38

CHAPTER 3: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter will be to explore the theoretical literature

related to the notion of learning organization. Since organizational learning

is embedded within an organization’s culture, the significance of the

relationship between organizational culture and organizational learning will

be discussed followed by the discussion of how culture and learning is

related to organizational identification.

The Growth of Interest in the Notion of Organizational Learning

The growth of interest in the notion of organizational learning over the past

decade has been rapid and extensive. Easterby-Smith et al., (1998)46

cite

three reasons for the growth of interest in organizational learning: 1) the

speed of change in technology, 2) globalization, and 3) increased

competition. Easterby-Smith and Araujo (1999)45

have identified two

additional forces that have driven the upsurge in the number of articles

written on organizational learning and learning organizations: 1) An

increased interest in the organizational learning concept on the part of

academics from multiple disciplines, and 2) A recognition on the part of

organizations and consulting firms that an emphasis on organizational

learning and learning organizations may bring about more effective

learning processes and/or may inspire increasingly ideal organizational

39

models that will enhance business competitiveness. Dodgson (1993)41

emphasize that the increased interest in organizational learning relates to

organizations’ need for environmental adaptation. With reference to the

complexity of environmental change and its relationship to organizational

learning processes, Wenger (1998)142

observes: “In a world that is

changing and becoming more complexly interconnected at an accelerating

pace, concerns about learning are certainly justified”. Thus, organizational

learning must be equal to or greater than changes occurring in the

environment - if not, the organization will not survive (Appelbaum &

Reichart, 1997)4.

Thomas Garavan (1997)137

states that the literature on the learning

organization falls into two broad categories: first, that which treats the

learning organization as a variable and something that can be designed into

an organization and which has a significant influence on other

organizational outcomes. Second, that which treats the learning

organization as a metaphor to describe an organization. It basically views

the organization as culture and sees the learning organization as a particular

variant of culture.

Some general problems with the literature on Learning Organization

Many notions of the learning organization are emphasized. Some writers

put emphasis on the learning of all an organization’s members (Pedler et

al., 1991)108

; others on the organization’s competitiveness in all functions

40

(Hayes, Wheelwright & Clark, 198860

; Slater and Narver, 1995130

), while

others put emphasis on the skills and functions of the business (Lessem,

1990)83

. Some authors such as Peter M. Senge (1990)111

adopt a broader

approach and bracket all of the other perspectives together and tend to

suggest a composite theoretical ideal. Though the concept of learning

organization is described in many ways by various authors, there are also a

number of specific difficulties with the literature. These include the neglect

of intra-organizational phenomena and the lack of clarity with respect to

the treatment of the organization, the nature of learning itself, the lack of an

accepted theory of what comprises the culture and climate of a learning

organization, the influence of organizational size, the role of teamwork

within the learning organization concept and a fundamental question of

whether the learning organization is a variable or a root metaphor. Some of

these issues are discussed below.

The Learning Organization as Variable or Root Metaphor

Thomas Garavan (1997)137

states that those who view the learning

organization as a variable tend to have an objective and functional view of

reality, whereas those who see the learning organization from a root

metaphor approach view organizations as if they are essentially learning

cultures. Those who treat the learning organization as a variable also

believe that specific traits can be identified and such traits influence the

behavior of employees and the performance of the organization. The idea

41

that a “strong learning organization” has a distinct and positive impact on

performance is very popular, and commentators have identified a range of

benefits of developing such an organization (Garratt, 198751

; Mayo and

Jank, 199492

; Mumford, 199599

). The key question from this perspective is

how to design the organization so as to create a learning organization.

The less popular perspective stresses that the learning organization is a type

of culture and that the organization is essentially a culture. It views the

organization as an expressive, idealistic and symbolic phenomenon (Jones,

1994)76

. Treating the learning organization from a root metaphor

perspective essentially means conceptualizing organizations in terms of

their expressive, ideological and symbolic aspects. Effectively the learning

organization is not viewed as a piece of the puzzle, but the puzzle itself.

The learning culture is not seen as objective but as constructed by people

and reproduced by a network of symbols and meanings that unite people

and make shared learning possible.

The Nature of the Learning Process

Mumford (1995)99

argues that an essential requirement of the learning

process is to understand that organizational learning is not just a matter of

whether one believes in first level versus deeper level learning; incremental

versus transformational learning, but also the necessity to understand levels

in the sense of participants in the process. He advocates a learning pyramid

starting with the individual learner, then one-to-one learning, group

42

learning and then the learning organization. He sees the learning

organization as the final level of the pyramid. The idea of a hierarchical

ordering or levels of learning is popular within the learning organization

literature. The idea is described in different ways by several authors:

Argyris and Schon’s (1981)6 notion of single and double-loop learning is

perhaps most commonly cited, however, other variations include first-order

and second-order learning (Bartunek and Reed, 199217

; Watzawick,

Weakland & Fisch, 1974141

) zero learning and learning I, II, III and IV

(Batestone, 197219

; Palmer, 1979105

), habit formation learning, adaptive

organization learning and creative proactive learning (Burgoyne, 1995)26

.

Many commentators on the learning organization tend to emphasize

learning in the context of the organization transforming itself in relation to

its environment and a reciprocal process of individual learning and

development. Hoyle (1995)70

, however, argues that the notion of learning

which is advocated within the learning organization literature is limited. He

suggests that the emphasis is on the establishment of routines whereby

managers learn to manage the organization more efficiently. It is noticeable

that the developing orthodoxy within the learning organization literature is

the view that management is learning (Burgoyne, 1991)25

. It is suggested

that such a view is one-sided and limited. Hoyle (1995)70

prefers a notion

of the learning organization which advocates exploratory learning and

which puts emphasis on the generation and use of organizational

43

knowledge. It must be admitted, however, that knowledge generation and

its use is inadequately addressed within the relevant literature.

Organizational learning is generally characterized as a three-stage process

which includes information acquisition, information dissemination and

shared implementation (Sinkula, 1994)129

. First information may be

acquired from direct experience, the experience of others or organizational

memory. Mabey and Salaman (1995)89

characterized learning from

experience as either internally focused (exploitation) or externally focused

(exploration).

Second, it is suggested that organizations must continually balance learning

from exploitation and exploration, because too much reliance on the former

is unlikely to lead to generative learning. Organizational learning is

distinguishable from personal learning by information dissemination and

accomplishing a shared interpretation of the information. Effective

dissemination increases information value where each piece of information

can be seen in its broader context by all organizational players who might

use or be affected by it (Quinn, 1992)118

. The final stage of organization

learning is shared interpretation of the information. Day (1990)34

and Dess

and Origer (1987)39

point out that for organizational learning to occur in

any business unit there must be a consensus on the meaning of the

information and its implications for the organization.

44

A related issue is the question of how learning in organizations is to be

evaluated. Jones (1994)76

comments that when learning is measured by

organizations, rarely do they have an understanding of what it is they are

measuring and, when they do, they may be only measuring activities as

part of an organizational control system. Slater and Narver (1995)130

also

acknowledge the difficulty of measurement. They point out that a major

challenge will be to develop valid measures of learning outcomes

specifically to assess whether an organization has actually learned.

The role of Organizational Size

There has, in general, been little attempt to address the issue of

organizational size in discourse on the learning organizations. Fiol and

Lyles (1985)50

identify culture, strategy, structure and the external

environment as important contextual influences on the learning

organization but fail to consider size in any explicit way. Shrivastava

(1983)128

gives implicit recognition to size in his consideration of various

levels of learning but does not specifically examine how size

characteristics may influence the capacity to become a learning

organization. There is, in general, a large organization mentality

underpinning much of the writings on the learning organization and

Hendry, Jones with Cooper (1994)62

are among the few writers to consider

size explicitly as an important organizational variable. They specifically

45

argue that small size may have distinct advantages in terms of building a

learning organization. They do not, however, point out what these may be.

