View
215
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
51HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
O rganisational learning is becoming increasingly a recurrent theme in academic
journals and at conferences. The driving force behind this development is the
assumption that organisations require an effective learning capability if they are
to succeed in a complex, competitive and changing world (eg Senge, 1990; Argyris, 1992).
The academic challenge comes when we start to analyse the concept of organisational
learning and to draw out some of the implications for those who have the power to
manage organisations. One implication relates to the use of the employee attitude survey
as a tool in facilitating the learning process. There is a need to clarify its role, given the
criticisms levelled against it by some organisational learning pioneers (Argyris, 1994).
This article attempts to contribute toward such a clari® cation.
The attitude survey is one of the most useful inventions to emerge from the social
sciences. Its origins go back to the 1930s when, in both the UK and the US, it was recognised
that the attitudes of the workforce affected their behaviour and performance (eg
Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939). In these early days, and in the immediate post-war
years, the semi-structured interview was the favoured vehicle through which we gained
insight into what was important to the worker and the extent to which they were
favourably disposed toward their job and the organisation (Blain, 1958). Today, the attitude
survey is a more sophisticated tool for gathering data from all levels of an organisation,
incorporating managemen t theories as well as advanced knowledge relating to
questionnaire design, sampling and statistical analysis (Dunham and Smith, 1979; Reeves
and Harper, 1981).
This article will draw on the conceptual model put forward by Williams (1997) for thinking
about organisational learning. Within the context of this model we shall explore the role of the
attitude survey, illustrating its different applications with case studies drawn from surveys
carried out by a university research centre in the UK. The concluding section will focus on the
strengths and weaknesses of the attitude survey as a tool in the process of managing
organisational learning.
ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING
There are three readily identi® able problems in the literature on organisational learning: the
use of the term `the learning organisation’ , the multiple meanings given to the term
`learning’ and the ambiguities caused by transferring a concept to emerge from the study of
individual behaviour to the study of organisational behaviour.
The learning organisation has become indicative of some desirable end state which is
associated with survival in a changing world (Pedler et al, 1991). It has replaced the use of
such terms as the `effective’ or `healthy’ organisation. The danger of these labels in the
management literature is that they become associated with ill-de® ned prescriptive solutions
and promise more than they can deliver. This article is not concerned with putting forward
Organisational learning and the role of attitude surveys
Allan Williams, City University Business School
ideal characteristics of `successful’ organisations, but in exploring the potential value of the
attitude survey in the process of organisational learning.
What do we mean by l̀earning’? A concept borrowed from psychology, an early behav-
iourist de® nition was: `A relatively permanent change in behaviour that occurs as a result of
practice or experience’ (Bass and Vaughan, 1966: 8). It should be noted that a goal-oriented
criterion is implicit in the context in which this de® nition occurs, that both the independent ±
practice or experience ± and dependent ± change in behaviour ± variables are observable
and that the `relatively permanent’ requirement excludes changes due to some temporary
factor such as fatigue. The increased interest in cognitive factors in learning makes this
de® nition inadequate for today’s needs (Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992: 433). There are many
different ways of defining learning, but any generally accepted definition will almost
certainly incorporate the following assumptions: learning is goal directed, it is based on
experience, it impacts behaviour and cognition, and the changes brought about are relatively
stable. These criteria should apply to organisations as well as individuals if the concept is to
retain its usefulness.
How can we resolve some of the problems which arise in transferring the ® ndings of
individual learning to organisations? More and more we ® nd that concepts which are used to
explain individual behaviour are being applied to organisations. Thus, in addition to learning,
such terms as `intelligence’, `memory’ and `core competencies’ are increasingly applied to
organisations. The objective is to make the transition from individual to organisational learn-
ing without attracting accusations of anthropomorphism. The literature contains a number
models of organisational learning which avoid this trap, while integrating individual and
organisational learning (eg Kim, 1993; Williams, 1997). In a recent comprehensive review of the
literature on organisational learning, Easterby-Smith (1997) argues against attempts to create a
single framework for understanding organisational learning because of the multidisciplinary
nature of the topic. However, models attempting to integrate individual and organisational
learning do not necessarily imply that the validity of different perspectives should be ignored,
eg those of psychology, sociology, management science, strategy and cultural anthropology.
The process model of organisational learning put forward by Williams (1997) is centred
around the concepts of `beliefs’, `culture’ and `stakeholders’, and is in¯ uenced by several of
the perspectives which have been identified in the organisational learning literature
(Easterby-Smith, 1997). Such a model is particularly appropriate when exploring the role of
the attitude survey, since it is concerned with the measurement and work signi® cance of
beliefs. The model incorporates the four common features characterising individual and
organisational learning:
l goal directed ± organisational learning occurs within the context of the mission and
strategic goals of the organisation;
l based on experience ± consisting of the con® rming/discon® rming experiences of deci-
sion making agents, eg top management team;
l impacts behaviour and cognition ± beliefs of the decision making agents, particularly
beliefs relating to powerful stakeholders, are formed, strengthened, or weakened as a
result of these experiences; and
l changes are relatively stable ± once beliefs are commonly held they become embedded
in the culture of the organisation through associated artefacts. Such beliefs and their
associated artefacts become a force for stability within the organisation and are evi-
dence of organisational learning having taken place. Organisational culture is therefore
an input as well as an output of learning experiences.
