince and Martin (1993) have addressed emotionally promoting learning (see Figure 2), and Kolb (1984) has addressed integrative experiential learning (see Figure 3) to complement Revan’s model. What I have found in Vince and Martin’s emotionally promoting learning cycle, on the one hand, is that the starting point is that of anxiety. There seem to be no other emotions that could be taken into account. If a staff The Learning Organization Volume 6 · Number 2 · 1999 · pp. 63–69 © MCB University Press · ISSN 0969-6474 Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation Hideo T. Ikehara The author Hideo T. Ikehara is at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Keywords Gestalt psychology, Learning, Learning organizations Abstract Concepts about the learning organisation have become popular ideas for companies and organisations alike to promote the learning process within them. The practice has, however, received a mixed reception somewhere between enthusiasm and scepticism. This is because the ideas themselves have been developed from different interpretations of the concept. There is, however, strong commitment from various individuals in organisations who make an attempt to explore and use the concepts of the learning organisation. This paper will introduce and explore the concept and practice of gestalt therapy. The article explores the similarity between the concepts and practice of the learning organisation, and gestalt therapy, such as concepts of learning, holism, existential phenome- nology, mental models, and team learning, with examples from his practice. The author concludes with his integrative model and believes that this contribution may further improve the understanding of the concepts of the learning organisation.

Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

  • Upload
    hideo-t

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

63

Introduction

Being a trainee gestalt psychotherapist forseven years, I have sensed a strong similaritybetween the concepts and practice of thelearning organisation and gestalt therapy.What I have started to understand as I experi-ence and learn about the learning organisa-tion is not only the connection between thesetwo ideas and practices, but also the contribu-tions gestalt theory and practice can make tothe learning organisation. In this paper, I willbe making connections between these ideasand practices and my managerial learningexperience. This, I hope, will contributetowards enriching the concepts of the learningorganisation.

Learning: the cognitive model andgestalt way

The ideas of both the learning organisationand gestalt theory touch on the concept oflearning. It is important for the author toexplore the concept of learning, because thereis a fundamental difference in defining learn-ing. As we all experience in this world, learn-ing cannot happen in a vacuum. Learninghappens in relation to an environment. Themainstream argument is that, from oneaspect, the learning happens on the cognitivelevel, the “mental act”. Revan’s (1982) modelof determiningly rational learning (see Figure1) follows the line of a cognitive and rationalmethod of learning. His cycle diagram of thedeterminingly rational model starts withobservation, experiment, audit and review.One will learn cognitively how to go aboutresolving the identified problems and issues(Raelin, 1997). But, what happens to theirrational, emotional and spiritual dimensionsof learning?

Max Weber argues that, in a bureaucraticorganisation, one simply cannot only addressthe rational aspect of bureaucracy but alsomust address the irrationality of the organisa-tion (Albrow, 1992). Vince and Martin(1993) have addressed emotionally promotinglearning (see Figure 2), and Kolb (1984) hasaddressed integrative experiential learning(see Figure 3) to complement Revan’s model.

What I have found in Vince and Martin’semotionally promoting learning cycle, on theone hand, is that the starting point is that ofanxiety. There seem to be no other emotionsthat could be taken into account. If a staff

The Learning OrganizationVolume 6 · Number 2 · 1999 · pp. 63–69© MCB University Press · ISSN 0969-6474

Implications of gestalttheory and practice for the learningorganisation

Hideo T. Ikehara

The authorHideo T. Ikehara is at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

KeywordsGestalt psychology, Learning, Learning organizations

AbstractConcepts about the learning organisation have becomepopular ideas for companies and organisations alike topromote the learning process within them. The practicehas, however, received a mixed reception somewherebetween enthusiasm and scepticism. This is because theideas themselves have been developed from differentinterpretations of the concept. There is, however, strongcommitment from various individuals in organisations whomake an attempt to explore and use the concepts of thelearning organisation. This paper will introduce andexplore the concept and practice of gestalt therapy. Thearticle explores the similarity between the concepts andpractice of the learning organisation, and gestalt therapy,such as concepts of learning, holism, existential phenome-nology, mental models, and team learning, with examplesfrom his practice. The author concludes with his integrativemodel and believes that this contribution may furtherimprove the understanding of the concepts of the learningorganisation.