The notion of Teams in a Learning Organization

The notion and role of teams in the learning organization literature gets

mixed treatment. Jones (1994)76

points out that the influential work by

Quinn (1992)118

and Hampden-Turner (1990)57

make little or no reference

to teams, and Huber (1991)71

, in a major review of organizational learning

processes, neglect the role that teams may play. It has, however, been

argued that different team interpretations contribute to organizations’

learning difficulties (Levitt and March, 1988)84

and that teamwork may

contribute to the advancement of the organization’s knowledge base.

Teams, it is suggested, provide mechanisms for collective learning of

organizational members and they need ways to practice together so that

they can develop their collective learning skills (Peter M. Senge, 1990)111

.

While organizations are being encouraged to focus on teams, the reality is

that teams may inhibit learning. Team learning and performance is a team

skill which needs to be practiced if it is to result in improved individual and

organizational effectiveness. De Guse (1988)35

suggests that team learning

is more difficult to mobilize than individual learning in that it is essentially

a process of language development.

46

The nature of Organizational Knowledge

A central issue, in the context of notions of the learning organization, as

identified earlier, is the nature of organizational knowledge. If

organizational learning is defined as the development of new knowledge or

insights that has potential to influence behavior (Huber, 199171

; Sinkula,

1994129

), what is knowledge and how does it develop as well as what are

the conditions for knowledge to develop? These issues have received

limited attention in the learning organizational literature. There seems to be

a consensus as to the role of experience in forming knowledge structures

(Lyles and Schwenk, 199287

; Prahalad and Bettis, 1986113

). Knowledge

structures appear to evolve and change as organizational members reach

agreement on interpretations of their individual and shared common

experiences. Second, it appears that only in rare instances will

organizational members question core elements as opposed to peripheral

elements of the knowledge structure. The learning organization literature

also tends to assume shared understanding. This assumption does not

always stand up because, as Lukmann (1990)86

points out, people might

say yes to something they do not understand and no to something they

understand. Organizational members continually introduce new ideas and

concepts but the key question is how they are incorporated into the

organization and sustained. Von Krogh, Roos & Slocum (1994)139

refer to

this process as languaging, and argue that any consideration of the learning

47

organization must analyze the period of time in which the learning

organization is sustained and how the process may be interrupted.

What is a Learning Organization?

The most frequently-cited definition of the learning organization in the

European literature is that of Pedlar et al., (1991)108

. They define a learning

organization as, “one which facilitates the learning of all of its members

and continuously transforms itself”. Whether this amounts to a description

or a definition it has four important notions inherent in it. First it

emphasizes that aspects of the organization operate to facilitate and

encourage individual learning actively. Second, the description puts an

emphasis on all members of the organization, as it is insufficient to focus

on selected groups. The notion is that individuals learn together in a

collective system where the learning of one individual or sub-group is

likely to have knock-on effects for the learning of another. When an

organization attempts to restrict this transfer of learning it is unlikely to be

the characteristic of a learning organization (Bahrami, 1992)15

. Third, the

definition implies that the organization is experiencing a process of

continuous change and adaptation and focuses on learning about the

change process itself, while at the same time enabling individuals’

learning. Finally, the definition implies that the organization does not have

all the right answers in terms of how to direct individuals’ learning and

suggests that there is no success formula each organization needs to

48

discover its own learning organization. Pedler et al., (1988)107

elaborate

further on the concept of a learning organization as one which:

• has a climate in which individual members are encouraged to learn and

to develop to their full potential;

• extends this learning culture to include customers, suppliers and other

significant stakeholders;

• makes human resource development strategy central to business policy;

• is a continuous process of organizational transformation.

Defining Learning Organization

Some of the popular definitions of Learning Organization are as follows:

• A Learning Organization is an organization skilled at creating,

acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to

reflect new knowledge and insights. (David A .Garvin, 1993)33

• In a Learning Organization, individuals are the key where they are

acting in order to learn, or where they are acting to produce a result. All

the knowledge has to be generalized and crafted in ways in which the

mind and the brain can use it in order to make it actionable. (Argyris,

1993)10

• A Learning Organization is linked to action learning processes where it

releases the energy and learning of the people in the hour-to-hour, day-

to-day operational cycles of business. (Garratt, 1995)52

49

• A Learning Organization has the powerful capacity to collect, store and

transfer knowledge and thereby continuously transform itself for

corporate success. It empowers people within and outside the company

to learn as they work. A most critical component is the utilization of

technology to optimize both learning and productivity. (Marquardt and

Kearsley, 1999)91

• A Learning Organization is one that learns continuously and transforms

itself where the organizational capacity for innovation and growth is

constantly enhanced. (Watkins and Marsick, 1993)140

Peter M. Senge and the Learning Organization

The most influential commentator in the US context is Peter M. Senge

(1990)111

. He describes the blueprints for building a learning organization

in terms of disciplines. He maintains that these disciplines must be

practiced, otherwise nothing will be learned. His philosophy behind

incorporating these disciplines lies in understanding that the way in which

organizations are a product of how people think and interact; organizations

cannot change in any fundamental way unless people can change their

basic processes of thinking and interacting. Senge’s view of organizations

is essentially optimistic. His creative tension principle, for example, tends

to assume that individual employees will be motivated by a given

organization’s vision once it has been clearly articulated and the current

reality has been accurately portrayed. His statement that negative visions

50

carry a subtle message of powerlessness may have some validity, but it

neglects the plurality of many modern organizations in which powerless

people cannot create positive visions (Mabey and Iles, 1994)88

.

The Learning Organization, according to Peter M. Senge (1990)111

:

“organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the

results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are

nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are

continually learning to see the whole together”. The basic rationale for

such organizations is that in situations of rapid change only those that are

flexible, adaptive and productive will excel. For this to happen, it is argued

that the organizations need to ‘discover how to tap people’s commitment

and capacity to learn at all levels’. While all people have the capacity to

learn, the structures in which they have to function are often not conducive

to reflection and engagement. Furthermore, people may lack the tools and

guiding ideas to make sense of the situations they face. Organizations that

are continually expanding their capacity to create their future require a

fundamental shift of mind among their members. For Senge, real learning

gets to the heart of what it is to be human. We become able to re-create

ourselves. This applies to both individuals and organizations. Thus, for a

traditional organization that is enough to survive, “survival learning” or

what is more often termed “adaptive learning” is important, indeed it is

necessary. But for a learning organization, “adaptive learning” must be

51

joined by “generative learning”, learning that enhances our capacity to

create. The dimension that distinguishes learning organizations from more

traditional organizations is the mastery of certain basic disciplines or

‘component technologies’.

If a learning organization were an engineering innovation, such as the

airplane or the personal computer, the components would be called

technologies. For an innovation in human behavior, the components need

to be seen as disciplines. A discipline is a developmental path for acquiring

certain skills or competencies. Some people have an innate “gift,” but

anyone can develop proficiency through practice. “The more an individual

learns, the more he becomes aware of his ignorance”. Thus, a corporation

cannot be “excellent”: in the sense of having arrived at a permanent

excellence; it is always in the state of practicing the disciplines of learning,

of becoming better or worse. Any organization can benefit from

disciplines, which is not a totally new idea. After all, management

disciplines such as accounting have been around for a long time. But the

five learning disciplines differ from management disciplines. Each has to

do with how we think, what they truly want, and how they interact and

learn with one another. In this sense, they are more like artistic disciplines

than traditional management disciplines. As the five component learning

disciplines converge they will not create the learning organization but

rather a new wave of experimentation and advancement will occur.

