LEARNING INDICATORS AND COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY: APPLYING ACTION LEARNING PRINCIPLES TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SPAEF

LEARNING INDICATORS AND COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY: APPLYING ACTION LEARNINGPRINCIPLES TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYAuthor(s): HEATHER GETHA-TAYLORSource: Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 2 (SUMMER 2008), pp. 125-146Published by: SPAEFStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41288310 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 03:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

SPAEF is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public AdministrationQuarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.129 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:24:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spaef

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41288310?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


LEARNING INDICATORS AND COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY: APPLYING ACTION LEARNING PRINCIPLES TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

HEATHER GETHA-TAYLOR

University of South Carolina

ABSTRACT

Learning has been identified as important component of collaborative capacity (Bardach, 1998, 2001). Without the capacity to learn on the organizational, team, and individual levels, public organizations may also lag in their ability to collaborate successfully across organizational boundaries. Nowhere is the need to collaborate more apparent than in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which was created in part to foster collaboration among 22 distinctly different member organizations. This manuscript examines the connection between organizational learning and collaborative capacity, with special emphasis on DHS. By matching questions from the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) with questions from the 2004 Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS), this study assesses key learning indicators on the federal level. Findings suggest that DHS employees lag behind their counterparts on one key measure of organizational learning: the ability to assess performance gaps. This lag may affect the organization's ability to collaborate effectively, but progress may be made if potential organizational learning disorders (OLDs) are examined and addressed. Special attention is given to action learning as a tool for overcoming potential learning disorders and improving organizational performance.

INTRODUCTION

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 mandated collaboration as the necessary mechanism for

accomplishing the complex and critical mission of

protecting the American people. However, in the years since the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)



126 PAQ SUMMER 2008

was created as part of this Act, collaborative success still seems elusive. Part of this problem may be attributed to a

potential lack of collaborative capacity among DHS

organizations, as identified by such scholars as Goodman et al. (1998) and Bardach (1998, 2001). The capacity to collaborate, as described by these authors, is built upon such components as trust, communication, intellectual

capital, creative opportunity, acceptance of leadership and

learning. The ability to learn is of primary importance as the

public management environment is in a constant state of

change. Specifically, the need to work across

organizational boundaries to solve complex public problems requires adaptation. For instance, scholars such as Ackoff (1974), Clarke and Stewart (1997), Huxham and

Vangen (2000), O'Toole (1997), and Trist (1983) have

suggested that while bureaucratic organizations were once ideal for solving easily defined problems, today's problems call for new knowledge and organizational forms. "There seems little doubt that the public sector management in the 21st century will need to be sophisticated in its understanding of the skills, processes, structures, tools, and

technology needed for working across organizational boundaries" (Huxham & Vangen, 2000).

While new organizational forms, including networks and collaborative bodies are promising in terms of their ability to address the complex problems of modern

governance, they also present a challenge. Because their function is different from that of hierarchies, traditional

management thought does not apply cleanly to these new

organizational structures (Kettl, 1996; O'Toole, 1997). As noted by Senge (1990), organizations must learn

in order to adapt to "emerging conditions." The "emerging condition" of interest for this research is the need to collaborate across organizational boundaries to achieve public goals. This research investigates the connection



PAQ SUMMER 2008 127

between collaboration and organizational learning by examining learning indicators on the federal level, with

special emphasis on the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security, where collaboration is central to achieving the critical organizational mission.

Learning and innovation, says West (2001), are the "fundamental reason[s] for humans to work in groups" (p. 270). And while the end goal of collaborative capacity building is ongoing learning, Argyris and Schon (1996) contend that organizational learning is especially important in increasingly volatile environments, which homeland

security would certainly qualify. Lipshitz et al. (2002) also note that organizational learning is most critical in

organizations that are under crisis or when the

organizational activities involve "relatively high costs of error" (p. 91). Given these findings, DHS is an ideal

organization for focused examination.