Page 2: Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

member felt confused rather than anxiousabout certain issues, I am not sure whetherthat particular staff member would feel uncertain and would take a risk. What I struggle with in this cycle is that it is notintegrative of the cognitive, physical andspiritual dimensions of learning. On theanother hand, Kolb’s experiential learningcycle, which originated from Lewin’s (1951)and Dewey’s (1984) 1938 model of experien-tial learning, attempts to be “a holistic inte-grative perspective on learning that combinesexperience, perception, cognition and behav-iour” (Kolb, 1984). Although this modelclaims to be integrative, I have found thatemotions are absent from this reflective learn-ing experience.

Similarly gestalt theory and practiceattempts to address the polar opposite of

rationality as well as the “hidden” and oftenforgotten dimensions of learning. What I havefound in gestalt theory is that the gestalt cycleof experience (see Figure 4) does take intoaccount the holistic, organismic and integra-tive nature of human learning experience (seeFigure 5 for my adaptation of a gestalt cycle ofexperience with learning process).

As you can see in Figure 5, a cycle of learn-ing experience starts at the point of sensation,then awareness, mobilisation, action, contact,satisfaction and, finally, withdrawal. Forexample, a client with mental health difficul-ties with whom I am familiar often felt numbin his head, because he felt angry and couldnot express himself. So, by addressing thesensation of anger, he became aware of hisfeeling and mobilised the energy of his angerto examine what was behind it. Soon, when hefound out that he was feeling hurt by not

64

Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

Hideo T. Ikehara

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 · Number 2 · 1999 · 63–69

NEWACTION

REFLECTIONAND ANALYSIS

EXPERIMENT

REFLECTION...DECISION TOEXPERIMENT

EXPERIENCE/ACTIVITIES/EVENTS

Figure 1 Revan’s determinedly rational learning cycle

TESTING

ABSTRACTION

REFLECTION

EXPERIENCE

Figure 3 Kolb’s integrative experiential learning

ACTION(EXPERIMENT, RISK

AVOIDANCE)

SATISFACTION(COMPLETION,UNDERSTANDING,LEARNING)

WITHDRAWAL(AUDIT,REFLECTION,REVIEW)

MOBILISATION(ENERGY,

EXCITEMENT)

AWARENESS(HYPOTHESIS, QUERY,UNCERTAINTY) SENSATION (EMOTION, NEEDS, OBSERVATION)

CONTACT (FULL CONTACTFUL MEETING, EXPERIENCE)

Figure 5 Cycle of learning experience

CONTACT

ACTION

MOBILISATION

AWARENESS

SATISFACTION

WITHDRAWAL

SENSATION

Figure 4 Gestalt cycle of experience

1. ANXIETY

2. UNCERTAINTY

3. RISK4. STRUGGLE

5. INSIGHT OR AUTHORITY

Figure 2 Vince and Martin’s emotionally promotinglearning

Page 3: Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

being listened to by other staff members, hishead became less numb. Later, he gave mefeedback saying that he had learned how toexpress his anger constructively. Learningcannot, therefore, only happen simply on acognitive level but also happens on emotionaland spiritual levels. I will, later, propose in thepractice section, how my adaptation of thegestalt cycle of learning experience can facili-tate learning in an holistic and integrative wayin the organisational setting.

The learning organisation

The spirit of the learning organisation isfounded on the learning processes of theindividuals in the organisation. However, itdoes not necessarily mean that it will auto-matically lead to organisational learning. Alearning organisation exists when the individ-uals in the organisation continually learn notonly to realise efficiency in the work role butalso to develop as an individual and be cre-ative in the organisation as it pursues itsunknown future. Pedler et al. (1991) havedefined the learning organisation as: “anorganisation that is continually expanding itscapacity to create its future”. It is not enoughonly to learn to survive; one must alsoenhance one’s capacity to create. Senge callsthis “generative learning”. Argyris and Schon(1996) believe that “organisations can onlylearn through the agency of individual members”. Through deutero-learning, itsmembers learn how to reflect on and enquireinto previous events of organisational learningor failure to learn (Bateson, 1973; Pedler etal., 1991).