52

The five disciplines that Peter M. Senge (1990)111

identifies are said to be

converging to innovate learning organizations. They are:

1. Personal Mastery

Mastery might suggest gaining dominance over people or things. But

mastery can also mean a special level of proficiency. A master craftsman

doesn’t dominate pottery or weaving. People with a high level of personal

mastery are able to consistently realize the results that matter most deeply

to them in effect; they approach their life as an artist would approach a

work of art. They do that by becoming committed to their own lifelong

learning. Personal mastery is the discipline of continually clarifying and

deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing

patience, and of seeing reality objectively. As such it is an essential

cornerstone of the learning organization’s spiritual foundation. An

organization’s commitment to and capacity for learning can be no greater

than that of its members, but surprisingly few organizations encourage the

growth of their people in this manner. This result in vast untapped

resources: “people enter business as bright, well-educated, high-energy

people, and a desire to make a difference”, says Hanover’s O’Brien. By the

time they are 30, a few are on the “fast track” and the rest ‘put in their

time’ to do what matters to them on the weekend. They lose the

commitment, the sense of mission, and the excitement with which they

started their careers. And surprisingly few adults work rigorously to

53

develop their own personal mastery. When most of the adults are asked,

what they want from their lives, they often talk first about what they’d like

to get rid of: “I’d like my mother-in-law to move out” or they say, “I’d like

my back problems to clear up.” The discipline of personal mastery, by

contrast, starts with clarifying the things that really matter to us of living

our lives in the service of our highest aspirations.

2. Mental Models

“Mental models are deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even

pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we

take action”. Very often, we are not consciously aware of our mental

models and its impact on our performance. The discipline of working with

mental models starts with turning the mirror inward; learning to unearth

our internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and hold

them rigorously to scrutiny. It also includes the ability to carry on

“learningful” conversations that balance inquiry and advocacy, where

people expose their own thinking effectively and make that thinking open

to the influence of others.

3. Building Shared Vision

If any one idea about leadership has inspired organizations for thousands of

years, it is the capacity to hold a shared picture of the future we seek to

create. One is hard pressed to think of any organization that has sustained

some measure of greatness in the absence of goals, values, and missions

54

that become deeply shared throughout the organization. IBM had

“service”; Polaroid had “instant photography”; Ford had “public

transportation” and Apple had “computing power” for the masses. Though

radically different in content and kind, all these organizations managed to

bind people together around a common identity and sense of destiny. When

there is a genuine vision (as opposed to the all-too-familiar “vision

statement”), people excel and learn, not because they are told to, but

because they want to. But many leaders have personal visions that never

get translated into shared visions that galvanize an organization. All too

often, a company’s shared vision has revolved around the charisma of a

leader, or around a crisis that galvanizes everyone temporarily. But people

opt for pursuing a lofty goal, not only in times of crisis but at all times.

What has been lacking is the discipline for translating individual vision

into shared vision, not a “cook-book” but a set of principles and guiding

practices. The practice of shared vision involves the skills of unearthing

shared “pictures of the future” no matter how heartfelt.

4. Team Learning

How can a team of committed managers with individual Intelligence

Quotient (IQ) of above 120, have a collective Intelligence Quotient of 63?

The discipline of team learning confronts the paradox. We know that teams

can learn: in sports, in arts, in science, and even, occasionally, in business,

there are striking examples where the intelligence of the team exceeds the

55

intelligence of the individuals in the team, and where teams develop

extraordinary results. The discipline of team learning starts with

“dialogue,” the capacity of the members in a team to suspend assumptions

and enter into a genuine “thinking together”. To the Greeks, dialogues

meant a free flowing of meaning through a group, allowing the group to

discover insights not attainable individually. Interestingly, the practice of

dialogue has been preserved in many “primitive” cultures, such as that of

the American Indian, but it has been almost completely lost to modern

society. Today, the principles and practices of dialogue are being

rediscovered and put into a contemporary context. The discipline of

dialogue also involves learning how to recognize the patterns of interaction

in teams that undermine learning. The patterns of defensiveness are often

deeply engrained in how a team operates and if it is unrecognized, they

cannot actually accelerate learning. Team learning is vital because teams,

not individuals, are the fundamental learning unit in modern organizations.

This where “the rubber meets the road”; unless teams can learn, the

organization cannot learn.

5. Systems Thinking

A cloud masses, the sky darkens, leaves twist upward, and we know that it

will rain. We also know after that the storm the runoff will feed into

groundwater miles away, and the sky will become clear by tomorrow. All

these events are distant in time and space, and yet they are all connected

56

within the same pattern. Each has an influence on the rest, an influence that

is usually hidden from view. We can only understand the system of a

rainstorm by contemplating the whole, not any individual part of the

pattern. Business and other human endeavours are also systems. Invisible

fabrics of interrelated actions too bind them, which often take years to fully

play out their effects on each other. Since we are a part of it, it is doubly

hard to see the whole pattern of change. Instead, we tend to focus on

snapshots of isolated parts of the system, and wonder why our deepest

problems never seem to get solved. Systems’ thinking is a conceptual

framework, a body of knowledge and tools that has been developed over

the past fifty years, to make the full patterns clearer and to help us see how

to change them effectively. Though the tools are new, the underlying

worldview is extremely intuitive; experiments with young children show

that they learn systems thinking very quickly.

The Fifth Discipline

It is vital that the five disciplines develop as an ensemble. This is

challenging because it is much harder to integrate new tools than simply

apply them separately, but the payoffs are immense. This is why “Systems

Thinking” is the fifth discipline. It is a discipline that integrates the other

disciplines, fusing them into a coherent body of theory and practice. By

enhancing each of the other disciplines, it continually reminds us that the

whole can exceed the sum of its parts. Systems thinking make

57

understandable the subtlest aspect of the learning organization; the new

way individuals perceive themselves and their world. At the heart of a

learning organization is a shift of mind-from seeing ourselves as separate

from the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems as caused

by someone or something “out there” to seeing how our own actions create

the problems we experience. A learning organization is a place where

people are continually discovering how they create their reality and how

they can change it. As Archimedes has said, “Give me a lever long enough

… and single-handed I can move the world.”

Difference between Training and Organizational Learning

There is, however, a significant difference between a learning organization

and an organization which simply pays attention to training – although the

latter is important and is almost certainly part of every learning

organization. In most organizations which have good training programs,

training is something given to employees by the organization. It is the

organization (in the shape of the management and supervisory hierarchy)

that determines and then fulfils training needs. Within a learning

organization, on the other hand, employees are likely to have some

significant degree of self-determination of their own development rather

than simply having the training imposed on them.

58

Creating a Learning Organization

Of course, we cannot turn an organization into a learning organization

overnight. A learning organization may well have different divisions/

departments at different “maturity” stages. Neither can we turn an

organization into a learning organization unless it wants to be transformed.

This means that the very top levels of management must understand the

nature of the change that must be made, and how to make it. It can be seen

to be “a good idea” in isolation. However, many organizations (or parts of

organizations) become learning organizations, not because they identify it

as a strategy for organizational development, but as a result of a set of

circumstances. Often this includes the existence of an external threat,

although this is not regarded as a pre-requisite. One common characteristic

of learning organizations is the existence of a key individual who

champions the move towards becoming (and remaining) a learning

organization. This key individual is likely to be near the top of the

management structure, but not necessarily at the very top. His/her pivotal

role is in establishing ownership of the concept throughout the

management team and in keeping enthusiasm going when the benefits have

not yet accrued and some people are losing faith. All learning organizations

deal with individuals. Individuals are valued for what they are and for what

they can contribute. However, the learning organization goes further. It

attempts to set individual learning in a framework that values all learning

59

and attempts to learn additional lessons and add additional value to the

individual learning that takes place. The value of individual learning is

maximized and multiplied by systems that allow the organization to learn

from the process of learning and to collect that learning for the benefit of

others.

An analysis of the learning organization concept suggests that it is more

useful to approach it in terms of organizational values and processes that

adopt a learning-based approach than in terms of specific structures and

models of good practice. This suggests that developing a learning

organization is not a matter of adopting procedures and practices used

elsewhere because to do so runs contrary to the processes of learning and

change. Many of the issues and choices raised by the idea of the learning

organization relate to broad questions of culture and learning structures.

