management of organizational learning

MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

MASTER COURSE

“We must not believe the many, who say that only free people ought

to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say

that only the educated are free.”

University Maastricht – Faculty of Economics and Business Administration

Management of Organizational Learning Table of Contents

Page 1 of 37

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 2

2. LEVEL I - CONCEPTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND HELICOPTER VIEW ............... 2

2.1. Introduction to organizational learning and change ......................................................... 2

2.1.1. Introducing organizational learning ..................................................................... 2

2.1.2. Accomplishing change ......................................................................................... 4

2.2. Setting the scope for knowledge management towards actionability .............................. 5

2.2.1. Introducing the bigger picture of knowledge management ................................. 5

2.2.2. Defining organizational knowledge and the dynamic character of its creation ... 6

2.3. Organizational design for learning ................................................................................... 8

2.3.1. Developing individual and group expertise in learning ....................................... 8

2.3.2. Designing innovative organizations ................................................................... 11

2.3.3. The importance of perspectives on developing learning organizations ............. 12

3. LEVEL II – THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUALS IN ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND HOW TO

CHALLENGE MENTAL MODELS ................................................................................................... 13

3.1. Theories of action, mental models and double loop learning ........................................ 13

3.2. Communication of knowledge, dialogue, and shift of minds ........................................ 17

3.2.1. Communicating Knowledge .............................................................................. 17

3.2.2. Organizational learning and an action theory of dialogue ................................. 18

3.2.3. A shift of mind and achieving systems thinking ................................................ 20

4. LEVEL III – INTEGRATING THE UNDERSTANDING OF DEEP STRUCTURES, MENTAL

MODELS & LEARNING ................................................................................................................. 23

4.1. The origin of the theories that we hold and how they influence the way we act ........... 23

4.2. How the way we think influences the way we see ......................................................... 25

4.3. Power and learning ......................................................................................................... 28

4.4. Rethinking organizational learning ................................................................................ 32

5. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................................................................... 34

6. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 35

Management of Organizational Learning

Page 2 of 37

1. INTRODUCTION

The aim of this course was to gain insight into: (1) ways to design organizations and

processes in such a way that the pluriformity of people, power and knowledge get a place, (2)

what it means to work together in a world where truth is pluriform, where power, knowledge

and truth are intricately interwoven, (3) the effect of how we view the world and ourselves

shapes our actions and outcomes and inhibits actionable learning and (4) how a lack of this

understanding inhibits actionable learning. (Berends, 2008)

2. LEVEL I - CONCEPTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND HELICOPTER VIEW

2.1. Introduction to organizational learning and change

2.1.1. Introducing organizational learning

Peter Senge argues that knowledge is multi-faceted as all our ideas are the result of other

people‟s direct or indirect influence (Fulmer & Keys, 1998b). He describes learning

organizations as divers, multifaceted, and living communities in which people share

responsibility and jointly work on developing their capabilities in order to accomplish

something that they actually care about instead of simply enhancing their learning

competence. He compares knowledge to a tree whose invisible roots take a long time to

develop, form the basis for the systems health and are like the “deep theory” or “the deepest

timeless insights” (Fulmer & Keys, 1998b, p. 37). The branches are the means to solve

problems and the fruits are people‟s practical know how. For knowledge to be created the

parts of the tree have to form a whole whereby the human spirit is the systems source of

energy and generative drive. For organizational learning Senge stresses the importance of

understanding structure as the distribution of power and change as the struggle for

confronting and redistributing power structures, producing unsettlement before a new order

can establish itself (Fulmer & Keys, 1998b). To truly learn, people need “safe environments”

(Fulmer & Keys, 1998b, p. 37) in which they can see and understand interrelationships as

well as try new things. Leadership should help them to learn and put new realities into being.

In “The Fifth Discipline”, Senge (2006) argues that work must become ever more

“learningful” (p. 4) at all organizational levels since the world becomes increasingly complex

and dynamic. Companies need to align more consistently with people‟s higher ambitions as

material prosperity shifted the view of work as a mere means towards it being an end in itself

with more intrinsic benefits (Senge, 2006). He believes that people intrinsically like to learn

and that all organization could become truly learning and innovative by mastering fife basic

disciplines that stimulate experimentation and organizational development:


Page 3 of 37

(1) Systems Thinking: Everything should be viewed systemically and understood by looking

at the system as a whole and not just the interrelations of individual parts. However this is

difficult and being an element in the system ourselves we often only focus on sub-parts,

which keeps us from truly solving systemic problems.

(2) Personal Mastery: We should persistently clarify and deepen our personal vision, focus

our energies, develop patience, and see reality objectively. Organizations should encourage

personal growth and striving for higher aspirations as organizational learning cannot be

separated from individual learning capacity.

(3) Mental Models: We need to become aware of and reflect on our (shared) mental models

(deeply embedded assumptions, generalizations or pictures) that we are often not consciously

aware of but that influence our understanding of the world as well as our behavior. Truly

learning means to balance critical questioning and advocating.

(4) Building a Shared Vision: Organizations need to find truly shared images of the future, a

common identity and a sense of fate that fosters genuine commitment, involvement and

triggers people‟s intrinsic motivation to learn and excel instead of mere compliance. Senge

(2006) criticizes that most leaders are unable to translate their visions into shared ones.

(5) Team Learning: This discipline begins with dialog and the ability of individuals to

suspend their mental models, to allow the free flow of meaning, and to engage in genuine

group conversations without unrecognized defensiveness inhibiting learning or leading to

discussions in which ideas are moved back and forth in a rather competitive manner.

According to Senge (2006) these five dimensions are rather artistic disciplines in that they do

not lead to a final state of learning excellence but need to be practiced continuously as more

learning leads to more awareness of ones own ignorance. He believes that systems thinking

integrates the other disciplines to an interrelated whole that exceeds the sum of its parts

whilst it also depends on them.

“Bulding a shared vision fosters a commitment to the long term. Mental models focus

on the openness needed to unearth shortcomings in our present ways of seeing the

world. Team learning develops the skills of groups of people to look for the larger

picture beyond individual perspectives. And personal mastery fosters the personal

motivation to continually learn how our actions affect our world.” (Senge, 2006, p. 12)

Summarized in the term “Metanoia” (Senge, 2006, p. 13), learning organizations realize that

they are part of a system in which their actions create as well as change reality and shift away

from purely adaptive learning and symptomatic problem interventions towards learning that

enables to shape the world.


Page 4 of 37

Senge (2006) says that learning disabled organizations fail due to their inability of identifying

potential threats, comprehend the implications, and produce alternatives. He identifies seven

to be identified and alleviated learning disabilities: (1) “I am my position” or people only

focusing on their everyday tasks but not the greater purpose, (2) “The enemy is out there” and

not seeing how we contribute to problems with our own actions, (3) The illusion of

proactively taking charge by fighting the enemy out there but actually being reactive due to

not seeing how one self contributed to problems, (4) The fixation on events and their

explanations distracting us from seeing and understanding long term patterns, (5) The

inability to see gradual change processes that slowly threaten us (“the boiled frog”), (6) The

illusion of learning from experience despite of our physical inability to experience all our

actions implications directly time and location wise, and finally (7) “skilled incompetence” of

management teams that function quite well under routine conditions but that are often

learning dysfunctional and self-protective in times of trouble.

Senge (2006) believes that these learning disabilities are due to the management and design

of human systems whereby organizational structure and the subtle interrelationships of

perceptions, goals, rules, and norms influence and control people‟s behavior. Systemic

structures are generative whilst patterns of behavior are often only reactive to events as he

shows in a Beer Game, in which people are unable to remove system instabilities despite of

good intentions because they do not see how their own behavior affects others and creates the

instabilities. “When placed in the same system, people, however different, tend to produce

similar results.” (Senge, p. 42). In order to develop the ability as well as power to alter the

structures that we live in and thereby effectively change our behavior patterns towards a long

term perspective we need to see and understand the complex systemic structures, key

interrelationships and multiple levels of explanations that we are part of and often cause

ourselves (Senge, p. 42).

2.1.2. Accomplishing change

Change is described by Garvey & Williamson (2002) as an uncertain and risky but

nonetheless unavoidable element of our in “„liquid modernity‟” embedded lives. With

everything being fluid, fast moving, temporary, and transitory they say the challenge is to not

be overwhelmed by change but to understand it better in order to influence its speed and

direction. Similar to Senge, Garvey & Williamson (2002) argue that people can influence

change if they are encouraged to think critically and enter into genuine dialogue about the

beliefs and structures that shape their actions. New knowledge is said to be created by making

the tacit explicit whereby people should be critical about the scientific ideas that influence

management practice. According to Garvey & Williamson (2002) change today cannot


Page 5 of 37

simply be viewed as a rational process that could be planned, managed, and controlled.

Rather it needs learning stimulated by sensitive leadership that encourages people‟s

involvement, enables them to think in novel ways, and allows them to agree on the need for

change as well as on how to go about it. Garvey & Williamson (2002) formulate three

interdependent propositions for knowledge productive change: (1) knowledge productive

leadership encourages people to think, (2) people will risk thinking in new ways only in a

open, positively motivated, and creative climate, and (3) in this context gaps between words

and actions need to be closed as people only learn and grow when they are respected and

valued as ends in themselves and not as pure productive means. Accordingly a rich landscape

for learning is socially constructed by a humane corporate curriculum that pays attention to

“social processes of dialogue, openness, diversity, tolerance, uncertainty, complexity, trust,

relationships, reflection, re-framing, restoration and reflexivity” (Garvey & Williamson,

2002, p. 184).