In the spirit of an holistic approach, Bateson’s deutero-learning (1973) andArgyris and Schon’s single loop and doubleloop feedback and learning (Argyris andSchon, 1974; 1978; Argyris, 1982), twodistinctive learning processes have beenapplied to organisations. The single looplearning (Bateson’s O-I: error detection andcorrection) happens when an individual’saction is not achieving the goal, and he/shelearns how to readjust his/her action toincrease the probability of achieving it. Forexample, some staff members found it diffi-cult to fill in a “care plan” and learned how tofill it in by asking instructions from the seniorstaff members.

The double loop learning (O-II: learningthat changes the current way of operating and

which involves deeper inquiry) happens whenan individual is able to go out of the frame-work of his/her meaning making, goal seekingand come up with a new way of solving aparticular problem or issue. For example, staffmembers sometimes had problems motivatingthemselves to care for their clients, becausethey felt that these clients did not “progress”,becoming more responsible for themselves.When we, as a staff team, came together tothink about why that was, rather than lookingat how we structured their lives (single looplearning), we explored how we felt powerless,not being able to do things for these clients.Then, suddenly, we came up with a new wayof working by listening to how these clientsfelt in their current situations (double looplearning). Formal counselling is now beingoffered. This, in turn, made the clients domore for themselves. This, also, illustrates thepoint Schon(1983) and Senge (1990) empha-sise – that individual learning can benefit theorganisation when staff members participateas a whole team, positively affecting the learn-ing processes and outcomes.

The danger of the learning process in thelearning organisation is that it tends to give animpression that learning is the end rather thanthe means to the learning organisation.Hawkins (1994) warns us that by focusingintensively on the learning itself in the organi-sation, the new perspective may be seen as atool rather than as a part of a relationshipprocess. It was evident at the beginning of myarrival at a particular therapeutic rehabilita-tion unit, for example, that learning was beingoffered without much consideration as to whythe staff members needed such training. Iagree with Hawkins in that “its value is depen-dent on where your learning is taking you …Learning to be more efficient does not neces-sarily lead to you becoming more effective”(Hawkins, 1994). It is, I believe, how theorganisation is learning in relation to theenvironment that needs to be focused on, andthis can only be done through dialogue.

Theory: holism, existentialphenomenology and mental models

It is important to examine how gestalt theorycan facilitate this dialogue. Gestalt therapy isbased on gestalt theory. Gestalt means, inGerman, “whole”, “configuration” and “figure/ground” (Perls et al., 1990).Gestaltists see a human as an integrated and

65

Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

Hideo T. Ikehara

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 · Number 2 · 1999 · 63–69

Page 4: Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

dynamic whole person/organism who config-ures the dominant need at a particularmoment and attempts to meet this need bycontacting the environment with some sensori-motor behaviour: “The contact isorganised by the figure of interest against theground of the organism/ environment field”(Yontef, 1993). When the need is met, thegestalt it organised becomes complete. If not,the organism is not freed from forming a newfigure/need, and considers the organism/environment field to be disturbed whichbecomes “unfinished business” (Clarksonand Mackewn, 1993; Perls et al., 1990).

Clients may feel angry at a staff memberfor being treated like children. They cannotthink of a “rational” and “constructive” wayof dealing with their feelings unless thesefeelings are explored. If they are notaddressed, their feeling of anger and what isbehind their anger will continue to be “unfinished business” and becomes “figural”in their delusion and behaviour. By address-ing their feelings, they may feel they have beenheard and be able to confront, perhaps, thatstaff member in a constructive way. Onecannot simply focus on the cognitive level,when clients or staff members have personalor professional “unfinished business” emo-tionally. This illustrates how important it is toaddress the issue in an holistic way or else theclient will continue to feel angry and frustrat-ed and no learning will occur.

Although many authors writing about thelearning organisation see the human as awhole person, they have focused more on thecognitive level of learning than on the “whole”person level (Revans, 1982). By this I meanthat the “holistic” way may be emphasised asa philosophical statement but, when it comesto practice, it tends to veer towards only oneaspect of the whole. Lewin (1951) states thatthere is nothing more practical than a goodtheory. In this spirit, Senge (1990) attemptedto provide through his book, The Fifth Disci-pline, this indivisible wholeness by emphasis-ing core disciplines: system thinking, personalmastery, mental models, building sharedvision and team learning. He has succeeded toa great degree in that personal mastery incor-porates the emotional and the spiritual. Senge(1990) quotes from Inamori’s speech:

Tapping the potential of people, Inamoribelieves, will require new understanding of the“subconscious mind”, “willpower” and “actionof the heart” … sincere desire to serve theworld.

