Hodgkinson 1998 Strategic Change

Myra HodgkinsonDepartment of Strategic Management andMarketing, Nottingham Business School,The Nottingham Trent University,Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU

The learningorganizationand emergentstrategies

The concept of organizationallearning and the role of institutionsof higher education in enablingorganizational strategies to emergeis the focus of this article whichprovides

. A literature review of individual andorganizational learning which it isargued are both elements of alearning organization

. A discussion of the literature onstrategic management and the rolewhich organizational learning hasin enabling strategies to emerge

. The outcomes of research withmiddle managers from a largeinternational corporation andmembers of academic staff from alarge UK business school

. Findings which form thefoundation of an argument whichproposes that the role of formaleducation enables the acquisition oflearning skills by managers andalso the ability to enhance thecapability of others to learn in theworkplace

. A conclusion which suggests thatsuccess in the adoption of this courseof action will enable organizationalstrategies to emerge; these will beinfluential in providing strategicdirection for an organization andthus enhancing its effectiveness.

# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, November 1998

Strategic ChangeStrat. Change, 7, 421433 (1998)

Introduction

This article argues that when organizationsadopt the concept of a learning organizationit allows strategies to emerge, which will beinfluential in providing strategic direction forthose organizations, thus enhancing theireffectiveness. Further, that the role whichinstitutions of higher education have inenabling organizations to develop such aconcept is fundamental within an understand-ing that organizations are collections ofpeople. The article commences with a litera-ture review to gain an appreciation of howthis concept is discussed elsewhere. It thencontinues with a consideration of the termsorganizational core competencies and distinc-tive capabilities, within this awareness. A briefreview of strategic management from a tradi-tional perspective is followed by attention tothe notion of strategies as emergent. The rolewhich organizational learning has in enablingstrategies to emerge is explored and the way itmay inform the strategic direction of anorganization examined.

The next section of the article is concernedwith describing the circumstances around theresearch project which was designed to gaininsights into the interpretations of Senges FiveDisciplines of a group of middle managers froman international company and those of aca-demic members of staff from a large businessschool. These interpretations and the mean-ings that they appear to have for these twogroups are then compared and contrasted. Thefinal aspect of the article forms the foundationof an argument which proposes that the role offormal education is essential for current andpotential managers in an organizational settingto enable them to acquire learning skills and toenhance the capability of other employees tolearn in the workplace when incorporated intothe principles of a learning organization.

Learning

Initially, this article will briefly consider whatis meant by individual learning. Individualslearn by being, from the instant that they are

born. This is illustrated by reviewing thelearning which takes place within a child asit develops from a baby, to the toddler stageand then to the age when it is old enough toattend school. Thus, learning for an individualwill be a result of experience influenced byinstinct and curiosity as well as education.Dixon (1994) argues that such human devel-opment does not stop when a child leavesschool, rather it continues throughout thelifetime of the individual (1994, p. xv). It istherefore suggested that individuals may learnin an unconscious way, in a way which is notalways a result of a deliberate activity. Dixondescribes learning as:

an approach to human functioning thatemphasises the intention to make sense ofour world and to act responsibly upon theunderstanding we derive from that sense-making (p. xviii)

One aspect of individual learning developedby Batesman (1979) addresses levels of learningexperienced by the individual resulting fromthe human senses. A further approach based oneducation philosophy (Revans, 1982) is con-cerned with the integration and coordination ofthinking and doing, and between ideas andaction. Revans saw action and learning as twoparts of each other, fundamental to effectiveaction. To continue, this section would not becomplete without a brief review of the learningprocess. This includes the work of Kolb (1984)and the learning cycle, the later work of Honeyand Mumford (1986 and 1992), in which theymodified Kolbs approach and classified lear-ners in terms of their strengths and weaknessesfor each stage of the cycle, suggesting thatthere are four contrasting learning styles. Kolbsresearch showed that active participation itselfwas not enough, that it must be followed byreflection upon the activity if learning was totake place. This initial work by Kolb has been

What is meant byindividual learning


422 Myra Hodgkinson

developed by Pedlar (1991), Race (1993) andHandy (1994) who have all recognized the needfor reflection as an essential component oflearning.