2.2. Setting the scope for knowledge management towards actionability

2.2.1. Introducing the bigger picture of knowledge management

Social and economic changes have always been ahead of what we know about how the world

works but with science, technology and global mass communication we shape(d) a

knowledge economy characterized by unmanageable super-complexity, increased

uncertainty, and even more rapid change. As a dense network of interrelated activities our

knowledge system is essentially open to new ideas and ways of thinking, whereby our ability

to reflect on the limitedness and shortfalls of knowledge is seen as its most valuable

characteristic. Garvey & Williamson (2002) describe this situation as a significant element of

post modernity, the source of our creativeness, but also of instability and argue that only self-

critical, learning organizations, which are able to recognize, communicate, combine and

refine what its members know will be successful in the future. They view organizational

survival as dependent on the cooperation of all parties of society and the move from

bureaucratic management towards treating people as ends in themselves and not just means.

Garvey & Williamson (2002) define learning as a social activity that is made possible via

social discourse and dialogue. It is situated in social settings and circumstances, involves

personal change, and is a continuous activity throughout life. Although only individuals have

the ability to learn, organizations are said to be able to hinder or nurture it. To nurture it they

need to be aware of their past and present way of doing things as well as their anticipations

for the future so that they can reframe their circumstances and develop novel solutions to

complex problems. Further, Garvey & Williamson (2002) point out a moral dimension to

learning and organizational change not only because people learn most effectively when they


Page 6 of 37

have good reasons to do so and when learning is valued by positive responses but also

because learning environments involve issues of manipulation, control and the use of power.

They conclude that for an effective, efficient and moral learning climate organizations should

build: confidence, competence, collaboration, and communication among their members.

By illustrating opposing social science perspectives (i.e. subjectivist vs objectivist paradigms,

conflict vs order, regulation vs radical) and paradoxes Garvey & Williamson (2002) also

point out the plural nature of knowledge and that individuals as well as groups may adopt

different beliefs on how the world works and act accordingly. They say that organizations

need to understand that their past was created by the owners of power and is manifest in their

culture and that they need to be open to learning as an experience as well as learning from

experience. Further, strategies should be embedded in learning that fosters attentiveness for

scanning, interpreting and understanding the environment whereby training as well as

development must be dynamic and recognize tacit as well as explicit knowledge. Referring to

Bernstein‟s educational curriculum theory, Garvey & Williamson (2002) put forward that it is

important to decide on valid knowledge, pedagogy, evaluation, and realization for learning

environments. In their point of view managers need to become aware that the work place

itself is a potentially rich learning environment and that a situated approach offers greater

depth, understanding, and involvement for learning to be knowledge productive and to

generate new ideas and ways of thinking in contrast to purely formal or informal curriculums.

2.2.2. Defining organizational knowledge and the dynamic character of its creation

Nonaka (1994) defines information as the flow of messages that is necessary for the creation

of knowledge. He views knowledge as subjective to individuals in search for truth and

therefore terms it as justified personal belief. According to his findings organizational

knowledge is created via managing four modes of continuous interaction between tacit

(informal) and explicit (formal) knowledge: (1) socialization - creating tacit knowledge via

sharing tacit knowledge in joint experiences, (2) externalization - conversion of tacit

knowledge into explicit knowledge, (3) combination - creating new explicit knowledge from

explicit knowledge, and (4) internalization - similar to the traditional idea of learning explicit

knowledge is being turned into tacit knowledge. For organizational knowledge creation to

take place he finds that these four modes need to form a continuous cycle as depicted by the

“Spiral of Organizational Knowledge Creation” (Nonaka, 1994, p. 20) below.

Nonaka (1994) conceptualized a looping process that starts at the individual level, moves

knowledge up to the team and later organizational level as well as back down to the

individual. The interaction between experience and reinterpretation of explicit knowledge are

said to enable individuals to develop their own perspective of the world whereby divergence


Page 7 of 37

of tacit knowledge from as well as its convergence to explicit knowledge have to be balanced

via facilitating dialogue. Here metaphors that compare one thing with another are said to be

important for understanding similarities as well as contradictions of abstract concepts, whilst

analogies harmonize contradictions in showing the commonness of different things.

Broken down, the knowledge

creation process according to

Nonaka (1994) entails: enlarging

individual‟s knowledge through practical experience, sharing tacit knowledge within teams,

knowledge conceptualization by merging different perspectives, crystallizing new and refined

concepts of knowledge, judging or evaluating the truthfulness and quality of these concepts

via self-reflection, and finally integrating legitimized concepts into the organizational

knowledge base. These processes form multilayered loops whereby different stages might

take place concurrently. Managing this process is said to require the management of enabling

conditions, which include: individual commitment (shaped by intention, autonomy, and

fluctuation of environmental conditions), creative chaos, information redundancy, and

accessibility of a variety of information. Based on the above, Nonaka proposes a model of

“middle-up-down management” (1994, p. 29) in contrast to the traditional top down model or

often unrealized bottom up model. According to him middle managers play an important role

in synthesizing the tacit knowledge of line employees/managers and upper management,

make it explicit and integrate it into organizational output (i.e. products). They also have to

close the gap between top managements vision and lower manager‟s reality.

Nonaka (1994) concludes that traditional learning alone has limits when it comes to driving

organizational knowledge creation and that organizations need to create the environment for a

spiral of interactive and joint amplification of tacit and explicit knowledge.

Tsoukas & Vladimirou (2001) also illustrate how individuals acquire and enlarge their

knowledge and how this individual knowledge becomes organizational. Following a

theoretical exploration they define individual knowledge as “the individual capability to


Page 8 of 37

draw distinctions, within a domain of action, based on an appreciation of context or theory

or both” and organizational knowledge as “the capability members of an organization have

developed to draw distinctions on the process of carrying out their work, in particular

concrete contexts, by enacting sets of generalizations whose application depends on

historically evolved collective understanding” (p. 973).

Tsoukas & Vladimirou (2001) draw on knowledge as entailing individuals making an active

judgment on initially value free data and information within their given context, which then

leads them to specific behavior. Like Nonaka (1994) they view knowledge as something

personal due to variations in experience, understanding, and individual capability, whilst it is

also constructed by practice and socialization processes. When confronted with new

situations, people are said to choose an existing set of agreed upon theories or generalizing

principles and apply them according to their own judgment. According to Tsoukas &

Vladimirou (2001), the more generalizations, rules, and collective understandings become

embedded and reflectively processed by the individual and the group and thereby driven into

the subconscious, the more people are capable of apply them routinely and concentrate on

new experiences and challenges. Tsoukas & Vladimirou (2001) make a distinction between

formal and informal organizational knowledge, whereby the later is created by individuals via

improvising on the incompleteness of abstract generalizations or rules in particular situations.

This informal also called heuristic knowledge may again be made explicit and formalized by

casting it into agreed upon generalizations or propositional statements.

Finally, Tsoukas & Vladimirou (2001) suggest knowledge management to be a process that

illuminates what guides people‟s actions, makes unreflective behavior reflective, facilitates

the emergence of joint understanding and encourages the development of heuristic

knowledge. Accordingly, knowledge management is said to be effective if propositional

knowledge is practically applied and thereby turned into individual tacit knowledge, while

heuristic knowledge is being formalized and made available organization wide.

2.3. Organizational design for learning

2.3.1. Developing individual and group expertise in learning

Clarifying the nature of knowledge and expertise, Garvey & Williamson (2002) distinguish

between formal and informal knowledge similar to the previous authors. Formal knowledge

is said to evolve by itself within fields of specialization like medicine or engineering and is

driven forward by research and development on a global scale. It is no longer the property of

the individual mind, is complex, and is passed on via educational institutions. Informal

knowledge or expertise on the other hand is personal and reflects the consolidation of

education, experience, and tacit understanding of individuals. According to Garvey &


Page 9 of 37

Williamson (2002), individual expertise develops through long periods of study, is constantly

altered throughout time, and can either develop or atrophy depending on the context of the

individual. Super complexity is said to intertwine individual expertise with organizational

settings and socioeconomic frameworks. Furthermore, Garvey & Williamson (2002) make a

distinction between the modes of knowledge development and research with “Mode I” being

found as openly accessible in academic environments whereas “Mode II” is described as

interdisciplinary, often applied for solving practical problems, and controlled by commercial

organizations (p. 58). Mode II can turn into commercial secrets and thereby poses a challenge

to the values of open and democratic societies. Acknowledging our environment as being

volatile and knowledge driven; Garvey & Williamson (2002) see systematically exploiting

scientific knowledge, interdisciplinary expert collaboration, transformation of tacit

knowledge into explicit knowledge, reflection on practice and learning from mistakes as key

challenges for organizations. Looking at the debate of required individual qualities as well as

limiting factors for the development of expertise and ability, Garvey & Williamson (2002)

conclude that not the genetic or intellectual make up of individuals, neither the social setting

nor the emotional intelligence alone are determent but that many organizational aspects have

an impact on the development of learning. Organizational culture and working relationships

can either promote or stifle the willingness to learn depending on the attitudes, feelings, and

patterns of motivation that they generate. The structure of organizations (i.e. level of

bureaucracy) is said to be a key influence on peoples‟ character, way of thinking, and range

of action. Further, the value framework within which expertise is nurtured as well as the

exertion of power are both seen as having a considerable impact on the development and

application of expertise.