Learning, Performance, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Following the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2002, the U.S. Government

Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report (2003) that

hinged the success of the newly-formed organization on its

ability to build upon on the lessons learned from the

response to September 11 and enhance planning for the future. Regrettably, it seems that GAO's admonition was

largely ignored. Two years following the report's publication,

DHS's widely criticized response to Hurricane Katrina illustrated that important lessons had already been

forgotten. In 2006, the House of Representatives concluded that the effort illustrated "the U.S. government's failure" to appropriately apply lessons learned from the

September 1 1 terrorist attacks.



128 PAQ SUMMER 2008

According to Irons (2005), DHS "did not approach the challenges posed by the disaster with the point of view of a learning organization but, rather, as a top-down bureaucracy." Donahue and Tuohy (2006) suggest that failure to learn is not specific to DHS, but is endemic to the

public sector generally speaking: "we identify the same lessons again and again, incident after incident" (p. 1).

According to these authors, "experience suggests that purported lessons learned are not really learned', many problems and mistakes are repeated in subsequent events"

(p. 3, emphasis in original). Given this finding, the mandate is clear: understanding how DHS can improve its

capacity to learn and thus, improve future performance, is i. An important first step, however, is to define the concept of organizational learning.

Organizational and Individual Learning Scholars have debated the proper level of

aggregation to focus on learning within groups and organizations. At which level, asks Argyris (1999), does is make sense to speak of "productive organizational learning?" That is, should we examine learning on the individual, group, inter-group, or whole-organization level? To examine this question, it is important to first differentiate individual learning from organizational learning.

According to Yeung et al. (1999), "individual

learning occurs as members within the organization acquire knowledge through education, experience, or experimentation. Organizational learning occurs as its systems and culture retain this knowledge and transfer it from individuals" (p. 9). Snyder and Cummings (1998) further differentiate these two approaches: learning is organizational to the extent that: 1) it is done to achieve organization purposes; 2) it is shared or distributed among members of the organization; and 3) learning outcomes are



PAQ SUMMER 2008 129

embedded in the organization's systems, structures and culture.

Despite these attempts at division, the fact is

organizational and individual learning are intertwined. As noted by Turniansky and Hare (1998), organizations only learn through the individuals employed within them: "it is

actually the individuals in the organizations who learn about the structure and processes in their organization and how their organization relates to other organizations, to the

larger society and the environment" (p. 112). The authors

clarify this point by saying, "organizations themselves do not learn, but the individuals in the organizations learn as

they communicate, learn and change, and this in turn influences organizational learning and change" (p. 1 13).

While scholars seem to agree that organizational learning occurs through individuals, organizational learning is not simply the cumulative result of employee learning. "Organizations do not have brains, but they have cognitive systems and memories. As individuals develop their

personalities, personal habits, and beliefs over time, organizations develop worldviews and ideologies. Members come and go, and leadership changes, but

organizations' memories preserve certain behaviors, mental

maps, norms, and values over time" (Hedberg, 1981, p.6). While a considerable amount of work has been done

to differentiate organizational from individual learning, it is the work of Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978), including their definition of learning ("the detection and correction of

error") that is considered to be the foundational work in this area of study. As noted by Argyris and Schon (1978), "individual members are continually engaged in attempting to know the organization, and to know themselves in context of the organization" (p. 16).

According to Lipshitz et al. (2002), there are three

organizational policies that facilitate learning on multiple levels: commitment to learning, tolerance for error, and



130 PAQ SUMMER 2008

commitment to workforce development (p. 88). Of these three policies, tolerance for error is of particular interest in this research. When organizations adopt an approach in which "errors in the service of learning will not be

punished but indeed valued as opportunities for learning" (Lipshitz et al., 2002, p. 89), a culture of learning can begin to take root. One potential way to create a culture in which

learning is valued and error is tolerated is through the

application of action learning principles in the workplace.

Action Learning Organizational learning, says Lipshitz and

colleagues (2002), "is crucially dependent on people's willingness to care for and share knowledge with others"

(p. 88). The application of action learning principles in the

workplace offers an opportunity to develop trust and communication among a set of diverse individuals who have together identified learning as their primary outcome of interest.