Organisational learning and the role of attitude surveys
52 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
Beliefs and organisational culture
Beliefs can be classi® ed into three major categories. First, there are those beliefs which refer
to cause-effect relationships ± eg `A more challenging job is a greater motivator than a merit
pay award.’ Secondly, there are those beliefs or attitudes which reflect a consistently
favourable or unfavourable predisposition toward an object or person, eg `I would not leave
my job even if I was offered double the salary elsewhere.’ Thirdly, there are those beliefs or
values which are important and deep-rooted, eg `Academic freedom is not for negotiation.’
One of the most in¯ uential de® nitions of organisational culture is centred around the
concept of beliefs. There are, therefore, attractions in using beliefs as the means for
integrating individual and organisational learning. Thus Schein (1985: 6) de® nes it as:
... the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members
of an organisation, that operate unconsciously, and that de® ne in a basic t̀aken-
for-granted’ fashion an organisation’s view of itself and its environment. These
assumptions and beliefs are learned responses to a group’s problems of survival
in its external environment and its problems of internal integration. They come to
be taken for granted because they resolve those problems repeatedly and reliably.
The process model we are outlining assumes that individual learning can be traced and
measured by the beliefs which the individual acquires and maintains and, similarly,
organisational learning can be traced and measured by the shared beliefs ± or culture ±
which are acquired and maintained. A difficulty with Schein’ s definition is that it
unnecessarily restricts organisational culture to those beliefs which are taken for granted,
thereby implying an element of immeasurability. A more attractive conceptualisation is one
which recognises that an organisation’ s culture can be identi® ed and described through
beliefs with different degrees of manifestation. The deeper ones re¯ ecting our values may be
dif® cult to measure, but those re¯ ecting our attitudes and the cause-effect relationships we
hold are more likely to be voiced and re¯ ected in observable behaviours and artefacts ± such
as long-established personnel practices ± and therefore more amenable to measurement.
Stakeholders
Some beliefs are more critical than others within the context of an organisation’s mission.
This particular model states that the key belief systems in organisational learning are those
which are held by the organisation’ s decisionmaking agents ± frequently, but not limited
to, the dominant coalition ± in relation to powerful stakeholders. This refers to those
internal groups ± eg employees ± and external groups ± eg customers, suppliers and
shareholders ± which can materially affect the range of criteria normally used in judging
organisational success. Stakeholder theory received a significant boost following the
publication of Freeman’ s book in the US (Freeman, 1984). More recently it has received
strong support from practicing managers and academics in the UK (RSA, 1995) and it
continues to attract academic attention (Mitchell et al, 1997). When decisionmaking agents
take decisions which affect the interests of a group of stakeholders, their beliefs about this
group come into play. When strategic decisions are being made it becomes important to
ensure that these beliefs are based on sound information. Hence the value of financial
audits and market, product and personnel research. It is in the latter area of personnel
research that the attitude survey has a role to play. How can this tool help organisations
learn to harness the efforts and abilities of their human resources in pursuit of their
strategic goals?
Allan Williams, City University Business School
53HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
EMPLOYEE ATTITUDE SURVEYS
The attitude survey is a management tool for measuring selected beliefs of employees (the
term employees is being used to cover all those engaged through the company payroll,
including managers). The beliefs which are measured in a comprehensive attitude survey will
be those related to work and organisational characteristics which have been found to impact
behaviour and are within the control of management (see Table 1). In pursuit of their strategic
goals, decisionmaking agents are developing and supporting particular HR policies and
practices in relation to each of these items. Implicitly or explicitly their perceptions, thinking
and behaviour will be coloured by their beliefs about what people want from their jobs, the
style of management which will produce the best performance, the most effective incentives
and so on. The effects of these beliefs will be even more pronounced where they are reinforced
by the organisational culture ± ie they are reinforced by artefacts emerging overtime.
The work and organisational characteristics included in Table 1 are comprehensive in that
they include the main issues mentioned by employees when talking about their satisfactions
and dissatisfactions at work. They are also of signi® cance to organisational learning, vis-a-vis
employee stakeholders, because there is a rich fund of knowledge concerning cause-effect
relationships in these areas. Thus we can predict what selection practices are most likely to
achieve their goals (eg Anderson and Herriot, 1997), what factors will contribute toward
absenteeism and turnover (Mowday et al, 1982), what features of jobs will normally lead to
high quality performance (Dunnette and Hough, 1990) and what conditions are conducive
to innovative and creative behaviour (Anderson and West, 1996). The existence of various
contingency theories have also made us aware of the technological and cultural factors
which place limitations on the generalisations which can be drawn from studies carried out
in a single culture or in a single industrial sector (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Hofstede, 1991).
Sources of knowledge about people at work
In the process of making decisions about jobs and organisational characteristics,
management are implicitly, if not explicitly, making assumptions about people ± beliefs
about their needs, values, preferences, aspirations and expectations. These beliefs may be
in¯ uenced by personal work experiences, reinforced by the experiences of others and by the
theories encountered on courses and in publications. A manager’s beliefs about people at
work will be a mix of practical or experiential knowledge ± beliefs emerging from personal
experience ± and research-based or scientific knowledge (beliefs emerging from
academically-respected research).