Garvey & Williamson (2002) question the neutrality of rational approaches (i.e. Tailorism)

that follow scientific cause and effect reasoning in an attempt to predict, control, and

objectively explain problems. They criticize them for potentially driving out creativity and

innovation as well as reducing people as means to an end. Further, Garvey & Williamson

(2002) illustrate the need for variety and changes in problem solving approaches as rational

or imposing management styles may not create obedience or overt aggression but a more

subtle response called “the „shadow-side‟ of an organization” (p. 73). Here activities take

place covertly and informal outside of normal management processes. Drawing on Einstein

saying “„You cannot solve a problem with the thinking that created it‟” (p. 74) and referring

to the super complex nature of social reality and our understanding always being one step

behind, Garvey & Williamson (2002) advocate a more socially centered approach. They

argue that people have to step out of the constraints of their own thinking in order to

understand how they might approach future changes. Super complexity and limits to our


Page 10 of 37

rationality are seen as evident but also reflexivity as the act of trying to understand the world

and simultaneously changing it. Garvey & Williamson (2002) acknowledge that people may

not be able to alter their given circumstances but that they can change their view on

themselves and their world. The corporate curriculum framework being the sum of ways of

thinking, approaching problems, and asking questions is seen as providing key processes that

may lead to reflexivity and increased awareness of problem solving approaches. These

include intense dialogue focusing on the deep analysis of dominant narratives and reflection

on practice. Seeking a solution by asking „how‟ is said to encourage the thinking that created

the problem in the first place, whereas asking open ended questions like „who‟, „what‟,

„when‟ and „ why‟ would shift thinking away from immediate solutions towards exploration,

deeper understanding, participation, and engagement in dialogue, which would eventually

lead people to reframe problems and take ownership. Garvey & Williamson (2002) find the

corporate curriculum methodology to be a powerful tool for analysis and when it includes the

elements of values and co-creation also a strong method for knowledge productivity.

Garvey & Williamson (2002) argue that a person becomes wise (akin alerted and aware of

possibilities) through the experience of knowledge and that mentoring can be a potentially

helpful way to develop knowledge and wisdom. Their key assumptions for this argument are:

(1) knowledge creation being dependent on taping individuals tacit insights and intuitions and

making these available for testing and use organization wide, (2) using a corporate

curriculum could lead to the production of knowledge, (3) although being central learning

alone does not go far enough and the learner needs to be constructively self aware and

optimally engaged in organizational activities, and (4) people learn with the help of others in

the context of social relationships including how to learn independently. Mentoring is seen as

a potential way of becoming aware of our thinking via discussing encounters with another

person and thereby shifting knowing towards knowledge in action or wisdom. According to

Garvey & Williamson (2002) mentoring is versatile, complex, and often used when change is

necessary. It is not about power or authority but involves iterative, reflective and reflexive

learning and development within a trusting relationship. From a holistic point of view the

main objective is the development of the mentee towards being able to exercise judgment,

make decisions and develop wisdom in its work. Mentoring can be constructive or

destructive, helpful or manipulative, and confirm or change cultures with the mentor being in

a key position between organizational values, culture and practices, and the mentee. Further,

situated learning via legitimate peripheral participation in the work place and mentoring is

seen as a way for individuals to develop a sense of self at work, learning the language of the

organization, and a sense of being valued through active participation in talk. Recognizing

the differences in stable, unstable and complex organizational systems and learning


Page 11 of 37

environments, Garvey & Williamson (2002) show the importance of understanding oneself

and others as learners, viewing work as a place to learn, appreciating learning as a complex

activity within a complex environment, and accepting rather than fighting complexity for

enabling individuals to continue their development. They view facilitating learning as a core

competency and knowledge productivity requiring change at all organizational levels.

Accordingly, for them a knowledge productive organization is characterized as being

compatible with individual and organizational aspirations, high employee commitment,

focusing on cooperation and team development, supportive practices and relationships,

diversity and an enthusiastic sense of people being learners.

Garvey & Williamson (2002) mean with learning environments the cultural and

psychological contexts that provide the climate and expectations, which motivate or alienate

people from learning and thinking. These contexts are said to provide stimulation and

opportunities for learning, whereby people‟s willingness to learn is shaped by the interaction

of supply and demand as well as content and patterns of learning opportunities. Managers

have to create learning environments that foster professional and personal development. The

importance of communication, openness and the value of all human experience, dialogue, as

well as criticism are highlighted. Further, Garvey & Williamson (2002) argue that the

connection between individual development and organizational growth is only made when

people are enabled to turn their tacit understanding into explicit knowledge.

2.3.2. Designing innovative organizations

Companies are increasingly looking for innovative ideas in order to sustain global

competitiveness and Galbraith (1982) argues that innovation requires a specific

organizational design that combines organizational structure, processes, rewards, and people

in a special way. He distinguishes between invention and innovation with the earlier one

being the creation of a new idea and the later one being the process of applying new ideas to

create novel practices or products that often might not fit directly with the present form of the

organization despite of their general desirability.

Galbraith (1982) says that the innovating organization includes the same basic components

as an operating organization: a task, a structure, processes, reward systems, and people;

which must all fit with each other but in a different way due to differences in innovating and

operating tasks. He identifies successfully combining both operating and innovating

operations and organizations in one firm as the main challenge.

According to Galbraith (1982), the required structure of an innovative organization includes:

(1) people performing the roles of idea generators, sponsors, and orchestrators; (2) a process

that differentiates or separates innovating and operating activities; and (3) so called


Page 12 of 37

“reservations”, which are the physical, financial, or organizational means by which the

separation may be accomplished. Further, innovation key processes include: sponsors to

make innovation funding decisions and thereby orchestrating short and long run tradeoffs, to

identify ideas that are worth legitimization and match generators with sponsors, to encourage

individuals with the necessary skills or stimulate meshing the skills of various individuals in

order to blend innovative ideas and knowledge of needs and/or technical means, orchestrators

balancing further invention and transferring an idea from a reservation to an operating

organization, and managing programs for idea generators handing the idea over to

product/project/program managers for implementation. Explicitly designing these processes

and allocate resources to them is said to increase the success of innovations. This also

includes a reward system adapted to the, more risky, difficult, and long term focused

innovation task in order to attract, retain, and motivate idea generators as well as sponsors.

Further, he says that these people have to be identified based on for innovation

desirable/necessary attributes such as strong egos, irreverence of the status quo, industry

knowledge, generalist abilities, experience with innovation … etc.

Galbraith (1982) concludes that purposely designing entails recognizing and formalizing the

above elements and that a consistent set of organizational policies for these naturally leads to

innovation. According to him, the consistent combination of idea people, reservations in

which they can work, sponsors to oversee them, funding for their ideas, and rewards for

success creates an innovative organization.

2.3.3. The importance of perspectives on developing learning organizations

Dibella (1995) identifies three different perspectives that are built on different assumption

and carry distinctive practical implications for learning organizations. The normative

perspective (1) is said to be future oriented in that it believes that managers can build learning

organizations if they establish the necessary characteristics. Different conditions that Dibella

(1995) identifies for this include among others Senge‟s five disciplines and Garvin‟s

suggestions of systematic problem solving, practical experimentation, learning from

experience, and transferring knowledge. The developmental perspective (2) is history

oriented in that it views organizations turning into learning ones by evolutionary or

revolutionary means as they reach later stages of their development in terms of their age, size,

experience, industry growth or life cycle. Learning processes and style are said to adapt

according to the development stage whereby the learning organization is sometimes seen as

arriving at a final stage in which maximum adaptability or self-renewal capacity is developed.

Alternatively to the prior two perspectives, which both assume that learning only takes place

under certain conditions, Dibella (1995) mentions the pluralistic capability perspective (3),


Page 13 of 37

which is said to assume that all organizations are by nature always learning in some way at

several levels just as all mammals breathe in order to live. Here all learning approaches are

regarded as stylistically rather than normatively different and some forms (i.e. double loop

transformative learning) are found to be more appropriate in certain situations than others as

there is no one best way. Learning processes are seen as being embedded in culture and

structure and may differ across as well as within organizations, which is said to require

managers to consider complimenting and conflicting styles.

Dibella (1995) argues that certain perspectives provide a more appropriate framework for

organizational development than others depending on the environmental situation, i.e. the

capability perspective in stable environments or the normative perspective when immediate

action is required, which would make the learning organization a moving target.

3. LEVEL II – THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUALS IN ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND HOW TO

CHALLENGE MENTAL MODELS

3.1. Theories of action, mental models and double loop learning

With his interest in producing actionable knowledge, Chris Argyris focuses especially on

how to overcome defensive routines that develop when people interact with each other and

prevent learning as well as actionability (Fulmer & Keys, 1998a). Argyris (2002b) claims that

most people actually do not really know how to learn well, especially “the well-educated,

high powered, high-commitment professionals who occupy key leadership positions” (p. 4)

and are assumed to be the best at it. He sees learning not simply as identifying and correcting

errors in the environment but argues that people need to become aware and reflect on their

own behavior; how it contributes to the problems they are trying to solve, and then change

how they act. He distinguishes between single-loop and double-loop learning. Single-loop

learning occurs “when errors are corrected without altering the underlying governing

values” and double-loop learning when “errors are corrected by changing the governing

values and then the actions” (Argyris, 2002a, S. 206). An analogy he gives for single loop

learning is a thermostat automatically regulating a heating system in order to keep up a

certain prescribed temperature, whereas in double-loop learning the thermostat would ask

itself why it is set at that temperature.

According to Agyris (2002b), highly skilled people are very good at single-loop learning,

which is why they rarely fail and neither learn how to deal with it nor how to learn from it.

Therefore defensive reasoning sets in when their single-loop learning strategies go wrong and

blocks learning despite of high dedication. Double-loop learning on the other hand is said to

be effective in breaking down these defensive routines as it is about people reflecting on how

they think and the reasoning that guides their behavior. Argyris (2002b) explains the


Page 14 of 37

development of defensive routines with the fact that it is impossible for us to reason anew in

every situation, which is why people develop theories of action (sets of rules) early in live for

crafting their own behavior as well as to understand the behavior of others. These theories of

action become taken for granted and are used unconsciously to produce skilled action.

Paradoxically, peoples‟ “„espoused‟ theory of action‟” (Argyris, 2002b, p. 7) often does not

match their actual “„theory-in-use‟” (p. 7) making them act consistently inconsistent and

because they are not consciously aware of their theory-in-use they do not see the

contradiction between the way they act and the ways they believe to act. Argyris calls the

result “skilled lack of awareness and skilled incompetence” (2002a, S. 212).