According to Marquardt (1999), " action learning is

both a process and a powerful program that involves a small group of people solving real problems while at the same time focusing on what they are learning and how their

learning can benefit each group member and the

organization as a whole" (p. 4, emphasis in original). The key component of action learning is the "set" of

individuals, whose shared concerns center on "acting on the

learning gained from reflection" (McGill & Beaty, 1992, p. 22). From this perspective, action learning can be a

powerful tool in 1) recalling lessons learned, and 2) improving fixture organizational performance through reflection on past experiences.

The value of this approach was emphasized by West (2001): "innovation is not a solitary activity that results from the vigorous championing of an idea by one individual. It is more usually the result of concerted



PAQ SUMMER 2008 131

activities of groups of people developing and implementing their ideas over a period of time, and then diffusing successful innovations throughout organizations or societies" (p. 276).

The application of action learning strategies is

especially appropriate for turbulent contexts such as homeland security. "Action learning in effect creates a

working context in which people are encouraged to ask, learn and take action in a constantly changing environment where no one person knows exactly what to do next"

(Inglis, 1994, p. 25). A commitment to action learning contributes to the

creation of a culture that supports learning on the individual, team, and organizational levels (Revans, 1982; Marquardt, 1999). "As teams learn, they can become a microcosm for learning throughout the organization: insights gained by the team are put into action, and skills

developed by the team can be transferred to other individuals and to other teams. The team's

accomplishments can set the tone and establish a standard for group learning for the larger organization" (Marquardt, 1999, p. 103).

Additionally, a commitment to action learning helps to create an environment of "psychological safety." Organizational learning is rare, says Lipshitz et al. (2002), because it requires "psychological safety," which is

necessary for people to feel that they can take the necessary risks for learning. According to work by Edmondson (1997, 1999), there is a strong relationship between psychological safety and learning in organizations.

Schein's (1993b) point is especially salient in this context: "For habit and skill learning to take hold, we need

opportunities to practice and make errors. We need consistent rewards not only for correct responses but also for detecting errors so that they can be corrected. . .this kind of learning, therefore, is constrained not only by the



132 PAQ SUMMER 2008

difficulty of getting the response in the first place, but by lack of a safe environment in which to practice and make lots of errors" (p. 87). Action learning, which emphasizes a safe arena for diverse perspectives and individual reflection, offers an opportunity to create the necessary conditions for organizational learning.

The Practical Challenge: Learning and Collaboration

Especially when faced with a world of "turbulent

change," organizations must learn faster, placing even

greater value on developing a culture of learning (Schein, 1992). Schein claims that "the primary task of a leader in

contemporary organizations is to create and sustain such a culture" (p. 372).

The Office of Personnel Management (2001) agrees that a culture of learning relies on good leaders. "Leaders foster a learning culture that provides opportunities for continuous development and encourages employees to

participate. Leaders invest in education, training, and other

developmental opportunities to help themselves and their

employees build mission-critical competencies" (p. 2). Scholars such as Argyris and Sch6n (1996) and

Schein (1992) contend that leaders also help foster a

learning culture by engaging in behaviors that communicate the vision and value of learning and then

rewarding the associated behavior when it is displayed within the organization. The importance of rewarding desired cultural behaviors is repeated in the literature (see Amabile, 1983; Kanter, 1983; Schein, 1993b; West, 2001).

A focus on learning could be seen as just one more

priority to add to the unwieldy list of demands that public managers face on a daily basis. However, the result of

neglecting learning cannot be overstated. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, a number of publications were released that identified the failures, from communication to

leadership. One failure that was also highlighted by Kettl



PAQ SUMMER 2008 133

(2005) was our inability to learn from the past: "We've been taught the lessons we need to learn. The question now is whether we will learn from them. If not, the worst is

surely yet to come" (p. 16). If learning is a critical component of collaborative

capacity and if DHS has exhibited problems in

collaborating, the question of interest becomes: how does DHS compare to other federal organizations on

organizational learning indicators?