The essential task appears to be the creation of enabling cultures and

structures which are needed at organizational and individual levels. It is

perhaps more appropriate to suggest that organizations can develop in a

progressive manner towards a learning organization but it is an idealized

state which may never be attained. Such a perspective is sustainable if one

views the learning organization as a variable. Three issues appear relevant

in the context of a movement towards characteristics of a learning

organization: the creation of a learning culture; structural issues and the

psychological maturity of individuals and the learning process.

60

Learning cultures

The concept of culture itself is intangible and the notion of a learning

culture is perhaps easier to experience than describe. Argyris (1985)8

suggests that an organization’s defense routines may be both anti-learning

and over-protective. He argues that such patterns of behavior may become

so embedded in the culture that they are rarely questioned or challenged.

Deshpande & Webster (1989)38

and Schein (1990)123

emphasizes the

importance of culture to develop learning behaviours which suggests a

synergistic relationship between the elements of culture and learning

activities. Denison (1990)36

suggests that culture often embodies an

accumulation of prior learning, based on earlier success, which usually

constrains and biases an individual’s capacity to perceive and understand a

new vision.

Structures / Socio-structures

West (1994)143

warns that the development of a learning organization

requires profound realignment of existing structures and socio-structures.

Pedlar et al., (1991)108

suggest that the impetus for transformation must

come from within clearly-defined boundaries for decision making.

Responsibility and accountability are embedded in the social and

organizational structure of an organization and are very difficult to change.

Honey (1991)69

is of the view that many organizations are unwittingly

designed to encourage the acquisition of procedures and behaviors they

61

wish they had less of. There is a clear recognition in the learning

organization literature that many organizations have structures which

would not facilitate progression towards the learning organization ideal.

Psychological maturity and learning

Much that is written on the learning organization assumes a certain level of

psychological maturity on the part of human resources within the

organization. However, Argyris (1987)9 suggests that systems and

procedures within many organizations prevent individuals from reaching

maturity or releasing their full psychological energy. West (1994)143

argues

that human resources are often short-sighted in outlook, unable to see

future consequences and possess negative or apathetic attitudes to work.

Learning organization ideas firmly rest on the notion that individuals are

receptive to greater accountability and responsibility in the organization

and that it is possible to achieve this end.

Mumford (1995)99

examines the nature of a learning organization and

suggests how to achieve it by “Creating an environment where the

behaviors and practices involved in continuous development is actively

encouraged”. He sees the main benefits of creating a learning environment

as:

• ensuring the long-term success of the organization;

• making incremental improvements a reality;

• ensuring that successes and best practices are transferred and emulated;

62

• increasing creativity, innovation and adaptability;

• attracting people who want to succeed and learn and retaining them;

• ensuring that people are equipped to meet the current and future needs

of the organization.

Role of Managers in the Learning Organization

Peter M. Senge (1990)111

argues that the leader’s role in the learning

organization is that of a designer, teacher, and stewards who can build

shared vision and challenge prevailing mental models. He / she are

responsible for building organizations where people are continually

expanding their capabilities to shape their future – that is leaders are

responsible for learning.

Richard Teare and Richard Dealtry (1998)121

in their study identifies that

the first step in diagnosing the interactions that occur in the “learning

environment” is to examine the active roles of managers and the related

behaviors. Beyond this, Mumford (1996)100

define four roles that managers

should adopt so that opportunities for learning can be prioritized:

1. Role model – demonstrate (behavior and actions) personal enthusiasm

for learning and development.

2. Provider – be a conscious and generous provider of learning and

development opportunities for others and an active supporter and

encourager whenever opportunities are taken up.

63

3. System builder – build learning into the system so that it is integrated

with normal work processes and embedded in the conscious agenda.

4. Champion – the importance of learning for other parts and the

organization as a whole.

Buckler (1996)24

observes that learning effectiveness is dependent on the

environment for learning and the efforts of organizational leaders and

managers in creating, sustaining and encouraging the appropriate

conditions for learning to occur. He believes that “… the quest for

knowledge by individuals is the main driving force …” and that the

individual’s personal journey can be channeled via team learning and

ultimately organizational learning with the aid of facilitators and mentor

support. He adds that the team leader should be a “disseminator of

opportunity” and thereafter the learner should be encouraged to

disseminate to the wider team by sharing newly acquired insights and

knowledge. He views this as the most difficult but ultimately the most

rewarding aspect of team working.

Mumford (1980)98

studies that managers need to take the responsibility for

the performance of their employees by rendering continuous support to

enhance their ability to learn. He suggests that managers who are good

developers of their staff:

• draw out the strengths and weaknesses of their staff rather than

suppressing them;

64

• reward their people both materially and psychologically for the risks

that they take in attempting to develop themselves;

• positively seek to identify learning opportunities for staff;

• give personal time to the development of staff - for example in

reviewing and analyzing activity associated with learning;

• involve their subordinates in some of their own tasks and do not simply

delegate tasks that they do not wish to do themselves;

• share some of their problems and anxieties with their staff as one way

of enhancing staff development;

• listen rather than talk;

• do not seek to shape individuals as replicas of themselves;

• take risks on the desired results of their departments in pursuit of

relevant learning opportunities for their people.

Jennifer Rowley (1998)73

states that in order to exhibit these

characteristics, managers need to develop appropriate adult-to-adult

relationships and the language and behavior that are used in these

relationships. Individual learning, then, to a significant extent rests on the

relationships that managers collectively within an organization have with

their staff.

Levels of Learning

It is usually assumed that learning generally has positive outcomes, that

organizations have the capacity to learn collectively and that organizational

65

learning occurs at different speeds and levels within the organization

(Mabey and Salaman, 1995)89

. Two types of organizational learning are

most often cited; single-loop learning and double-loop learning (Argyris

and Schon, 1978)5.

1. Single-loop Learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978)5 or Adaptive

learning (Peter M. Senge, 1990)111

It is the more basic form of learning and occurs within a set of recognized

and unrecognized constraints that reflect the organization’s assumptions

about its environment and itself (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986)113

. The

constraints limit organizational learning to the adaptive variety, which

usually is sequential, incremental, and focused on issues and opportunities

that are within the traditional scope of the organization’s activities. The

traditional values limit the organization to implement new and innovative

ideas.

2. Double-loop Learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978)5 or Generative

learning (Peter M. Senge, 1990)111

It occurs when the organization is willing to question long-held

assumptions about its mission and capabilities, and it requires the

development of new ways of looking at the world based on an

understanding of the systems and relationships that link key issues and

events. It appreciates the employees to bring out new and creative ideas

from various sources. The organization is more concerned towards

66

involving their employees in new assignments other than their regular

tasks. It is argued that generative learning is frame-breaking and more

likely to lead to competitive advantage than adaptive learning (Slater and

Narver, 1995)130

.

Argyris and Schon (1978)5 have drawn attention to how individual learning

in organizations can be harnessed positively to produce collective learning.

They describe the value of moving beyond single-loop learning where

errors are detected and corrected to double-loop or generative learning

which results in a deeper level of collective knowledge and understanding.

Generative learning is generally considered an elusive goal. Bhide (1986)22

agrees that revolutionary periods of generative learning may provide a

window for competitive advantage but they can be kept open only through

continuous improvement.

Argyris and Schon (1978)5 justifies saying that an organization can become

a learning organization only when it stimulates double-loop learning. They

argue that organizations generally perform single-loop learning well, but

do not typically perform double-loop learning well at all.

Mohammad Rezaei Zadeh (2009)97

compels the need for double-loop

learning for an organization to meet the changing demands of their

customers. He identifies that single-loop learning exists in all organizations

because errors are inevitable part of human activities. Correcting these

errors assist firms to achieve their plans as long as it matches with

67

organizational memories. But, sometimes the results do not match with the

organizational plan and the current governing variables need to be changed,

which could only be achieved by developing double-loop learning.

