Organizational learning

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organizational learning is, on the one hand, the social science complex of topics about the so-called learning organization , which deals with patterns of action , conditions and investigations on both a theoretical and practical level and tries to clarify the questions of how an organization must be designed to be able to learn, and how ultimately this learning takes place and is to be assessed.

On the other hand, organizational learning can also refer to the pure learning process at the organizational level, in which it is assumed that not only the individual members learn for the purpose of increasing efficiency, but that the entire organization “learns”. The manipulation of the knowledge base and the acquisition of various competencies by individual members of the organization is the essential part of organizational learning.

Organizational learning according to Chris Argyris and Donald A. Schön

Argyris and Schön dealt with organizational learning from several perspectives and, according to their own statement, combined the practical with the theoretical perspective for the first time. Argyris and Schön not only offer a theoretical model, but also practical knowledge and suggestions for action.

Action theories

First, they set up a causality-based basic model for action theories: There are situations (S), action strategies (A), results / goals (E) and guiding values ​​(L). Action theories influence the selection of the action strategy A in order to arrive at result E in a situation S. In this context, the conductance values ​​L explain the result E as desirable or desirable.

A distinction is made between two types of action theories : the represented theory ( English espoused theory ) (hereinafter: represented action theory ) and the action-guiding theory ( English theory-in-use ). The "represented theory of action" is the theory of action that the agent claims to use. It is explicitly specified by statements or documents. The “action-guiding theory” is the action theory actually applied by the actor. The theory that guides the action is implicit.

The authors have found that there are often “differences between the theories of action”. The represented action theory and the action-guiding theory of the same individual or the same organization often show differences that mostly remain undetected. According to Argyris and Schön, one reason for these differences lies in the combination of routine defensive and unproductive “single-loop learning”, which affects the strategies used, but does not the guiding values. This learning, also known as "instrumental learning", is not necessarily "bad", hence the emphasis on "unproductive learning": The learning that Argyris and Schön mean here, arises from defensive behavior, which is to avoid and Avoid situations that are perceived as embarrassing or threatening. For example, admission of guilt or the fear that someone might discover that you were wrong about your guiding values.

Models of action-guiding theories

Model I.

The model of action-guiding theories, which describes defensive behavior and single-loop learning, is referred to by Argyris and Schön as "Model I of action-guiding theories". This model is, in a very simplified way, the model of “face protection”. Despite positive intentions, such as B. "Do not show any negative feelings" is mainly censorship and cover-up, whereby one's own actions are manipulated, but the (perhaps wrong) guiding values ​​are not checked.

An organization in which Model I predominates is called "OI learning system" by Argyris and Schön.

Model I includes mechanisms that effectively hinder double-loop learning. A distinction is made between the “primary obstacle loop”, which describes self-reinforcing Model I behavior patterns that hinder double-loop learning on an individual level, and the “secondary obstacle loop”, which describes this behavior on a supra-individual level.

Model II

A second model, the “Model II of Action-Guiding Theories”, could be described as the model of openness and self-reflection. In this model, the investigation and possible correction of guide values ​​is in the foreground. This can be about one's own guiding values, which are communicated openly in order to be examined by third parties, as well as the guiding values ​​of others, which one helps to examine. This model is an idealized model that can never be fully achieved and is therefore more of a model. Achievement of “Model II” behavior in certain areas is also not persistent. In order to stay as close as possible to Model II, the agent must always strive to achieve it.

With the help of model II it is possible to establish what is known as “double loop learning”. This form of learning includes a reflection and manipulation of the guiding values. This makes it possible to identify consequences that initially appeared to be desirable as not so desirable after all. As a result, a completely different selection of action strategies can take place, which can ultimately lead to better productivity than is possible with single-loop learning.

For organizations in which Model II is observed, Argyris and Schön speak of "O-II learning systems". An organization that is an O-II learning system is called a learning organization by Argyris and Schön .

Single-loop and double-loop learning

Scheme

SchemeSchleifenlernen.svg

Double loop learning includes both feedback loops; both the loop to the strategies and to the guiding values. Single-loop learning only includes the strategy loop.

illustration

This illustration is intended to shed some light on the scope of single-loop and double-loop learning, as well as the broad applicability of the concepts.

I ride my bike to university every day. After a few days, I hear a squeaking noise while driving. After university, I take a close look at the bike and examine the origin of the squeaking noise. I discover a loose screw. If I tighten this screw, the noise is gone. The action strategy “tighten the screw” has the consequence “noise is gone”, taking into account the guideline that a short-term, inexpensive solution is required to get the noise away. After a few days it squeaks again. Now that I've learned how to fix this, I'll tighten the screw again. (Single-loop learning)

If I were to expand my guideline and demand that a sustainable solution is required, then the goal of "noise is gone" no longer meets the requirement. A new goal “Noise is gone permanently” now appears as the goal worth striving for. However, I cannot achieve this goal with the previous strategy. So I have to take a closer look and, in this case, investigate the cause. Then I would have learned with a double loop. Next comes another single loop, namely the one with which I learn that I can use a tooth lock washer to secure screws , for example .

From model I to model II

Argyris and Schön use a few examples to show how model I and single-loop learning have led to wrong decisions in organizations. Using the case study on which the book Knowledge In Action is based, Argyris shows how Model II and double-loop learning can potentially deliver better results.

Argyris and Schön cannot provide a step-by-step guide on how an organization can get from OI to O-II, i.e. learn to learn at an organizational level (organizational equivalent to Gregory Bateson's “Deutero-Learning”), but only pointers. On the one hand, Model II can never be fully achieved, so the transition from OI to O-II is an ongoing process. On the other hand, it is not possible to guarantee the readiness of all those involved. Examples of tools to help an organization become a learning organization can be found in the literature.

literature

  • Chris Argyris, Donald A. Schön: Organizational Learning II. Addison-Wesley, 1996, ISBN 0-201-62983-6 .
    • Translation: Chris Argyris, Donald A. Schön: The learning organization. 3rd edition, Klett-Cotta 2008, ISBN 978-3-7910-3001-2 .
  • Chris Argyris: Knowledge for Action. A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change. Jossey-Bass Wiley, 1993, ISBN 1-55542-519-4 .
    • Translation: Chris Argyris: Knowledge in Action. A case study on the learning organization. Klett-Cotta 1997, ISBN 3-608-91838-8 .
  • Dietmar Vahs: Organization. Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart 2005, ISBN 3-7910-2357-8 .

For a better overall understanding, it is advisable to read both Knowledge in Action and The Learning Organization and not just one of them. While the learning organization focuses on the theoretical model and uses some findings from knowledge in action but does not explain them in detail, knowledge in action mainly describes the practical side and occasionally refers to the theoretical model, which is only partially described there .

Web links