Data and Methods While there are currently no databases that track

indicators of learning in the federal government, the Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) offers an

opportunity to investigate such indicators indirectly. The FHCS is the largest federal employee survey to date.

Nearly 150,000 employees responded to the 2004 survey (51% response rate). Using the Dimensions of the

Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) as a guide, questions were matched from the 2004 FHCS to track indicators of learning on the individual, team, and

organizational levels. The DLOQ has been recommended for use in organizational studies based on its construct

validity and reliability (Yang et al., 2004). Although validity is a concern when fitting new

constructs to existing survey data, the match between

learning indicators and survey questions was supported through the use of multiple coders (five in total). Inter- coder reliability rates of 80% or better were used to select the best matches. A total of 12 questions from the Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) were matched with the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) to assess learning on the individual, team, and

organizational levels (Table 1). Factor analysis confirmed that these 12 questions identified a single construct:

learning.



134 PAQ SUMMER 2008

Table 1 Matched Learning Indicators : Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire Items (DLOQ) and Items from the Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS)

DLOQ FHCS Individual In my organization, The people I work with Learning people help each other cooperate to get the job Indicator 1 learn. done. Individual In my organization, I am given a real Learning people are given time to opportunity to improve Indicator 2 support learning. my skills in my

organization. Individual In my organization, Creativity and innovation Learning people are rewarded for are rewarded. Indicator 3 learning. Individual In my organization, My training needs are Learning people identify skills assessed. Indicator 4 they need for future

work tasks. Team In my organization, The skill level in my Learning teams/groups focus both work unit has improved Indicator 1 on the group's task and in the past year.

on how well the group is working. Team In my organization, Awards in my work unit Learning teams/groups are depend on how well Indicator 2 rewarded for their employees perform their

achievements as a jobs. team/group.

Team In my organization, Complaints, disputes, or Learning teams/groups treat grievances are resolved Indicator 3 members as equals, fairly in my work unit,

regardless of race, culture, or other differences.



PAQ SUMMER 2008 135

Table 1, continued Team In my organization, Products and services in Learning teams/groups revise their my work unit are Indicator 4 thinking as a result of improved based on

group discussions or customer/public input. information collected. Organization My organization creates Managers review and Learning systems to measure gaps evaluate the Indicator 1 between current and organization's progress

expected performance. toward meeting its goals and objectives. Organization My organization Managers promote Learning encourages people to get communication among Indicator 2 answers from across the different work units,

organization when solving problems. Organization In my organization, Employees have a feeling Learning leaders empower others of personal empowerment Indicator 3 to help carry out the with respect to work organization's vision. processes. Organization My organization builds I know how my work Learning alignment of visions relates to the agency's Indicator 4 across different levels goals and priorities. and work groups. |__

Findings Survey responses to the above questions were

analyzed, controlling for organizational affiliation. As a result, mean responses were compared for employees in DHS organizations and all others. Based on this analysis, one dimension of organizational learning was found to be

significant. Organizational Indicator #1 (described in Table 1 and highlighted in Table 2), speaks to an organization's ability to measure gaps between present and expected performance. It was on this dimension of organizational learning where a significant difference existed between DHS responses and responses from employees in other



136 PAQ SUMMER 2008

organizations. On this dimension, DHS responses are

significantly lower. Results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Learning Indicators Federal Human DHS Others Between Capital Survey n=4189 N=143,709 Subjects 2004 Significance n= 147,902 Individual 1 4.18 4.14 .952 Individual 2 3.64 3,67 .955 Individual 3 3.21 118 .16 1 Individual 4 3.20 331 .476 Team 1 155 146 .502 Team 2 327 127 .669 Team 3 331 333 .798 Team 4 339 343 .639 Organization 1 3.56 3.60 .061 Organization 2 3.40 3.42 .566 Organization 3 3.25 3.21 .427 Organization 4 4.09 4.10 .766

These results suggest that DHS employees may be less able to track progress in meeting goals and thus, performing effectively. This finding has significant consequences for overall organizational performance in addition to collaborative performance. According to a 2005 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, eight key practices improve collaborative outcomes, including individual and organizational accountability for results. If this ability is lacking, it negatively affects overall collaborative capacity.