People, as individuals who will work to-gether will therefore have undergone at somelevel, a learning experience. The work ofBatesman has been translated to the organiz-ational setting by Argyris and Schon (1978) andArgyris (1992) who argue that most organiz-ational learning is single loop epitomized asproblem solving, and not double loop learn-ing which could be described as examininghow a problem has arisen in the first place andfinding a solution so that the problem does notoccur again. The key message here is the needfor organizational members to reflect on theiractions. Revans (1982) suggests that workingwithin an organization provides many opport-unities for action learning but that organ-izational culture or morale is a determinantof success. Action learning provides a means toenable reflection to take place and has beendescribed as a continuous process of learningand reflection supported by colleagues with anintention of getting things done (McGill andBeaty, 1995, p. 21). It is usually group basedand Lee (1995) provides a wider understandingof what this might mean:

helping individuals to review their experi-ences by non evaluative exploration ofissues, as presented by the individual,leading to: deeper reflection about thelearning inherent in these experiences; thecreation and incorporation of a wider under-standing of the import of this learning inrelation to others experiences, theories andmodels; and the building of possible futureways of working, and evaluating and mod-ifying these approaches (p. 251 in Stewartand McGoldrick, 1996)

The perspective on organizational learningtaken within this article is shaped by Huber(1991) who suggests that organizational learn-ing occurs:

when any of an organizations unitsacquires knowledge that the unit recognizes

as potentially useful to the organizationanexplicit attempt to avoid narrow concep-tions that decrease the chances of encoun-tering useful findings or ideas (p. 89).

Because the organization is the potentialbeneficiary of this learning, this learning isthus perceived to be organizational.

An additional dimension to this debate is theconcept of the lifelong learner, a term used todescribe individuals who have the ability andmotivation to continue learning through therest of their lives (Faure et al., 1972 inKnapper, 1994, p. 14). The concept of lifelonglearning is characterized by the following:

the capacity to set personal and realisticgoals; the ability to apply existing knowl-edge and skills effectively; the ability toevaluate ones own learning; skill at locatinginformation from different sources, and thecapacity to use different learning strategies(Knapper, 1994, p. 15)

The importance of individuals with lifelonglearning skills should be viewed alongsidepossible changes in the world of work. It hasbeen suggested by Handy (1994) that there willbe three significant changes to working prac-tices. These are that: employees will berequired to do more; relationships amongemployees will be more complex, and employ-ees will have to think more flexibly. Whenthese are considered along with the increas-ingly global interconnectedness of societiesand economies (Candy, 1996, p. 1) it wouldsuggest the need for individuals who areadaptable and responsive and who are there-fore capable of lifelong learning. Franklin(1996, p. 9) suggests that Senge (1990) sup-ports a claim that organizational learning is alifelong matter where individuals singly, jointlyand in teams, learn to think together, surface,share and question assumptions and developshared pictures and futures. This review leadsto a consideration of what is meant by theconcept of a learning organization, and itsrelationship with individual learning andorganizational learning.


The learning organization and emergent strategies 423

The terms learning organization and learn-ing company are used as interchangeable byPedlar et al. (1991 and 1997). They define alearning company as: an organization thatfacilitates the learning of all its members andcontinuously transforms itself and its context(1991, p. 1). As a result of their experienceand of an expanding literature however,they suggest that a more relevant definitionis: an organization that facilitates the learningof all its members and consciously trans-forms itself and its context (1997, p. 3).They identify a three stage evolution of thelearning company in which the higheststage incorporates three aspects of learning:adapting to their environment; learningfrom their people, and contributing to thelearning of the wider community or context ofwhich they are a part. A widely acclaimedbook by Senge (1990) takes a systems perspect-ive based on organizational memberspractising five disciplines. A discipline isdefined as:

a body of theory and technique that must bestudied and mastered to be put intopractice. A discipline is a developmentpath for acquiring certain skills and compe-tencies (Senge, 1990, p. 10)

The five disciplines are identified as:

. personal mastery described as learninghow to generate and sustain creativetension in our lives (p. 142). An explana-tion of the meaning of the word learningin this context is given as expanding theability to produce the results we trulywant in life (p. 142);

. mental models, described as deeplyingrained assumptions, generalizations,or even pictures and images that influencehow we understand the world and howwe take action (p. 8);

. building shared vision described as thecapacity to hold a shared picture of thefuture we seek to create (p. 9). Sengecontinues by explaining that,

when there is a genuine vision (asopposed to the all-too-familiar vision

statement), people excel and learn, notbecause they are told to, but becausethey want to (p. 9);

. team learning which he says mustbe supported by dialogue, is perceivedby him to be vital because teams, notindividuals, are the fundamental learningunit in modern organizations . . . unlessteams can learn the organization cannotlearn (p. 10);

. finally, the fifth discipline of systemsthinking which is the discipline thatintegrates the first four disciplines fusinginto a coherent body of theory andpractice (p. 12) to enable collaborativeinteractions amongst an organizationsemployees.

