Learning organizations in 2016 : theory versus practice

(1)

Learning Organizations

in 2016

Theory versus Practice

Written by Sanne van Korlaar (10824065) Universiteit van Amsterdam

(2)

For Koen whose love and wisdom supports me in my own learning of who I am and want to be. For our daughter Fiene who we welcomed into this world just a few weeks ago.

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Sanne van Korlaar (Zweers) who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is

(3)

Foreword

Learning energizes me. In my work and as a person. My fascination of the concept of individuals forming ever changing organizations and the role of learning within this context, took a hold of me during my work at Nyenrode Business Universiteit (Nyenrode). This is where I was introduced to concepts such as learning, development, culture, leadership and change. I experienced the challenges people and organizations face in dealing with these concepts first hand and became captivated by them. I decided to take on the Executive Pre-Master program at the Open Universiteit to deepen my knowledge on these subjects next to my work. I desperately wanted to know more! After finishing the renovations of our first home, I enrolled in the Executive Program in Management Studies at the Universiteit of Amsterdam whilst working at ICM Opleidingen & trainingen (ICM).

Influenced by the teachings of prof. dr. André Wierdsma (author of several books including ‘Op weg

naar een lerende organisatie: over het leren en opleiden van organisaties’) one of the concepts

profoundly integrated in the discourse at Nyenrode was the ‘learning organization’. To my surprise I found ICM also actively referring to itself as being a learning organization. This couldn’t be a coincidence! My studies gave me the perfect opportunity to take a deep dive into the concept of the learning organization. Something I, as a self-proclaimed generalist, had never done before. I couldn’t imagine a better excuse to finally gain in-depth knowledge about a topic that so truly had my interest.

My aim in writing this thesis has not only been to satisfy my own curiosity, but also my desire to contribute to our business society by research which makes valuable insights more tangible and to evoke positive energy in organizations and the people who are these organizations. I hope you’ll find this the case when reading through the thesis laying before you. To me personally studying, researching and writing has been a great learning safari which I will to continue after graduation.

As I experienced during my work and studies, people learn from and with each other. Not only with their head, but also with their heart and hands. I found it a delight to study again – especially as I could apply my new knowledge directly in practice - and make new friends who share my passions. Thank you Harm, Thais, Aaron, Asha, Maarten, Mustafa and Sebastian for the great time we spent and will spend together!

If you have any questions or ideas, please feel free to contact me.

Sanne van Korlaar

sanne.vankorlaar@gmail.com

(4)

Abstract

The present study seeks answers to WHY people strive to build learning organizations and HOW they approach this concept within their organizations. Interviews with leaders and major decision makers were conducted at eight Dutch based organizations all referred to as (by themselves or others) learning organizations. Conclusions are drawn by comparing existing theories and today’s practice. New topics in the field of the learning organization are suggested, including customer centricity, the use of existing methods and its influence on shared language and meaning. Proposed is a framework integrating why a learning approach is taken and how it is implemented. The framework reflects the way the concept of the learning organizations is viewed and approached within organizations: as a concept for changing organizational culture, generating a practice field or realizing the full potential of an organization. It is concluded that although the concept of a learning organization is too broad to truly validate academically, it can provide great value for practice.

(5)

(6)

1 Introduction

Wandering through the streets of Utrecht makes one realize how important learning is to organizations. The bankruptcies of well-known retail chains including Vroom & Dreesman, Scapino, Perry Sport, Manfield, Dolcis, and Invito the last few weeks make it painfully visible in every Dutch shopping center; those who cannot adapt will not survive. Even well-established organizations need to continuously improve themselves and step up to new challenges as they face changes in customer demands and technology. Those who do are in the epicenter of interest; we hear of the success stories and unforeseen growth of Action, Zara and Zalando. For decades our world of interdependency and change has inspired to search for new ways to develop organizations capable of continuous adaptation and improvement (Goh & Richards, 1997). No wonder the learning organization has captured the imagination of practitioners and researchers alike.

Also I was grasped by the conceptual framework of the learning organization as sketched by Senge in his book ‘The Fifth Discipline’ (1990). Where I found his work highly inspirational and almost poetic in its nature, I was one of many who found it hard to truly apply his ideas in practice (Bui & Baruch, 2010). I found myself pondering on questions such as: What is gained by being a learning organization for people and organizations? What does a learning organization do differently than other organizations? These and similar thoughts are represented by the main research questions of this thesis: WHY do people strive to build learning organizations and HOW do they do it?

Though much has been written – mostly conceptually - on the learning organization, tangible evidence and concrete examples of practices are difficult to find. It was virtually impossible for me to discover concrete answers to my questions in existing literature. Easterby-Smith (1997) and Rebelo and Gomes (2008) drew similar conclusions, referring to a need for more qualitative field work on (becoming) learning organizations and organizational factors that promote and facilitate learning in and by each organization. As the concept of the learning organization is ambiguous (Örtenblad, 2004), suffers from a lack of clear definition (Garvin, Edmondson & Gino, 2008) that can be tested, probed and contested (Grieves, 2008), it is bitterly argued by some authors that they ‘don’t know any examples of true learning organizations, don’t believe they exists, will ever exist, nor should exist’ (Caluwé & Vermaak, 2006, p. 192; Garvin et al. 2008). Jim Grieves (2008) - previous editor of The Learning Organization(!) – goes much further by proposing to abandon the idea of the learning organization altogether. He calls it a 'metaphor too far'. In short it is argued that the concept of the learning organization is not relevant as it cannot be validated by the traditional academic research methods. Indeed, the flexibility and adaptability of these organizations is hard to fixate and measure.

My unwillingness to give up on the concept of the learning organization so easily, came forth out of a belief that every organization – be it in different degrees, positively or negatively, consciously or unconsciously – learns (Ruijters, 2006, p. 31). In this sense each organization will have its own individual version of the learning organization (Senge, 1990). Moreover, I had the vague feeling that its quest might lie deeper than striving toward the so often mentioned achievement of competitive advantage or

(8)

together, of shared identity. Striving towards the ideal of the learning organization in itself might provide a focal point for the aspiration and bundling of energies of which people within organizations might profit greatly. If this is the case, then it is up to science to find new ways of researching such organizations.