What gestalt theory describes is that sense ofwholeness: “The whole is greater than thesum of its parts” (Clarkson, 1989; Clarksonand Mackewn, 1993). This means thatgestaltists do not simply focus on cognition,but also on emotional, physical and spirituallevels. Schumacher (1973) once said “thinkglobally and act locally”. This statement, forme, interrelates the cognitive, emotional,physical and spiritual dimension of life-longlearning.

Learning organisations need to exploreother parts of holism: e.g. Bateson (1973) indeutero-learning, Senge (1990) in personalmastery and Hawkins (1994) in the spiritualdimension. For example, in a case I am famil-iar with, after an initial consultation, staffmembers were exploring the practice of coun-selling skills, because they felt that it could beone of the ways in which they could addressthe client’s emotional, physical and spiritualneeds. Soon, however, they found how thatexploration could also influence them person-ally, and they ended up exploring their ownemotional, physical and spiritual needs andinquiry. This exploratory awareness has alsoinfluenced how staff members listen to andquestion their clients – “phenomenologicalinquiry”. I will explain this concept of phe-nomenological inquiry through the theory ofexistential phenomenology and the practice ofphenomenological inquiry.

In gestalt theory, as part of existentialphenomenology, every individual has differ-ent way of “being-in-this-world”. Existentialphenomenology is so called because it focuseson “the implications of issues for the verymeaning of existence” (Spinelli, 1989, p. xi).A client who had been depressed told me thatif I was not there for him, simply concentrat-ing on the stage of his grieving cycle, he wouldhave been contemplating suicide. What thisclient appreciated the most was that he felt Iwas there for him wherever he was at that timein his being-in-the-world. Everyone interpretstheir world subjectively and differently (Ikehara, 1995). However, people go throughlife, even living at the same time and in thesame place, as the research into twins (Atkinson et al., 1983) suggests, interpretingsituations subjectively and differently.

Senge calls this “the mental model”.Everyone has their own assumptions, mean-ings and values about the world and abouttheir existence (Senge, 1990). “These are aspowerful in organisations as they are in people

66

Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

Hideo T. Ikehara

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 · Number 2 · 1999 · 63–69

Page 5: Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

because they often prevent action being takenfor the benefit of the organisation as it cutsacross deeply held organisational mentalmodels” (Cook et al., 1997). When we firstintroduced the concept of “therapeutic skills”into the practice of rehabilitation work at aparticular unit, not surprisingly, the staffmembers were resistant and confused becauseof its unfamiliarity. This, in turn, createdtemporary confusion for staff members abouthow therapeutic skills could be implementedin the unit. With such uniqueness and somany differences, how does an organisationfacilitate individuals to work together toachieve a goal?

Practice: phenomenological inquiry andteam learning

In gestalt practice, phenomenological inquiryis used as a part of methodology to bracketone’s own assumptions and values to facilitatethe client’s exploration of their being-in-the-world (Spinelli, 1989; Yontef, 1993). Sengetalks about team learning in which all theindividuals in the organisation suspend theirindividual assumptions or mental model andstart to think together. Dialogue is, in histerms, different from discussion, and consistsof learning how to recognise the patterns ofbehaviour that inhibit learning, surfacingthese, and dealing with them to the benefit ofthe team: “Team learning is vital because it isteams, not individuals, that have now becomethe basic unit within the corporation” (Cooket al., 1997; Senge, 1990). When staff mem-bers were confused about what it meant towork therapeutically, I facilitated the groupthrough dialogue to explore this particularissue. We explored it initially for every individ-ual and then we explored the commonality ofthe term for the staff team as a whole. Fromthis dialogue, a mission statement was createdwhich was owned by everyone in the team.Although there was still some confusionwithin the term, everyone now had a basicunderstanding of the term and its practicalimplications.