Organisational learning and the role of attitude surveys
54 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
TABLE 1 Work and organisational characteristics having an impact on behaviour and within management control
Recruitment and selection
Training
Opportunities for advancement and development
Work characteristics
Ef® ciency and style of supervisors and management
Pay and remuneration systems
Fringe bene® ts and welfare provisions
Physical working conditions
Organisation as a place to work for
There are similarities and differences in the development of both types of knowledge.
This can readily be shown with the model in Figure 1. The sequence of activities and
interactions in upper case represent the learning process from which experiential knowledge
emerges. The lower case elements represent the corresponding process for scientific
knowledge. Those familiar with Kolb’s original model of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984),
and with the scienti® c method paradigm, will need no further elaboration of the peripheral
elements in Figure 1. However, as we shall see below, the quality of experiential knowledge
and associated beliefs about people at work may leave much to be desired, particularly with
those who have a narrow base of work experience. The same criticism may of course be
levelled at scienti® c knowledge and its associated beliefs, particularly when studies are not
replicated in a variety of situations or when theories encourage generalisations beyond those
originally intended by their authors.
How can this account of these two learning processes help us to understand the role which
the attitude survey can play in organisational learning? Managers’ beliefs about people at
Allan Williams, City University Business School
55HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
FIGURE 1 Learning paradigm for both experiential and scienti® c knowledge relating to beliefs about people at work
Source of information Strengths Weaknesses
Line management Based on already existing Accuracy of information formal structure ¯ ow too dependent on
managerial style and work climate
Subordinates only likely to share information if they see some advantage to them in doing so
Consultative Information can be passed National union policy and local committees on to management without union politics may distort the involving union/staff fear of individuals being collection and dissemination representatives disadvantaged of information
Informal network People prepared to say Can be unrepresentative since things ̀ off the record’ which people may share or manufacture they would otherwise information for their ownkeep to themselves political ends
Problem-solving Can encourage sharing of Accuracy and value ofgroups information since individual information generated will depend
contributions can be buried on group climate and composition in group membership
Dangers of group-think
FEEDBACK and
evaluation
GENERALISATIONSand
hypothesesBELIEFS
APPLICATIONS and
experimentation
EXPERIENCES and
observations
TABLE 2 Typical sources of information about people at work
work which are formed from their work experiences will be even more entrenched than those
derived from reading or formal training (Vosniadou, 1992). Unfortunately, the naturally
available feedback following a manager’s decisions and actions in work situations are often
inadequate and unreliable. Table 2 illustrates this observation by highlighting some of the
strengths and weaknesses of typical work-based sources of information about employees. It is
partly to combat some of these potential weaknesses that organisations have found value in
the use of the attitude survey, as it is designed to yield reliable information about the beliefs
of employees. On the other hand, it requires signi® cant resources in terms of time, money and
expertise. A poorly conducted questionnaire-based survey is worse than no survey at all ± the
quantitative element may give an exaggerated impression of its reliability and validity.
CASE STUDIES
The cases in Table 3 are derived from assignments which a university research centre ± the
Centre for Personnel Research and Enterprise Development ± has carried out over a period
of years. These are fairly typical of attitude surveys undertaken by other academic and
commercial bodies (Mackenzie Davey et al, 1970; Dunham and Smith, 1979; Walters, 1996).
Most attitude surveys can be categorised as fulfilling one of three primary functions in
learning and change, ie diagnostic, implementation and evaluation, although in reality they
contribute to more than one category.
Diagnostic
All cases under the diagnostic label stemmed from an acute problem, the solution to which
management had developed a favourite hypothesis. The hypotheses included: low morale
being brought about by low pay and poor promotion prospects; staff recruitment and
turnover problems caused by dif® culties in travelling to work; poor performance due to the
organisation’ s culture, particularly its style of management; and turnover and morale
problems being caused by an inappropriate managerial style following restructuring.
In tackling problems of this nature, consultants accept management’ s explanations as
hypotheses. In other words, they recognise the need to test these beliefs against alternative
explanations. This involves sounding out other groups of employees about the problems they
perceive to affect their behaviour and performance. It also involves the consultant form-
ulating certain hypotheses on the basis of scienti® c knowledge which they feel is applicable to
the situation being studied. Thus, in relation to pay, the inclusion of certain scales re¯ ecting
the equity theory of motivation may appear in the survey (Porter and Lawler, 1968).
Regarding the jobs that people do, the relevance of the job enrichment and job characteristics
theories of motivation may be explored through appropriate items (Herzberg, 1966; Hackman
and Oldham, 1980). And, in relation to team climate and innovation, scales relevant to our
theoretical knowledge in this area may be included (Anderson and West, 1996). Only in two
of the ® ve reported cases were the favourite hypotheses of management supported.
A feel for the typical process involved in carrying out an attitude survey, where diagnosis
was the primary objective, will be found in the following brief description of cases B and C ±
two London hospitals within the same health authority. Both were experiencing serious
problems relating to absenteeism and turnover of ancillary staff. The design of the
questionnaire was informed by the literature relating to the employment of ancillary staff
and by a series of semi-structured interviews and group discussions with ancillary staff and
with those groups who had responsibility for or interacted with them eg managers,
supervisors, nurses and union of® cials. Over 200 ancillary staff were interviewed, having
been selected on a random basis within a sampling framework which ensured adequate
Organisational learning and the role of attitude surveys
56 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
representation of certain basic characteristics including gender, full or part-time working,
job, residential or non-residential. The questionnaire covered all the topics listed in Table 1.