Agyris (2002b) finds beliefs or espoused theories to vary widely in contrast to only two

dominant theories-in-use: Model I and Model II. Model I theory-in-use is said to be the most

prevalent one with the purpose of avoiding embarrassment, threat, feeling vulnerable, and/or

feeling incompetent, which leads to the development of defensive routines. It is said to be

based on four ruling values: (1) remaining in unilateral control, (2) maximizing winning and

minimizing loosing, (3) suppressing negative feelings, and (4) acting as rational as possible.

Model I is said to be consistent regardless of gender, race, culture, education, wealth, and

type of organization as peoples high ambitions for success often come with equally high fear

and tendency to feel shame and guilt for failure, which is why defensive reasoning as a

normal human tendency sets in. It leads people to keep to themselves the reasoning that

shapes their behavior and to avoid testing it independently and objectively. Defensive

routines or action strategies for Model I are said to include: advocating ones own position in

order to exert control, to win, and to save one‟s own or other people‟s face. The core logic of

all organizational defensive routines leads to a self-reinforcing, circular process which

follows: “(1) send a message that is inconsistent, (2) act as if it is not inconsistent, (3) make

Steps 1 and 2 undiscussable, and (4) make the undiscussability undiscussable.” (Argyris,

2002a, S. 213/14). Despite of certain social virtues, Model I‟s consequences are said to

include misunderstandings, self-fulfilling prophecies and blocked learning. The governing

values of Model II theory-in-use on the other hand are: (1) valid information, (2) informed

choice, and (3) monitoring of the implementation of that choice in order to detect and correct

error. These values are said to turn into action strategies of: advocating one‟s position,

combined with inquiry and public testing, and minimized unilateral face saving. According to

Agyris (2002b), Model II theory-in-use minimizes defensive routines and facilitates genuine

double-loop learning since embarrassment and threat are engaged and not avoided or

disguised. Most executives espouse Model II but as it asks to be strong and criticize

constructively they often opt for Model I due to its social virtues (Fulmer & Keys, 1998b).


Page 15 of 37

Despite the strength of defensive reasoning, Argyris (2002b) argues that people genuinely

value acting competently, consistently, and effectively when it comes to realizing their goals.

He advises companies to use these human tendencies for moving towards Model II theories-

in-use and thereby helping people to identify inconsistencies among their action theories, to

teach them to reason differently, and to change their action theories and behavior. The

achievement of this is said to start with collecting and carefully analyzing valid data and

continually testing the conclusion drawn. Change, says Argyris (2002b), has to start at the top

before moving down organizational layers because defensive managers would otherwise

reject subordinates changed reasoning patterns. He suggests using a problem that managers

want to solve or unsuccessfully tried to solve as the focal point of analysis so that they start to

see how they can make a direct difference in their own performance and in that of the

organization. He describes the approach of having a group of participants produce a simple

case study of the problem and analyze it. On the right-hand side of a paper they should write

the scenario/situation like a script for a movie or a role play describing how they (would

have) acted, what would be said, and probable responses to each other. On the left-hand side

they should write down the thoughts and feelings that would not be expressed for fear of

derailing the situation. Another method for this two column exercise could be to analyze the

physical transcripts of problem solving meetings. According to Argyris (2002b) these

exercises of reflexive double-loop thinking can induce people to talk about matters that they

where unable to deal with before. Further these exercises could be emotional and painful, but

also enable teams to work in a more open, effective, and flexible manner.

Tsoukas (in Argyris 2002b) argues that Argyris‟s message is not about how exactly

productive reasoning could be achieved but rather shows the importance of constantly

challenging one‟s horizons, being open to criticism, willing to test one‟s claims publicly

against evidence, accept partial responsibility for problems and get to know oneself.

According to Argyris (2002a) these learning experiences do not eliminate Model I theories-

in-use permanently but rather they give people the freedom to choose from two different

kinds for acting. Model I may be favored for learning single-loop skills like internalizing

routines, whereas Model II may be used more for solving non-routine or potentially

embarrassing issues. Argyris believes that single- and double-loop learning aren‟t

complicated but that they need practice and that organizations have the responsibility plus

ability to create the contexts for single- or double-loop learning and enabled actionability

(Fulmer & Keys, 1998a).

Senge broadened the context for learning in that he included systems dynamics and

experimental learning methods (Fulmer & Keys, 1998a). According to Senge a lot of the best

ideas and new insights fail to be put into practice not because of people having “weak


Page 16 of 37

intentions, wavering will, or even nonsystemic understanding, but from [their] mental

models” (2006, p. 163), which are essentially the same as Argyris‟s theories of action. For

Senge (2006) managing mental models - surfacing, testing, influencing and developing them

- would be a breakthrough towards creating learning organizations as these internal

generalizations, complex theories or simply pictures of how the world works are inhibiting

people to familiar ways of thinking and acting. They are said to be powerful because “„our

theories determine what we measure‟” (p. 164) and this selective observation affects how we

interpret events around us (Senge, 2006). Problematic is seen the fact that people are often

unaware of this, which is why mental models remain unscrutinized and lead to

counterproductive actions. Refering to Argyris, Senge (2006) identifies three interconnected

aspects to managing mental models: “tools that promote personal awareness and reflective

skills, „infrastructures‟ that try to institutionalize regular practice with mental models, and a

culture that promotes inquiry and challenging our thinking” (p. 171). He says that suitable

training would help people to become aware of mental models and to discover that they are

always incomplete and in western culture often non-systemic assumptions and never an

ultimate truth. Senge (2006) agrees with Argyris on that there are different approaches to

working with mental models, whereby developing skills of reflection (slowing down thinking

processes) and inquiry (the nature of interaction in complex conflict situations) are seen as

crucial. The core is said to entail increasing awareness of gaps between espoused and enacted

theories as well as leaps from observation to untested generalization, the articulation of what

is normally not outspoken and balancing inquiry with advocacy in order to learn effectively

and collaboratively. For conflict situations Senge (2006) also proposes the two column

exercise in combination with inquiry and advocacy. Such an investigation into the basis for

others‟ reasoning and assumptions as well as allowing others to inquire into how one self

arrived at ones‟ own points creates not only a genuinely vulnerable atmosphere, the exposure

to the limitations of one‟s own thinking and the willingness to be wrong but also generative

learning (Senge, 2006). The goal is not necessarily agreement or convergence but to help

people to come to the best mental model possible by holding up different ones in order to

make the most excellent decisions. Senge (2006) believes that integrating the management of

mental models with system thinking not only improves peoples‟ mental models but also leads

to shift from mental models being dominated by events to recognizing long-term patterns and

underlying structures of change.


Page 17 of 37

3.2. Communication of knowledge, dialogue, and shift of minds

3.2.1. Communicating Knowledge

Communication, as the active and dynamic aspect of any social context, plays a vital role for

acquiring, developing, and embedding knowledge (Garvey & Williamson, 2002). According

to Garvey & Williamson (2002) the interplay of communication intention and outcome is

shaped by the complex interaction of “language, meanings, emotions, histories, assumptions,

values, agendas, power, status, systems and structures” (p. 142). They see communication as

keeping organizations together, linking the elements of the landscape of a corporate

curriculum, and helping to create new discourse plus organizational narratives.

Many aspects influence the communication process making it difficult to develop

communication especially in knowledge generative environments (Garvey & Williamson,

2002). Garvey & Williamson (2002) say that communication can be improved by enhancing

people‟s self-knowledge for which mentoring could be suitable so that the individual

recognizes how perception is affected by personal values, beliefs, and attitudes. For all forms

of communication they see the creation of shared meaning as a crucial task for the

communication sender as well as receiver. Both are said to have to be aware and understand

each others past and agenda and respectfully adapt communication accordingly. Further,

Garvey & Williamson (2002) identify vocal tone, linguistic repertoire, and non-verbal aspects

such as mimic, gesture and body language as important elements of the communication

process. All these elements combined are said to make a vital contribution to building shared

meanings and are shaped spontaneously depending on the situation and context. These

elements are largely developed through participation and socialization, which is why they are

said to be difficult to train in a formal way. According to Garvey & Williamson (2002)‟s own

experience, “„status‟ and „power‟” differences influence peoples‟ perception on how well

organizational communication is working, leading to possible communication distortions and

to suspicious interpretations of meaning. They say that the ideal situation in which “genuine

dialogue is nurtured between people who possess the same information on a topic, the same

skills to debate it and who agree before they discuss the matter to follow the precepts of logic

and reason and to respect each other” (p. 152) is rarely existent. Still they argue that

knowledge generative communication calls for open dialogue, respect, equally distributed

information, and people being equally allowed to hold different views. Meaningful dialogue

is said to be essential for people to make sense and develop their own perspective because it

helps to sort out thoughts and make the tacit explicit. Further, communication would be

effective in the presence of “openness, trust, respect for people and an overarching moral

commitment to truthfulness” (Garvey & Williamson, 2002, p. 158).


Page 18 of 37

Garvey & Williamson (2002) encourage organizations to look at communication as a journey

of discovery and joint knowledge production whereby the function of debate and dialogue is

to challenge and test information in order for it to become knowledge. They argue that

organizations should take on this perspective instead of being obsessed with arriving at a final

destination because knowledge is transitory and not a fixed point.

3.2.2. Organizational learning and an action theory of dialogue

In order to understand the micro processes of dialogue and to make it an actionable skill,

Isaacs (2001) developed a theoretical model and a provisional map. He argues that

conversations often move away from true dialogue as people approach each other with non-

negotiable positions despite of their genuine desire for dialogue. Discussions are said to often

be characterized by break downs in quality, a trading of views and standpoints, and breaking

apart manifest in winning and loosing. People are unaware of their mutual impact onto each

other, which prevents the most imperative aspect of dialogue (Isaacs, 2001): “the free flow of

meaning” (p. 711). In genuine dialogue the usual processes of thought and meaning are said

to be suppressed and true inquiry along with reflection on interpersonal reasoning alters the

quality of tacit thinking. As much of our thinking is argued to be collectively created and

nurtured, dialogue is seen as a way of changing self-created limitations.