Senge describes a learning organizationas one where:

people continually expand their capacityto create the results they truly desire,where new and expansive patterns ofthinking are nurtured, where collectiveaspiration is set free, and where peopleare continually learning how to learntogether (1990, p. 3)

However, the view that organizationscan never attain learning organizationalstatus is presented by Senge who illustratesthis with reference to the achievement oforganizational excellence: A corporationcannot be excellent in the sense of havingarrived at permanent excellence; it is always ina state of practising the disciplines of learning,of becoming better or worse (p. 11). This viewis supported by Waterman (1994) who writesthat he has never seen one (p. 65), and thatcreating one is easier said than done (Pedlaret al., 1991, p. 2).

This review has briefly outlined the threeareas of the literature relevant for this article:individual learning, organizational learning andthe learning organization. It is argued herethat there is a need for both individual learningand organizational learning as components of alearning organization. Individual learning, isperceived as an activity which is experienced


424 Myra Hodgkinson

by all individuals within an organization someof which may be involuntary and would not beconsidered the type of learning referred to bythe learning organization literature. Rather,such learning would be where the individualconsciously interacts for example, through theprocess of education and also as a result ofexperience; where the individual engages inideas and action; where participation in itselfis not enough, but where reflection on theaction will enhance the learning processwhich should take place within an awarenessof lifelong learning. This can be character-ized within an understanding that there isalways more which can be learned. Organiz-ational learning is therefore, the comingtogether of individuals to enable them tosupport and encourage each others learningwhich can be accomplished by individualsor groups and teams of individuals andwhich will in the longer term benefit theorganization.

The implementation of organizationallearning has been addressed by Dixon(1994) who has identified a model consistingof four components: the widespread gener-ation of ideas; the integration of new/localinformation into the organizational context;collectively interpreting information, and theauthority to take action on interpreted mean-ings. She suggests that organizations learncyclically within a collective process whichencompasses individuals from across anorganization as well as external stakeholders.When these components fuse, it is suggestedin this article, the result will be a learningorganization. That is, an organization inwhich the organizational culture encouragesall employees to engage in the learningprocess through dialogue, experimentation,and learning from each other. An organizationin which there is an investment in educationfor employees but within a recognition that itis not possible to achieve learning organ-ization status; that it is a state which iscontinuously being striven for. The import-ance of these concepts will now be examinedwith a view as to how they may provide anorganization with an advantage over itscompetitors.

Core Competencies andOrganizational Capabilities

There is possibly some confusion around theterm core competence and core capability.Core competence is described by Hameland Prahalad (1990, p. 82) as communication,involvement, and a deep commitment toworking across organizational boundaries andshould, help an organization achieve itschosen competitive advantage by providingcustomer value, competitor differentiation andextendibility. Core competencies are viewedby these authors as the glue that binds existingbusinesses (p. 82), and as, representing thesum of the learning across individual skill setsand around organizational units (1994,p. 203). These definitions would suggest thatthey are internal to an organization and arerelated to the acquisition of skills. Traditionally,organizational competencies were viewed as aframework for resource allocation decisions,for functional policies, and to give a sense ofcorporate identity (Donaldson and Lorsch,1983). When discussing the idea of institu-tional leadership, the prime purpose was seenas the defence of integrity and also a defence ofthe organizations distinctive competencies(Selznick, 1957).

The term core capabilities is often usedwithin the literature as interchangeable withcore competencies. However, distinctive capa-bilities are, it is argued by Kay (1996), some-thing quite different. The impact of anorganizations capabilities he argues, are feltexternally by others and provide a competitiveadvantage for an organization as they would bedifficult to replicate. This would not apply toan organizations core competencies whichcould be acquired by purchasing the skillsneeded by the organization. This is illustratedhere:

companies that think about their capabili-ties only in terms of business competenciesare missing much of their potential com-petitive advantage. Growers build from abroader platform of capabilities whichincludes privileged assets, special relation-



ships and growth-enabling skills. (Baghaiet al., 1996, p. 59)

The role of organizational capabilities andstrategic management and planning isreviewed by Hamel who says that:

strategising must be a capability deeplyembedded as total quality, cycle timereduction or customer service. Just asbusiness processes can be re-invented inways big and small, so too can businessmodels. This is how new wealth getscreated. This is the goal of strategising;and I will argue it is everyones responsi-bility (Hamel, 1997, p. 8).

Distinctive capability can therefore bedescribed as the demonstrated and potentialability to accomplish, against the oppositionof circumstance or competition, whatever itsets out to do, whilst core competencies arewhat a company can do particularly well(Andrews in Mintzberg, et al., 1995, p. 61).