While the ® ndings varied in some respects from department to department, there was a
good deal of agreement. On the positive side, most ancillary staff liked the hospital at which
they were working and the job they did. They felt they were in a reasonably secure
occupation and were engaged in worthwhile work. The majority were satis® ed with their
pay, hours of work, supervision and work relationships. On the other hand, four problems
areas were found to be common to all departments:
l lack of induction and training ± little was done when they arrived to help staff cope
with their unfamiliar surroundings and jobs;
l conditions of work ± compared to others working in the hospitals, staff felt they had
inferior changing, washing and rest room facilities and uniforms;
l status ± low status often meant that they were treated with lack of consideration; and
l promotion ± almost half did not want more responsibility, but those who did felt that the
opportunities were poor.
Management were surprised by some of the ® ndings, particularly by the fact that one of
their favourite hypotheses ± dif® culties of getting to work ± received little support.
The ® ndings and their accompanying recommendations were discussed with the steering
committee which had been set up within each hospital at the start of the project. Member-
ship of the steering committees included management and local union representatives, and
both were chaired by the same personnel manager. Appropriate decisions were taken and
subsequently implemented. Wider issues which lay outside the authority of the managers
present were referred to the appropriate individuals for consideration.
Implementation
The cases we go on to examine ± F, G, H, I and J ± are good examples of attitude surveys
being used as a way of facilitating planned change. An international company was
Allan Williams, City University Business School
57HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
TABLE 3 Case studies illustrating different uses of the attitude survey
Primary function
Organisation Problem and/or opportunity of attitude survey
A European airline Low morale in UK of® ces Diagnosis
B, C Two London hospitals High absenteeism and turnover Diagnosisof ancillary staff
D Finance company Dissatisfaction with Diagnosisperformance of subsidiary
E Transport company Low morale and high turnover Diagnosisdepartment
F, G, H, I, J Five plants of food Smoothing pathways for Implementationmanufacturing company implementing change
K, L, M, N Of® ces of American bank Improving morale and Evaluationin four European countries employee relations
O UK clearing bank Evaluating performance Evaluationappraisal system
P Professional body Evaluating services to Evaluationwomen members
Q Consultancy ® rm Gauging attitudes of secretarial Evaluationstaff to work reorganisation
implementing a programme of job restructuring to accompany the introduction of new
technology. Underlying the changes were the motivational and teamworking theories
associated with the quality of working life movement, particularly the theories to emerge
from the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (Cherns, 1975) and the job redesign theories
of Herzberg (1966) and Hackman and Oldham (1980). Although the same parent company
was involved, all ® ve cases were independent surveys carried out at different times. The
attitude survey was used as a means of involving employees in the process of change by
obtaining their attitudes and preferences with respect to their existing jobs and the planned
changes. It also served as a useful method of obtaining feedback on the extent to which
employees understood the proposed changes and the problems they anticipated arising
from the changes (Woodward and Williams, 1987).
The sequence of steps involved in carrying out these surveys was much the same as the
ones described above. The main differences were that self-completion questionnaires were
used, everyone was invited to participate in the surveys on an anonymous basis and ,while
part of the questionnaire was designed around issues brought up by employees, part was
determined by management’ s planned changes.
Of the ® ve surveys carried out, three positively contributed to smoothing out the process
of implementing the planned changes, one had mixed results and one made no positive
contribution. Three interlinked factors seemed to determine whether the attitude survey was
to make a positive contribution or not: recent industrial relations history in the plant; the
managerial style in operation ± particularly whether there was a climate of trust; and recent
examples of workers being made redundant in the immediate neighbourhood. These
® ndings will be of no surprise to those who emphasise the role of contextual and historical
factors in understanding behaviour.
Evaluation
The cases in this section are essentially surveys designed to yield good quality feedback
relating to existing policies and practices. These cases were motivated by the desire for a
health audit or a benchmarking exercise in order to assess the effectiveness of existing
policies and procedures ± particularly their impact on morale and employee relations ± and
to generate forces for change where appropriate. Surveys falling within this category have
become increasingly popular in the highly-competitive climate in which we operate.
Cases K, L, M and N are examples of surveys carried out in an international bank in four
European countries. These were general surveys, ie they covered all the areas listed in Table
1, designed to be repeated at yearly intervals so that data relating to trends become
available. The process of developing the initial questionnaire was much the same as that
described for the diagnostic category, but subsequent versions retained a selection of
standard items to facilitate comparisons across countries and across years. A number of
organisations have, for many years, been using surveys in this way eg IBM and the British
Army. The bene® ts come when organisations get early warning signs of problems ahead, eg
employees perceiving that their pay has fallen behind that of competitors. They evoke
appropriate management responses before dysfunctional beliefs or attitudes become
re¯ ected in resignations or poor quality performance.
The attitude survey generates expectations of change, and academics and consultants
have developed various approaches for harnessing these forces to bring about changes
which will bene® t the organisation as well as employees. Thus, in the international bank
example, the approach used was to feed back all the results to top management and to
provide individual departments with their own results and the average results for all
Organisational learning and the role of attitude surveys
58 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
departments. Individual managers were given relevant training before they discussed the
results with their teams, in order to encourage constructive rather than defensive responses.