Although challenging, gaining an understanding of the reasons for these organizations to learn (the why) and how they learn, will not only make the concept of the learning organization more understandable and visible, but also ensures actions can be undertaken to optimize the learning of organizations. Hence, the objective of this thesis is to support organizations in their quest of being a learning organization by making the intangible just that bit more tangible.

Inspired by the words of Pascale and Sternin (2005), with this thesis I strive to learn from organizations who are perceived to be(come) learning organizations. Not to validate a concept or framework or look for an ultimate truth. But, with an open-minded curiosity and respect for the continuous change these organizations face, learn what drives these organizations to strive for such an ideal. What are their stories, experiences and insights?

In addition to an extensive review of literature and existing case studies, semi-structured in-depth interviews in a heterogeneous sample of mature organizations were conducted and analyzed. A research approach on learning organizations which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been attempted in a similar fashion before.

To take on this adventure well prepared, the next chapter will start off with an initial exploration on literature on the learning organization. A brief history is provided from the rise of the concept until today. Chapter 3 discusses definitions used in academic literature, as well as the distinctions and typologies to clarify scopes of research. Chapter 4 will discuss the approach taken on the research and analysis of results. Chapter 6 and 7 elaborate on the two simple questions which the research is based: Why do

people strive to build learning organizations? How do they try to achieve this? In these chapters also

the results of the research are discussed. The thesis concludes by offering an integrated framework (chapter 8) and a reflection on the implications for research and practice (chapter 9). For those interested in my personal learning I would like to refer to chapter 10.

‘Where the tyranny of averages conceals sparkling exceptions to the rule, others

- operating with the same constraints and resources as everyone else –

prevail against the odds.’ Pascale and Sternin (2005, p. 73)

(9)

2 A short history of the learning organization

The ideal of the learning organization is not a new one. Although the roots of the learning organization were founded in the 1920s, it flourished in the 1990s stimulated by the publication of influential books such as The Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1990); Op Weg naar de Lerende Organisatie (Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992) and countless other publications, workshops, and websites (Wilson & Beard, 2014). As organizational life started to feature shorter product cycles, global competition, increased workplace diversity, and the constant need to 'do more with less', faster learners were believed to have a distinct advantage: they would find ways to improve work processes and breakthroughs in product and service development before their slower learning competitors (Goh & Richards, 1997).

The emergence of the idea of the ‘learning organization’ is engrossed with notions such as ‘the learning society’. Perhaps the defining contribution here was made by Donald Schön who provided a theoretical framework linking the experience of living in a situation of increasing change with the need for learning.

The loss of the stable state means that our society and all of its institutions are in continuous processes of transformation. We cannot expect new stable states that will endure for our own lifetimes.

We must learn to understand, guide, influence and manage these transformations. We must make the capacity for undertaking them integral to ourselves and to our institutions.

We must, in other words, become adept at learning. We must become able not only to transform our institutions, in response to changing situations and requirements; we must invent and develop institutions which are ‘learning

systems’, that is to say, systems capable of bringing about their own continuing transformation. Schön, 1973, p. 28

Against this backdrop of change organizations started to revisit their traditional bureaucratic orientation and embraced a range of new characteristics that promoted proper environmental alignment, improved competitive fit and long-term-viability. A stark realization developed that the traditional bureaucratic approach was not suitable to support competitive positioning in a hyper-dynamic environment. Hence, the past decades have witnessed the ascendancy of alternative paradigms, of which the learning organization was the most prominent (Jamali, Khoury, & Sahyoun, 2006). Characterized by individual and collective learning, the learning organization became an ideal ‘towards which organizations have to evolve in order to be able to respond to the various pressures [they face] (Finger & Brand, 1999, p. 136). A search came into existence to find templates and forms for realizing this ideal. The ability for creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge were seen as essential in realizing the compelling vision of the learning organization. Which in its turn asked for the cultivation of tolerance, fostering of open discussion, and thinking holistically and systematically (Garvin et al., 2008). All in order to be able to adapt and act more quickly than the competition.

(10)

At the beginning of the new millennium the suspicion arose that organizational learning was merely a fashion. Some argued that ‘the concept is being oversold as a near-universal remedy for a wide variety

of organizational problems’ (Kuchinke, 1995, p. 4). Although the glamour of the 1990s has vanished by

now, learning is still a main subject in organizational publications and is now a common word in the discourse of management (Rebelo & Gomes, 2008).

Figure 2 Almost 4.000.000 hits on Google Scholar (2016) for the 'learning organization'

The concept of the learning organization still focuses on learning as a tool, a lever, and a philosophy for sustainable change in organizations in a fast-changing world (Bui & Baruch, 2010). Research on the topic generally involves the benefits of learning organizations in terms of their innovativeness, their flexibility in turbulent environments, their employees’ willingness to entertain new ideas, and on the challenges faced when making the transition from a traditional organization to a learning organization (Smith, Barnes, & Harris, 2014). Research has been conducted on the typology, characteristics and perspectives of the learning organization (including, but not limited to: Örtenblad, 2002; Goh & Richards, 1997; Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Bui & Baruch, 2010), methods for measuring learning climate have been developed and validated (Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004), (financial) performances of learning organizations have been measured (Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, & Howton, 2002; Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Davis & Daley, 2008), and various mediators have been discussed such as the differences in perspectives between employees and managers (Hasson, Tafvelin, & Thiele Schwarz von, 2013), and sense making (Colville, Hennestad, & Thoner, 2014).

The existing research provides a foundation that allows for more questions to be asked and resulting triggers to look further into the concept of the learning organization. What it is (in practice) and how people within organizations work toward being a learning organization.

In order to gain a better understanding of the concept of the learning organization the next chapter will explore definitions of i.e. learning and organizing, and will discuss similarities and differences.

(11)

3 Defining ‘The Learning Organization’

In chapter 2 the history of the concept of the learning organization was discussed. This chapter will elaborate on the several definitions of learning organizations, their similarities and differences.

In order to gain a better understanding of the concept we will zoom in on the concepts of learning, organizing and organizational learning.