Isaacs (2001) identifies and addresses four reasons for dialogue being widely mentioned but

rarely experienced: (1) difficulty with effectively linking dialogue to action or behavioral

change, (2) political constraints on freedom of speech within modern bureaucracies structured

to prevent de-stabilization, (3) difficulty in operationalizing dialogue in emotional face-to-

face situations, and (4) vague, non-systemic, and specificity lacking descriptions of the

processes that cause the I-You realm (states).

For Isaacs (2001), quantum theory suggests that reality is dependent on chance (probabilistic)

and never absolutely knowable because we co-create it by being active participants and

personal abilities and measures shaping individual experiences. Further, we are said to

perceive the world in fragmented ways as science and specialization have lead us to split our

experiences into disconnected pieces. Fragmented contemplation and thought, however, is

said to give only incomplete views of reality and hinders the ability to talk across

specializations. Quantum theory is said to imply “the need to look at the world as an

undivided whole” [in which all parts united generate a particular phenomenon], including the

observer and his instruments” (Isaacs, 2001, p. 722).

According to Isaacs (2001) dialogue requires us to be both observer and participant at the

same time in order to gain insight and change “the formative „ground‟ out of which

experience emerges” (p. 722f), like for instance specific group patterns, so that collective


Page 19 of 37

intelligence and learning from each other can emerge. The central elements of Isaacs (2001)

action theory of dialogue include: (1) “face to face factors” - people must find ways to lower

defensiveness, (2) “„field‟ factors” - people must find ways to suspend tacit assumptions

about each other and to inquire into the background or field conditions that lead to further

assumptions, (3) the description of a “developmental sequence” of inquiry and action patterns

unfolding over time, and (4) the outline of a “strategic map for intervention” (p. 729).

Referring to Argyris theories of action, Isaacs (2001) agrees that interpersonal defensiveness

could be reduced by increasing the level of self-reflection, psychological safety, quality of

collective attention and conflict; however, he argues that these would not create inquiry into

the sources and limits to learning. For him the “„field‟ domain [made up of tacit cultural

norms and movement of thought in it] is the ultimate intervention focus of dialogue work” as

it also has to do with: the character and quality of group attention and listening, the tone and

texture of communication, the patterns of joint reasoning, and the ways in which people

unconsciously represent conversation contents within the process of conversation. Isaacs

(2001) argues that people unknowingly construct reality as we see the world through memory

and reoccurring mechanistic thinking processes but act as if our experience of reality was

literal. What he describes as peoples‟ experience being dominated by “idols” (p. 733)

matches the notion of mental models and theories of action. He proposes to alter these and

the thinking patterns or fields that maintain them via: suspending assumptions, providing a

“„container‟” in which dialogue can take place, and using “proprioceptive attention” (p. 733).

Suspending assumptions is said to be achieved by people displaying their assumptions or

conclusions plus the information and thinking processes that lead them to these. It also

includes suppressing the defining and correcting of problems without prior exploration.

Providing a container for dialogue means to create a setting and a collective atmosphere in

which people can safely expose their views and inquire systematically into habits of

(collective) projection and reaction and reflect on them. Using proprioceptive attention is said

to enable insight by applying careful self-reflection to slow down thinking and induce self-

awareness of what one is doing or thinking whilst one is actually doing or thinking it.

For Isaacs (2001) dialogue intervention means to transform the dynamics of the social field

and its factors over time. Cool inquiry would take place instead of hot inquiry (discussion

focusing on fragments and their relationships) and instead of polarization an effort would be

made to find order in conflicts. Isaacs (1993) (2001) proposes dialogue to evolve through the

four phases depicted below:


Page 20 of 37

(1) “Instability of the container”: People are concerned with safety and trust in the dialogue

context and experience a initiatory “crisis of emptiness” as dialogue cannot be forced and

there are no decisions, purpose, leader or agenda. Moving through leads to:

(2) “Instability in the container”: People struggle with polarization, conflicts that emerge

from the collision of fragmented individual assumptions and beliefs and a “crisis of

suspension” that leads to first attempts of suspending personal assumptions publicly and to:

(3) “Inquiry in the container”: People inquire into polarization and different ideas, without

taking divisive action on their fragmented knowledge; Due to these new skills and the

collective activity, the group experiences a "crisis of collective pain" as it recognizes the

profundity of its disconnection. This releases the opportunity for:

(4) “Creativity in the container”: People begin to think generatively and new understandings

emerge based on shared insight.

The stages as depicted above should be seen as enfolded in each other in that although one

may be dominant they are all present at the same time and the group may move back and

forth (Isaacs, 1993). According to Isaacs (2001), a dialogue facilitator is essential for

skillfully navigating different forces and the group through the crises. He has to understand

how the structures of perception and experience change within the process while he also has

to be aware of his own structures of perception.

3.2.3. A shift of mind and achieving systems thinking

Senge (2006) offers guidelines for seeing patterns of change and interrelationships in order to

overcome our inability to see the world as a whole. He argues that most analyzing,

forecasting, and planning tools are well designed for dealing with detailed complexity but not

dynamic complexity, which is characterized by actions having different and at times non-

obvious consequences in the short and long run as well as in different parts of the system.


Page 21 of 37

He identifies 11 tenets for system thinking: (1) past solutions are often the cause for present

problems if they merely shifted a problem to another part of the system instead of solving it,

(2) simply pushing harder leads to the system pushing back harder as well offsetting the

benefits of well-intended interventions, (3) “low-leverage interventions” (p. 60) lead to short-

term gains followed by delayed compensating feedback of the system and a worsening of the

problem, (4) simply pushing harder on easy and familiar solutions is a sign of non-systemic

thinking often called the “„we need a bigger hammer‟ syndrome” (p. 61), (5) non-systemic

solutions can be worse than the initial problem as short-term improvements and delayed

worsening can lead to dependency and growing power of the solution i.e. a drug or intervenor

instead of internal system strength, (6) all natural systems have optimal growth rates and

excessive growth will be compensated by the system forcing itself to slowdown or demise,

(7) cause and effect of a problem are often not directly linked time and space wise, (8) often

small changes can produce the highest leverage but unfortunately they are non-obvious until

the structures and forces of a system are understood, (9) many dilemmas are the result of

static thinking because we imagine what is possible in the short-term instead of seeing how

improvement of two seemingly opposing choices or trade offs could both be realized in the

long run thereby leading to true leverage, and (10) rigid internal division of a system leads to

inhibited cross-divisional inquiry, nobody assuming responsibility, and difficulties in finding

the leverage to complicated problems, which lies in the interactions that cannot be sees by

merely looking at system parts. Finally, Senge (2006) argues that (11) it makes no sense to

blame others because we are all part of the same system, which means that solving our

problems rests in understanding the relationships with others and dynamic complexity.

According to Senge (2006), system thinking begins with moving away from linear cause-and-

effect thinking and seeing towards understanding how actions can fortify or counterbalance

each other. The key for perceiving reality systemically is said to lay in identifying circles or

loops of causality instead of linear description to understand the concept of feedback in terms

of influences being both cause and effect. Circle diagrams are said to help identify repeat

patterns, which after time make a situation better or worse, and how they could be influenced.

“From the systems perspective, the human actor is part of the feedback process, not

standing apart from it. (…) a profound shift in awareness (…) allows us to see how we

are continually both influenced by and influencing our reality.” (Senge, 2006, p. 77f)

For Senge (2006) it follows that there is never only one responsible agent but that everybody

shares accountability for troubles generated by a system. He identifies “reinforcing

feedback”, “balancing or stabilizing feedback”, and “delays in consequences” as the main

ideas within system thinking (p. 79). Reinforcing feedback processes are said to drive growth


Page 22 of 37

and/or decline whilst balancing feedback takes place in goal oriented behavior. Reinforcing

feedback is found in virtuous and vicious circles, self fulfilling prophecies, and snowball

effects. Here, small changes amplify and build on themselves and every movement

strengthens a shift towards the same direction until natural limits are faced, which slow down,

halt, redirect, or reverse the development. In all natural systems some sort of optimal balance

exists that forms a limit to growth and is being maintained by stabilizing feedback processes

to ensure survival. According to Senge (2006), balancing processes can be implicit as well as

explicit and if they are not recognized as such, these system self-correction processes can

lead to unexpected and problematic behavior. Further, system thinking is said to require a

long-term perspective as all feedback processes have some form of delay that is often not

understood or not recognized. They are found to be problematical as they can lead to overly

aggressive balancing actions, system instability, and even breakdown. As said by Senge

(2006), resistance to change is a (hidden) balancing process that undermines transformations

until the implicit goals of the system itself are recognized and changed, which are often the

implicit norms and values embedded in organizational power structures.

According to Senge (2006), our unawareness of systemic structures restrains us in our

actions; however, he also argues that we do have the ability to liberate ourselves, step outside

of the system, and change and work with the system forces once we learn to see the

underlying structures. He says that certain structural patterns are generic and reoccur in

diverse fields or areas of life; however, they are difficult to see because they are often subtle.

He identifies the following “system archetype” structures as being common to a lot of

management situations: (1) Balancing process with delay, (2) Limits to growth, (3) Shifting

the burden of which (4) Shifting the burden to the intervenor and (5) Eroding goals are

special cases, (6) Escalation, (7) Success to the successful, (8) Tragedy of the commons, (9)

Fixes that fail, and (10) Growth and underinvestment (Senge, 2006, pp. 389-400). All of

these are said to entail reinforcing processes, balancing processes and delays and suggest

high- and low-leverage change.