Few other theorists have also explored that double-loop learning is

essential for an organization to become a learning organization. Rosemary

Hill (1996)122

explored that while many organizations can and do achieve

single-loop learning, the more valuable learning engendered through

questioning and challenging the norm is more difficult to accomplish. The

process of continually questioning and challenging the strategic norm is the

norm within a learning organization. Ashok Jashpara (2003)14

identifies

that organizational learning in the form of double-loop learning does lead

to competitive advantage and provides evidence to support the assumption

underlying the learning organization literature. It is the cognitive

dimension of double-loop learning that will aid organizations sustain

competitive advantage rather than the behavioral dimensions of single-loop

learning. Single-loop learning has an adverse effect on organizational

performance.

John Seddon and Brendan O’Donovan (2010)74

, believes that double-loop

learning is a necessary condition for the development of what Senge called

‘generative learning’ and thus essential in the progression towards

becoming a ‘learning organization’. They identify that it is the command

and control ‘prevailing system of management’ which prevents

68

organizations from creating generative learning. They suggest that Argyris

and Schon’s (1978)5 concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning

explain how a command and control outlook prevents managers from

learning and improving. “Single-loop learning occurs when matches are

created, or when mismatches are corrected by changing actions. Double-

loop learning occurs when mismatches are corrected by first examining and

altering the governing variables and then the actions” (Argyris, 1999)11

.

Only in this way can the ‘governing variables’ like culture and

management thinking could be surfaced and subsequently altered for

effective organizational performance.

Having understood that double-loop learning is more essential for a

learning organization, it is also required to understand the organizational

factor that stimulates this learning. It is understood from the literature that

organizational learning is embedded within the culture of an organization.

Hence there is need to explore the concept of organizational culture and its

relationship with learning.

Defining Organizational Culture

A key question underpinning the field of organizational learning relates to

the conditions and climate that best promote learning processes. Such an

inquiry seeks not only to identify the mechanisms underlying an

organization’s learning processes, but also considerations related to an

organization’s culture.

69

According to Schein (1996)124

: culture is defined as: “The set of shared,

taken-for-granted implicit assumptions that a group holds and that

determines how it perceives, thinks about, and reacts to its various

environments”. Schein remarks that the members of organizations are

typically unaware of their own organizational culture until they have

encountered another one. Understanding organizational culture is critical to

acquiring an understanding of learning processes to the extent that culture

is also a product of collective learning through experience (Schein,

1996)124

. Cook and Yanow (1996)30

define organizational culture as: “A set

of values, beliefs, and feelings, together with the artifacts of their

expression and transmission (such as myths, symbols, metaphors, rituals),

that are created, inherited, shared, and transmitted within one group of

people and that, in part, distinguish that group from others”.

Managing Organizational Culture

“The issue of managing culture is of key importance within management

theory and practice” (Ogbonna & Harris, 1998)104

. Numerous studies

reported that the most frequent reason given for failure of most planned

organization changes was due to avoidance of an organizations culture.

Studies revealed that the most significant, distinguished and differentiated

attributes, as well as a firm’s most competitive advantage to be highly

successful included their organizational culture. Also, an organization

culture needs to be managed (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28

. “Most

70

organizational scholars now recognize that organizational culture has a

powerful effect on the performance and long-term effectiveness of

organizations” (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28

. Empirical research generates

an array of findings that reflect the importance of culture to enhance

performance (Lisa Marie Kangas, 2005)85

. Kotter and Heskett (1992)79

interviewed seventy-five highly regarded financial analysts who followed

specific industries and companies closely. The results indicated that all of

those interviewed, acknowledged culture as a critical aspect in long-term

financial success. Other research study conducted by Cameron and

Freeman (1991)27

generated different types of cultures like strong and

weak cultures and congruent and incongruent cultures to study

organizational effectiveness. But their study did not show significant

difference between strong and weak culture and between congruent and

incongruent cultures. Later the study conducted by Cameron and Quinn

(1999)28

identified 4 types of cultures, Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy and

Market to study their relationship on difference dimensions of

organizational effectiveness. The study showed a significant difference

between the 4 types of culture. The theoretical framework is initially

discussed to understand the 4 cultural types followed by the reviews

relating culture and learning.

71

Types of Organizational Culture

Organizational Culture includes those qualities of the organization that

give it a particular climate or feel. The distinct qualities of an organization

may manifest through two dimensions, where one dimension differentiates

an orientation towards flexibility, discretion, and dynamism from an

orientation toward stability, order, and control. The second dimension

differentiates an orientation toward an internal focus, integration and unity

of processes, from an orientation toward an external focus, differentiation

and rivalry regarding outsiders. According to Cameron and Quinn (1999)28

,

“Together these two dimensions form four quadrants, each representing a

distinct set of organizational effectiveness indicators”. The relationship

between these two dimensions is shown in figure 3.1. These indicators of

effectiveness signify what people value about the performance in an

organization and define the core values of culture that subside in

companies. Each quadrant in figure 3.1 has been given a label to

distinguish its most notable characteristics - clan, adhocracy, market, and

hierarchy. Each quadrant represents basic assumptions, orientations, and

values that comprise an organizational culture.

72

Figure 3.1 - The relationship between the two dimensions of

Organizational Culture

Source: Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture, Cameron and

Quinn (1999) 28

.

Clan Culture

According to Cameron and Quinn (1999)28

the clan culture is called “a

clan” because of its similarity to a family-type organization. The clan

culture is typified by a friendly place to work where people share a lot

about themselves. It is like an “extended family”. The clan culture

concentrates on internal issues and values flexibility and discretion instead

of stability and control, interest for others, and compassion for customers.

The goal of clan culture is to manage a surrounding through teamwork,

participation, and harmony (Cameron & Quinn, 199928

; Berrio, 200320

).

“The organization is held together by tradition and loyalty. Commitment is

Clan Adhocracy

Hierarchy Market

Flexibility, Discretion, Dynamism

Internal Focus,

Integration and

Unity

External Focus,

Differentiation

and Rivalry

Stability, Order and Control

73

high. Leaders are thought of as mentors and, perhaps, even as parent

figures”.

Adhocracy Culture

According to Cameron and Quinn (1999)28

, “the root of the word

adhocracy is ad hoc–referring to a temporary, specialized, dynamic unit”.

The adhocracy culture concentrates on external issues and values a high

degree of flexibility, individuality, and discretion with key values of

creativity and risk taking, instead of stability and control. The adhocracy

culture is based on an assumption that typifies an organizational world of

the twenty-first century responsive to hyper-turbulent conditions that

innovates new initiatives for the future that leads to success. It is also based

on assumptions that organizations are in business to develop new products

and services and prepare for the future, and that goals of management and

effective leadership are to generate vision, entrepreneurship, creativity, and

activity on the cutting edge (Cameron & Quinn, 199928

; Berrio, 200320

).

“The adhocracy culture is characterized by a dynamic, entrepreneurial, and

creative workplace. People stick their necks out and take risks” (Cameron

& Quinn, 1999)28

. The organizations long-term goals for success include

rapid growth and acquisition of new resources to produce unique and

original products and services (Cameron & Quinn, 199928

; Berrio, 200320

).

74

Hierarchy Culture

The hierarchy culture is established on Weber’s theory of bureaucracy and

values tradition, consistency, cooperation and conformity (Cameron &

Quinn, 199928

; Berrio, 200320

). “Until the 1960s, almost every book on

management and organizational studies made the assumption that Weber’s

hierarchy or bureaucracy was the ideal form of organization, because it led

to stable, efficient, and highly standardized products and services”

(Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28

. Also, lines of decision-making that are

confined to top level managers and harmonized rules and procedures were

valued as keys to success. “The organizational culture compatible with this

form is characterized by a formalized and structured place to work.