In light of the arguments presented,it is suggested that if an organizationadopts the concept of a learning organizationit will enhance the organizations core com-petencies, as organizational members willhave improved learning skills. It will alsoprovide an organization with distinctive capa-bilities in that the collective learning takingplace within the organization will enable itto perform better (this assumes, of course,that there is an opportunity for collectivelearning).

Strategy and the LearningOrganization

This section is concerned with a reviewof strategic management literature with theobjective of identifying how theorists view theconcept of a learning organization.

Strategy can be viewed as referring toplanning for the future of an organization ina holistic way (Quinn, 1980 in Mintzberg et al.,1995, p. 5). Such plans are influenced firstly,by internal considerations of the organ-

izations strengths and weaknesses andsecondly, by external factors, that is, thelikely changes occurring in the operatingenvironment including the likely actions ofcompetitors. Porter (1996, p. 75) describesstrategy as the involvement of a combinationof activities, and this is endorsed by Hamel(1997) who sees it as always the product of acomplex and unexpected interplay betweenideas, information, concepts, personalitiesand desires (p. 11). He argues that an under-standing of market positioning and competi-tive signalling are insufficient, and that, thesubtle processes of organizational learningand knowledge accumulation (p. 6) are alsoas important in understanding strategy. Min-tzberg also subscribes to this view and likensthe emergence of strategies to weeds in agarden:

they take root in all kinds of places,whenever people have the capacity tolearn (because they are in touch with thesituation) and resources to support thatcapacity. These strategies become organiza-tional when they become collective, that is,when they proliferate to guide the beha-viour of the organization at large (Min-tzberg, 1987, p. 119)

To enable this to occur the importance ofdialogue and the commitment of all individualswithin an organization are identified by Hamelas necessary: we need new conversationsconversations that cross the boundaries offunctions, technology, hierarchy, business andgeography (1997, p. 14).

Traditionally, organization effectiveness wasmeasured in terms of an organizations successin the market place and return on investmentthus, economic success was the benchmarkused to measure a successful organization. Thiswas achieved through an approach to strategicmanagement where it was considered to bea top down activity, performed by seniormanagers for which a rational, intended anddeliberate long term plan was devised. Thisplan was normally expected to involve aconsistent, coherent and considered approachto ensure the long term economic survival of


426 Myra Hodgkinson

the organization. Successful companies weretherefore those that had large market share andlong term growth and profits (Thompson andMcHugh 1991, p. 88).

A different way of viewing strategic manage-ment has emerged as a result of the recognitionthat the traditional approach focuses on out-comes, and not the processes leading to them.Mintzberg, writing in 1994 suggests thatorganizational strategies may be emergentexplained as a converged pattern formedamong the different actions taken by anorganisation one at a time (p. 11). He furtherexplains that these emergent strategies candevelop inadvertently, without the consciousintention of managers, often through a pro-cess of learning. In attempting to evaluatedeliberate and emergent strategies, he suggeststhat all viable strategies have emergent anddeliberate qualities, since all must combinesome degree of flexible learning with somedegree of cerebral control (p. 11). The debatearound the traditional approach to strategyformulation which focuses on outcomes, andthe more recent literature around realizedstrategies as both planned and emergent, ispertinent to any discussion which focuses onthe learning organization: purely deliberatestrategy precludes learning once the strategy isformulated; emergent strategy fosters it (Min-tzberg, 1987, p. 118). He continues, that theformulation and implementation emergethrough a fluid process of learning throughwhich creative strategies emerge (p. 114).This view is supported by Hamel (1997),strategy must be as much about experimen-tation as it is about foresight (p. 16) but hewarns that the goal is to maximise the ratio oflearning over investment. However he believesthat the more experimentation, the faster acompany can accumulate insight about pre-cisely which strategies are likely to work (1997,p. 16).

Furthermore, the importance of leadershipis highlighted by Mintzberg when he discussesthe importance of strategy making resultingfrom informal learning that produces newperspectives and new combinations. He saysthat: managers with a committing style engagepeople in a journey. They lead in such a way

that everyone on the journey helps shape thecourse (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 109).

This view is supported by Feigen who arguesthat the development of ideas and theirimplementation and practice in the workplaceare the critical success factors for the future(1997, p. 38). But, he continues with anacknowledgement that the role of seniormanagers is crucial in enabling this to happen.

The importance of involving everyone in theorganization is echoed by Hamel, who ident-ifies the need for this level of dedication. Herefers to the emotional commitment of indi-viduals at the bottom of the organisation whoare being asked to devote their lives to theaccomplishment of strategy (Hamel, 1997,p. 14). Mintzberg furthers this thinking withthe view that most successful strategies arevisions not plans and that the strategicdecision making process should be:

capturing what the manager learns from allsources (both the soft insights from his orher personal experiences of others through-out the organisation and the hard data frommarket research and the like) and thensynthesising that learning into a vision ofthe direction that business should pursue(Mintzberg, 1994, p. 107).