After an appropriate interval, senior management followed up these processes in order to
see whether appropriate action had been taken and, if not, why not. The benchmarking
element in this so-called `survey feedback method’ does put pressure on line managers to
take action where it is most needed (Mann, 1961; Nadler, 1977; French and Bell, 1995).
Not all attitude surveys falling under the `evaluation’ label are as genera l and
sophisticated as these. Thus the other examples in Table 2 focus on a particular HR practice
such as a performance appraisal system or on a particular sub-group of members such as
women accountants or secretarial staff. In each of these cases there was a need for more
systematic information, in order to improve a scheme intended to enhance performance
(Silverstone and Williams, 1982), to retain and increase membership by providing a better
service (Silverstone and Williams, 1979) or to ® nd ways of making more effective use of the
talents of a particular group of staff.
Now that we have a clearer understanding of how the attitude survey has been used in
the process of managing organisations, we can refocus on its role in organisational learning.
Earlier in this article it was proposed that four interrelated criteria need to be satis® ed if
learning is to take place, applying equally to individual and organisational learning: goal-
directed; experience-based; impacts behaviour and cognition; and relatively stable changes.
Implicit in these criteria is the assumption that individuals and organisations can store
mental representations ± ie ways of seeing and interpreting phenomena ± and behaviour
over time, and retrieve them when appropriate. With individuals, we use the constructs of
memory and intelligence to explain this ability. The functional equivalents for organisations
would be `culture’ and `decisionmaking agents’. The concept of culture as commonly held
and relatively stable beliefs of a de® ned group of individuals within a social system receives
widespread acceptance, as does the accompanying notion that many of these beliefs become
manifested in the system’s policies, practices, rituals and other artefacts (eg Cook and Yanow,
1993). The extent to which particular beliefs will in¯ uence the mental models and behaviour
of decision making agents will largely depend on the composition and norms of this group,
and the extent to which these beliefs have become routinised or are taken for granted.
Providing augmented feedback
As we have seen, the attitude survey can prove very useful in solving a current problem by
providing additional diagnostic information about a group of stakeholders, in facilitating
change by introducing additional consultation and involvement, or in stimulating change by
providing additional and comparative feedback on the effectiveness of current policies and
practices. The critical word here is `additional’; in other words, the attitude survey generates
information which is not normally available to decision making agents when pursuing their
organisation’s strategic goals. It is a form of augmented feedback ± a term familiar to trainers
and learning theorists (Hesketh, 1997).
Providing augmented or extra feedback is the most obvious role which the attitude
survey can play in organisational learning. But, in terms of our de® nitions, to provide extra
information to solve a current problem or to facilitate or initiate a change does not mean that
organisational learning has taken place. The use of the attitude survey may simply mean
that, on this occasion, better quality information enabled them to make a better job than they
would otherwise have done. For organisational learning to occur means that the organ-
isation must learn how to make more effective use of the attitude survey when appropriate
situations arise in the future, and/or the experience of using the attitude survey has resulted
Allan Williams, City University Business School
59HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
in relatively stable changes to the beliefs of individuals ± and/or the group to which they
belong ± who have the power to in¯ uence the way things are done in the organisation.
Organisations are only likely to learn how to make more effective use of the attitude
survey if their experiences extend to several surveys and a structure exists to ensure an
element of support and reinforcement. These conditions can be found in some organisations
such as the British Army, where extensive use is made of surveys. Over many years this
large organisation has been improving its techniques for carrying out, reporting and using
the attitude survey, initially covering soldier ranks, then extending to of® cer ranks as the use
of the tool became an accepted part of the organisational culture.
Changing mental models
The second aspect of organisational learning from the experience of using the attitude
survey is more complex to unravel. The conduct of an attitude survey can be a signi® cant
learning experience for those individuals involved in their design, implementation and
subsequent use of the results. Thus, in the hospitals case study mentioned earlier, details of
the design and implementation were discussed and agreed with a steering committee
consisting of the personnel manager (chairperson), departmental heads and union
representatives. Since they were involved in these stages they were more predisposed to
accept the ® ndings. While some ® ndings con® rmed their prior beliefs, others required them
to modify some of their ideas about the needs and expectations of particular groups of
employees. This meant that some perceived the problems of recruitment, turnover and
absenteeism in a new light. This learning process was facilitated by steering committee
meetings and the supportive climate which enabled differences in belief to surface and
consensus to emerge. Since the use of the findings was determined by the steering
committee, one found that these changed `mental models’ had an effect on the decisions
which were made. The extent to which these new ways of perceiving old problems become
part of the culture ± eg commonly held beliefs among managers about certain cause-effect
relationships ± will be a function of the subsequent con® rming/discon® rming experiences
and the continued `sponsorship’ of the management members of the steering committee for
these `new insights’ . Powerful individuals and groups have the ability to shape
confirming/disconfirming experiences by introducing, modifying and/or removing
artefacts re¯ ecting particular belief systems.