Explanations for Differences in Learning Given that a significant difference is observed on an

organizational-level learning indicator, the work of Snyder and Cummings (1998) is relevant. According to Snyder and Cummings, there may be a number of organizational



PAQ SUMMER 2008 137

"learning disorders" to blame. Because learning on the

organizational level translates to learning within collaborative bodies, it is important to understand the causes of organizational learning deficiency. Snyder and

Cummings note that these deficiencies have been referred to as "learning disabilities" (Senge, 1990), "learning errors"

(Marsick & Watkins, 1990), "learning barriers" (Shaw & Perkins, 1992) and "learning obstacles," (McGill & Slocum, 1994). Snyder and Cummings (1998) group these

concepts together as "organization learning disorders

(OLDs)" which "prevent organizations from achieving their

learning potential, and consequently can have an adverse effect on organizations' performance capability" (p. 874).

According to Snyder and Cummings, organizational learning disorders (OLDs) may occur at any stage of the

learning cycle from discovery to invention to production to

generalization. The authors provide a list of various OLDs, which may occur at each stage of the learning process. Based on Snyder and Cummings' summary, the previously presented empirical findings, and the review of the literature as it pertains to organizational learning, four

potential OLDs were selected which seem most fitting to DHS. Table 3 explains each OLD along with the potential effects, if not corrected.



138 PAQ SUMMER 2008

Table 3

Organizational Learning Disorders: Descriptions and Effects (Adapted from Snyder and Cummings, 1998) Learning Organizational Description Potential Effects Stage Learning

Disorder (OLD) Discovery Projection Organization May affect other

members distort what learning processes via they see. May be weak, narrow, or caused by misinterpreted vision, stereotypes, political May result in narrow and financial competency interests, or anxiety development and over what is performance gaps, perceived. Resulting

complacency may only be reversed under

crisis situations. Invention Multiple Lack of coordination Inability to address

Personality between multiple, strategic opportunities. Disorder competing Ineffective solutions to

perspectives. Reflects persistent problems, lack of integration Unable to develop new and communication, processes and Dysfunctional reward structures. and control systems perpetuate this disorder. Organization may exhibit various incompatible points

of view. Production Alien-Hand Inability to connect Leads to inaction or

Syndrome intentions and unintended actions. actions. Occurs Individuals may when parts of the believe they are unable organization operate to influence independently of organization. Results each other. in risk aversion and

lack of experimentation. May stunt boundary- crossing competency

development. Generalization Amnesia Inability to monitor Limits learning and the

experiences, encode ability to make results, or share connections. May lessons learned. result in inability to

react to turbulent environment.



PAQ SUMMER 2008 139

It is not sufficient to describe the potential learning disorders. It is necessary to understand how each applies to the factor of interest: inability to measure gaps between current and expected performance. Further, it is important to identify options for intervention in order to make corrections. These applications and potential interventions, as they apply to DHS, are addressed in Table 4 (below).

Table 4

Organizational Learning Disorders: Applications and Interventions Organizational Application to DHS' Potential Interventions Learning Organizational Learning Disorder (OLD) Problem Projection Significant sensitivity to media Work to raise aspirations via

reports about perceived failure goal-setting events, boost within the organization may morale by recognizing past affect ability to properly gauge successes. current performance and set

realistic performance goals. Multiple Alignment across Allow for rotational Personality organizational cultures is assignments to allow Disorder needed to recognize DHS-wide employees to understand the

achievements and set goals that achievements of others and include all components. align with common goals.