He maintains that real strategists are thosewith a vision who immerse themselves in dailydetails whilst being able to abstract thestrategic messages from them, thus, the bigpicture is painted with little strokes. (p. 11)

It can be inferred from much of the recentliterature regarding strategy formulation thatthere is support for the argument that theadoption of the concept of a learning organ-ization would enable organizational strategiesto emerge which would be of more signifi-cance than otherwise, and therefore it can beassumed, would enhance an organizationscompetitive advantage. It is suggested thatany organization adopting the concept of alearning organization is not determining astrategy to become one, rather that the ensuingoutcomes would inform the strategic manage-ment process.



The Research ProjectMethodsEmployed

Middle managers

The article will now examine the researchactivity undertaken, by reviewing firstly,middle managers from a large internationalcorporation, currently registered as studentson a Diploma of Management Studies (DMS)programme. The design of the course issuch that members attend through an in-company arrangement with short periods ofresidential attendance. The aim of the courseis to link the theory and practice of manage-ment, by adopting experiential and actionlearning approaches as part of the teachingand learning strategies. The particular cohortof students who participated in this researchactivity, were 13 students, of whom twowere female, the average age was approxi-mately 33 years. All were middle managerswithin the organization with differing years ofservice.

Prior to the exercise which is describedhere, the course members were providedwith a brief synopsis of The Fifth Discipline(Senge, 1990) which they were expected tohave read before attendance at the three-dayresidential event. The session took placeafter lunch and lasted two hours. The initial15 minutes provided an opportunity to set thescene by reviewing the meanings which Sengeattaches to the five disciplines. This was thenfollowed by team work, whereby the coursemembers were asked to work in groups of four.These groups were more or less self-selecting,the only condition was that within each teamthere should be a facilitator (a course member)who had an understanding or experience ofthe discipline under discussion. Each groupthen discussed one of the first four disciplines,an activity which could be described as parallelprocessing. The groups then, with the aid of aflip chart, were asked to record the discussionwhich took place when achieving the follow-ing objectives:

. to consider the discipline as an individualin your job

. to reflect on what the discipline meansfor you

. to provide an interpretation of a likelymeaning and how you might practice it.

The groups were allowed 20 minutes for thisactivity. When this had been completed thegroup members moved round to the nextflip chart and the next discipline with theexception of the facilitator who was identifiedas the hero in that s/he would defend thepoints recorded on the flip chart to the newgroup, add any additional points and revisions,provide explanations and facilitate a furtherdiscussion. This procedure was repeated untilall four disciplines had been treated in the sameway. When this activity was completed thepapers from the flip charts were attached tothe walls for all to review. The final stage wasfor the group members to consider systemsthinkingthe fifth discipline. This they didback in their original groups by identifying theconnections and linkages between the firstfour disciplines.

Academic Staff

To gain an appreciation of how members ofthe academic community might view theconcept of a learning organization within alarge UK business school (organized in amatrix structure), a learning event wasorganized, the purpose of which was tonote how academic staff responded to theidea that their business school adopt andpractice Senges five disciplines. The partici-pants included 12 members of staff repre-senting a cross section from the academicstaff including at one end of the spectrum,professors, and at the other end, researchers.The event was led by three members of staffwho had previously formed a study group todevelop their thinking around what theconcept of a learning organization mightmean for the university (Franklin et al.,1998).

All participants were provided with a copy ofthis paper and other additional reading prior toattendance at the event. The introduction


428 Myra Hodgkinson

to the event was described as the beginningof some future long-term outcomes andcontinued with a discussion around Sengesdefinition of a learning organization. This wasthen applied to the university and businessschool with participants reminded that theuniversity consists of associations of peoplewho have an obligation to move/change things;that in our role as educators we have obli-gations to ourselves to build a learning com-munity, and to our students by enhancingothers capabilities including learning how tolearn. This was further explored and discussed.Senges first four disciplines were presented tothe group. Smaller groups were then formedwith the remit of discussing the steps indeveloping a learning organization withinthese four disciplines.

The groups were allotted 45 minutesto discuss their interpretation of these fivedisciplines and what would be required tochange within the school to enable thepractice of these disciplines to becomeembedded.

Research Results

Middle managers

The first part of this section will review theresults of the middle managers from the largeinternational corporation.