A few explanatory words about mental models is appropriate here. The concept has become
very popular in the organisational learning and strategic management literature, despite the
problems associated with its measurement (eg Senge, 1990; Espejo et al, 1996). Cognitive
theorists recognise the importance of mental processes in determining behaviour, and so
learning implies changing the way individuals perceive objects and events in their envir-
onment. This usually means helping them to become more familiar with those concepts (eg
empowerment and corporate culture), models and theories (such as the managerial grid,
organic and mechanistic structures) which help to impose a manageable structure on an
otherwise confused medley of variables. Through our experiences, including formal learning,
we develop mental models for conceptualising the world around us, enabling us to manage
the physical, economic and social world in pursuit of our goals. When recruiters are trying to
predict the behaviour of candidates in a particular role, they explore relevant experiences and
related beliefs, attitudes, values and expectations so that they can get a feel as to how the
candidate views the world they will have to work in ± in other words, they sample their mental
models. When a manager is trying to help a team member to adjust more successfully to
adverse circumstances, they have to use counselling skills to build up a picture of the
Organisational learning and the role of attitude surveys
60 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
subordinate’s view of the world so that the manager can gain insight into the problem. This
process of trying to construct and share the relevant mental images of others is a vital skill in
every helping profession, including management consultancy (Williams and Woodward, 1994).
Management and organisation development
Attitude survey ® ndings are sometimes used as learning material for in-house management
development workshops. When used in this fashion, the attitude survey can generate
enthusiastic debate, raising many questions about employee motivation, managerial styles,
methods for implementing change and so on. This is the sort of learning climate in which a
trainer or consultant can introduce relevant knowledge, with the aim of changing
dysfunctional beliefs held by individual managers. For example, one ® nding that comes up
again and again in attitude surveys carried out in the UK and US is the high priority given
to being in an interesting and challenging job, and the relatively low priority given to pay. In
discussing explanations for this ® nding it becomes appropriate to remind participants of
such theories as the motivation-hygiene theory (Herzberg, 1966) and the job characteristics
model (Hackman, 1980). The problem with this approach is that individual rather than
organisational learning is enhanced. This was one of the factors which stimulated the
growth of the organisation development (OD) movement, as exempli® ed in Phase 2 of the
pioneering Managerial Grid, where an operating management team was the unit of learning
rather than an individual (Blake and Mouton, 1964).
It can be argued that the potential for organisational learning to take place is enhanced
where the survey feedback model associated with organisation development and action
research is adopted. The bene® ts of this approach are well documented for bringing about
change (French and Bell, 1995). The dynamics operating to facilitate change include
widespread consultation, direct involvement of those who will have to manage the
implementation of change, recognising the need for change, working with and through the
formal structure ± ie existing teams ± and the presence of a skilled internal or external
consultant to help manage the processes involved.
The in¯ uence of the skilled consultant will be apparent to the extent that the design and
execution of the attitude survey re¯ ects the theories which are relevant in bringing about
changes in the dysfunctional beliefs of individuals , ie those which are not helpful in
achieving the formal goals. Theories which immediately come to mind include dissonance
theory (Festinger, 1957), force field theory (Lewin, 1951) and non-directive counselling
theory (Rogers, 1951). Thus, complacent beliefs may be jolted by comparing and contrasting
responses with those of competing companies, or by comparing departmental responses
with rival internal departments. This benchmarking element can be very effective in
motivating individuals to search for alternative ways of achieving formal goals. It is not easy
to ignore a ® nding which shows that 30 per cent of staff in one’s department are dissatis® ed
with management, compared to an average of 10 per cent across all departments! Force ® eld
and non-directive counselling theories ® nd expression in the data feedback and process
consultancy which are features of the survey feedback approach.
Learning climate
So far we have been concentrating on the more positive features of the attitude survey in
exploring its role in organisational learning. It would be remiss not to draw attention to
some of the problems encountered which may prevent it being used in the ways indicated.
Within the context of the model of organisational learning we have adopted, the beliefs of
the decision making agents concerning stakeholders is a central feature. The political forces
at work in organisations mean that different interest groups may have different agendas in
Allan Williams, City University Business School
61HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
carrying out or participating in an attitude survey. Where its purpose is shared by the main
parties involved, its potential value for organisational learning has a fair chance of being
realised. This was true for the hospital case study referred to above, where both union
representatives and managemen t were equally concerned about the problems of
recruitment, turnover and absenteeism of ancillary staff.
Similarly, a favourable learning climate existed in three of the ® ve manufacturing plants,
where the attitude survey was being used to facilitate the process of job redesign. In three of
the plants individual employees were not experiencing any marked degree of job insecurity. In
one of these the plan was to expand the plant; in the other two ± located in adjacent towns ± it
was intended to close one and to transfer as many employees as possible to the surviving
plant. However, in the remaining two plants the story was quite different. One was located in
an area where there was already high unemployment and where another manufacturer had
introduced a major redundancy exercise following a restructuring programme led by a ® rm of
consultants. Although the cooperation of the unions for the survey was obtained ± after a
meeting with national and local of® cials ± and the various stages of the survey were completed
satisfactorily, the climate for learning was unfavourable. The interactions which took place
around the survey and its ® ndings did little to reinforce beliefs favouring the planned changes
among the participants. Dif® culties were anticipated by management in the attitude survey in
the ® fth plant, as a result of a culture of industrial unrest which had built up over many years ±
confrontation and mistrust had become endemic in the culture ± and the absence of alternative
employers in the local community. Although cooperation of relevant parties was available
during the conduct of the survey, when it came to the stage of feeding back and discussing the
results with union leaders and management, the former withheld their cooperation pending
the settlement of a pay award to their members. The adversarial bargaining culture
overwhelmed competing considerations and scuttled any bene® ts emerging from the survey.