3.1 The Learning Organization

As we have seen in chapters 1 and 2 ‘the learning organization’ is a concept created in the discourse of management. Often the term is used as a means for taking a deliberate stand for a vision, for creating a type of organization one would truly like to work within and which can thrive in a world of increasing interdependency and change (Kofman & Senge, 1993). For every individual, group or organization being or striving to become a learning organization the term might therefore mean something different. Many authors have called for or attempted to articulate a common definition for the learning organization, justifying its unique qualities and characteristics. Some of the most sited definitions of the learning organization include:

Learning organizations are 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. Senge, 1990, p. 3

The Learning Company is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought about simply by training individuals; it can only happen as a result of learning at the whole organization level. A Learning Company is an organization

that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself. Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell, 1991, p. 1

Learning organizations are characterized by total employee involvement in a process of collaboratively conducted, collectively accountable change directed towards shared values or principles.

(12)

Much is shared in these definitions. Most authors seem to agree on the assumption that ‘learning is valuable, continuous, and most effective when shared and that every experience is an opportunity to learn’ (Smith M. , 2001, 2007). Also any type of organization can be seen as / evolve to become a learning organization, if they have / strive towards certain features. Typically these include (Kerka, 1995):

 Providing continuous learning opportunities  Using learning to reach their goals

 Linking individual performance with organizational performance

 Fostering inquiry and dialogue, making it safe for people to share openly and take risks  Embracing creative tension as a source of energy and renewal

 Continuously being aware of and interact with their environment

However, also contrasts in the definitions of the learning organization can be found. For example, some authors approach the learning organization as something that is initiated and developed by senior management – they involve a top-down, managerial imposed vision (Pedler et al., 1991; Hughes & Tight, 1998) - were others view the concept with a more ‘bottom-up’ approach (Watkins & Marsick, 2012). Another distinction can be made from the use of theories on organizational learning. Where some approach the learning organization from a technical, outcome based view, others maintain a more social view (dominating popular literature) focused on processes of learning (Easterby-Smith, Burgoyne, & Araujo, 1999).

For the purpose of this thesis I choose to refer to the concept of a learning organization as an organization that learns continuously and transforms itself (Marsick & Watkins, 2003). Learning organizations in this sense proactively use learning in an integrated way to support and catalyze growth for individuals, teams, and other groups, entire organizations, and (at times) the institutions and communities with which they are linked (Marsick & Watkins, 2003).

The term ‘learning organization’ consists of two interesting concepts (learning and organizing). We will explore these individual concepts in the following sections in order to gain a better understanding of the definition of the combined concepts of the learning organization as used in academic literature and in practice.

(13)

3.2 Zooming in on definitions: learning, organizing and organizational learning

Figure 3 Definition of 'learning' by Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia, 2016

Learning is a very broad concept which is (often heedlessly) used for describing many different situations and activities. In the discourse of management learning refers to the ‘implicit or explicit mental and/or other activities and processes leading to changes in knowledge, skills or attitudes or the ability

to learn of individuals, groups or organizations’ (Simon & Ruijters, 2003, p. 2). Sometimes this learning

is organized (by persons themselves or by outsiders) and sometimes not at all. Then it is ‘just happening as a side product of working, playing or problem solving’ (Willem, 1987, p. 2). Only afterwards can be concluded that these learning processes must have taken place from changes we notice. Learning ‘starts in the zone of the unknown, and attempts, via a variety of activities, mental and physical, to discover comprehension and expertise’ (Claxton, 1999, p. 47) and can lead to changes in work processes and outcomes. Such learning outcomes can be a change or acquiring of knowledge, skills or attitudes, but also the ability to learn can be an important result of learning.

Organizations are ‘consciously coordinated social units, composed of two or more people, that function on a relatively continuous basis to achieve a common goals or set of goals’. (Robbins, 2003, p. 4). Organizations are therefore by definition a collective of individuals, were organizing involves ‘the determination of what tasks are to be done, who is to do them, how tasks are to be grouped, who reports to whom, and where decisions are to be made’ in’ in order to attain objectives (Robbins, 2003, p. 4). Within an organization individuals and groups, with different perspectives and values, pass information through their own filters and the (noisy) information channels connecting them (Salomon & Perkins, 1999).

Where some argue that it is not organizations that learn, but only the individuals forming these organizations (like Marcel Kuhlman of Kessels & Smith during the interview), I support the view of Simon and Ruijters (2003) in which learning occurs at three levels: the individual-, team- and organization level. The latter levels do not concern themselves with groups/organizations as static entities, but with an active process of organizing as a cognitive enterprise (Salomon & Perkins, 1999). Seen from this perspective many of the fundamentals of individual learning are the same for organization. However, organizational learning also has distinctive characteristics with refer to ‘what is learned, how it is learned, and the adjustments called for to enhance learning’ (Salomon & Perkins, 1999, p. 16).

(14)

Organizational learning builds on the definitions of learning and organizing. Most researchers agree with defining organizational learning as a change in the organization’s knowledge that occurs as a function of experience (Argote, 2011). The knowledge the organization develops can be explicit or it can be tacit and difficult to articulate (Kogut & Zander, 1992). It can manifest in a variety of ways, including changes in cognitions, routines and behaviors. Although individual members are the mechanisms through which organizational learning generally occurs, the knowledge that individuals acquire has to be embedded in a repository for organizational learning – for example tools, routines, social networks and trans active memory systems - to occur. That is, the individual’s knowledge has to be embedded in the organization so that other members could access it, even if the individual left the organization (Argote, 2011).

In the context of organizations that learn (organizational or collective learning) authors often refer to two (Argyris & Schön, 1978) or three (Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992) distinct stages of learning: single- double- and triple loop learning.

Most organizations engage in singe-loop learning. When errors are detected, the correction process relies on past routines and present policies (Robbins, 2003). It involves changing rules; agreements on ways of working together, on what can and must be. This is collective learning on the level of improvement (Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992).

When an error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the modification of the organizations’ objectives, policies, and standard routines, this is called double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978). This involves not only changing the rules, but also underlying insights, theories and ideas on the ‘why’ of rules, what has to be done and what can be done. It is collective learning on the level of knowing and understanding, which leads to innovation (Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992).