For instance in the “Limits to Growth Archetype” an amplifying or reinforcing process

creates a spiraling process producing

growth or improvement until secondary

affects or balancing processes slowdown the

development after a delay and maybe even

reverse it. Here high-leverage lies in the

balancing loop and can be achieved from

removing the limiting factor(s) instead of simply pushing harder on the amplifying process in

the reinforcing loop. When the limiting factor is removed growth continues until a new one

Condition

Growing

action

Slowing

action

Reinforcing loop Balancing loop Limiting

condition


Page 23 of 37

comes up. An example would be increased crop productivity through the use of fertilizer until

growth cannot be sustained anymore by the amount of rainfall.

In the “Shifting the Burden Archetype” an underlying problem produces warning signs. But

dealing with the problem is difficult as it is

hard to understand or solve, which is why

people fix it by shifting the problems burden

to easy and seemingly efficient solutions. The

symptomatic solutions, however, only make

the symptoms disappear instead of the true

cause of the problem. It reduces the perceived

need to find a fundamental solution so that after some time the problem reappears even worse

along with side effects from the symptomatic solution and it becomes more difficult to

reverse the situation. The subtle reinforcing loop often leads to dependency on the

symptomatic solution, which are the fundamental dynamics of addictions. In this archetype

leverage comes from strengthening the fundamental response (solution) and weakening the

symptomatic one, which requires a long term orientation.

For most people the leverage in real-life systems is said to be non-obvious because we do not

see the basic structures of our own actions, which is why we often focus on low-leverage

changes. According to Senge (2006), discovering “Archetypes” around us could help to better

understand circular causality, to arrive at more elaborate systemic descriptions, to organize

detail complexity, and to natural system thinking and acting. Only by seeing broad as well as

detailed patterns we are said to be able to effectively deal with complexity and change.

4. LEVEL III – INTEGRATING THE UNDERSTANDING OF DEEP STRUCTURES, MENTAL

MODELS & LEARNING

4.1. The origin of the theories that we hold and how they influence the way we act

Many authors among which Stacey (2007) agree that people become who they are through

interacting with others and jointly constructing their identities. He identifies certain

assumptions upon which we base our thinking, sense making and acting. He also says that the

dynamic patterns of human interaction and interconnection can be examined from different

perspectives, which will influence our perception and the choices we make. For instance, we

can look at a phenomenon from the perspective of systems thinking or linear responsive

processes, micro or macro view, different ontological stances and different ways of dealing

with contradiction. Stacey (2007) sees realism, relativism, idealism, constructionism and

social constructionism simply as different ways of how people make sense of the world and

create knowledge, whereby neither is better or truer than the other due to the difference in

Side effect

Reinforcing loop Balancing loop

Problem

symptom

Symptomatic

solution

Fundamental

solution


Page 24 of 37

perspective. The same accounts for how we look at causality (linear and unidirectional,

mutual/circular or non-linear) and the nature of paradox (polarization, dilemma, duality or

self-contradiction). So, to understand each others thinking and behavior, Stacey (2007) argues

that we need to understand each others perspective and the underlying assumptions. He

focuses on strategy and organizational change but his line of reasoning is also adoptable to

organizational learning (Berends & v.d. Elst, 2008), meaning that one could ask the same

questions as he does for looking at different theories, assumptions and reasoning processes:

1. How does the theory understand the nature of human interacting and relating?

2. What theory of human psychology, that is ways of knowing and behaving, does

each theory (…) assume?

3. What methodology underlies each theory (…)?

4. How does each theory (…) deal with the paradoxical nature of the population of

organisations and groupings of people?

Stacey (2007) argues that the dominant discourse and its critiques both share the assumption

that organizations are systems of some kind, whether mechanistic or organic. He believes that

it is important to understand the history of “taken-for-granted assumptions” (p. 27) as ways

of thinking develop over time. In the Middle Ages the western world was dominated by the

church and the belief in God as the creator. The Scientific Revolution then brought changes

in social and political structures as it gradually led to the Age of Reason in which different

lines of thinking developed and people began to debate the nature of human knowledge (i.e.

scientists claim that reality is a reliably observable truth, whereas others argue for a

constructed, relative or plural nature of reality) and freedom of choice (Stacey, 2007).

According to Stacey (2007), systems thinking has its origins in how Kant resolved

contradictions between the realist and relativist view of human knowledge by joining them in

“„both …and‟” (p. 30) dualism. He says that Kant agreed with the realist idea of knowledge

not simply being relative but also with the idea of relativists that we can only know the

appearance of reality in the form of our sensations as they come from the real world. Besides

giving a philosophical justification for scientific methods and knowledge, Kant also

developed a system theory of formative causality that explains how natural organisms

develop through the interaction of parts within the organism as a system in a self-generating

way (Stacey, 2007). Parts emerge as a result of interaction in the whole but also serve it as

they are necessary for the production of the whole. However, Kant also argues that this could

not be applied to human action because humans have the ability to reason and to choose their

actions autonomously (Stacey, 2007). This is in contrast to the ideas of later forms of systems

thinking which, according to Stacey (2007), do not see individuals and their actions as being


Page 25 of 37

free but as a parts or subsystems of larger social systems (i.e. groups) that again form supra

systems (i.e. organizations).

According to Stacey (2007), the development of the scientific method from reductionist

towards systemic thinking is also reflected in organizational management, which shifted from

reductionist “„if…then‟” (p. 37) ideas of Tailor and Fayol towards the incorporation of ethical

aspects and relatively recently towards more holistic and systemic theories. In early systems

thinking managers where still analogous to the rational scientist or objective observer,

however, the organization was now understood as a self-regulating whole that is more than

the sum of its parts and that moves towards enfolded archetypes, which the objective

managers could alter via specific leverage points (Stacey, 2007). Later theories of systems

thinking recognize that the manager is also a part of the system and incorporate elements of

participation and ethics (Stacey, 2007). Attempts of enfolding management determined

purposes in organizational systems, however, are contrary to Kant‟s advice of regarding

humans as autonomous individuals and critical systems thinkers regard organizational

systems only as mental “„as…if‟”(p. 41) structures (Stacey, 2007). Stacey (2007) identifies

the main problem of to human action applied systems thinking as how it understands human

participation, freedom and change.

Reviewing recent employment relations, Adler (2001) found evidence for a trend in

management towards more reliance on modern, reflective trust in comparison to

traditionalistic, blind trust due to the growing knowledge intensity of work. As said by Adler

(2001) this trend stimulates resistance from currently dominant social actors because it

threatens their privileges but it also seems to be self-reinforcing and may lead to a new post-

capitalist form of society.

4.2. How the way we think influences the way we see

Ghoshal (2005) argues academic business and management research to negatively influence

management practice because it mainly adopted scientific methods in its attempts to discover

objective patterns, laws and theories, which excludes human choice as well as moral or

ethical considerations. He sees scientific methods as generally beneficial for research and

education but criticizes management science for its failure to realize that the partial and

reductionist nature of scientific analysis as well as its causal and functional modes of

explanation and theorizing are fundamentally inappropriate since human beings, which are

guided by intention, are the unit of analysis. He also criticizes the convergence of academic

disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and economics towards the negative view of

people being self-interested and imperfect, which is reflected in the focus on solving

“„negative problems‟” (S. 86) and the persistence of for instance agency theory and


Page 26 of 37

transaction cost economics. Ghoshal (2005) agrees on the practical value of a good theory but

he also believes in the converse and in the double hermeneutic nature of social science

leading to self-fulfilling prophecies in contrast to the single hermeneutic nature of physical

sciences. If a theory in physics is wrong, the truth is and still stays the same, whereas a

management theory that assumes people to act in a bad way could change managers‟

behavior and induce actions, which are actually likely to enhance instead of prevent the bad

behavior (Ghoshal, 2005). The “pathological spiraling relationship” of pessimism becoming

a self-fulfilling prophecy has been described by Enzle &Anderson (1993 in Ghoshal, 2005) as

follows:

“Surveillants come to distrust their targets as a result of their own surveillance and targets in

fact become unmotivated and untrustworthy. The target is now demonstrably untrustworthy

and requires more intensive surveillance, and the increased surveillance further damages the

target. Trust and trustworthiness both deteriorate.”

With his analysis, Ghoshal (2005) does not suggest abandoning the development of

systematic management theory or the study of negative problems but rather he wants to

emphasize social scientists‟ social and moral responsibility in that they could cause a lot of

harm with excessive truth claims based on assumptions or partial analysis of complex issues.

He advocates treating premises as basic assumptions only instead of testable propositions in

order to exempt ideological biases and to make knowledge advancements in regard to both

negative and positive problems. He concludes that academic institutions have to play a

crucial role for such a change to take place.