The cycle of learning experience and thecycle of determiningly rational learning

What I found useful and helpful while I wasfacilitating this piece of work was that I hadadapted the version of Revan et al.’s andKolb’s learning cycles and the gestalt cycle of

experience. I felt that by adapting these, I wasable to encompass the holistic nature of beinghuman, and I have now arrived at a proposedadaptation of “the learning experience cycle”.I would like to briefly explain what each partof the cycle means with examples from a realclinical unit.

The cycle starts at sensation. People start tofeel something. It could be a need to eat orfeeling of frustration after observation. A staffmember, for instance, is confused about whatit means to work therapeutically. Soon, thefeeling of confusion becomes “figural” to hisconsciousness and he becomes aware of hisfeeling of confusion. He, then, attempts todiscuss with other colleagues and mobilise hisenergy to clarify his confusion. His action ishis agreement with other staff members toexplore the meaning of the term, “therapeuticwork” in a staff-development slot. This leadshim to a contactful meeting in which he comesto understand what it means for him. Thebonus is that some other staff members admitto feeling confused as well, and they come tosome common understanding. He feels satis-fied and withdraws, reflecting on what he haslearned, and organises a review date to revisit.People will not necessarily go through eachpart of the cycle in this order. People may skipa part of the cycle out of fear, such as fear ofreprisal/ rejection by significant others. Never-theless, people will learn through experienceand reflection. Where I have found this cyclevery useful is that it takes into account notonly the cognitive, emotional, physical andspiritual level of being a “whole” human butalso “the team learning” in the unit.

Conclusion

The concepts of the learning organisationhave been popularised and developed byindividuals who feel that learning processesneed to be present in organisations. In this isthe hope that the organisation will benefitfrom the learning of individuals who, in turn,will contribute not only to the survival of theorganisation but also will enhance its capacityto create the future of the organisation as awhole. This led contributors, such as Argyrisand Schon, Revans, and Senge, to focus onwhat learning is, and how learning happens inthe organisation. Some contributors, such asCook, Staniforth, and Stewart and Hawkins,warn organisations that learning is beneficial,but do not to see learning as an end.

67

Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

Hideo T. Ikehara

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 · Number 2 · 1999 · 63–69

Page 6: Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

At first glance, these two perspectives mayseem far removed from each other – one istherapeutic practice and the other is organisational practice. However, when onemakes a closer examination, it has been anexciting journey for me to find out how thesedisciplines are closely interrelated with oneanother. The concepts and the practice of thelearning organisation are interconnected withgestalt theory and practice in areas such asholism, relation to the environment, existen-tial phenomenology, phenomenologicalinquiry and mental models. I have learnedthat gestalt theory and practice can contributetowards integrating the concepts of the learn-ing organisation (especially holism) intopractice. It has especially been very useful toadapt different learning cycles and the gestaltcycle of experience to make sense of howlearning occurs in my unit. In exploringgestalt theory and practice in my practice, itsimplications for the concepts and the practiceof the learning organisation can represent anenhancing and enriching learning experience.

References

Albrow, M. (1992), “Sine ira et studio – or do organizations have feelings?”, OrganizationStudies, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 313-29.

Argyris, C. (1982), Reasoning, Learning and Action, Jossey-Bass, London.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1974), Theory in Practice:Increasing Professional Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass,London.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1978), Organisational Learn-ing: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley,Harlow.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1996), Organisational Learn-ing II: Theory, Method and Practice, Addison Wesley.

Atkinson, R.L., Atkinson, R.C. and Hilgard, E.R. (1983),Introduction to Psychology, Harcourt BraceJovanovich, New York, NY.

Bateson, G. (1973), Steps to an Ecology of Mind, London,Palladin.

Clarkson, P. (1989), Gestalt Counselling in Action, Sage,London.

Clarkson, P. and Mackewn, J. (1993), Fritz Perls, Sage,London.

Cook, J.A., Staniforth, D. and Stewart, J. (Eds) (1997), TheLearning Organisation in the Public Services, Gower,Hampshire.

Dewey, J. (1984), “Experience and nature”, in Kolb, D.A.(Ed.), Experiential Learning: Experience as TheSource of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hawkins, P. (1991), “The spiritual dimension of thelearning organisation”, Management Education andDevelopment, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 172-87.