This latter example of a relative failure to build on the potential benefits which the
attitude survey has to offer is given to drive home the constraining in¯ uence of historical
and situational factors affecting the learning climate. Argyris’ disappointment with the
attitude survey is based on a somewhat different observation and is couched in unitary
rather than pluralistic terms. He equates the use of the attitude survey with his single loop
and model 1 systems, arguing that the defensive routines which it evokes militate against
learning (Argyris, 1994: 77):
[Attitude surveys] can still produce useful information about routine issues like
cafeteria service and parking privileges, and they can still generate valuable
quantitative data in support of programmes like total quality management.
What they do not do is to get people to re¯ ect on their work and behaviour.
They do not encourage individual accountability. And they do not surface the
kinds of deep and potentially threatening or embarrassing information that can
motivate learning and produce real change.
As we have seen, the attitude survey is used to provide augmented feedback, greater
consultation and involvement, and to generate stronger forces for change. However, by its
very nature, the attitude survey is conducted within the con® nes of the existing hierarchical
structure and culture of an organisation. This does mean that, in general, any changes in the
beliefs and actions of decision making agents are likely to be evolutionary rather than
fundamental. While this may diminish its value in the eyes of some commentators, this article
has tried to show that the attitude survey does have a positive role to play in the process of
organisational learning. Argyris argues strongly that, because of the defensive nature of
management, the role of the attitude survey is essentially one of reinforcing the existing
Organisational learning and the role of attitude surveys
62 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
culture. However, the current fashion for radical rather than evolutionary change does not
mean that the latter does not have its advocates. Thus, Miner and Mezias (1996) develop the
proposition that both radical and incremental organisational learning are equally capable of
producing positive and negative adaptive behaviour.
The attitude survey can be viewed as a method for creating extra learning opportunities
for management through augmented feedback and the enhanced interpersonal, intragroup
and intergroup interactions afforded by the survey feedback methodology. Whether or not
these opportunities result in organisational learning will depend on the management of the
process and the existence of a supportive learning climate.
CONCLUSIONS
Several recent publications have tried to show how organisational learning can contribute
towards achieving competitive advantage (Moingeon and Edmondson, 1996; Espejo et al,
1996; Probst and Buchel, 1997). They have tried to draw together what we know about the
process of learning, knowledge creation and transmission within the context of the
organisation. This article has drawn attention to one management tool, the use of which has
become part of the culture of many large organisations ± ie the attitude survey. It has tried to
review the typical aims which it serves and to focus on the role which it can play in the
process of organisational learning. It has not been an easy task because organisational
learning is a conglomeration of disciplines struggling to develop into an integrated academic
discipline. Much of it has emerged from the pioneers of organisational development who
were disappointed with the traditional individual approach to learning in the process of
bringing about organisational change. These OD academics and practitioners introduced a
more contextual and systems-thinking approach to learning, in an effort to avoid the
persistent `transfer of training’ problems associated with individually-oriented and off-the-
job training programmes.
This ancestry is relevant because the de® ning characteristics of organisational learning are
in many ways shared with OD: learning is goal directed; experiences are the substance from
which learning emerges; beliefs ± ie norms and values, and through them behaviour ± re¯ ect
achieved learning; acquired beliefs are relatively stable ± ie learning taking place is
reinforced at the place of work; and learning is socially shared ± ie what is learned is not
private to one individual but shared within a social unit. All ® ve characteristics can also
apply to individual learning, although the last one is more obviously associated with organ-
isational learning. These observations help to explain why `belief’ is an attractive concept to
use in bridging individual and organisational learning, and why `organisational culture’ is
an appealing way of conveying the socially-shared aspect of organisational learning.
As we have seen, the normal weaknesses in the transmission of information or
knowledge within complex political and social systems, such as organisations, result in poor
communication. This can have an adverse effect on the decisions made and implemented by
the organisation’s agents. The attitude survey can play a valuable role in relation to dec-
isions reached, implemented and maintained with respect to one important group of stake-
holders ± the employees. This is achieved through augmented feedback, benchmarking and
the social interactions generated at all stages of conducting the survey. Where an attitude
survey helps solve an acute problem, such as a high level of labour turnover among profes-
sional staff, some individuals may learn from the experience. This learning is likely to be
re¯ ected in new beliefs and insights, and their modi® ed mental models will affect how they
view similar problems in the future. For organisational learning to occur, this is a necessary
but not a suf® cient condition. Organisational learning is only likely to result if there is ade-
Allan Williams, City University Business School
63HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
quate and purposeful social interactions within and between organisational decisionmaking
agents, hence the emergence of survey feedback approaches when the attitude survey is
used as an element in OD programmes. However, even these approaches have their
limitations as to the nature and depth of organisational learning which can be achieved.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Sally Woodward and colleagues in the Centre for Personnel
Research and Enterprise Development who were involved in conducting the attitude
surveys used as cases.
REFERENCES
Anderson, N. and West, M. 1996. `The team climate inventory: development of the TCI and
its applications in teambuilding and innovativeness’ . European Journal of Work and
Organisational Psychology, Vol. 5, no. 1, 53-66.