Procedures govern what people do” (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28

. The

hierarchy culture concentrates more on internal versus external issues and

values stability and control rather than flexibility and discretion. “The

long-term concerns of the organization are stability, predictability, and

efficiency. Formal rules and policies hold the organization together”

(Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28

. In the hierarchy culture the leadership style

consists of a coordinator, monitor, and organizer.

Market Culture

The market culture became popular in the late 1960’s as organizations were

faced with new competitive challenges. This type of culture was based on

work primarily done by Oliver Williamson, Bill Ouchi, and their

75

colleagues (Cameron & Quinn, 199928

; Berrio, 200320

). “These

organizational scholars identified an alternative set of activities that they

argued served as the foundation of organizational effectiveness” (Cameron

& Quinn, 1999)28

. The market culture values stability and control;

however, concentrates more on external (market) instead of internal issues.

This culture tends to view the external environment as threatening, and

seeks to identify threats and opportunities as it pursues competitive

advantage and profits. The major focus of markets is to conduct

transactions (exchange, sales, and contracts) with other constituencies to

develop competitive advantage. The primary objectives of a market culture

organization are profitability, bottom line results, strong market niches,

stretch targets, and secure customer bases. The core values that dominate

market type organization are productivity and competitiveness. This type

of culture is a result-oriented workplace. In this culture, leadership type

includes that of hard-driving, competitive, and productive manager with an

emphasis to win (Cameron & Quinn, 199928

; Berrio, 200320

). “Success is

defined in terms of market share and penetration. Outpacing the

competition and market leadership are important”.

Culture and Organizational Learning

Much of the discussion in the management literature is clearly written from

the perspective that the learning organization can be designed and managed

effectively to produce positive outcomes for the organization. Many

76

commentators have attempted to specify what the learning organization

culture should consist of. Burgoyne (1995)26

, for example, talks about an

appropriate learning culture as an attribute of a learning organization. He

defines it as a culture which supports shared learning from experience.

Although numerous authors (David A. Garvin, 199333

; McGill, Slocum &

Sei, 199293

; Peter M. Senge, 1990111

) have considered the notion of a

learning organization culture, there is no widely accepted theory or view on

this issue. Some have identified specific aspects of a learning organization

culture such as entrepreneurship and risk taking (Kanter, 198978

; Naman

and Slevin, 1993102

; Sykes and Block, 1989134

) facilitative leadership

(Meen and Keough, 199294

; Slater and Narver, 1995130

) organic structures

(Gupta and Govindarajan, 199156

; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993145

)

decentralized strategic planning processes (Day, 199034

; Hart, 199258

;

Mintzberg, 199496

) and individual development is valued as an end in itself

(David A. Garvin, 1993)33

but there has been little attempt to test their

existence empirically on how they may contribute to learning activities

within the organization and ultimately to enhanced organizational

performance. A more useful US contribution is provided by Slater and

Narver (1995)130

. They suggest five critical components of the learning

organization – two elements of culture and three elements of climate. They

suggest that the culture elements consist of a market orientation and

entrepreneurship, whereas the climate features include facilitative

77

leadership, an organic and open structure and a decentralized approach to

planning. Anona Armstrong and Patrick Foley (2003)3 identify the

Organizational Learning Mechanisms (OLMs) that can create or improve

learning opportunities in an organization. They say that OLM’s are the

cultural and structural facets of an organization that facilitate the

development of, improvement to and renewal of a learning organization.

Without these mechanisms, a learning organization is likely to emerge.

Parkinson and McBride (1992)106

stress the need for a strong culture to

support learning. They put forth five preconditions of an organization’s

culture that had to be met for an organization to stimulate learning, like

organizational acceptance of the process, the essential need for support

mechanisms, including a structure, a clear evaluation of outcomes and a

strong orientation to learning. They further identify that employees in an

organization are much aware of the cultural issues in implementing the

learning process than the structural issues. They relate the culture to the

learning process and if they find any mismatch between them, the

employees are not willing to accept their organization as a learning

organization. Cook and Yanow (1996)30

agree that organizational learning

processes are rooted in culture. DiBella and Nevis (1998)40

relate culture

and learning in organizations, saying that, “The nature of learning and the

way [learning in organizations] takes place are determined to a great extent

by the culture of the organization”. Consistent with the view of Cook and

78

Yanow (1996)30

, DiBella and Nevis (1998)40

view learning processes as

being embedded within an organization’s culture, and note that they are

relative, multiple, and complex. Thus, organizational culture provides the

context through which organizational learning occurs (Popper & Lipshitz,

2000)112

.

Josh Bersin (2008)77

in his research study identifies the key trends and

drivers of high-performing learning organizations. He identifies 18

predictors of high-impact learning and one of the biggest predictors of

high-impact learning is the learning culture. He defines an organization’s

learning culture as the whole set of processes, behaviors and investments

that support the individual’s and organization’s ability to learn.

Organizations that strongly value learning have excellent development

planning processes; they commit high levels of funding to learning &

development over many years, they fund programs for coaching and other

forms of informal training and they empower employees and organizations

to make mistakes and put in place formal processes to learn from these

mistakes — without necessarily punishing errors. Such openness to

learning drives organizational flexibility and adaptability and creates what

is called an enduring organization.

Hishamuddin bin Md.Som & Roland Yeow Theng Nam (2009)64

recommends the need to develop a culture which empowers individual

79

learning and knowledge sharing as they have direct benefits toward the

implementation of organizational learning and missions’ attainment.

Reza Najafbagy and Homa Doroudi (2010)120

try to present a model of

learning organization by identifying the characteristics that stimulate

learning. The model shows that creating a vision and organizational culture

based on learning and staff development will eventually lead towards

organizational learning.

There have been few explorations done by some researchers to study the

type of culture that facilitates learning. Slater and Narver (1995)130

identify

market oriented culture as a foundation to become a learning organization.

They identify that the critical challenge for any business is to create the

combination of culture and climate that maximizes organizational learning

on how to create superior customer value in dynamic and turbulent

markets, because the ability to learn faster than competitors is the only

source of sustainable competitive advantage. They further argue that

though market orientation provides strong norms for learning from

customers and competitors, it must be complimented by entrepreneurship

and appropriate organizational structures and processes for higher-order

learning (double-loop learning in Argyris, 19777; generative learning in

Peter M.Senge 1990111

) to occur. They summarize saying that cultural

values of a market orientation are necessary, but not sufficient, for the

creation of a learning organization. Richard Teare and Richard Dealtry

80

(1998)121

observe that many organizations try to build a learning

environment on top of a culture that is traditional, hierarchical and

competitive and then they wonder why their efforts fail. They conclude

saying that an organization that gives more importance to traditional values

are likely to become a learning organization. Shirley (1994)127

in his study

identifies that changing an organization into a learning organization, is

unlikely to take place in a “traditional”, heavily-hierarchical organization

in which the line structure is seen as the only vehicle for communication

and control. Rosemary Hill (1996)122

identifies certain aspects of a learning

organization which resembles the characteristics of adhocracy culture

identified by (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)28

. She says that a learning

organization will be customer focused; will be highly creative and action-

oriented; allows people to make mistakes without apportioning blame; uses

detection and correction activities as a learning experience and as a

mechanism to transform the organization’s accepted values and practices;

provides and sustains a total environment (in terms of culture, recognition

and conditions) that positively encourages its people to seek learning and

self-development opportunities; finds a way of transferring and encoding

the individual learning of its people into a cohesive and beneficial whole.

Sonia Dasi, Fuan and Manuela (2003)132

explores that the differences

between national cultures are projected in the unequal attitudes regarding

work, in different languages, or in the different communication systems,

81

which in turn affect negatively the joint work and, logically, their own

process of organizational learning and the generation of knowledge as a

result. Ashok Jashpara (2003)14

explores that competitive or political

cultures in an organization are more likely to engender double-loop

learning than cooperative organizational cultures.