Ken Wilber (1998) describes humanity as being torn apart by value-free objective science

telling us what “is” (truth) and religion providing meaning, guidelines of good or bad, and

wisdom. According to him, science became the new religion of modernity, as it claims to be

the only valid way of knowing and thereby denying significance and reality to religion, which

in return answered this threat with fundamentalism and denial of even basic scientific facts

like the evolution. In an attempt of integration, Wilber

(1998) shows the compatibility of the two by synthesizing

the common features of science and all religions or

wisdom traditions in a “Great Nest of Being” (p. 8). It

shows reality as a series of spheres or nests enfolding

everything in the world and how the “Great Chain of

Being (…) reaching from matter to body to soul to spirit”

(p. 6) as the core of all pre-modern religious world views

corresponds to the differentiated value spheres and

Matter

Physics

1 2 3 4 5 A

+

B

A

+

B

+

C

A

+

B

+

C

+

D

A

+

B

+

C

+

D

+

E

Spirit

Soul

Mind

Life

A

Biology

Psychology

Theology

Mysticism


Page 27 of 37

epistemological views of modernity and science. Each higher sphere includes but also

transcends the core features of a lower one and therefore each level of reality associates with

a particular type of knowledge (Wilber, 1998). According to Wilber (1998), Modernity (the

Age of Reason) brought the differentiation of art, morals, and science, which allowed for

good things such as advancement in these spheres (i.e. democracy, freedom, justice,

inventions) due to their gained independence but also negative ones like the widespread loss

of meaning, alienation, and fragmentation as the value spheres not only became differentiated

but even disassociated. He says that modern science denied validity to religion because its

methods cannot register anything spiritual like a God and therefore it declared the core of

religion the Great Chain of Being as non-existent. This included the rejection of

epistemological pluralism and the different modes of knowing (“material prehension, bodily

emotion, mental ideas, the soul‟s archetypical cognition and spiritual gnosis” (p. 18)), which

corresponded to the elements of the Great Chain of Being and its at least three basic “eyes of

knowing” (p. 18): the empirical eye of the flesh, the rational eye of the mind, and the

contemplative eye of mysticism (Wilber, 1998). For Wilber (1998), the difficulty is not to

show how empiricism, rationalism and mysticism could fit together but rather that science

only accepts reason linked to empirical evidence delivered by our physical senses (and their

extensions) and that it sees no need for integration with religion in spite of its ability to

deliver arguments for the existence of a Spirit or a non-material, creation governing Logos.

Wilber (1998) comes to this conclusion because science attempts to use the eye of mind to

see what he argues can only bee seen by the eye of contemplation and thereby fails to

generate spiritual knowledge. He explains the eye of flesh being “Monological” (p. 36) in that

science chooses research objects that it does not have to talk to, the eye of mind being

“Dialogical” (p. 37) in that it aims to understand through different forms of dialogue and

interpretation, and the eye of contemplation being “Translogical” (p. 37) in that it goes past

empiricism and interpretation and is open to spiritual gnosis. He further believes that the

modernity criticizing, interpretive science paradigms of post-modernity are inadequate for

integrating science and religion as they are essentially part of the disease they try to cure and

fail to grasp modernity as a whole. Following Wilber (1998), science and religion could only

be united by showing how the sensory, mental, and spiritual levels of the Great Chain of

Being could also be divided according to modernity‟s differentiation into art, morals and

science; thus into the art, morals and science of the sensory, the mental, and the spiritual

realms respectively and thereby showing that differentiation equals the dignity of modernity

and should not be confused with its disease. According to Wilber (1998, pp. 49-50), art refers

to “Beauty”, which is really a personal judgment made by each individual, morals refers to

“The good” like justness in human interaction, and science refers to “The True” in the sense


Page 28 of 37

of a specialization delivering important types of truth through objective standards. He further

shows that modernity‟s differentiation of the value spheres (expressive art, legal-morals, and

empirical-science) also means a differentiation of the “I, WE, and IT” (p. 52) realms, which

correspond to “self, culture, and nature” (p. 52). Resulting he argues that differentiation is a

healthy way of growth and nature creating “higher unities and deeper integrations” (p. 53)

(i.e, from acorn to oak) and should not be confused with dissociation or pathological disease,

which is basically differentiation that went too far and failed to reintegrate the specialized

subsystems. Wilber (1998), concludes that integrating science and religion does not mean to

erase differentiation because the scientific world view was holistic from the start but to

address its pathological outcomes in order to comprehend what happened to spirit in the

modern world.

4.3. Power and learning

To certain extend the writings of Ghoshal (2005) and Wilber (1998) already show a

connection between knowledge and power. Haugaard (2003) reflects on seven specific ways

of how social power can be created and argues that power generated by the “reproduction of

social order” (p. 87) is more important in complex societies than physical coercion. He

defines power as “the capacity to do things” (p. 89), which can either be derived from nature

or society. “Natural power” (p. 89) comes from the physical body and human ability to

exploit the laws and causal regularities of nature, whereas “social power” (p. 89) is based on

knowledge of order and predictability in social life (Haugaard, 2003). Haugaard (2003)

theorizes that power based on social order is created in the following ways:

(1) Social order: The reproduction of meaning creates social structure, order and causal

predictability in that actions become interpretable as having the same meaning independent of

the time, the location, and the actor by which the same kind of action is executed. Consensus

on meaning is created through “structuring and confirm-structuring” (p. 93). An example is

the meaning of value that has been attached to a piece of paper looking like a Euro note. By

paying with the originally valueless piece of paper people are structuring, by accepting it as a

legitimate form of payment people reciprocally confirm the structure and so a conceptual

space for the use of power is created.

(2) System bias: An established social order also imposes constraints on people since it means

that they cannot freely act the way they want as this would threaten systemic stability (i.e.

effective communication would not be possible if language had no reliable patterns). Thus

order precludes certain actions. A change of structure again requests actors‟ collaboration and

consensus on new meaning. Non-confirm-structuring or de-structuring results in

powerlessness of those who want to change things, whereas consensus on new interpretations


Page 29 of 37

leads to the capacity to do something and empowers. Bureaucracy is an example of power

created via disconfirming-structuration, whereas the shift from traditional to modern society

happened through (struggle for) confirming-structuration possibilities.

(3) Systems of thought: Certain meanings agree with certain systems of thought, which makes

particular confirm-structuration likely and rules others out leading to a converged interpretive

horizon. Thus social consciousness sustains structural practices as new meanings that do not

match the current system of thought will be de-structured and over powered. In this sense,

when the thought system of science was confirm-structured the system of thought of religion

and its order within the Great Chain of Being became arbitrary and reduced to superstition.

(4) Tacit knowledge: Power creation also involves a link between “tacit and discursive

thought [or consciousness]” (p. 100). Social knowledge can be categorized into practical

consciousness, which is tacit knowledge that enables us to function in society, and discursive

consciousness, which is explicit knowledge that we can put into words. Learning a language

in school, for instance, involves discursively learning something that is practical conscious

knowledge for a native speaker (following language rules subconsciously) and only over time

and through usage this discursive knowledge might turn into practical conscious knowledge.

Most human interaction assumes “a convergence of practical consciousness interpretive

horizons” (p. 101) through structuration and confirm-structuration based on practical

consciousness knowledge. Even though this confirmed structured practical consciousness

might be negative for the confirm-structuring person, it will be reproduced reflex like if the

confirm-structuration has never been made discursively and never entered the discursive

consciousness of that person. Only when confirm-structuration becomes discursive, people

become aware of it, may evaluate it, and reject it if it contradicts their system of thought (i.e.

the values of modernity and feminism). Thus the powerful are empowered by using practical

consciousness knowledge to induce collaboration for reproducing a certain order, however,

the less powerful can empower themselves by making believes and interpretations discursive

so that they become aware of and may reject them.

(5) Reification: Reification stabilizes the reproduction of structure through making it appear

as more than mere social constructs, at least for the confirm-structurer. These structures, then,

do not appear arbitrary and turning practical to discursive knowledge will not undermine

existing modes of power creation. By making the “„artificial appear natural, and what is

contingent and arbitrary, absolute and intrinsically valid‟” (Poggi, 2001 in (Haugaard, 2003,

p. 103)) truth is established, which shows that truth may not necessarily be an absolute or

self-evident given but is created. Truth established through reification also makes meanings

that are commensurable with it more likely to be confirmed and vice versa as this would


Page 30 of 37

otherwise mean the denial of truth. The reification of knowledge through science can be seen

as the modern bid-for-power-equivalent of God or tradition in pre-modern societies and

although power produced by linking meaning to truth may not necessarily be fraudulent it is

still difficult to separate truth from interests. It follows thus that the transfer of practical

consciousness or routine into discursive consciousness can be blocked by deliberate

socialization because routine can be internalized through automatic confirm-structuration

triggered by socialization.

(6) Discipline: Discipline is a power creation mode that uses enforced routine and thereby

physical power to ensure predictable structuration and confirm-structuration. Routinized

behavior leads to desired, correct or normal regarded (re)actions becoming reflex like,

because enforced routine creates a behavior determining knowledge base that is purely

practical consciousness. It is not the physicality that lends its effect to discipline but the

extent to which routines are internalized or reified. As a mass phenomenon of modernity,

disciplinary power is the result of the alteration of interpretive horizon towards the idea that

socialization can lead to standardized results, which is manifest in mass-education and

certification systems for human capability such as diplomas and school grades. However,

limits of disciplinary effectiveness are evident in for instance disobedience levels often being

higher in strict boarding school than in liberal ones.

(7) Coercion: If none of the earlier mechanisms work and some people still cannot be relied

on to confirm to a certain structure then physical power exercised through violence is often

used. This actually represents the failure of social power and in its rawest form it only leads

to injury and death. Examples are war or any situation where different socializations and thus

collective horizons clash as they try to gain power over the other party.

However, in most complex social orders the first six mechanisms are combined with

violence, which results in coercion. Despite this not being an effective source of permanent or

stable control, more powerful actors use it as a threat to induce less powerful actors to

confirm structures, which the later ones consciously do not want.

The seven ways of power creation as theorized by Haugaard (2003) show that power through

social order or physicality can lead to both the “„power to‟” (p. 90) do things but also to

“„power over‟” (p. 90) others and as Ghoshal (2005) says this brings responsibility for the

powerful. In Gordon & Grant (2004)‟s review of the power literature this is also discussed.

They argue that people interested in knowledge management should read Foucault as his

writing on the inseparability of knowledge and power supplies a foundation from which it can

be shown that “knowledge is power” (p. 27) as well as “power is knowledge” (p. 27).