The most drastic level of collective learning as described by Wierdsma and Swieringa (1992), triple-loop learning, involves changes in shared principles on which the organization is based; on who we are and want to be as an organization, how and what do we want to contribute, which values are seen as important. Collective learning on the level of what we dare, but mostly want to be and are. Ultimately this leads towards the development of new principles which enter the organization to a next phase (of transformation).

Level of learning Area of learning Category of learning Result of learning

Single-loop Rules Must/can Improvement

+ + +

Double-loop Insights Know/understand Innovation

+ + +

Triple-loop Principles Want to/Be Development

Figure 4 Collective learning (based on Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992, p. 53)

(15)

3.3 Link with other definitions: development, change, innovation, learning

Conducting the interviews for this thesis I noticed that other terms where often associated or blended in with learning as described in previous paragraphs, such as ‘development’, ‘change’, ‘innovation’, ‘agility’, or ‘learning’ in the more restricted sense by referring to a focus on changes in skills, knowledge, and learning abilities.

Simon and Ruijters (2003) offer clear distinctions between these terms which are useful in clarifying the scope of this thesis.

They state that when the focus is on long term learning processes (mostly implicit), this is often referred to as ‘development’. Development is mostly seen as a positive direction, often related to (holistic changes in) personality and competencies. When the focus is on attitudes or changes in work processes or outcomes, the term ‘change’ is often used. The term ‘innovation’ is reserved for intended changes of work processes and products.

A noteworthy buzzword is ‘agility or agile’. It occurs in the newest popular management literature, often used as a proverb indicating a high degree of flexibility and the possibility to quickly adapt (so often described characteristics of learning organizations). The recent publications closely relate to the literature on the learning organization cover topics as ‘strategic agility’ (Lewis, Andriopoulos, & Smith, 2014), ‘learning agility’ (DeRue, Ashford, & Myers, 2012), ‘agile management’ (Hoogveld, 2016) and ‘agile organizations’ (Kerklaan, 2016).

Similar to learning, there can also be group development, -change and -innovation as well as organizational development, -change, -innovation and -agility. The term learning as used for the purpose of this thesis therefore encompasses development, change, innovation, agility and learning in a restricted sense.

Figure 5 The various ways of learning and their interrelationships (based on Simon & Ruijters, 2003, p. 3)

(16)

3.4 On the oxymoron of organizing and learning

As might be observed from studying the definitions in the previous chapter, ‘organizing’ and ‘learning’ are essentially antithetical processes. As Weick & Westley (1996, p. 190) point out: ‘to learn is to

disorganize and increase variety; to organize is to forget and reduce variety’. In other words, to learn is

to create change and to organize is to create order (Colville et al., 2014). Although seemingly at odds, these processes seek to address the ever present challenge of adapting to and coping with environmental change and evolution (Smith et al., 2014). Both seek to discover the means for achieving operational efficiencies and effectiveness. Thus, as Coopey and Burgoyne (2000) conclude: an important challenge in establishing a learning organization is to maintain a balance between change and continuity.

A similar distinction can be found in academic literature on ‘learning organization’ and ‘organizational learning’. Both terms have developed along divergent tracks, resulting in similar, but distinct concepts (Easterby-Smith et al., 1999). The learning organization on which this thesis is focused is a(n ideal) form of organization, where organizational learning are activities or processes (of learning) in organizations. Hence, literature on learning organizations is action orientated, and aimed towards the use of diagnostic and evaluative methodological tools which help to identify, promote and evaluate the quality of learning processes inside organizations, whereas literature on organizational learning concentrates on the collection and analysis of the processes involved in individual and collective learning inside organizations (Easterby-Smith & Araujo, 1999; Tsang, 1997). As Örtenblad (2001) argues: the learning organization needs effort while organizational learning exists without any efforts. In this sense organizational learning is the ‘activity and the process by which organizations eventually reach the ideal

(17)

(18)

4 About the research

While not many organizations have evolved the processes and disciplines necessary to qualify as learning organizations, many have adopted characteristics that impact positively on the learning function and the nurture of learning organizations (Jamali et al., 2006). This thesis takes an appreciative approach in search of stories, experiences and successes of these positively deviating (learning) organizations. By learning from organizations actively pursuing to be(come) learning organizations, I hope to gain better insight in the concept of the learning organization of today. Not to find an ultimate truth or blueprint, but to contribute to theoretical and practical insights on the subject and to inspire practitioners in their own quests. In this I take the call of Rebelo and Gomes (2008) at heart who plead for researchers to investigate thoroughly which factors promote the learning organization (such as, what organizational structure, what kind of culture, what leadership).

The following sections describe the approach on research taken, a short description of each case studied and the strategy of analysis. The results are revealed from chapter 6 onwards.

4.1 Research approach: in-depth interviews

In the early writings on the learning organization Kofman and Senge (1990, p. 16) already stated: ‘There

is no such thing as an ultimate solution for a learning organization’. When learning organizations are

seen as individual entities one realizes that a one-size-fits-all questionnaire or instrument is unlikely to be fully appropriate (Wilson & Beard, 2014). Therefore, the research design needs to be given the necessary flexibility to develop its own individual version of the learning organization (Senge, 1990). Based on a thorough literature research and my own curiosity I designed semi-structured interviews. An open and informal approach to the interviews was taken for main themes to arise inductively instead of interviewing deliberately on topics already set in literature, ensuring their importance to practice and the perceived applicability on specifically learning organizations. The interviews of approximately 1 to 1,5 hours per respondent therefore allowed for answers to be compared and analyzed, but also to leave as much freedom for the respondent as possible to share stories, experiences and (mental) pictures (Michael, 2005).

The ten main interview questions included:

1. Would you say your organization is a learning organization? 2. Can you tell me something about the history of your organization? 3. How would you define the purpose of your organization?

4. What would you say are essential assumptions and values within your organization? 5. Which of all processes and practices that make your organization unique are most valuable? 6. What role does learning play within your organization?

7. What does your organization achieve by its way of working and organizing which she would not achieve by a traditional way of organizing?

8. How flexible or agile would you say your organization is? 9. How do you experience working at your organization? 10. Which organizations inspire you in their way of organizing?