. personal masteryThis was perceived as a higher level of abilityin the range of knowledge, attitude and skills.It was considered that personal mastery couldbe achieved through practice, self analysis,reviewing, improving and coaching, in otherwords by employing the learning cycle. It wasthought that the individual should welcomeand acknowledge challenges and also challengetheir own thinking. The working environmentwas seen as important in providing supportand should be open, honest and stretching.. mental modelsThese were acknowledged as being precon-ceived images and a number of examples were

cited: accountants are boring; sales have aneasy life and information systems people areboffins and wear anoraks. The concept of alearning organization it was agreed allows achallenging of these assumptions by, forexample participants on the DMS programme,

and as members of cross-functional projects.The process by which mental models might besurfaced, it was suggested, would require anidentification of preconceptions and assump-tions to be confirmed or refuted which wouldresult in a change of behaviour. This wouldrequire the revised viewpoint to be acceptedby all which would enable the building ofteams; an ethos of trust; a change in the culturalparadigm and a need for all to be open and tochallenge views.. building shared visionTo achieve a shared vision it was agreed bythe group that the starting point would bewith a visionary who could be anyone at anylevel within the organization. The acceptanceor ownership of the vision it was acknow-ledged would develop over time by actingpro-actively and with daily re-enforcement. Itwas felt that this would enable a shift to takeplace in individual attitudes from one ofcompliance to one of commitment. Thebenefits which would accrue from this wereseen as providing individuals with a sense ofbelonging, of making a contribution to theorganization and owning decisions. By under-standing the composition of the team it wouldenable mental models to be surfaced, butsocial and personal needs were also identifiedas part of this process. This, it was felt couldbe achieved through dialogue, discussionand debate which should be on-going, lotsof it and take different forms. Individualsshould be encouraged to challenge withinthis activity. The leadership role should

A learning organizationallows a challenging

of assumptions



become one of facilitator with the emphasison sharing and also to harness the desire ofindividuals to belong.. team learningThe understanding which team learning tookwas expressed as a sharing of knowledgethrough, for example, team meetings andfocus groups. Team learning would beachieved through an attitude of give and take,a sharing of visions for the team it was feltwould coordinate the team effort efficiently.Individuals would then be encouraged to useteam learning to develop the shared vision.Team learning was perceived to also besignificant for individuals to show respect forpersonal mastery by others. It was suggestedthat the techniques of personal mastery(practice, self-analysis, review and improve-ment) be applied to the team and to individualsto enhance and accelerate team performanceand learning. Further, it was felt necessary toinvolve talented/appropriate team membersand thus to enable individuals to learn fromeach other. It was anticipated that this wouldresult in a higher level of synergy in thinkingand activity. A skilled facilitator would berequired to enable the full benefits to beachieved. It was also acknowledged that similarresults could be achieved through membershipof project groups.. systems thinkingWhen asked to identify the linkages betweenthe first four disciplines the following wordswere used, commitment, discussion, teamlearning, and the sharing of knowledge.These words were identified as being linkedto exemplify all aspects of a learning organiz-ation and also individual learning needs. It wasagreed that there would be a tenuous transitionrequiring individuals to change and to contrib-ute to organizational change in which therewould need to be an acknowledgement thatteam learning is central to systemic thinking. Itwas thought that through team learning, ashared vision, the surfacing of mental modelsand personal mastery could be achieved.Discussion around the first four disciplineswith emphasis being placed on the lastsystems thinkingidentified this as an evol-ving and fluid situation.

Academic staff

The second part of this section reviews theoutcomes of the exercise with members ofacademic staff and records their interpret-ations of what the adoption of Senges fivedisciplines might mean for their businessschool.

. personal masteryThe interpretation given was that the personalmastery could be likened to the acquisition ofwisdom versus mastery and the followingexample was cited:

Wisdom (dont yet know)vMaster(know). If you think that you are a master,for example, a master craftsman, then youare probably not. If you think that you haveyet to reach the master level then you mayhave achieved it.

The terms knowledge and wisdom werethought to be potentially confusing but couldbe described as knowledge being derived fromdata which once it is accepted within anorganization and becomes part of its routinehas made the transition to knowledge. Knowl-edge becomes wisdom when there is anunderstanding of the applications of thatknowledge. Further, this discipline wasviewed as a situation of continuous improve-ment and one of achieving potential.. mental modelsA view was taken that it could be possible toput all assumptions on the table, but manythings prevent this from happening. If therewas, however, a sharing of social lives as well asworking lives the result would be moresharing. It was felt that structure impedessharing, with reference being made to theorganizational structure as well as the physicalstructure, where academic staff tend to remainin their rooms and do not interact with othersin large groups, on a casual basis.. building shared visionThis discipline was interpreted as a sharing ofcertain basic values within a trusting environ-ment in which there is respect for the integrityof the individual. It was felt that the current