According to Gordon & Grant (2004), Foucault challenges the normative idea of power


Page 31 of 37

aspiring to ideals of how things should be as well as knowledge bringing truth and a power-

free state by his argumentation that truth and knowledge are deliberately shaped by the results

of power struggles. If the possession of knowledge implies the possession of power and if it

is believed that ones gets closer to truth through having more knowledge then power is also

knowledge because “it is power that enables, drives and shapes new „truths‟ and [thereby

also] constitutes (new) knowledge” (Gordon & Grant, 2004, p. 33). Following Gordon &

Grant (2004), people are thus able of strategically representing their intentions and interests

within a given context so that others seen these as rational and consistent with truth (Gordon

& Grant, 2004). As an outcome of their theorization, Gordon & Grant (2004) argue that the

design and management of organizational knowledge management systems should take this

perspective of power into account; thus “„what government rationalities are at work when

those that govern, govern‟” (p. 35).

Pfeffer (1992) criticizes that the aspect of power is largely being ignored in organizations. He

sees the development of social skills, which involve the exertion of power, and the

willingness to exercise power as vital and critical for effective managerial behavior. Not at

least because organizational change and innovation always requires interdependent action by

people with varying interests. According to Pfeffer (1992), the biggest problem in today‟s

organization is not a lack of insight or the exercise of too much power by too many people

but rather passivity and, except for the highest-level managers, an almost trained incapacity

for taking action and accomplishing something, which is seen in people simply waiting for

directives. He claims that people have developed ambivalence towards the development and

use of power because: (1) the same measures (means) can lead to good as well as bad things

(ends), (2) schools endorse individual achievement instead of group effort and ability plus the

idea that there are right (or more correct) and wrong answers hinders the appreciation of

power, and (3) our perspective from which we judge organizational decisions often does not

do justice to social realities. In Pfeffer (1992)‟s opinion it is important that people learn not to

ignore the processes of power, that they are trained well enough to recognize them and take

countermeasures if necessary, and that they develop strong morals. Further, he says that

people need to realize individual and organizational success as being a matter of coordinating

activities and working with and through other people. Furthermore, he argues that not

decision making but the management of consequences should be the focus. People cannot

know whether a decision is actually good or bad anyways because it is not simply a matter of

choice but influenced by many factors, which makes blame redundant. He also points out that

we file decisions in a shorter period that we live with the consequences. To manage with

power, Pfeffer (1992) advices people to recognize: the varying interests and perspectives

around them, why they exist, where power comes from, how these power sources could be


Page 32 of 37

developed, and how power is developed and employed by others in order to consider the

range of available approaches and effectively employ them. Finally, Pfeffer (1992) concludes

that the use of power and influence should not be viewed as the only way of getting things

done but that it is an important way next to the use of traditional/formal authority and the

development of a shared vision and culture.

4.4. Rethinking organizational learning

To evade naïve applications of learning and knowledge management, Stacey (2007) argues

for comprehending the underlying thinking and the limitations of different theories. He

reflects on the concepts of the learning organization of Senge (five disciplines), Argyris

(single- and double loop learning) and Nonaka (Knowledge management) as being build on

systems thinking and the engineers notion of control in that people are thought of being able

to step out and rationally influence the systems they are part of via effective dialogue and

teamwork. Here, according to Stacey (2007), humanistic psychology along with cognitivist

and constructivist theories form the basis for understanding how people learn. Cognitivism

holds that the human mind creates representations of reality, which it then turns into mental

models and acts upon; in other words people construct their world through interpreting it

more or less accurately (Stacey, 2007). Thus, thought comes before action in cognitivism;

whereas constructivism holds that the mind creates the reality into which it acts through

selective attention, meaning that reality is first created in action and then understood (Stacey,

2007). Generally, Stacey (2007) views the idea that one is able to step out and design learning

processes (meaning negotiation) like participation and reification, while others are subject to

the design, as problematic because everyone is part of and effected by these macro processes.

He also sees it as problematic to make a distinction between organizations that learn and

individuals who learn in organizations, because it would imply that organizations exist at

another level than people, whereas knowledge is socially constructed and is learning an

activity of interdependent people. As Stacey (2007) says, learning organization theories place

a certain amount of emphasis on emotion, relationships, and the authoritarian use of power

but they also assume individuals to be average with homogeneous intentions and that

“„good‟, selfless people submerge themselves” (p. 94) into a system without any notion of

possibly deviant or eccentric behavior. Although personally recognizing elements of

Argyris‟s and Senge‟s theories, Stacey (2007) doubts the practicality of their prescriptions as

he questions his and other‟s ability to identify what makes them think the way they do and

change it.

As an answer to largely idealistic views in learning organization theories, Stacey (2007)

draws attention to unconscious, irrational, and neurotic aspects as well as open systems


Page 33 of 37

theory in order to shed light on obstacles to learning coming from unconscious group

processes. Open system theory sees individuals, groups, and organizations as systems that are

interrelated and open to the environment in that they import, transform, and export distinctive

elements across their boundaries and affect each other (Stacey, 2007). Leaders/managers

need to regulate the insulation and permeability of organizational boundaries in order to

ensure survival. Or In other words, as system balances change over time leadership needs to

manage both maintaining and adapting processes whereby the interdependence of technical

and social systems needs to be taken into account (Stacey, 2007). According to Stacey

(2007), groups of individuals unconsciously engage in processes such as regression to

“infantile mechanism of dependence, idealization, denial, splitting, projection and

fantasizing” (p. 115) when they are confronted with high levels of anxiety due to task

unfamiliarity or lack of leadership. He finds that a group is always characterized by a task

and an emotional atmosphere it operates in, which is shaped by the members‟ basic

assumption of either dependence on a leader, fighting or fleeing from some self-invented

enemy, or unrealistic hope of an expert delivering all the answers. Stacey (2007) says that a

group may become incapable of performing its primary task if it gets abandoned by the leader

in times of great uncertainty and that it consequently becomes dominated by a process of

switching from one basic assumption to another. However, dysfunctional leaders that are

neurotically aggressive, paranoid, histrionic, detached, controlling, or narcissistic can also

inhibit task performance and drive neurotic defenses that block learning (Stacey, 2007).

Actually, the interaction of leader and follower style is said to determine the group behavior

and the shared environment (Stacey, 2007). For Stacey (2007), open systems theory

combined with psychoanalytic perspectives pays more attention to micro processes within

individuals and how these can disrupt rational processes. As he says, it makes the capacity to

change mental models and to learn look very fragile and rational as well as altruistic behavior

appear highly problematic because we are all born with inherited drives and fantasies, which

are constrained by social forces.


Page 34 of 37

5. GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Term Description

ComplexityThe growth of new ideas, knowledge and understanding driven forward by

science and scholarship

ContainerA setting in which the intensity of human thoughts and feelings could emerge

under control and allow something to be forged

Corporate curriculumThe organizational framework of order and values within which learning takes

place. It entails valid knowledge, pedagogy, evaluation and realization.

DialogueA sustained inquiry into the processes, assumptions, and certainties of every

day experience

Discussion The roots of the word discussion mean to 'break apart'

Explicit knowledgeIs tranmittable in formal, systemic language and captured in records of the

past, and assessed on a sequential basis

Field' factorsFactors that shape an indivisible pattern of action (i.e. content of thought,

defensive behavior) emerging all at once over a paticular space

Idol A collective representation that is not noticed as such

JudgementSelf-concious reordering, rearranging and redesigning of what one knows and

thus creating new angles of vision or knowledge

Mental ModelsDeeply embedded assumptions, generalizations or ideas of how the world

works

PowerThe capacity to do things; the capacity to bring about certain intended

consequences in the behavior of others

Proprioceptive attention Self-perceiving attention and awareness of one self that is not memory based

i.e. we still know where our arm is when we close our eyes

ReflexivityNew knowledge reflecting back into how human societies are organized and

change

Rules Prescriptive, guiding, and propositional statements in the form of if X then Y

Super complexityAll the frameworks of thinking and understanding that shape our actions and

institutions are themselves being contested and challenged

Tacit knowledge

Is the sum total of an individual's experience, fully internalized and more than

they can express, a combination and comming together of the technical and

rational and the personal, emotional and intuitive; Is rooted in individual

understanding of how the world works and in individuals action, commitment

and involvement within a specif context;

Theory A set of generalizing principles or abstract instructions


Page 35 of 37

6. REFERENCES

Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, Hierachy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of

Capitalism. Organization Science , 12 (2), 215-234.

Argyris, C. (2002a). Double loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of management

learning and education , 1 (2), 206-218.

Argyris, C. (2002b). Teaching smart people how to learn. Reflections , 4 (2), 4-15.

Berends, P. (2008, December 03). Integration Lecture. Managing organizational learning

and transformation . Maastricht: Maastricht University.

Berends, P., & v.d. Elst, N. (2008). Blockbook. Maastricht: Maastricht University.

Dibella, A. (1995). Developing learning organizations: A matter of perspective. AOM

proceedings.

Fulmer, R. M., & Keys, J. B. (1998a). A conversation with Chris Argyris: The father of

organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics , Autumn: 21-32.

Fulmer, R. M., & Keys, J. B. (1998b). A conversation with Peter Senge: New developments

in organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics , Autumn: 33-42.

Galbraith, J. (1982). Designing the innovative organization. Organizational dynamics , 5-25.

Garvey, B., & Williamson, B. (2002). Beyond knowledge management: Dialogue, creativity

and the corporate curriculum. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices.

Academy of Management Learning & Education , 4 (1), 75-91.

Isaacs, W. N. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational

learning. Organizational Dynamics , 24, 24-39.

Isaacs, W. N. (2001). Toward an action theory of dialogue. International Journal of Public

Administration , 24, 709-746.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization

science , 5 (1), 14-37.


Page 36 of 37

Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.

NewYork: Doubleday Currency.

Stacey, R. D. (2007). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of

complexity. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge? Journal of

management studies , 38 (7), 973-993.

Wilber, K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul: integrating science and religion. New

York: Broadway books.

management of organizational learning

Documents