Unify IT systems to track progress. Alien-Hand Intention for improved Encourage risk taking and Syndrome collaborative performance is innovation in meeting goals.

stunted by individual Reconsider the match performance-based pay system. between incentives and

outcomes. Amnesia Frequent employee and Use information technology

leadership turnover threatens to assess knowledge gaps and the ability to share knowledge share lessons learned, and lessons learned, which Encourage "unlearning" when affects current and future previous lessons don't fit

performance. performance challenges.

Improving Performance Assessment through Action

Learning An additional way to improve learning capacity and

overcome potential learning disorders in the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security is through the

application of action learning principles. Given that DHS's



140 PAQ SUMMER 2008

specific difficulty appears to center on assessing gaps between current and expected performance, action learning can offer an opportunity to engage in ongoing reflection, which may contribute to future performance.

McGill and Beaty (1992) contend that the connection between reflection and performance is the very foundation of action learning. "We all learn through experience by thinking through past events, seeking ideas that make sense of the event and help us to find new ways of behaving in similar situations in the future. This

thinking through or reflection is the essential link between

past action and more effective future action" (p. 17). In order for action learning to be effective, however,

Inglis (1994) cautions that members of the action learning set must "feel relaxed and comfortable in confronting internal issues, critically discussing each others' ideas and

proposals and in sharing confidential information" (p. 42). Given the difficulty faced among DHS component agencies in the past, special attention should be given to establishing and improving inter-organizational relationships in tandem with implementing action learning principles. Perhaps, Marquardt (1999) says, action learning strategies may be

exactly what are needed to overcome previously strained

relationships: the sharing that takes place in action learning settings can help establish the trust and cohesiveness that contributes to improved organizational performance.

Perhaps the chief threat to the efficacy of action learning principles in the context of homeland security is the increasing federal focus on achieving results rather than

focusing on developmental experiences (Springer, 2006). This emphasis will likely limit the degree to which learning is valued on both the individual and organizational levels, given Fiol and Lyles's (1985) finding that if the organizational culture does not value learning and the associated processes, including action learning, then broader organizational learning is unlikely to take place.



PAQ SUMMER 2008 141

CONCLUSION

Based on this analysis, it is clear that DHS lags behind other federal organizations on one important component of collaborative capacity: organizational-level learning. More specifically, DHS employees lack capacity to assess gaps between current and expected performance. A number of suggested intervention strategies may mediate this problem. Perhaps the most promising approach involves a commitment to action learning strategies. Action learning promotes ongoing reflection and is

uniquely suited to environments that are characterized by perpetual change. Further, action learning promotes relationship-building and supports the formation of a culture that values learning on the individual, team, and

organizational levels. The careful examination of learning as a component

of collaborative capacity speaks directly to the larger issue of organizational performance. According to Kettl (2005), failures in the wake of Hurricane Katrina did not simply illustrate administrative gaps. Rather, they illustrated the

inability to learn. "When faced with Katrina, government, at all levels, failed. In fact, the bungled response ranks as

perhaps the biggest administrative failure in American

history. September 1 1 was thus a major lost opportunity. Government could have - and should have - learned from that awful day about how to make homeland security work. When put to the test, it failed. The reason? We failed to learn."

Learning is no longer an option; it is a necessity if

organizations are to meet changing performance expectations with increasingly limited resources. However, identifying learning deficiencies that may negatively affect collaborative performance is just one piece of the puzzle. Scholars and practitioners should together identify additional ways to track progress over time and improve on



142 PAQ SUMMER 2008

metrics of interest. Supporting learning on the individual, team, and organizational levels is an important step in the

right direction. By addressing potential organizational learning disorders on all three levels, public management scholars and practitioners alike can help build the collaborative capacity that is necessary to collectively solve our most pressing public problems.

REFERENCES

Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the future: A systems approach to societal problems. New York: Wiley.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 357-376.

Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2 ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Sch6n, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, methods and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The

practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Bardach, E. (2001). Developmental dynamics: Interagency collaboration as an emergent Phenomenon. Journal

of Public Administration Research and Theory, 77(2), 149-164.