430 Myra Hodgkinson

situation is not conducive to achieving a sharedvision. The following were cited as reasonsfor this and suggestions made to overcomeperceived inhibitors:

Existing complexity of course structures;Certain inhibitors currently present withinthe organization;Certain beliefs which need to exist such as,parity, trust, and justice;Personal giving for fostering genuine learn-ing where values would need to beperceived as existing/present, and thatA federalist organizational structure wouldbe more appropriate to enable the buildingof a shared vision

The group concluded that to genuinely sharevision would be very difficult. One solutionwhich was suggested was to encourage vision-aries and let others know what the visions heldare. This, it was felt would alienate somecolleagues but attract others with the samevision.. team learningWhilst group members did not have difficultywith the concept within the current environ-ment they identified problems with engagingin this discipline. It was felt that there was aneed to know the team membership, and tohave time for dialogue. Existing barriers wereperceived which prevented team learning andthe following examples were given: Depart-ments were identified as tribes versus func-tional areas, thus lines of demarcation, (e.g.technical support, directorate) would need tobe broken down.

In addition the committee structure withinwhich universities operate was cited as anexample of a current problem: where commit-tee members are thinking of the neat riposterather than engaging in discussion.. systems thinkingConnections between these four disciplines, orthe coming together of the first four disciplinesled to a view that within the business school itis accepted that there is a need to recognize therequirement for mutual learning: that peopleinterpret meanings differently, but that it ispossible to make the world whatever we want

it to be. If, however, the way forward isrecognized as allowing people to develophow they wish, the result would not be asingle shared vision but different visions: thiswas perceived as risky (that is, for theorganization). Paradoxically, it was felt thatthere is a need to minimize risk but at the sametime embrace it. Overall the view expressedwas that there was a need for more modesty,that it is not possible to get things right but,that it is possible to get them better.

Outcomes

In attempting to compare and contrast theresponses from the two groups of individuals,it is possible to identify underlying similarways of expressing the meaning which indi-viduals appear to attach to the disciplines.This is perhaps acknowledged more easilywhen reviewing the responses to teamlearning. Senge describes this discipline asfundamental learning units supported bydialogue. It can be argued that it is notsurprising that this discipline appears to beembraced by both groups given the academicdiscipline, that is, business and managementto which both groups of individuals could besaid to belong. Teams, groups and committeesof individuals predominate in university life.This is also true in the sphere of middlemanagers as exemplified by project teams,working and task groups, departmental meet-ings and even quality circles.

A further example can be found in the waythat teaching and learning has developedwithin the higher education sector particularlywith postgraduate students and in particularwith this sample of middle managers. In thiscase, action learning groups are a feature of theprogramme of study and thus it can beexpected that course members will be able toidentify with the concept of team learning.

The view taken in this article is that theselearning events provided an opportunity forthe sharing of ideas around the five disciplines:that they provided an opportunity for dialogue,for surfacing of mental models, and for discus-sions around personal visions within smallgroups. The actual activity could be described



as team learning and further, that emergingwithin the practice there is the beginnings ofsystemic thinking in that there is evidence of anexploration of the ways by which Senges firstfour disciplines can be practised. These learn-ing events were therefore a first attempt atproviding middle managers and academic staffwith an opportunity to discuss the conceptswhich provide the focus of this article and torecognize the validity of evolving small groupactivities. The research recorded here, whilstsupporting the arguments made in this article,raises fundamental issues for future investi-gations. On-going research into this and similartopics is necessary if this area of study is to berecognized as more significant than mererhetoric.

Conclusion

It has been argued in this article, that for theconcept of a learning organization to besuccessfully adopted by an organization itrequires: individual learning by everyoneemployed within the organization, that is,learning in which individuals consciouslyengage; organizational learning, where indi-viduals come together to learn in groups andteams, within a recognition that these arecomponents of a learning organization. It hasbeen argued that by attempting to gainlearning organizational status, individualswill acquire core competencies which collec-tively will enhance an organizations distinctivecapability and thus competitive advantage inthe longer term. The role of institutions ofhigher education, it has been argued, isfundamental in enabling this to occur. Thishas been explored in the first instance byresearch which took place during a learningsituation which enabled middle managers todiscuss and debate issues around adopting thepractice of Senges Five Disciplines. Thefindings would suggest that there was accordwith the principles of Senges work and arecognition that by adopting the concept,organizational effectiveness would beenhanced. Secondly, it is of equal importancethat those who are likely to influence the

thinking of managers and potential managershave an understanding of the need to engagewith this concept. This was explored bydiscussing the meanings and interpretationswhich academic members of staff appeared toattach to the concept. The influence ofacademic members of staff is fundamental inenabling current and potential managers toacquire learning skills and to enhance thecapability of other employees to learn in theworkplace when incorporated within theconcept of a learning organization. In con-clusion therefore the decision to adopt thiscourse of action is not seen as an organiz-ational strategy, rather it provides an opportu-nity for strategies to emerge. This will informthe strategic direction of an organizationresulting in the achievement of enhancedcompetitive advantage in the longer term.