(19)

Questions 1 and 2 where included to provide a general picture of the organization, the assumptions of the interviewee on learning organizations and to reassure the interviewee in providing his / her answers. Questions 3, 4 and 9 where included to explore to WHY people and organizations could be intrinsically motivated to be(come) learning organizations, whereas questions 7 and 8 are more outcome oriented (also see chapter 6). Questions 5, 6, and 10 where included to uncover HOW organizations strive to (be)come learning organizations (also see chapter 7). Although the ten main questions provided a structure for the interviews to be conducted, the liberty was taken to acquire further in-depth details on topics mentioned by the interviewee or change the order of questions when deemed more appropriate.

For practical reasons (time and availability) all interviews where located in The Netherlands. The interviews where held face-to-face on site of the organization to provide a better context for me as researcher. In addition to the notes made during the interview I decided to take notes on my personal experience of the atmosphere at the organization, the layout of the building, and the way I was received. Where appropriate I made pictures to capture the look and feel at the time of the interview. The interviews themselves where recorded and transcribed for further analysis (also see chapter 4.4 on data analysis).

4.2 Case selection

The research followed the approach of purposeful sampling of heterogeneous cases to provide a valid cross-section of Dutch based learning organizations in 2016. Although the selected organizations differ strongly in size, age, and sector, all organizations where interviews were held were recommended by outsiders as being a learning organization and / or define themselves as (striving to become) learning organizations (formally or informally). This application of snowball sampling allowed for the identification and access to appropriate organizations / interviewees ensuring their value to stakeholders and enabling thinking outside the academic mainstream (Suri & Harsh, 2011).

Only established organizations where researched - their survival a proof of their ability to learn - and organizations with a minimum of >15 employees, as below that number an organization could be considered a team. Within the organization the leader responsible for setting the long term strategy of the organization, team or business unit was interviewed, or an employee closely involved with setting and implementing the strategy of (striving to) being a learning organization.

A deliberate focus was taken on exemplifying contexts perceived notably as a success (instead of focusing on where things went wrong). As Michael (2005, p. 224) states it:

‘…to appreciate the best of what is,

one has to focus on the moments in the life when things went right, when goals seemed possible,

when the future looked bright’. Sarah Michael, 2005, p. 224

(20)

4.3 The organizations featured in this research

Let me introduce each of the organizations visited and researched for the purpose of this thesis. Quick facts are provided to give a sense of the age, type of industries, locations, and sizes involved. The names of the organization and the interviewee are linked and refer to the website of the organization and the public LinkedIn profile of the interviewee for further background information.

BAM Infra, interview with: Marinus Schimmel, Director

In text referencing to the interview: BAM

 Established as a subsidiary of the Royal BAM Group (European construction-services business, founded in 1869)

 Infrastructure solutions; asphalt and roads, traffic engineering, civil engineering, foundation techniques, ground, asset management, telecom, energy and water, rail, infra consulting  Dutch based, internationally active

 5000 Employees

Bejo Zaden, interview with: Laurens Kroon, Head of Research

In text referencing to the interview: Bejo

 Established in 1978 from a merger between companies of Cor Beemsterboer and Jacob Jong, all shares are still within these two families

 Specialist in improvement, production and sales of vegetable seeds  Active in more than 100 countries

 1400 Employees

Deloitte EMEA, interview with: Alexandre Janssen, Head of Innovation

In text referencing to the interview: Deloitte

 Established as one of the member firms of Part of Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu Limited (audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk management, tax and related services worldwide)

 Support 15 member firms; collaborating and leveraging innovation strategies, methodologies and approaches

 EMEA region

Hoogheemraadschap Stichtse Rijnlanden, interview with: Joke Goedhart, Secretary General Director

In text referencing to the interview: HDSR

 Established in 1994 from a merger between waterboards

 Water board; governmentally responsible for the water management in its district  Based in Houten, The Netherlands

(21)

ICM Opleidingen & trainingen, interview with: Erik Smithuis, Director / Founder

In text referencing to the interview: ICM

 Established in 2003 by Erik Smithuis and Harrie-Peter Roefs

 Education and training; open enrollment, incompany, performance support, online solutions, consultancy

 Active in The Netherlands  100 Employees

Kessels & Smith, The Learning Company, interview with: Marcel Kuhlman, Consultant

In text referencing to the interview: K&S

 Established in 1977 by Joseph Kessels and Cora Smith

 Network of independent consultants; learning and development solutions  Bases in The Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, India and Germany  50 Professionals

Louwman ICT Services, interview with: Ron Brouwer, General Manager

In text referencing to the interview: Louwman

 Established in 2010 as part of the Louwman Group (established in 1923 by Louwman and Parqui, still family owned, one of Europe’s largest car distributors, also mobility aids)

 Shared service center; ICT solutions, projects and supply of hardware

 Active in The Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Czech Republic  40 FTE

Springest, interview with: Debbie van Veen, Smooth Operations Lead

In text referencing to the interview: Springest

 Established in 2010 by Ruben Timmerman

 Website; everything to develop yourself professionally and personally; find and compare education, training, courses, books, articles, question and answers and tests.

 Active in The Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom  19 Employees

(22)

4.4 Data analysis

Despite the overabundance of books on qualitative research methods and analysis, the process of transforming ‘messy’ qualitative data remains quite challenging (O'Dwyer, 2004). As O’Dwyer (2004) explicates the approach of qualitative research demands much of the researcher. For the purpose of this thesis I was the primary research instrument and personally responsible for gaining access to organizations and interviewees, collecting / analyzing data and writing in credible ways. The strong craft-like element requires a significant amount of knowledge as a result of hands on experiences (Baxter & Chua, 1998), which I did not yet possess. This was even further complicated by the burden of inference that fell on me as the researcher (as opposed to a statistical methodology which crunches inputs into outputs) (Ahrens & Dent, 1998).

Prior to undertaking the first interviews I had little idea as to how I was going to analyze the resultant data. I decided to tape and transcribe the interviews as my prior reading and classes on qualitative research methods suggested there are specific methods for analyzing qualitative data captured in this manner. Using the advice from both texts, fellow students and professors I decided to roughly follow the rigorous process of analysis described by Miles and Huberman (1984). They consider that analysis consists of three concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and data interpretation.