Thus it is clear from the literature that, what an organization learn as a

collective is preserved within the values, behaviors, and norms of an

organization (i.e., the organization’s culture) and within organizational

memory (Hedberg, 1981)61

- that is, organizational learning is influenced

by organizational culture.

Research gap

Although some theorists have related the notions of organizational learning

and organizational culture, such linkages have remained wholly

prepositional (e.g., Cook & Yanow, 1996)30

, leaving a surprising absence

of empirical research linking the two concepts (Michael S. Garmon,

2004)95

. The principal assumption that organizational learning and culture

leads to increased organizational performance have been examined by

Ashok Jashapara (2003)14

. “An important area for further research is to

understand how features of the organization’s culture facilitate learning

processes and whether these cultural features lead to superior learning

outcomes” was suggested by Thomas Garavan (1997)137

. Michael S.

Garmon (2004)95

suggests that future studies should also assess the direct

82

influence of an organization’s culture (as the independent variable) on

organizational learning.

Few explorations that have been done to study the impact of culture on

learning suggest that employees prefer to have adhocracy culture to

facilitate double-loop learning (Mohammad Rezaei Zadeh, 2009)97

. An

empirical study done by Fard, Hasan Danaee; Rostamy, Ali Asghar

Anvary; Taghiloo, Hamid (2009)49

to examine the relationship between

four types of culture (bureaucratic, competitive, participative and learning

organizational culture) and the degree of shaping the learning organization,

indicates that learning organizational culture has the highest influence on

learning. Though these studies proved that culture has an impact on

learning, there has not been any exploration to identify the level of learning

that is influenced by organizational culture. Hence this research has been

done to study how the different types of culture that exists in an

organization influence different levels of learning.

Affective Outcomes of Learning

While most theorists see the creation of a culture as a means of supporting

the learning organization, especially in its early stage, it can serve an

organization to achieve competitive advantage only when it stimulates the

required attitude and behavior among the employees to support the learning

that prevails in an organization. Such attitude and behavioral changes may

reflect in affective outcomes like job satisfaction, commitment or

83

identification. While job satisfaction deals with how much an individual is

happy with his job or organization, commitment deals with strong beliefs

in certain values and goals of an organization which need not be

organization specific. Whereas identification deals with how an individual

perceives himself in relation to the organization (Pratt, 1998)116

, which is

more specific to a particular organization. The more positive an individual

identifies himself with an organization, the more he will contribute towards

the achievement of organizational goals. Previous theories show that

identification is influenced by the employee’s perception about the

competitive position of an organization like market share and continuous

innovation, which is determined to a great extent by the rate of

organizational learning. Hence there is a need to test the relationship

between identification and learning. Some of the theorists have also

suggested a link between culture and identification (Ashforth and Mael,

1989)13

. The literature related to the concept of organizational

identification is discussed initially followed by the discussion of how

identification is influenced by culture and learning.

Organizational Identification: Who Am I in Relation to This

Organization?

Given that organizational identification has been defined as “a specific

form of social identification” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989)13

, Social Identity

84

Theory will initially be presented as a general framework to understand the

theoretical discussion of organizational identification.

Social Identity Theory

Because organizations are a specific form of social group, the use of social

identity theory has more recently been imported into the theoretical

organizational literature (Hogg & Terry, 2001)68

to explain how

organizations come to develop their own identity (or multiple identities),

and how the people working within an organization themselves come to

“identify” with that organization (Stets & Burke, 2000)133

. Hogg and Terry

(2000)67

cite Henri Tajfel’s (1972) introduction of social identity as “the

individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together

with some emotional and value significance to him of this group

membership”. Also citing the work of Tajfel (1981)136

, Pratt (1998)116

encapsulates the essence of social identity theory as follows:

Broadly defined, social identity theory (SIT) is about how social categories

serve as “a system of orientation which helps to create and define the

individual’s place in society” (Tajfel, 1981)136

. More specifically, SIT is

about how individuals incorporate knowledge of their group memberships

into conceptions of their self-identities. The literature on social identity

theory broadly emphasizes the assumption that the more favorably an

organization is viewed, the greater is the likelihood of identification.

Ashforth and Mael (1989)13

in their journal article, introduce social identity

85

theory into the body of theoretical organizational literature. They have

observed the following:

1) When an organization is more distinctive (i.e., the organization is

perceived to be unique in some way) as compared to other groups, the

potential for identification is enhanced (Ashforth & Mael, 198913

; Dutton,

Dukerich & Harquail, 199444

). Further, when individuals perceive an

organization’s identity as being increasingly attractive, self-esteem is

increased, and identification is more likely (Dutton et al., 1994)44

;

2) An increased awareness (salience) of other groups increases the

potential for identification (Ashforth and Mael, 1989)13

. For example, in

instances where inter-group competition has increased (and awareness of

other groups is exacerbated), identification strengthens in concert with the

increase in group cohesion (Pratt, 1998)116

;

3) Because social identification relates to an individual’s search for self-

esteem, the greater the prestige of an organization, the greater the potential

for identification (Ashforth and Mael, 1989)13

. When an individual

perceives an organization’s construed external image as being increasingly

more positive, the individual may be more inclined to identify with that

organization, in light of his or her perception that the organization is held

in higher esteem by external parties (Dutton et al., 199444

; Smidts, Pruyn &

van Riel, 2001131

); and

86

4) Although they are not necessarily required as antecedents of

identification, such things as commonality of goals, interaction, similarity,

and common history may enhance identification (Ashforth and Mael,

1989)13

.

Defining Organizational Identification

Some of the popular definitions of organizational identification are as

follows:

• Ashforth and Mael (1989)13

define organizational identification as, “the

perception of oneness with or belongingness to a group, involving

direct or vicarious experience of its successes and failures”.

• Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail (1994)44

define organizational

identification as, “the degree to which a member defines him or herself

by the same attributes that he or she believes define the organization”.

• Dukerich, Golden & Shortell (2002)42

“A member’s level of

organizational identification indicates the degree to which his or her

membership in an organization is tied to the content of his or her self-

concept”.

• Pratt (2000)115

defines organizational identification as, “an occurrence

in which an individual’s beliefs about his or her organization become

self-referential or self-defining”.

87

• Tajfel (1978)135

define organizational identification as, “the cognition

of membership of a group and the value and emotional significance

attached to this membership”.

Although there are many definitions of organizational identification, most

would concur that identification occurs when an individual perceives that

some aspects of his or her self-concept overlap with the characteristics of

an organization (Dukerich et al., 2002)42

. Consistent with social identity

theory, research has showed that an individual is more likely to identify

with a group when the composition of that group is increasingly consistent

with his or her self-concept, and when affiliation with a group enhances the

self-concept (Dutton et al., 1994)44

. In this respect, identification serves as

“a cognitive linking between the definition of the organization and the

definition of the self” (Dutton et al., 1994)44

, or as an “overlap” between an

organizational member’s self-identity and the “cognitive image” that the

individual has constructed with that organization (Scott & Lane, 2000)126

.

Scott and Lane (2000)126

have observed that: “to the extent that the group

category [or organization] is psychologically accepted as part of the self, an

individual is said to be identified with the group”. Dependent upon the

congruence of their personal experiences, values, and belief systems with

those of the collective organization, the people working within an

organization will come to identify with an organization with varying

degrees of intensity. Pratt’s (2000)115

emphasis on beliefs is very important

88

in the sense that the target of one’s identification occurs with beliefs as a

basis - people identify with other people, places and things (including

organizations), based on their beliefs about those people, places, or things.

Because individual belief structures are subjective, they may or may not be

accurate (Hogg, 1996)66

. Consequently, it is a person’s beliefs about a

person, place, or thing (or what is represented) that one sees as “self-

defining” or as “self-referential”. Moreover, if some event changes a

person’s beliefs about a person, place, or thing (or if the person, place, or

thing changes) then the state of identification may change as well (Pratt,

1998)116

.