Biographical note

Dr Myra Hodgkinson is a memberof Nottingham Business Schools Departmentof Strategic Management and Marketingand is the schools Teaching and LearningCoordinator.

References

Andrews, K. R. (1995). In H. Mintzburg, J. B. Quinn

and S. Ghoshal (eds), The Strategy Process,Prentice Hall, Hertfordshire.

Argyris, C. (1992). On Organizational Learning,Blackwell, Cambridge MA.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A. (1978). Organisa-tional Learning: a Theory in Action Perspect-

ive, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Baghai, M. et al. (1996). Staircases to growth,

The McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 5461.Batesman, G. (1979). Mind and Nature: a Neces-

sary Unity, Bantam New Age, London.Candy, P. C. (1996). Reaffirming a Proud

Tradition: Universities and the Promotion of

Lifelong Learning (Draft Paper) Improving

University Teaching International Conference,

Nottingham 2225 July.Dixon, N. (1994). The Organizational Learning

Cycle, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.


432 Myra Hodgkinson

Donaldson, G. and Lorsch, J. W. (1983). DecisionMaking at the Top. Basic Books, London.

Faure, E. et al. (1972). Learning to Be: the Worldof Education Today and Tomorrow, UNESCO

and Harrap, Paris and London.

Feigen, M. (1997) in discussion with L. Bruce. Realchange leader: the key challenge for manage-

ment today, Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 18/1, 3740.

Franklin, P. (1996). Dialogues in Strategy. Journalof Strategic Change, 4(229), 111.

Franklin, P. J., Hodgkinson, M. and Stewart, J.(1998). Towards Universities as Learning

Organizations. Paper accepted for publicationin the Learning Organization (forthcoming).

Hamel, G. (1997). The Search for Strategy. WWW.Strategasnet.com

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1990). The corecompetence of the corporation. Harvard

Business Review, MayJune, 7991.Handy, C. (1994). The Empty Raincoat. Hutch-

inson, London.Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1986 and 1992). The

Manual of Learning Styles. Peter Honey,Maidenhead.

Huber, G. (1991). Organizational Learning:

The contributing process and a review of the

iterative organisation Science, 2(1), 88115.Kay, J. (1996). Happy Combination. Financial

Times, 25 October 1996.

Knapper, C. M. (1994). Approaches to study andlifelong learning: some Canadian initiatives.

Keynote address, the Second InternationalSymposium on Improving Student Learning,

79 September, Oxford.Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning,

Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Lee, M. (1995). In: Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J.

(eds), Action Learning as a Cross Cultural Tool,pp. 240260.

McGill, I. A. and Beaty, L. (1995). Action Learning,

Kogan Page, London.Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy, Harvard

Business Review, JulyAugust, 114124.Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic

planning, Harvard Business Review, JanFeb,

107114.Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J. B. and Ghoshal, S. (1995).

The Strategy Process. Prentice Hall, Hertford-shire.

Pedler, M. (1991). Action Learning in Practice,(2nd edn), Gower, Aldershot.

Pedler. M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1991 and1997). The Learning Company: a strategy for

sustainable development, McGraw-Hill, Maiden-head.

Porter, M. (1996). What is Strategy? HarvardBusiness Review, NovDec, 6178.

Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for Change: logicalincrementalism. Irwin, Illinois USA.

Race, P. (1993). Never Mind the Teaching Feel theLearning. SEDA Paper 80, Staff and Education

Development Association, Birmingham.Revans, R. W. (1982). The Enterprise as a

Learning System in the Origins and Growth ofAction Learning. Chartwell-Byatt re-printed in

M. Pedlar (1991) Action Learning in Practice,

2nd edn, Gower, Aldershot.Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration.

Harper Row, New York.Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: the art and

practice of the learning organization. Double-day Currency, New York.

Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J. (eds) (1996).Human Resource Development: Perspectives,

Strategies and Practice, Pitman, London.Thompson, P. and McHugh, D. (1991). Work

Organisations, Macmillan Education Ltd, Hamp-shire.

Waterman, R. (1994). Frontiers of Excellence:learning from companies which put people

first, Nicholas Brealey, London.

CCC 10861718/98/07042113$17.50 Strategic Change, November 1998# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


Documents

Hodgkinson 1998 Strategic Change