Clarke, M., & Stewart, J. (1997). Handling the wicked issues: A challenge for government. Birmingham,



PAQ SUMMER 2008 143

UK: University of Birmingham, Institute of Local Government Studies.

Donahue, A. K., & Tuohy, R. V. (2006). Lessons we don't learn: A study of the lessons of disasters, why we

repeat them, and how we can learn them. Homeland Security Affairs, 2(2), 1-28.

Edmondson, A. (1997). Learning when it's safe: A group- level investigation of antecedents and consequences of learning behavior (Working Paper No. 07-069). Harvard Business School. Cambridge, MA.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 44, 350-383. Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational

learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803- 13.

Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., Smith, S. R., Sterling, T. D., & Wallerstein, N. (1998). Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Education & Behavior, 25(3), 258-278.

Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In Nystrom & Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Leadership in the

shaping and implementation of collaboration

agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined- up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1159-1166.

Inglis, S. (1994). Making the most of action learning. Brookfield, VT: Gower.

Irons, L. (2005). Hurricane Katrina as a predictable surprise. Homeland Security Affairs, 1(2), 1-18.



144 PAQ SUMMER 2008

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Corporate entrepreneurs at work. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kettl, D. F. (1996). Governing at the millennium. In J. L.

Perry (Ed.), Handbook of Public Administration (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kettl, D. F. (2005). The Worst is yet to come: Lessons from

September 11 and hurricane Katrina. (Report No. 05-01). Fels Institute of Government.

Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Friedman, V. J. (2002). A multifaceted model of organizational learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 78- 98.

Marquardt, M. J. (1999). Action learning in action:

Transforming problems and people for world-class organizational learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies- Black.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. London:

Routledge. McGill, I., & Beaty, L. (1992). Action learning: A

practitioner's guide. London: Kogan Page. McGill, M., & Slocum, J. (1994). The smarter

organization: How to build a company that learns, unlearns, and adapts to capitalize on marketplace needs. New York: Wiley.

O'Toole, L. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45-52.

Revans, R. W. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. Bromley, UK: Chartwell-Brat.

Shaw, R. B., & Perkins, D. N. T. (1992). Teaching organizations to learn. In D. A. Nadler, M. Gerstein, & R. B. Shaw (Eds.), Organizational architecture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.



PAQ SUMMER 2008 145

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and

leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and

organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2). 40-51.

Schein, E. H. (1993b). How can organizations learn faster? The challenge of entering the green room. Sloan

Management Review, 34(2), 85-92.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York:

Doubleday. Snyder, W. M. & Cummings, T. G. (1998). Organization

learning disorders: Conceptual model and intervention hypotheses. Human Relations, 51(1), 873-895.

Springer, L. M. (2006, January 30). Memorandum for chief human capital officers: Building a results-oriented

performance culture. Trist, E. (1983). Referent organizations and the

development of inter-organizational domains. Human Relations, 36, 269-284.

Turniansky, B., & Hare, A. P. (1998). Individuals and

groups in organizations. London: Sage. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2003). Major

management challenges and program risks:

Department of Homeland Security (Issue Brief No. 03-102).

U.S. House or Representatives (2006). failure ot Initiative: The Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and

Response to Hurricane Katrina. February 15. Accessed online at: http://katrina.house.gov/.

United States Office of Personnel Management. (2001). Guide to the Senior Executive Service. Author.

West, M. A. (2001). The human team: Basic motivations and innovations. Handbook of industrial, work, and

organizational psychology: Vol. 2. London: Sage.



146 PAQ SUMMER 2008

Yang, B., Watkins, K.E., & Marsick, V.J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource

Development Quarterly. 15(1), 31-55.

Yeung, A. K., Ulrich, D. O., Nason, S. W., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1999). Organizational learning capability. New York: Oxford University Press.



Documents

LEARNING INDICATORS AND COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY: APPLYING ACTION LEARNING PRINCIPLES TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY