Organisational learning and the role of attitude surveys

51HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4

O rganisational learning is becoming increasingly a recurrent theme in academic

journals and at conferences. The driving force behind this development is the

assumption that organisations require an effective learning capability if they are

to succeed in a complex, competitive and changing world (eg Senge, 1990; Argyris, 1992).

The academic challenge comes when we start to analyse the concept of organisational

learning and to draw out some of the implications for those who have the power to

manage organisations. One implication relates to the use of the employee attitude survey

as a tool in facilitating the learning process. There is a need to clarify its role, given the

criticisms levelled against it by some organisational learning pioneers (Argyris, 1994).

This article attempts to contribute toward such a clari® cation.

The attitude survey is one of the most useful inventions to emerge from the social

sciences. Its origins go back to the 1930s when, in both the UK and the US, it was recognised

that the attitudes of the workforce affected their behaviour and performance (eg

Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939). In these early days, and in the immediate post-war

years, the semi-structured interview was the favoured vehicle through which we gained

insight into what was important to the worker and the extent to which they were

favourably disposed toward their job and the organisation (Blain, 1958). Today, the attitude

survey is a more sophisticated tool for gathering data from all levels of an organisation,

incorporating managemen t theories as well as advanced knowledge relating to

questionnaire design, sampling and statistical analysis (Dunham and Smith, 1979; Reeves

and Harper, 1981).

This article will draw on the conceptual model put forward by Williams (1997) for thinking

about organisational learning. Within the context of this model we shall explore the role of the

attitude survey, illustrating its different applications with case studies drawn from surveys

carried out by a university research centre in the UK. The concluding section will focus on the

strengths and weaknesses of the attitude survey as a tool in the process of managing

organisational learning.

ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING

There are three readily identi® able problems in the literature on organisational learning: the

use of the term `the learning organisation’ , the multiple meanings given to the term

`learning’ and the ambiguities caused by transferring a concept to emerge from the study of

individual behaviour to the study of organisational behaviour.

The learning organisation has become indicative of some desirable end state which is

associated with survival in a changing world (Pedler et al, 1991). It has replaced the use of

such terms as the èffective’ or `healthy’ organisation. The danger of these labels in the

management literature is that they become associated with ill-de® ned prescriptive solutions

and promise more than they can deliver. This article is not concerned with putting forward

Organisational learning and the role of attitude surveys

Allan Williams, City University Business School

ideal characteristics of `successful’ organisations, but in exploring the potential value of the

attitude survey in the process of organisational learning.

What do we mean by l̀earning’? A concept borrowed from psychology, an early behav-

iourist de® nition was: À relatively permanent change in behaviour that occurs as a result of

practice or experience’ (Bass and Vaughan, 1966: 8). It should be noted that a goal-oriented

criterion is implicit in the context in which this de® nition occurs, that both the independent ±

practice or experience ± and dependent ± change in behaviour ± variables are observable

and that the `relatively permanent’ requirement excludes changes due to some temporary

factor such as fatigue. The increased interest in cognitive factors in learning makes this

de® nition inadequate for today’s needs (Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992: 433). There are many

different ways of defining learning, but any generally accepted definition will almost

certainly incorporate the following assumptions: learning is goal directed, it is based on

experience, it impacts behaviour and cognition, and the changes brought about are relatively

stable. These criteria should apply to organisations as well as individuals if the concept is to

retain its usefulness.

How can we resolve some of the problems which arise in transferring the ® ndings of

individual learning to organisations? More and more we ® nd that concepts which are used to

explain individual behaviour are being applied to organisations. Thus, in addition to learning,

such terms as ìntelligence’, `memory’ and `core competencies’ are increasingly applied to

organisations. The objective is to make the transition from individual to organisational learn-

ing without attracting accusations of anthropomorphism. The literature contains a number

models of organisational learning which avoid this trap, while integrating individual and

organisational learning (eg Kim, 1993; Williams, 1997). In a recent comprehensive review of the

literature on organisational learning, Easterby-Smith (1997) argues against attempts to create a

single framework for understanding organisational learning because of the multidisciplinary

nature of the topic. However, models attempting to integrate individual and organisational

learning do not necessarily imply that the validity of different perspectives should be ignored,

eg those of psychology, sociology, management science, strategy and cultural anthropology.

The process model of organisational learning put forward by Williams (1997) is centred

around the concepts of `beliefs’, `culture’ and `stakeholders’, and is in¯ uenced by several of

the perspectives which have been identified in the organisational learning literature

(Easterby-Smith, 1997). Such a model is particularly appropriate when exploring the role of

the attitude survey, since it is concerned with the measurement and work signi® cance of

beliefs. The model incorporates the four common features characterising individual and

organisational learning:

l goal directed ± organisational learning occurs within the context of the mission and

strategic goals of the organisation;

l based on experience ± consisting of the con® rming/discon® rming experiences of deci-

sion making agents, eg top management team;

l impacts behaviour and cognition ± beliefs of the decision making agents, particularly

beliefs relating to powerful stakeholders, are formed, strengthened, or weakened as a

result of these experiences; and

l changes are relatively stable ± once beliefs are commonly held they become embedded

in the culture of the organisation through associated artefacts. Such beliefs and their

associated artefacts become a force for stability within the organisation and are evi-

dence of organisational learning having taken place. Organisational culture is therefore

an input as well as an output of learning experiences.


52 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 4

Beliefs and organisational culture

Beliefs can be classi® ed into three major categories. First, there are those beliefs which refer

to cause-effect relationships ± eg À more challenging job is a greater motivator than a merit

pay award.’ Secondly, there are those beliefs or attitudes which reflect a consistently

favourable or unfavourable predisposition toward an object or person, eg Ì would not leave

my job even if I was offered double the salary elsewhere.’ Thirdly, there are those beliefs or

values which are important and deep-rooted, eg Àcademic freedom is not for negotiation.’

One of the most in¯ uential de® nitions of organisational culture is centred around the

concept of beliefs. There are, therefore, attractions in using beliefs as the means for

integrating individual and organisational learning. Thus Schein (1985: 6) de® nes it as:

... the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members

of an organisation, that operate unconsciously, and that de® ne in a basic t̀aken-

for-granted’ fashion an organisation’s view of itself and its environment. These

assumptions and beliefs are learned responses to a group’s problems of survival

in its external environment and its problems of internal integration. They come to

be taken for granted because they resolve those problems repeatedly and reliably.

The process model we are outlining assumes that individual learning can be traced and

measured by the beliefs which the individual acquires and maintains and, similarly,

organisational learning can be traced and measured by the shared beliefs ± or culture ±

which are acquired and maintained. A difficulty with Schein’ s definition is that it

unnecessarily restricts organisational culture to those beliefs which are taken for granted,

thereby implying an element of immeasurability. A more attractive conceptualisation is one

which recognises that an organisation’ s culture can be identi® ed and described through

beliefs with different degrees of manifestation. The deeper ones re¯ ecting our values may be

dif® cult to measure, but those re¯ ecting our attitudes and the cause-effect relationships we

hold are more likely to be voiced and re¯ ected in observable behaviours and artefacts ± such

as long-established personnel practices ± and therefore more amenable to measurement.

Stakeholders

Some beliefs are more critical than others within the context of an organisation’s mission.

This particular model states that the key belief systems in organisational learning are those

which are held by the organisation’ s decisionmaking agents ± frequently, but not limited

to, the dominant coalition ± in relation to powerful stakeholders. This refers to those

internal groups ± eg employees ± and external groups ± eg customers, suppliers and

shareholders ± which can materially affect the range of criteria normally used in judging

organisational success. Stakeholder theory received a significant boost following the

publication of Freeman’ s book in the US (Freeman, 1984). More recently it has received

strong support from practicing managers and academics in the UK (RSA, 1995) and it

continues to attract academic attention (Mitchell et al, 1997). When decisionmaking agents

take decisions which affect the interests of a group of stakeholders, their beliefs about this

group come into play. When strategic decisions are being made it becomes important to

ensure that these beliefs are based on sound information. Hence the value of financial

audits and market, product and personnel research. It is in the latter area of personnel

research that the attitude survey has a role to play. How can this tool help organisations

learn to harness the efforts and abilities of their human resources in pursuit of their

strategic goals?



EMPLOYEE ATTITUDE SURVEYS

The attitude survey is a management tool for measuring selected beliefs of employees (the

term employees is being used to cover all those engaged through the company payroll,

including managers). The beliefs which are measured in a comprehensive attitude survey will

be those related to work and organisational characteristics which have been found to impact

behaviour and are within the control of management (see Table 1). In pursuit of their strategic

goals, decisionmaking agents are developing and supporting particular HR policies and

practices in relation to each of these items. Implicitly or explicitly their perceptions, thinking

and behaviour will be coloured by their beliefs about what people want from their jobs, the

style of management which will produce the best performance, the most effective incentives

and so on. The effects of these beliefs will be even more pronounced where they are reinforced

by the organisational culture ± ie they are reinforced by artefacts emerging overtime.

The work and organisational characteristics included in Table 1 are comprehensive in that

they include the main issues mentioned by employees when talking about their satisfactions

and dissatisfactions at work. They are also of signi® cance to organisational learning, vis-a-vis

employee stakeholders, because there is a rich fund of knowledge concerning cause-effect

relationships in these areas. Thus we can predict what selection practices are most likely to

achieve their goals (eg Anderson and Herriot, 1997), what factors will contribute toward

absenteeism and turnover (Mowday et al, 1982), what features of jobs will normally lead to

high quality performance (Dunnette and Hough, 1990) and what conditions are conducive

to innovative and creative behaviour (Anderson and West, 1996). The existence of various

contingency theories have also made us aware of the technological and cultural factors

which place limitations on the generalisations which can be drawn from studies carried out

in a single culture or in a single industrial sector (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Hofstede, 1991).

Sources of knowledge about people at work

In the process of making decisions about jobs and organisational characteristics,

management are implicitly, if not explicitly, making assumptions about people ± beliefs

about their needs, values, preferences, aspirations and expectations. These beliefs may be

in¯ uenced by personal work experiences, reinforced by the experiences of others and by the

theories encountered on courses and in publications. A manager’s beliefs about people at

work will be a mix of practical or experiential knowledge ± beliefs emerging from personal

experience ± and research-based or scientific knowledge (beliefs emerging from

academically-respected research).



TABLE 1 Work and organisational characteristics having an impact on behaviour and within management control

Recruitment and selection

Training

Opportunities for advancement and development

Work characteristics

Ef® ciency and style of supervisors and management

Pay and remuneration systems

Fringe bene® ts and welfare provisions

Physical working conditions

Organisation as a place to work for

There are similarities and differences in the development of both types of knowledge.

This can readily be shown with the model in Figure 1. The sequence of activities and

interactions in upper case represent the learning process from which experiential knowledge

emerges. The lower case elements represent the corresponding process for scientific

knowledge. Those familiar with Kolb’s original model of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984),

and with the scienti® c method paradigm, will need no further elaboration of the peripheral

elements in Figure 1. However, as we shall see below, the quality of experiential knowledge

and associated beliefs about people at work may leave much to be desired, particularly with

those who have a narrow base of work experience. The same criticism may of course be

levelled at scienti® c knowledge and its associated beliefs, particularly when studies are not

replicated in a variety of situations or when theories encourage generalisations beyond those

originally intended by their authors.

How can this account of these two learning processes help us to understand the role which

the attitude survey can play in organisational learning? Managers’ beliefs about people at



FIGURE 1 Learning paradigm for both experiential and scienti® c knowledge relating to beliefs about people at work

Source of information Strengths Weaknesses

Line management Based on already existing Accuracy of information formal structure ¯ ow too dependent on

managerial style and work climate

Subordinates only likely to share information if they see some advantage to them in doing so

Consultative Information can be passed National union policy and local committees on to management without union politics may distort the involving union/staff fear of individuals being collection and dissemination representatives disadvantaged of information

Informal network People prepared to say Can be unrepresentative since things ̀ off the record’ which people may share or manufacture they would otherwise information for their ownkeep to themselves political ends

Problem-solving Can encourage sharing of Accuracy and value ofgroups information since individual information generated will depend

contributions can be buried on group climate and composition in group membership

Dangers of group-think

FEEDBACK and

evaluation

GENERALISATIONSand

hypothesesBELIEFS

APPLICATIONS and

experimentation

EXPERIENCES and

observations

TABLE 2 Typical sources of information about people at work

work which are formed from their work experiences will be even more entrenched than those

derived from reading or formal training (Vosniadou, 1992). Unfortunately, the naturally

available feedback following a manager’s decisions and actions in work situations are often

inadequate and unreliable. Table 2 illustrates this observation by highlighting some of the

strengths and weaknesses of typical work-based sources of information about employees. It is

partly to combat some of these potential weaknesses that organisations have found value in

the use of the attitude survey, as it is designed to yield reliable information about the beliefs

of employees. On the other hand, it requires signi® cant resources in terms of time, money and

expertise. A poorly conducted questionnaire-based survey is worse than no survey at all ± the

quantitative element may give an exaggerated impression of its reliability and validity.

CASE STUDIES

The cases in Table 3 are derived from assignments which a university research centre ± the

Centre for Personnel Research and Enterprise Development ± has carried out over a period

of years. These are fairly typical of attitude surveys undertaken by other academic and

commercial bodies (Mackenzie Davey et al, 1970; Dunham and Smith, 1979; Walters, 1996).

Most attitude surveys can be categorised as fulfilling one of three primary functions in

learning and change, ie diagnostic, implementation and evaluation, although in reality they

contribute to more than one category.

Diagnostic

All cases under the diagnostic label stemmed from an acute problem, the solution to which

management had developed a favourite hypothesis. The hypotheses included: low morale

being brought about by low pay and poor promotion prospects; staff recruitment and

turnover problems caused by dif® culties in travelling to work; poor performance due to the

organisation’ s culture, particularly its style of management; and turnover and morale

problems being caused by an inappropriate managerial style following restructuring.

In tackling problems of this nature, consultants accept management’ s explanations as

hypotheses. In other words, they recognise the need to test these beliefs against alternative

explanations. This involves sounding out other groups of employees about the problems they

perceive to affect their behaviour and performance. It also involves the consultant form-

ulating certain hypotheses on the basis of scienti® c knowledge which they feel is applicable to

the situation being studied. Thus, in relation to pay, the inclusion of certain scales re¯ ecting

the equity theory of motivation may appear in the survey (Porter and Lawler, 1968).

Regarding the jobs that people do, the relevance of the job enrichment and job characteristics

theories of motivation may be explored through appropriate items (Herzberg, 1966; Hackman

and Oldham, 1980). And, in relation to team climate and innovation, scales relevant to our

theoretical knowledge in this area may be included (Anderson and West, 1996). Only in two

of the ® ve reported cases were the favourite hypotheses of management supported.

A feel for the typical process involved in carrying out an attitude survey, where diagnosis

was the primary objective, will be found in the following brief description of cases B and C ±

two London hospitals within the same health authority. Both were experiencing serious

problems relating to absenteeism and turnover of ancillary staff. The design of the

questionnaire was informed by the literature relating to the employment of ancillary staff

and by a series of semi-structured interviews and group discussions with ancillary staff and

with those groups who had responsibility for or interacted with them eg managers,

supervisors, nurses and union of® cials. Over 200 ancillary staff were interviewed, having

been selected on a random basis within a sampling framework which ensured adequate



representation of certain basic characteristics including gender, full or part-time working,

job, residential or non-residential. The questionnaire covered all the topics listed in Table 1.

While the ® ndings varied in some respects from department to department, there was a

good deal of agreement. On the positive side, most ancillary staff liked the hospital at which

they were working and the job they did. They felt they were in a reasonably secure

occupation and were engaged in worthwhile work. The majority were satis® ed with their

pay, hours of work, supervision and work relationships. On the other hand, four problems

areas were found to be common to all departments:

l lack of induction and training ± little was done when they arrived to help staff cope

with their unfamiliar surroundings and jobs;

l conditions of work ± compared to others working in the hospitals, staff felt they had

inferior changing, washing and rest room facilities and uniforms;

l status ± low status often meant that they were treated with lack of consideration; and

l promotion ± almost half did not want more responsibility, but those who did felt that the

opportunities were poor.

Management were surprised by some of the ® ndings, particularly by the fact that one of

their favourite hypotheses ± dif® culties of getting to work ± received little support.

The ® ndings and their accompanying recommendations were discussed with the steering

committee which had been set up within each hospital at the start of the project. Member-

ship of the steering committees included management and local union representatives, and

both were chaired by the same personnel manager. Appropriate decisions were taken and

subsequently implemented. Wider issues which lay outside the authority of the managers

present were referred to the appropriate individuals for consideration.

Implementation

The cases we go on to examine ± F, G, H, I and J ± are good examples of attitude surveys

being used as a way of facilitating planned change. An international company was



TABLE 3 Case studies illustrating different uses of the attitude survey

Primary function

Organisation Problem and/or opportunity of attitude survey

A European airline Low morale in UK of® ces Diagnosis

B, C Two London hospitals High absenteeism and turnover Diagnosisof ancillary staff

D Finance company Dissatisfaction with Diagnosisperformance of subsidiary

E Transport company Low morale and high turnover Diagnosisdepartment

F, G, H, I, J Five plants of food Smoothing pathways for Implementationmanufacturing company implementing change

K, L, M, N Of® ces of American bank Improving morale and Evaluationin four European countries employee relations

O UK clearing bank Evaluating performance Evaluationappraisal system

P Professional body Evaluating services to Evaluationwomen members

Q Consultancy ® rm Gauging attitudes of secretarial Evaluationstaff to work reorganisation

implementing a programme of job restructuring to accompany the introduction of new

technology. Underlying the changes were the motivational and teamworking theories

associated with the quality of working life movement, particularly the theories to emerge

from the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (Cherns, 1975) and the job redesign theories

of Herzberg (1966) and Hackman and Oldham (1980). Although the same parent company

was involved, all ® ve cases were independent surveys carried out at different times. The

attitude survey was used as a means of involving employees in the process of change by

obtaining their attitudes and preferences with respect to their existing jobs and the planned

changes. It also served as a useful method of obtaining feedback on the extent to which

employees understood the proposed changes and the problems they anticipated arising

from the changes (Woodward and Williams, 1987).

The sequence of steps involved in carrying out these surveys was much the same as the

ones described above. The main differences were that self-completion questionnaires were

used, everyone was invited to participate in the surveys on an anonymous basis and ,while

part of the questionnaire was designed around issues brought up by employees, part was

determined by management’ s planned changes.

Of the ® ve surveys carried out, three positively contributed to smoothing out the process

of implementing the planned changes, one had mixed results and one made no positive

contribution. Three interlinked factors seemed to determine whether the attitude survey was

to make a positive contribution or not: recent industrial relations history in the plant; the

managerial style in operation ± particularly whether there was a climate of trust; and recent

examples of workers being made redundant in the immediate neighbourhood. These

® ndings will be of no surprise to those who emphasise the role of contextual and historical

factors in understanding behaviour.

Evaluation

The cases in this section are essentially surveys designed to yield good quality feedback

relating to existing policies and practices. These cases were motivated by the desire for a

health audit or a benchmarking exercise in order to assess the effectiveness of existing

policies and procedures ± particularly their impact on morale and employee relations ± and

to generate forces for change where appropriate. Surveys falling within this category have

become increasingly popular in the highly-competitive climate in which we operate.

Cases K, L, M and N are examples of surveys carried out in an international bank in four

European countries. These were general surveys, ie they covered all the areas listed in Table

1, designed to be repeated at yearly intervals so that data relating to trends become

available. The process of developing the initial questionnaire was much the same as that

described for the diagnostic category, but subsequent versions retained a selection of

standard items to facilitate comparisons across countries and across years. A number of

organisations have, for many years, been using surveys in this way eg IBM and the British

Army. The bene® ts come when organisations get early warning signs of problems ahead, eg

employees perceiving that their pay has fallen behind that of competitors. They evoke

appropriate management responses before dysfunctional beliefs or attitudes become

re¯ ected in resignations or poor quality performance.

The attitude survey generates expectations of change, and academics and consultants

have developed various approaches for harnessing these forces to bring about changes

which will bene® t the organisation as well as employees. Thus, in the international bank

example, the approach used was to feed back all the results to top management and to

provide individual departments with their own results and the average results for all



departments. Individual managers were given relevant training before they discussed the

results with their teams, in order to encourage constructive rather than defensive responses.

After an appropriate interval, senior management followed up these processes in order to

see whether appropriate action had been taken and, if not, why not. The benchmarking

element in this so-called `survey feedback method’ does put pressure on line managers to

take action where it is most needed (Mann, 1961; Nadler, 1977; French and Bell, 1995).

Not all attitude surveys falling under the èvaluation’ label are as genera l and

sophisticated as these. Thus the other examples in Table 2 focus on a particular HR practice

such as a performance appraisal system or on a particular sub-group of members such as

women accountants or secretarial staff. In each of these cases there was a need for more

systematic information, in order to improve a scheme intended to enhance performance

(Silverstone and Williams, 1982), to retain and increase membership by providing a better

service (Silverstone and Williams, 1979) or to ® nd ways of making more effective use of the

talents of a particular group of staff.

Now that we have a clearer understanding of how the attitude survey has been used in

the process of managing organisations, we can refocus on its role in organisational learning.

Earlier in this article it was proposed that four interrelated criteria need to be satis® ed if

learning is to take place, applying equally to individual and organisational learning: goal-

directed; experience-based; impacts behaviour and cognition; and relatively stable changes.

Implicit in these criteria is the assumption that individuals and organisations can store

mental representations ± ie ways of seeing and interpreting phenomena ± and behaviour

over time, and retrieve them when appropriate. With individuals, we use the constructs of

memory and intelligence to explain this ability. The functional equivalents for organisations

would be `culture’ and `decisionmaking agents’. The concept of culture as commonly held

and relatively stable beliefs of a de® ned group of individuals within a social system receives

widespread acceptance, as does the accompanying notion that many of these beliefs become

manifested in the system’s policies, practices, rituals and other artefacts (eg Cook and Yanow,

1993). The extent to which particular beliefs will in¯ uence the mental models and behaviour

of decision making agents will largely depend on the composition and norms of this group,

and the extent to which these beliefs have become routinised or are taken for granted.

Providing augmented feedback

As we have seen, the attitude survey can prove very useful in solving a current problem by

providing additional diagnostic information about a group of stakeholders, in facilitating

change by introducing additional consultation and involvement, or in stimulating change by

providing additional and comparative feedback on the effectiveness of current policies and

practices. The critical word here is àdditional’; in other words, the attitude survey generates

information which is not normally available to decision making agents when pursuing their

organisation’s strategic goals. It is a form of augmented feedback ± a term familiar to trainers

and learning theorists (Hesketh, 1997).

Providing augmented or extra feedback is the most obvious role which the attitude

survey can play in organisational learning. But, in terms of our de® nitions, to provide extra

information to solve a current problem or to facilitate or initiate a change does not mean that

organisational learning has taken place. The use of the attitude survey may simply mean

that, on this occasion, better quality information enabled them to make a better job than they

would otherwise have done. For organisational learning to occur means that the organ-

isation must learn how to make more effective use of the attitude survey when appropriate

situations arise in the future, and/or the experience of using the attitude survey has resulted



in relatively stable changes to the beliefs of individuals ± and/or the group to which they

belong ± who have the power to in¯ uence the way things are done in the organisation.

Organisations are only likely to learn how to make more effective use of the attitude

survey if their experiences extend to several surveys and a structure exists to ensure an

element of support and reinforcement. These conditions can be found in some organisations

such as the British Army, where extensive use is made of surveys. Over many years this

large organisation has been improving its techniques for carrying out, reporting and using

the attitude survey, initially covering soldier ranks, then extending to of® cer ranks as the use

of the tool became an accepted part of the organisational culture.

Changing mental models

The second aspect of organisational learning from the experience of using the attitude

survey is more complex to unravel. The conduct of an attitude survey can be a signi® cant

learning experience for those individuals involved in their design, implementation and

subsequent use of the results. Thus, in the hospitals case study mentioned earlier, details of

the design and implementation were discussed and agreed with a steering committee

consisting of the personnel manager (chairperson), departmental heads and union

representatives. Since they were involved in these stages they were more predisposed to

accept the ® ndings. While some ® ndings con® rmed their prior beliefs, others required them

to modify some of their ideas about the needs and expectations of particular groups of

employees. This meant that some perceived the problems of recruitment, turnover and

absenteeism in a new light. This learning process was facilitated by steering committee

meetings and the supportive climate which enabled differences in belief to surface and

consensus to emerge. Since the use of the findings was determined by the steering

committee, one found that these changed `mental models’ had an effect on the decisions

which were made. The extent to which these new ways of perceiving old problems become

part of the culture ± eg commonly held beliefs among managers about certain cause-effect

relationships ± will be a function of the subsequent con® rming/discon® rming experiences

and the continued `sponsorship’ of the management members of the steering committee for

these `new insights’ . Powerful individuals and groups have the ability to shape

confirming/disconfirming experiences by introducing, modifying and/or removing

artefacts re¯ ecting particular belief systems.

A few explanatory words about mental models is appropriate here. The concept has become

very popular in the organisational learning and strategic management literature, despite the

problems associated with its measurement (eg Senge, 1990; Espejo et al, 1996). Cognitive

theorists recognise the importance of mental processes in determining behaviour, and so

learning implies changing the way individuals perceive objects and events in their envir-

onment. This usually means helping them to become more familiar with those concepts (eg

empowerment and corporate culture), models and theories (such as the managerial grid,

organic and mechanistic structures) which help to impose a manageable structure on an

otherwise confused medley of variables. Through our experiences, including formal learning,

we develop mental models for conceptualising the world around us, enabling us to manage

the physical, economic and social world in pursuit of our goals. When recruiters are trying to

predict the behaviour of candidates in a particular role, they explore relevant experiences and

related beliefs, attitudes, values and expectations so that they can get a feel as to how the

candidate views the world they will have to work in ± in other words, they sample their mental

models. When a manager is trying to help a team member to adjust more successfully to

adverse circumstances, they have to use counselling skills to build up a picture of the



subordinate’s view of the world so that the manager can gain insight into the problem. This

process of trying to construct and share the relevant mental images of others is a vital skill in

every helping profession, including management consultancy (Williams and Woodward, 1994).

Management and organisation development

Attitude survey ® ndings are sometimes used as learning material for in-house management

development workshops. When used in this fashion, the attitude survey can generate

enthusiastic debate, raising many questions about employee motivation, managerial styles,

methods for implementing change and so on. This is the sort of learning climate in which a

trainer or consultant can introduce relevant knowledge, with the aim of changing

dysfunctional beliefs held by individual managers. For example, one ® nding that comes up

again and again in attitude surveys carried out in the UK and US is the high priority given

to being in an interesting and challenging job, and the relatively low priority given to pay. In

discussing explanations for this ® nding it becomes appropriate to remind participants of

such theories as the motivation-hygiene theory (Herzberg, 1966) and the job characteristics

model (Hackman, 1980). The problem with this approach is that individual rather than

organisational learning is enhanced. This was one of the factors which stimulated the

growth of the organisation development (OD) movement, as exempli® ed in Phase 2 of the

pioneering Managerial Grid, where an operating management team was the unit of learning

rather than an individual (Blake and Mouton, 1964).

It can be argued that the potential for organisational learning to take place is enhanced

where the survey feedback model associated with organisation development and action

research is adopted. The bene® ts of this approach are well documented for bringing about

change (French and Bell, 1995). The dynamics operating to facilitate change include

widespread consultation, direct involvement of those who will have to manage the

implementation of change, recognising the need for change, working with and through the

formal structure ± ie existing teams ± and the presence of a skilled internal or external

consultant to help manage the processes involved.

The in¯ uence of the skilled consultant will be apparent to the extent that the design and

execution of the attitude survey re¯ ects the theories which are relevant in bringing about

changes in the dysfunctional beliefs of individuals , ie those which are not helpful in

achieving the formal goals. Theories which immediately come to mind include dissonance

theory (Festinger, 1957), force field theory (Lewin, 1951) and non-directive counselling

theory (Rogers, 1951). Thus, complacent beliefs may be jolted by comparing and contrasting

responses with those of competing companies, or by comparing departmental responses

with rival internal departments. This benchmarking element can be very effective in

motivating individuals to search for alternative ways of achieving formal goals. It is not easy

to ignore a ® nding which shows that 30 per cent of staff in one’s department are dissatis® ed

with management, compared to an average of 10 per cent across all departments! Force ® eld

and non-directive counselling theories ® nd expression in the data feedback and process

consultancy which are features of the survey feedback approach.

Learning climate

So far we have been concentrating on the more positive features of the attitude survey in

exploring its role in organisational learning. It would be remiss not to draw attention to

some of the problems encountered which may prevent it being used in the ways indicated.

Within the context of the model of organisational learning we have adopted, the beliefs of

the decision making agents concerning stakeholders is a central feature. The political forces

at work in organisations mean that different interest groups may have different agendas in



carrying out or participating in an attitude survey. Where its purpose is shared by the main

parties involved, its potential value for organisational learning has a fair chance of being

realised. This was true for the hospital case study referred to above, where both union

representatives and managemen t were equally concerned about the problems of

recruitment, turnover and absenteeism of ancillary staff.

Similarly, a favourable learning climate existed in three of the ® ve manufacturing plants,

where the attitude survey was being used to facilitate the process of job redesign. In three of

the plants individual employees were not experiencing any marked degree of job insecurity. In

one of these the plan was to expand the plant; in the other two ± located in adjacent towns ± it

was intended to close one and to transfer as many employees as possible to the surviving

plant. However, in the remaining two plants the story was quite different. One was located in

an area where there was already high unemployment and where another manufacturer had

introduced a major redundancy exercise following a restructuring programme led by a ® rm of

consultants. Although the cooperation of the unions for the survey was obtained ± after a

meeting with national and local of® cials ± and the various stages of the survey were completed

satisfactorily, the climate for learning was unfavourable. The interactions which took place

around the survey and its ® ndings did little to reinforce beliefs favouring the planned changes

among the participants. Dif® culties were anticipated by management in the attitude survey in

the ® fth plant, as a result of a culture of industrial unrest which had built up over many years ±

confrontation and mistrust had become endemic in the culture ± and the absence of alternative

employers in the local community. Although cooperation of relevant parties was available

during the conduct of the survey, when it came to the stage of feeding back and discussing the

results with union leaders and management, the former withheld their cooperation pending

the settlement of a pay award to their members. The adversarial bargaining culture

overwhelmed competing considerations and scuttled any bene® ts emerging from the survey.

This latter example of a relative failure to build on the potential benefits which the

attitude survey has to offer is given to drive home the constraining in¯ uence of historical

and situational factors affecting the learning climate. Argyris’ disappointment with the

attitude survey is based on a somewhat different observation and is couched in unitary

rather than pluralistic terms. He equates the use of the attitude survey with his single loop

and model 1 systems, arguing that the defensive routines which it evokes militate against

learning (Argyris, 1994: 77):

[Attitude surveys] can still produce useful information about routine issues like

cafeteria service and parking privileges, and they can still generate valuable

quantitative data in support of programmes like total quality management.

What they do not do is to get people to re¯ ect on their work and behaviour.

They do not encourage individual accountability. And they do not surface the

kinds of deep and potentially threatening or embarrassing information that can

motivate learning and produce real change.

As we have seen, the attitude survey is used to provide augmented feedback, greater

consultation and involvement, and to generate stronger forces for change. However, by its

very nature, the attitude survey is conducted within the con® nes of the existing hierarchical

structure and culture of an organisation. This does mean that, in general, any changes in the

beliefs and actions of decision making agents are likely to be evolutionary rather than

fundamental. While this may diminish its value in the eyes of some commentators, this article

has tried to show that the attitude survey does have a positive role to play in the process of

organisational learning. Argyris argues strongly that, because of the defensive nature of

management, the role of the attitude survey is essentially one of reinforcing the existing



culture. However, the current fashion for radical rather than evolutionary change does not

mean that the latter does not have its advocates. Thus, Miner and Mezias (1996) develop the

proposition that both radical and incremental organisational learning are equally capable of

producing positive and negative adaptive behaviour.

The attitude survey can be viewed as a method for creating extra learning opportunities

for management through augmented feedback and the enhanced interpersonal, intragroup

and intergroup interactions afforded by the survey feedback methodology. Whether or not

these opportunities result in organisational learning will depend on the management of the

process and the existence of a supportive learning climate.

CONCLUSIONS

Several recent publications have tried to show how organisational learning can contribute

towards achieving competitive advantage (Moingeon and Edmondson, 1996; Espejo et al,

1996; Probst and Buchel, 1997). They have tried to draw together what we know about the

process of learning, knowledge creation and transmission within the context of the

organisation. This article has drawn attention to one management tool, the use of which has

become part of the culture of many large organisations ± ie the attitude survey. It has tried to

review the typical aims which it serves and to focus on the role which it can play in the

process of organisational learning. It has not been an easy task because organisational

learning is a conglomeration of disciplines struggling to develop into an integrated academic

discipline. Much of it has emerged from the pioneers of organisational development who

were disappointed with the traditional individual approach to learning in the process of

bringing about organisational change. These OD academics and practitioners introduced a

more contextual and systems-thinking approach to learning, in an effort to avoid the

persistent `transfer of training’ problems associated with individually-oriented and off-the-

job training programmes.

This ancestry is relevant because the de® ning characteristics of organisational learning are

in many ways shared with OD: learning is goal directed; experiences are the substance from

which learning emerges; beliefs ± ie norms and values, and through them behaviour ± re¯ ect

achieved learning; acquired beliefs are relatively stable ± ie learning taking place is

reinforced at the place of work; and learning is socially shared ± ie what is learned is not

private to one individual but shared within a social unit. All ® ve characteristics can also

apply to individual learning, although the last one is more obviously associated with organ-

isational learning. These observations help to explain why `belief’ is an attractive concept to

use in bridging individual and organisational learning, and why òrganisational culture’ is

an appealing way of conveying the socially-shared aspect of organisational learning.

As we have seen, the normal weaknesses in the transmission of information or

knowledge within complex political and social systems, such as organisations, result in poor

communication. This can have an adverse effect on the decisions made and implemented by

the organisation’s agents. The attitude survey can play a valuable role in relation to dec-

isions reached, implemented and maintained with respect to one important group of stake-

holders ± the employees. This is achieved through augmented feedback, benchmarking and

the social interactions generated at all stages of conducting the survey. Where an attitude

survey helps solve an acute problem, such as a high level of labour turnover among profes-

sional staff, some individuals may learn from the experience. This learning is likely to be

re¯ ected in new beliefs and insights, and their modi® ed mental models will affect how they

view similar problems in the future. For organisational learning to occur, this is a necessary

but not a suf® cient condition. Organisational learning is only likely to result if there is ade-



quate and purposeful social interactions within and between organisational decisionmaking

agents, hence the emergence of survey feedback approaches when the attitude survey is

used as an element in OD programmes. However, even these approaches have their

limitations as to the nature and depth of organisational learning which can be achieved.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Sally Woodward and colleagues in the Centre for Personnel

Research and Enterprise Development who were involved in conducting the attitude

surveys used as cases.

REFERENCES

Anderson, N. and West, M. 1996. `The team climate inventory: development of the TCI and

its applications in teambuilding and innovativeness’ . European Journal of Work and

Organisational Psychology, Vol. 5, no. 1, 53-66.

Anderson, N. and Herriot, P. (eds). 1997. International Handbook of Selection and Assessment,

Chichester: Wiley.

Argyris, C. 1992. On Organisational Learning, Oxford: Blackwell.

Argyris, C. 1994. ̀ Good communication that blocks learning’ . HBR, Vol. 72, no.4, 77-85.

Bass, B. and Vaughan, J. 1966. Training in Industry: The Management of Learning, London:

Tavistock.

Blain, I. 1958. Comments on the Job: Views of Employees in Six Companies, London: National

Institute of Industrial Psychology.

Blake, R. and Mouton, S. 1964. The Managerial Grid, Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. 1961. The Management of Innovation, London: Tavistock.

Cherns, A. 1975. `Perspectives on the quality of working life’ . Journal of Occupational

Psychology, Vol. 48, no. 3, 155-167.

Cook, S. D. N. and Yanow, D. 1993. `Culture and organisational learning’ . Journal of

Management Inquiry, Vol. 2, no. 4, 373-390.

Dunham, R. B. and Smith, F. J. 1979. Organisational Surveys: an Internal Assessment of

Organisational Health, Illinois: Scott Foresman.

Dunnette, M. and Hough, L. (eds). 1990. Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology

(Second Ed), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Easterby-Smith, M. 1997. ̀ Disciplines of organisational learning: contributions and critiques’.

Human Relations, Vol. 60, no. 9, 1085-1113.

Espejo, R, Schuhmann, W, Schwaninger, M. and Bilello, U. 1996. Organisational Transformation

and Learning, Chichester: Wiley.

Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Evanston: Row, Peterson.

Freeman, R. 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman.

French, W. and Bell, C. 1995. Organisational Development: Behavioural Science Interventions for

Organisational Improvement (Fifth Ed), Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. 1980. Work Redesign, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Herzberg, F. 1966. Work and the Nature of Man, New York: Staples Press.

Hesketh, B. 1997. `Dilemmas in training for transfer and retention’ . Applied Psychology: an

International Review, Vol. 46, no. 4, 317-386.

Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw-Hill.

Kim, D. H. 1993. ̀ The link between individual and organisational learning’. Sloan Management

Review, Fall, 37-50.

Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,



Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science, New York: Harper and Row.

Mackenzie Davey, D, Rockingham Gill, D. and McDonnell, P. 1970. Attitude Surveys in

Industry, London: IPD.

Mann, F. 1961. `Studying and creating change’ in The Planning of Change (First Ed). W. G.

Bennis et al (eds). New York: Holt.

Miner, A. S. and Mezias, S. J. 1996. ̀ Ugly duckling no more: pasts and futures of organisational

learning’. Organisation Science, Vol. 7, no. 1, 88-99.

Mitchell, R, Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J. 1997. `Toward a theory of stakeholder identi® cation

and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts’. The Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 22, no. 4, 853-886.

Moingeon, B. and Edmondson, A. (eds). 1996. Organisational Learning and Competitive

Advantage, London: Sage.

Mowday, T. M, Porter, L.W. and Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee-Organisation Linkages: The

Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover, New York: Academic Press.

Nadler, D. 1977. Feedback and Organisation Development: Using Data-Based Methods, Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.

Pedler, M, Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. 1991. The Learning Company: a Strategy for Sustainable

Development, London: McGraw-Hill.

Porter, L. and Lawler, E. 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Homewood: Dorsey-Irwin.

Probst, G. and Buchel, B. 1997. Organisational Learning: The Competitive Advantage of the Future

(English translation ± previously published in German in 1994 ed), Hemel Hempstead:

Prentice Hall.

Reeves, T. K. and Harper, D. 1981. Surveys at Work, London: McGraw-Hill.

Roethlisberger, L. F. and Dickson, W. J. 1939. Management and the Worker, Boston, Mass:

Harvard University Press.

Rogers, K. 1951. Client-Centred Therapy, Boston: Houghton Mif¯ in.

RSA. 1995. Tomorrow’s Company, London: RSA.

Schein, E. 1985. Organisational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, London:

Century Business/Doubleday.

Silverstone, R. and Williams, A. P .O. 1979. `Recruitment, training, employment and careers

of women chartered accountants in England and Wales’ . Accounting and Business Research,

Vol. 9, no. 34, 105-121.

Silverstone, R. and Williams, A. P. O. 1982. The Role and Educational Needs of Occupational

Health Nurses, London: Royal College of Nursing.

Tannenbaum, S. and Yukl, G. 1992. `Training and development in work organisations’ .

Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 43, 399-441.

Vosniadou, S. 1992. `Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change’ . Applied Psychology: an

International Review, Vol. 41, no. 4, 347-357.

Walters, M. 1996. Employee Attitude and Opinion Surveys, London: IPD.

Williams, A. P. O. 1997. À process model of organisational learning and its implications for

management and consultants’. Paper presented at the American Academy of Management

Meeting, Boston.

Williams, A. P. O. and Woodward, S. 1994. The Competitive Consultant: A Client-Oriented

Approach for Achieving Superior Performance, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Woodward, S. and Williams, A. P. O. 1987. Èmployee opinion surveys in work redesign’.

Employee Relations, Vol. 9, no. 2, 17-21.



Documents

Organisational learning and the role of attitude surveys