Where other researchers (like O’Dwyer, 2004) describe their process of analyzing data as a need step-by-step logical process I found myself applying the activities of analyzing data as an iterative process going back and forth between studying single cases, connecting multiple cases and across case analysis. For me this included listening again to recorded interviews; rereading transcripts and notes over and over; adding to notes; making mind maps (per case, for multiple cases and on the overall results); and – to get a better grip on my own thoughts – speaking to others about my findings.

I started off by coding each transcript using themes I found in research and (new) themes that intuitively arose. For each single case I created a matrix to record the codes of themes noted. Each of these matrixes had a similar layout, showing: general notions on the learning organization, motivations on why one would strive to be(come) a learning organization, how the interviewee indicated they were building towards a learning organization, and quotes with highly illustrative examples. From this very general division multiple themes arose per case. When all transcripts where coded in this manner, I started to merge the codes and restructure the information using the matrices made for each transcript. A combined overall matrix evolved from this inductively revealing common themes (core codes) across cases and enabling overall the analysis of the collected data. For every core code I wrote a description explaining the results from the interviews and comparing them to existing literature. These descriptions where then restructured in order to create a logical story outline to the readers of this thesis.

(23)

As you might read from the description on the previous page the process of analyzing data was highly iterative and inductive. Definitely not a step-by-step process. This might be due to my personal abilities and preferences or, as O’Dwyer (2004) describes, it might be inherent to qualitative research. When I must make an attempt to make the process more explicit, I would describe it in the following manner:

1) General overview

a) Listen to (separate) tape recordings b) Read relevant interview notes c) Add to above notes as necessary 2) Recording initial themes

a) Initial transcript review

b) Record emerging themes on transcripts i) Develop intuitive ‘open’ coding scheme c) Constantly review journal/diary notes and reflections 3) Reflection phase

a) Re-read transcripts and interview notes i) Patterns emerging?

b) Search for extra open codes

i) All relevant portions of transcript coded? c) Alternative conceptions on the learning organization? d) Prepare rough initial matrix based on open codes formulated 4) Data display

a) Preparation of mind maps

b) Prepare detailed ‘open’ code matrices c) Collapse ‘open’ codes into ‘core’ codes

d) Reformulate ‘open’ code matrices according to ‘core’ codes 5) Detailed ‘analysis tools’ review

a) Conduct detailed examination of matrices b) Identify key patterns in evidence

c) Revisit transcripts

d) Update and review journal / diary notes / mind maps e) Question if evidence can be organized differently 6) ‘Story’ outline

a) Create ‘big picture’ story outline of interviews in mind map and thematic form b) Collate ‘outlying’ perspectives

i) Use to challenge the ‘big picture’ story

c) Write description of findings using ‘big picture’ story outline 7) Employing the analytical lens

a) Interpret descriptive evidence using analytical theme of ‘managerial capture’ b) Beware of selectivity and highlight preconceptions / contradictions

In the next chapter more on the limitations of this approach. The results of the data analysis can be found from chapter 5 onwards.

(24)

4.5 Limitations of the research approach

The research approach taken has enabled me to collect and cross analyze stories of people and organizations. Consistently, Michael (2005) found in using a similar interview approach that her interviewees were eager to tell their stories; offered dynamic and unrehearsed information; and spoke more openly compared to regular interview methods. The chosen approach has offered new insights in (theme’s surrounding) the learning organizations of today that would not have been realized otherwise. A similar approach on researching the learning organization has, to my best knowledge, not been taken before.

However, the research approach also has major limitations. The main challenge is caused by the interpretative approach of the research, which is subjective to issues of validity and reliability (Sandberg, 2005). As Kofman and Senge (1993) already indicated, the learning organization articulates a view that involves the observers as much as the observed. It cannot be absolutely free of the researcher’s (my own) views and opinions. The subjectivity of this study is further illustrated in a quotation from Yeung, Ulrich, Nason and Von Glinow (1999, p. 57): ‘In essence, the learning organization has become a

management Rorschach Test: whatever one wants to see in the learning organization is seen’ (also see

chapter 3 on Defining the learning organization).

Another limitation rises when one realizes existing literature and research on learning organizations does not include cultural preferences of working and learning together. Where the foundation of research was set by mostly American authors, current research includes case studies at organizations from Sweden (Hasson et al., 2013), Norway (Colville et al., 2014), Spain (Jiminéz-Jiminéz & Sanz-Valle, 2011), and Singapore (Retna & Ng, 2016), among others. However, in these publications the impact of national culture on the interpretation and enrollment of the learning organization is not taken into special consideration. This means that for the Dutch companies researched for the purpose of this thesis it is hard to predict which elements are culturally based and which are truly linked to the (desire of) being a learning organization. For future research on learning organizations it would be wise to take cultural preferences into considerations. One might hypothesize that learning organizations differ in shape and approach from one culture to another.

Finally, though a certain saturation was reached interviewing eight interviewees of different organizations, the practical restrictions of my time and resources as a part-time scholar were another major limitation in conducting the research limiting the final scalability of the research. Ideally I would have had years to observe the organizations I visited, follow their moves and motivations, interviewing both decision makers and employees. What I would do differently in a next research – even considering the limitations in time and resources - is a pre-selection (intake) prior the interview to set the scope of the research (and the interview). The current research conducted can be best seen as a first step in uncovering new themes related to the learning organization, providing insights for both theorists and practitioners.

(25)

(26)

5 A learning organization is…

Chapter 3.1 discussed the definition of the learning organization as we know it from literature. Before zooming in on the WHY and HOW of learning organizations however (see the following chapters 6 and 7), I would like to make a note on the perception of the learning organization as I encountered in practice.

Every person I interviewed during my research viewed the organizations they established or contribute to in more or lesser degree as a learning organization. This could be due to the excellent research I conducted prior contacting the interviewees, but it is more likely due to the broad interpretation of the concept of the learning organization. Not only in literature (see chapter 3.1 on The Learning Organization), but also in practice the concept is used very broadly and adapted to suit the situation of the person themselves and the organization. As Marcel Kuhlman of Kessels & Smith rightly pointed out during the interview:

An organization does not learn. An organization is a construct. If I ask ‘point out the organization to me’ what should you point at? It is an idea that exists as long as people who believe in it have that idea.

Marcel Kuhlman, Kessels & Smith

When asked about what they perceived a learning organization to entail, interviewees answered very differently. Some referred to (processes of) continuous (organizational) development and improvement (ICM; BAM), others to specific learning processes as training, education and other personal development opportunities (Bejo). When questioned more thoroughly, topics associated with learning organizations also dominating literature arose, such as providing and giving feedback, reflection, experimentation, taking initiative and responsibility.

Some interviewees also described their own challenges mostly in shifting established paradigms (BAM) and finding the right balance in the dynamics of top-down decision making and bottom-up initiative taking (Deloitte). Marinus Schimmel of BAM elaborates on the challenges of becoming a learning organization by providing an illustrative example:

I am a fanatical skier.

When I was for the first time at an indoor ski path I thought it might not be for me. Very slowly I learned to ski and now I am an excellent skier.

I still practice every week, even if I am already 20 years on that same path, just to improve myself. Every time I get a little bit better. You cannot explain to someone how to ski. It takes endless practice. Within organizations we do not take the time to practice to get the hang of a learning process for new behavior.

That is the biggest blockade on learning. Most do not take the time nor the costs of learning into account. Marinus Schimmel, BAM Infra

(27)

Many set of the learning organization against the practices of the in their view ‘traditional organizations’, often implying bureaucracy, a strong hierarchy (including an overabundance of managers), top-down approach to initiatives and decision making, and focus on control and risk management. Traditional organizations from this perspective are seen as unable to reflect, learn or renew themselves. Something to steer away from.

Though the concept of the learning organization is perceived and applied in very different ways, it does seem to encourage ways of thinking on how things can be improved and of how we can work and learn together without steering in the direction of a prefixed solution. The concept as it is perceived by practitioners seems to allow for sharing vision, creativity and team work, ultimately bringing (new) energy for doing things differently together as an organization.

(28)

(29)

6 WHY learn? Differences in perspective

So why would organizations strive to be(come) learning organizations? Is it to survive and conquer, to strive for competitive advantages, or can other reasons be found? Intuitively learning seems essential to organizations, but imprecise reasoning leads to arguments that might be less valid than sometimes claimed. This chapter explores answers to ‘the why’ as provided to us in literature and compares it to the interview results from today’s practice.

6.1 Survival of the fittest; need to change or organizational DNA?

Most publications on the learning organization refer to the ‘enormously increased speed of business’ in what progressively becomes a ‘world market’, by which we have to ‘react to changes faster than ever’. This is not so strange considering the rate of change in technology (think about the changes the last few years have seen in mobile, social, internet of things, 3-D printing, big data, the cloud, online security), business models, job roles and the impact of globalization (Sarder, 2016; Deloitte, 2016). In order to deal successfully with such an ever-changing environment organizations are assumed to needing to be dynamic and adaptive, context and customer-driven, and continuously restructuring.

When asked why learning is of importance to organizations, interviewees answered in a similar fashion to traditional literature; more than half of the interviewees referred to the necessity of continuous development and improvement in order to survive. Reasons given where, among others, the ability to beat competition (BAM) and do new things (Deloitte). The strong motivation and dedication behind this externally driven perspective can be illustrated by following quotes from the interviewees:

As long as I am here it will not become peaceful anymore.

At the moment you think you are there, at the moment you scored an order, you cannot think you can score the next order with the same strategy.

The competitor also learns.

It is a race of who it capable to change the most quickly. Not about who is the best, but who is able to adapt.

That is the name of the game. Marinus Schimmel, BAM Infra

Our business models and strategies, may no longer keep us relevant in the face of a global economy and changing customer preferences.

We can no longer count on a stable malleable workforce,

because today’s workers are quick to change jobs in search of new opportunities. Technology is changing so rapidly that we almost have to run in place to keep up,

and we must keep up to stay ahead. Sarder, 2016, p. 3

(30)

We cannot survive if we obediently keep doing what we have done the last 50 years. That means we have to change. And that means learning.

That’s what we do.

But the question is; are we learning fast enough to survive on the long term? Alexandre Janssen, Deloitte EMEA

However, where traditional academic literature mainly refers to competition and (macro)environmental changes as reasons for change, 90%(!) of the interviewees explicitly referred to their customers as a main reason why learning is of importance to their organizations. Interviewees indicated they want to be able to optimally support their customers in their own quests; the need to stay ahead of current and future developments in their fields of expertise. Many elaborated on the challenge to predict and respond to changing customer needs. Sometimes driven by changes in technology or demographic changes. The latter is nicely illustrated by an example given by (Bejo) on the development of cabbages (the vegetable) with explicit specifications:

For example, cabbage...

First there where big families, so cabbages needed to be big as well. If you have many mouths to feed, then you need a substantial cabbage. Now families are smaller and people think: ‘What should I do with such a huge cabbage?

I only use have of it and the other half is in the fridge starting to smell or I throw it away.’

So you see a development to smaller cabbages for two or three persons. But now many people start to buy products already chopped or processed.

For the processing industry it’s much easier to work with big cabbages. So in twenty or thirty years there has been an enormous shift.

Laurens Kroon, Bejo Zaden

*NOTE: The development of a cabbage with new characteristics might take up 20 to 30 years!

In these - externally driven - cases the concept of the learning organization is applied from a change management perspective: something to actively work towards to and providing a sense of direction.

Another more internally driven perspective was expressed by a number of interviewees who referred to continuous improvement as a natural state of their organizational being. Something logically imbedded in the DNA of their organizational cultures and their own desires (ICM; Springest) (more on intrinsic motivation in the next section 6.2). One might argue that this truly reflects a learning approach. The feel of this approach is completely different. Let me illustrate this by the following quotes:

(31)

We have experienced continuous development. Not only in size and growth.

It is my mission to ensure ICM has a good combination between its business-like character and humanity. To create an organization that is balanced.

Not only financially, but also emotionally, in its relationships, physically, with a healthy work- and spiritual balance. But that is more intuitively.

Erik Smithuis, ICM Opleidingen & trainingen

We work hard to remain agile. And be able to jump into new things.

That’s also the type of people that work here. We all find the status quo something frightening. If there are new opportunities, we can easily take them.

That’s what we stand for. Debbie van Veen, Springest

Few authors, like Wierdsma and Emmering (2004) comment on this difference between how organizations are traditionally (stereotypically) focused on survival ‘making a living’ and how they would ideally act to increase their potential of survival and their possibilities to influence their own environment ‘making a live’. Burgoyne (1995) adds to this that organizations (should) create their own environments at least as much as they adapt to it. ‘Higher levels of learning are, after all, more about finding ways of changing the world and interaction with it to maintain core values than being swept along by adapting to externally driven change’ (Burgoyne, 1995, p. 23).

Thus, although continuous improvement and the ability to adapt and interact successfully with one’s environment are seen a necessary for survival, two different perspectives can be found in both (highly selective) existing theory and practice: the externally driven perspective of the need to change to survive and the internally driven perspective of experiencing change as a natural aspect of the organization. One might philosophize on the effects of the consequences of representing either perspective. Such a difference in world view might influence approaches of change, company policies, the selection and retention of people, learning possibilities offered etc. In addition, a shift in the role of the customer seems apparent in the practice of learning organizations and deserves its full attention in future academic research.

(32)

6.2 Quantifiable results: gains of being a learning organization?

Next to being able to adapt to (and create) the changing environment learning organizations are granted many advantages by both practitioners and theorists. They are assumed to be able to constantly come up with better products and services, better ways to meet customers’ changing needs and preferences, and more cost-effective ways to meet goals (Sarder, 2016). Garvin (1993) elaborates on the way these advantages are obtained by (becoming) learning organizations by distinguishing three overlapping stages in organizational learning:

1. Cognition: Members of the organization are exposed to new ideas, expand their knowledge, and begin to think differently.

2. Behavior: Employees begin to internalize new insights and alter their behavior.

3. Performance improvement: Changes in behavior lead to measurable improvements in results: superior quality, better delivery, increased market share, or other tangible gains.

When asked about the perceived results (or improvements in performance) of their learning approach >60% of the interviewees included organizational growth in their answers, whether in size or in turnover. (Improved) Quality in products or services was second best, together with being a good employer to their employees. Where mentioned, the latter was proudly proven being broadly recognized by awards won by the organizations for ‘Great Place to Work’ and ‘Best Employer’ awards (Bejo; ICM; Springest). Other perceived results of the learning approach include: good relationships with employees and customers, higher productivity and cost efficiency, and an incorporation of values as transparency, trust, creativity, and authenticity in their organizational cultures. Some of these statements have also found their way into academic literature with research providing similar evidence.

Research of Davis and Daley (2008) for example affirms the positive and statistically significant relationship of behaviors associated with the learning organization concept and certain performance measures (net income per employee; percentage of sales from new products; knowledge performance and self-reported financial performance). It is suggested that adopting the strategies and behaviors of a learning organization enhances individual, team, and organizational learning, which in turn, yields performance gains. While each performance measure may have its particular limitations, they are considered to be effective indicators of the general success of firms (Davis & Daley, 2008). Other empirical findings support the positive relationship between organizational learning and performance (Jiminéz-Jiminéz & Sanz-Valle, 2011). Also, the provision of leadership for learning has been shown to directly influence companies’ financial performance (Yang et al., 2004).

The study of Jiminéz-Jiminéz and Sanz-Valle (2011) suggests that organizational learning also facilitates innovation, especially smaller and younger organizations and organizations operating in highly turbulent environments. Sarder (2016, p. 11) suggests this innovation advantage is an effect of ‘not being locked into rigid hierarchies, stifled by bureaucratic procedures, held back by outdated ways of thinking’.

(33)

Naturally striving to be(come) a learning organization has a significant effect on employees of these organizations. Both authors and interviewees claim employees to use less defensive routines in work and more proactivity; greater trust, faster change, more effective communication flows; group self-awareness, collective learning, greater cohesiveness and creativity (Mason, 2009). Although these claims are not academically verified, research does show a positive relationship between organizational learning culture and employee’ job satisfaction and motivation to transfer learning and a negative relationship with turnover intentions (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004). Other studies suggest that adult learning in general contributes to positive personal changes that lead to improved health (Aldridge & Lavender, 2000; Feinstein & Hammond, 2004). Learning organizations are granted a hiring and retention advantage considering that when given the choice people prefer to work for organizations that give them the chance to develop and grow (Sarder, 2016). As the study of Deloitte (2016) underlines people today place a higher premium on flexibility, creativity, and purpose at work. This pushes organizations to think of talent as ‘volunteers’ and constantly consider how they can make work more meaningful and rewarding.

As hinted in the last paragraph there is also another, in some ways deeper movement towards the learning organization. Where work was means to an end, people increasingly seek the intrinsic benefits of work (Senge, 1990). Learning organizations answer to this by starting with the assumption that learning is valuable, continuous, and most effective when shared and that every experience is an opportunity to learn (Kerka, 1995). Shared values are central to this assumption. In their research, Filstad and Gottschalk (2011) distinguish shared values as typical for learning organizations, being: equality and empowerment; openness; change; stability; knowledge-orientation; relationship orientation; informal communication; direct and open communication. Indeed, when asked about why the interviewees themselves contribute to their organizations, the answers were not; hard organizational results, or the need for continuous improvement. All interviewees (!) felt a strong sense of purpose in contributing to their organizations. Being able to apply their knowledge and experience in meaningful ways. Many indicated they find their work interesting and are able to learn and develop themselves. Self-efficacy therefore seems to play a major part in their sense of belonging. Erik Smithuis adds to this by explaining:

Everyone who works at ICM, this I truly believe, came here to learn something.

Whether you stay for half a year, a year or five years, when you leave with more wisdom than you came with – about yourself, the organization or your profession – then it was a success.

Then life is a journey.

Learning organizations in 2016 : theory versus practice