Why Organizational Identification Matters?

As it relates to the contemporary business world, the importance of the

strength in which a firm’s people identify with an organization cannot be

understated. As today’s economy continues to grow progressively more

nonlinear, dynamic, and complex, organizations must change their internal

structures, systems, technologies, and processes to adapt effectively to

increasing degrees of environmental turbulence. Such adaptive

organizational change is likely to influence the intensity of identification

that an organization’s members have with the organization.

The capacity for identifying with the organization serves to provide

meaning for employees as they work within an organization, since

members’ personal identities and the identities of the organizations within

89

which they work are closely aligned (Scott & Lane, 2000)126

. Pratt

(2001)117

refers to the identification process as a sense-making endeavor to

the extent that, when individuals are successful in finding meaning through

the organizations in which they work, they begin to “identify” positively

with the organization. Members who more strongly identify with an

organization experience an increased “connectedness” with the

organization - they define themselves in terms of, and develop increased

loyalty to, the organization within which they are employed (Bhattacharya,

Rao & Glynn, 1995)21

. Moreover, the stronger one’s identification with an

organization, and the more that one views the organization as an extension

of oneself, the greater the potential for increased motivation, and the

greater the likelihood that the individual’s actions, behaviors, and decision-

making will be consistent with the interests of the organization (Albert,

Ashforth, & Dutton, 20002; Cheney, 1983

29). As the intensity of social

identification is increased, the greater will be the likelihood that individuals

will be more inclined to conform to the norms of a particular group (Pratt,

1998)116

, and the greater is the probability that individuals will be more

highly motivated towards accomplishing the goals and objectives of the

group (Ashforth & Mael, 198913

; Dutton et al., 199444

). Thus, the strength

of identification with an organization has been linked with individual

propensity toward cooperative organizational behaviors, to an increased

level of motivation to fulfill an organization’s needs, and to decreases in

90

employee turnover (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 2001)144

. In contrast,

the failure of individuals to identify with an organization may lead to

indifference, to reduced trust, and to reductions in their support to the

organization, inducing organizational members to more actively focus

upon and pursue personal needs (Scott & Lane, 2000)126

. The process of

disidentification, in which an individual chooses to actively distance him-

or-herself from the organization (Dukerich, Kramer, & Parks, 1998)43

, may

result in an individual’s attempts to physically separate from the

organization (Lee, 197182

; Scott & Lane, 2000126

). At its extreme,

disidentification may result in negative behaviors that are purposefully

intended to undermine or even discredit an organization (Scott & Lane,

2000)126

. Much of the extant research performed on the topic of

organizational identification has concluded that there are relationships

between organizational identification and prestige, communications, and

perceived worker involvement (Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001)131

.

Additionally, organizational identification has been correlated with

organizational work teams (Hennessy & West, 1999)63

, organizational

commitment and morale (Schrodt, 2002)125

, and “emotional exhaustion”

(Grice, Jones, & Paulsen, 2002)54

. Aamir and Finian (2010)1 in their study

indicates that organizational identification can play a pivotal role in

enhancing organizational effectiveness.

91

Why do people identify with organizations?

Pratt (1998)116

contends that the increased uncertainty associated with

today’s business environment may prompt the members of an organization

to look to the organization within which they work to help them make

sense of the complex world in which they live, and to find purpose and

meaning in their lives. Individuals may also be primarily motivated to

identify with organizations to the extent that they wish to fulfill needs

relating to safety, affiliation, and self-enhancement (Pratt, 1998)116

.

Ashforth and Mael (1989)13

have suggested that threats from external

groups may increase identification with one’s own group. For example, in

periods of hyper-competition, organizational members become increasingly

more aware of other competing organizations. To the extent that an

organization’s members feel threatened by other organizations (out-

groups), member identification may be strengthened, as individuals look to

their organization as a safe haven.

Organizational Learning and Organizational Identification

Organizational identification is not an unambiguous and stable concept.

The dynamic and fluid nature of identification suggests that the strength of

an individual’s identification with an organization may also change over

time (Schrodt, 2002)125

. Identification, therefore, is a conceptually

dynamic, fluid and perhaps characteristically elusive event that is subject to

change with the advent of new experiences (Bartel, 2001)16

. Many theorists

92

have reported that the strength of organizational identification is apt to

change with changes that occur in organizational learning.

Michael S. Garmon (2004)95

suggests that the learning opportunities

provided to the employees in an organization enhances their sense of

belongingness (identification) towards that organization. When an

organization is perceived as being prestigious in providing unique learning

opportunities, the organizational members “may feel proud of being part of

a well-respected company, as it strengthens their feelings of self-worth to

‘bask in reflected glory” (Smidts et al., 2001)131

. Thus, Smidts concluded

that individuals are apt to more strongly identify with an organization to

the extent that the organization has greater visibility and prestige in terms

of organizational learning. Ashforth and Mael (1989)13

relate self-esteem to

organizational identification. When members of an organization perceive

organizational learning as increasingly attractive and held in higher esteem

by external parties, they will be likely to identify more strongly with that

organization.

Research Gap

Like organizational learning, the concept of organizational identification

has garnered extensive attention in the theoretical literature, and yet

relatively few empirical studies relating to identification have been

published (Dukerich et al., 2002)42

. Moreover there appears to be only one

research study (Aamir and Finian, 2010)1 that links organizational learning

93

and organizational identification. Aamir and Finian (2010)1 in their study

examines the impact of learning goal orientation on organizational

identification. The findings reveal that learning goal orientation mediates

the effects of organizational identification on the three outcome variables,

namely job performance, feedback seeking and error communication. But

there has been no exploration done so far to analyze how different levels of

learning influence the strength of organizational identification. Hence this

research tends to study the impact of different levels of learning on

organizational identification.

Organizational Culture and Organizational Identification

The fundamental concept underlying social identity theory is that

individuals cognitively assess their own personal attributes (values, beliefs,

perceptions), and consequently develop self-constructs (or self-identities).

Such self-constructs continue to evolve and change in concert with changes

in, and relationships with, the environment. Individuals assign themselves

into groups with which they most closely define themselves, or those

groups with which they “identify” (Hogg & Terry, 2001)68

. Based on

perceived similarities or dissimilarities with such individuals or groups,

individuals come to choose to associate or disassociate with them (Gioia,

1998)53

. Individuals when they perceive their values and beliefs to be

common with the culture of the organization, their potential for

94

identification are enhanced (Ashforth and Mael, 1989)13

. Thus culture has

been conceptually found to influence identification.

Research Gap

There have been some explorations done to suggest that there exists a

relationship between culture and identification, but there is no evidence to

test the direct impact of culture on identification. Notably, only few

research studies (Schrodt, 2002125

and Michael S. Garmon, 200495

) have

attempted to link organizational culture to the strength of organizational

identification. Hence this research tends to study the influence of different

types of culture on identification.

Culture, Learning and Organizational Identification

The notions of organizational learning, organizational identification, and

organizational culture are widely recognized in the literature of

management. However, there have been relatively few empirical studies

relating these concepts. Rosemary Hill (1996)122

in her model of the

learning process identifies that if the process inputs like values and

attitudes (culture) are addressed correctly, then probably the learning

process will produce outputs like attitude and behavioral change that is

required for a learning organization. This suggests a synergetic relationship

between learning, culture and identification.

95

Research Gap

Only one research (Michael S. Garmon, 2004)95

has been done to show that

there exists an interrelationship between learning, culture and

identification. But there has not been any such effort to study the

interaction effect of learning and culture on identification. Hence this

research tends to study the influence of learning and culture together on

identification.

Conclusion

Chapter 3 has provided the theoretical background relating to the notions

of organizational learning, organizational culture and organizational

identification. Chapter 4 will discuss the research design and

methodologies used in carrying out the study.