Anderson, N. and Herriot, P. (eds). 1997. International Handbook of Selection and Assessment,
Chichester: Wiley.
Argyris, C. 1992. On Organisational Learning, Oxford: Blackwell.
Argyris, C. 1994. ̀ Good communication that blocks learning’ . HBR, Vol. 72, no.4, 77-85.
Bass, B. and Vaughan, J. 1966. Training in Industry: The Management of Learning, London:
Tavistock.
Blain, I. 1958. Comments on the Job: Views of Employees in Six Companies, London: National
Institute of Industrial Psychology.
Blake, R. and Mouton, S. 1964. The Managerial Grid, Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. 1961. The Management of Innovation, London: Tavistock.
Cherns, A. 1975. `Perspectives on the quality of working life’ . Journal of Occupational
Psychology, Vol. 48, no. 3, 155-167.
Cook, S. D. N. and Yanow, D. 1993. `Culture and organisational learning’ . Journal of
Management Inquiry, Vol. 2, no. 4, 373-390.
Dunham, R. B. and Smith, F. J. 1979. Organisational Surveys: an Internal Assessment of
Organisational Health, Illinois: Scott Foresman.
Dunnette, M. and Hough, L. (eds). 1990. Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology
(Second Ed), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Easterby-Smith, M. 1997. ̀ Disciplines of organisational learning: contributions and critiques’.
Human Relations, Vol. 60, no. 9, 1085-1113.
Espejo, R, Schuhmann, W, Schwaninger, M. and Bilello, U. 1996. Organisational Transformation
and Learning, Chichester: Wiley.
Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Evanston: Row, Peterson.
Freeman, R. 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman.
French, W. and Bell, C. 1995. Organisational Development: Behavioural Science Interventions for
Organisational Improvement (Fifth Ed), Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. 1980. Work Redesign, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Herzberg, F. 1966. Work and the Nature of Man, New York: Staples Press.
Hesketh, B. 1997. `Dilemmas in training for transfer and retention’ . Applied Psychology: an
International Review, Vol. 46, no. 4, 317-386.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw-Hill.
Kim, D. H. 1993. ̀ The link between individual and organisational learning’. Sloan Management
Review, Fall, 37-50.
Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,
Organisational learning and the role of attitude surveys
64 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science, New York: Harper and Row.
Mackenzie Davey, D, Rockingham Gill, D. and McDonnell, P. 1970. Attitude Surveys in
Industry, London: IPD.
Mann, F. 1961. `Studying and creating change’ in The Planning of Change (First Ed). W. G.
Bennis et al (eds). New York: Holt.
Miner, A. S. and Mezias, S. J. 1996. ̀ Ugly duckling no more: pasts and futures of organisational
learning’. Organisation Science, Vol. 7, no. 1, 88-99.
Mitchell, R, Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J. 1997. `Toward a theory of stakeholder identi® cation
and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts’. The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 22, no. 4, 853-886.
Moingeon, B. and Edmondson, A. (eds). 1996. Organisational Learning and Competitive
Advantage, London: Sage.
Mowday, T. M, Porter, L.W. and Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee-Organisation Linkages: The
Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover, New York: Academic Press.
Nadler, D. 1977. Feedback and Organisation Development: Using Data-Based Methods, Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pedler, M, Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. 1991. The Learning Company: a Strategy for Sustainable
Development, London: McGraw-Hill.
Porter, L. and Lawler, E. 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Homewood: Dorsey-Irwin.
Probst, G. and Buchel, B. 1997. Organisational Learning: The Competitive Advantage of the Future
(English translation ± previously published in German in 1994 ed), Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall.
Reeves, T. K. and Harper, D. 1981. Surveys at Work, London: McGraw-Hill.
Roethlisberger, L. F. and Dickson, W. J. 1939. Management and the Worker, Boston, Mass:
Harvard University Press.
Rogers, K. 1951. Client-Centred Therapy, Boston: Houghton Mif¯ in.
RSA. 1995. Tomorrow’s Company, London: RSA.
Schein, E. 1985. Organisational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, London:
Century Business/Doubleday.
Silverstone, R. and Williams, A. P .O. 1979. `Recruitment, training, employment and careers
of women chartered accountants in England and Wales’ . Accounting and Business Research,
Vol. 9, no. 34, 105-121.
Silverstone, R. and Williams, A. P. O. 1982. The Role and Educational Needs of Occupational
Health Nurses, London: Royal College of Nursing.
Tannenbaum, S. and Yukl, G. 1992. `Training and development in work organisations’ .
Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 43, 399-441.
Vosniadou, S. 1992. `Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change’ . Applied Psychology: an
International Review, Vol. 41, no. 4, 347-357.
Walters, M. 1996. Employee Attitude and Opinion Surveys, London: IPD.
Williams, A. P. O. 1997. `A process model of organisational learning and its implications for
management and consultants’. Paper presented at the American Academy of Management
Meeting, Boston.
Williams, A. P. O. and Woodward, S. 1994. The Competitive Consultant: A Client-Oriented
Approach for Achieving Superior Performance, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Woodward, S. and Williams, A. P. O. 1987. `Employee opinion surveys in work redesign’.
Employee Relations, Vol. 9, no. 2, 17-21.
Allan Williams, City University Business School
65HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4
Recommended