Hawkins, P. (1994), “Taking stock and facing the chal-lenge”, Management Learning, Vol. 25 No.1, pp. 71-82.

Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as theSource of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper,New York, NY.

Pedler, M., Boydell, T. and Burgoyne, J. (1991), The Learning Company: A Strategy for SustainableDevelopment, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.

Perls, F., Hefferline, R.F. and Goodman, P. (1990), GestaltTherapy: Excitement and Growth in the HumanPersonality, Souvenir Press, London.

Raelin, J.A. (1997), “Action learning and action science:are they different?”, Organizational Dynamics,Summer, Vol. 26 No. 1.

Revans, R. (1982), The Origins and Growth of ActionLearning, Chartwell-Bratt, Kent.

Schon, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, BasicBooks, New York, NY.

Schumacher, E.F. (1973), Small is Beautiful: Economics as ifPeople Mattered, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art andPractice of the Learning Organisation, Doubleday,New York, NY.

Spinelli, E. (1989), An Introduction to PhenomenologicalPsychology, Sage, London.

Vince, R. and Martin, L. (1993), “Inside action learning: thepsychology and the politics of the action learningmodel”, Education and Development, Vol. 24 No. 3,pp. 205-15.

Yontef, G.M. (1993), Awareness, Dialogue and Process,The Gestalt Journal Press, New York, NY.

Further reading

Barrett, F.J. (1995), “Creating appreciative learningcultures”, Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, Vol. 24 No. 2.

Boud, D. and Walker, D. (1993), “Barriers to reflection onexperience”, in Boud, D., Cohen and Walker, D.(Eds), Using Experience for Learning, Open University, Milton Keynes.

Buckler, B. (1996), “A learning process model to achievecontinuous improvement and innovation”, TheLearning Organization, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 31-9.

Burgoyne, J.G. (1994), “Managing by learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 25 No. 1.

Daudelin, M.W. (1996), “Learning from experiencethrough reflection”, Organizational Dynamics,Winter, Vol. 24 No. 3.

Dodgson, M. (1993), “Organizational learning: a review ofsome literatures”, Organizational Studies, Vol.14No. 3, pp. 375-94.

Garavan, T. (1997), “The learning organization: a reviewand evaluation”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 4No. 1, pp. 18-29.

68

Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

Hideo T. Ikehara

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 · Number 2 · 1999 · 63–69

Page 7: Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

69

Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organisation

Hideo T. Ikehara

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 · Number 2 · 1999 · 63–69

Garratt, B. (1981), The Learning Organisation, Fontana,London.

Handy, C. (1992), Managing the Dream: The LearningOrganization, Gemini Consulting, London.

Henderson, S. (1997), “Black swans don’t fly double loops: the limits of the learning organization?”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 99-105.

Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1989), The Manual of LearningOpportunities, Honey, Maidenhead.

Ikehara, H. (1995), “Creative resolution: alternativephilosophical assumption to current psychiatricnursing model”, The Therapist, Autumn, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 38-41.

Inamori, K. (1990), “The perfect company: goal for productivity”, speech given at Case Western ReserveUniversity, in Senge, P.M. (Ed.), The Fifth Discipline:The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation,Doubleday, New York, NY.

Mulligan, J. (1993), “Activating internal processes inexperiential learning”, in Boud, D., Cohen and

Walker, D. (Eds), Using Experience for Learning,Open University, Milton Keynes.

Nevis, E.C. (1987), Organisational Consulting: A GestaltApproach, Gestalt Institute of Cleveland, Cleveland,OH.

Pearn, M., Roderick, C. and Mulrooney, C. (Eds)(1995),Learning Organizations in Practice, McGraw-Hill,Maidenhead.

Peters, T. and Austin, N. (1986), A Passion for Excellence,Fontana/Collins, London.

Reason, P. (1988), Human Inquiry in Action – Developments in New Paradigm Research, Sage,London.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts C., Ross, R. and Smith, B.(1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, NicholasBrealey Publishing, London.

Staniforth, D. (1997), “The development of the theory ofthe learning organization”, in Cook, J.A., Staniforth,D. and Stewart, J. (Eds), The Learning Organisationin the Public Services, Gower, Hampshire.

Weinstein, K. (1995), Action Learning: A Journey inDiscovery and Development, Harper Collins, Glasgow.