LEARNING ORGANIZATION

The term "learning organization", not to be confused with organizational learning, was
popularized by Peter Senge. It describes an organization with an ideal learning environment,
perfectly in tune with the organization's goals. Such an organization is a place "where people
continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive
patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are
continually learning to see the whole (reality) together." (Senge 1992).
Learning organizations develop as a result of the pressures facing modern organizations and
enables them to remain competitive in the business environment.
Characteristics
There is a multitude of definitions of a learning organization as well as their typologies. Peter
Senge stated in an interview that a learning organization is a group of people working together
collectively to enhance their capacities to create results they really care about. [4] Senge
popularized the concept of the learning organization through his book The Fifth Discipline. In
the book, he proposed the following five characteristics:[5][6]
1. Systems thinking. The idea of the learning organization developed from a body of work
called systems thinking.[7] This is a conceptual framework that allows people to study
businesses as bounded objects.[6] Learning organizations use this method of thinking
when assessing their company and have information systems that measure the
performance of the organization as a whole and of its various components. [7] Systems
thinking states that all the characteristics must be apparent at once in an organization for
it to be a learning organization.[6] If some of these characteristics are missing then the
organization will fall short of its goal. However, O'Keeffe[3] believes that the
characteristics of a learning organization are factors that are gradually acquired, rather
than developed simultaneously.
2. Personal mastery. The commitment by an individual to the process of learning is known
as personal mastery.[6] There is a competitive advantage for an organization whose
workforce can learn more quickly than the workforce of other organizations. [8] Individual
learning is acquired through staff training, development and continuous self-
improvement;[9] however, learning cannot be forced upon an individual who is not
receptive to learning.[6] Research shows that most learning in the workplace is incidental,
rather than the product of formal training, [3] therefore it is important to develop a culture
where personal mastery is practiced in daily life. [6] A learning organization has been
described as the sum of individual learning, but there must be mechanisms for individual
learning to be transferred into organizational learning.[8]
3. Mental models. The assumptions held by individuals and organizations are called mental
models.[6] To become a learning organization, these models must be challenged.
 Individuals tend to espouse theories, which are what they intend to follow, and theories-
in-use, which are what they actually do.[6][7] Similarly, organizations tend to have
'memories' which preserve certain behaviours, norms and values.[10] In creating a learning
environment it is important to replace confrontational attitudes with an open culture[9] that
promotes inquiry and trust.[3] To achieve this, the learning organization needs
mechanisms for locating and assessing organizational theories of action.[7] Unwanted
values need to be discarded in a process called 'unlearning'. [10] Wang and Ahmed[8] refer
to this as 'triple loop learning'.
4. Shared vision. The development of a shared vision is important in motivating the staff to
learn, as it creates a common identity that provides focus and energy for learning. [6] The
most successful visions build on the individual visions of the employees at all levels of
the organization,[9] thus the creation of a shared vision can be hindered by traditional
structures where the company vision is imposed from above. [3] Therefore, learning
organizations tend to have flat, decentralized organizational structures.[7] The shared
vision is often to succeed against a competitor;[8] however, Senge states that these are
transitory goals and suggests that there should also be long-term goals that are intrinsic
within the company.[6]
5. Team learning. The accumulation of individual learning constitutes team learning.[3] The
benefit of team or shared learning is that staff grow more quickly [3] and the problem
solving capacity of the organization is improved through better access to knowledge and
expertise.[9] Learning organizations have structures that facilitate team learning with
features such as boundary crossing and openness.[7] Team learning requires individuals to
engage in dialogue and discussion; [3] therefore team members must develop open
communication, shared meaning, and shared understanding.[3] Learning organizations
typically have excellent knowledge management structures, allowing creation,
acquisition, dissemination, and implementation of this knowledge in the organization.[8]
This combination encourages organizations to shift to a more interconnected way of thinking.
Organizations should become more like communities that employees can feel a commitment to.
Development
Organizations do not organically develop into learning organizations; there are factors prompting
their change. As organizations grow, they lose their capacity to learn as company structures and
individual thinking becomes rigid.[1] When problems arise, the proposed solutions often turn out
to be only short-term (single-loop learning instead of double-loop learning) and re-emerge in the
future.[6] To remain competitive, many organizations have restructured, with fewer people in the
company.[1] This means those who remain need to work more effectively. [3] To create a
competitive advantage, companies need to learn faster than their competitors and to develop a
customer responsive culture.[3][12] Chris Argyris identified that organizations need to maintain
knowledge about new products and processes, understand what is happening in the outside
environment and produce creative solutions using the knowledge and skills of all within the
organization.[7] This requires co-operation between individuals and groups, free and reliable
communication, and a culture of trust.[7]
Benefits
The main benefits are;

 Maintaining levels of innovation and remaining competitive[9]

 improved efficiency

 Having the knowledge to better link resources to customer needs[1]

 Improving quality of outputs at all levels[1]

 Improving corporate image by becoming more people oriented[1]

 Increasing the pace of change within the organization[1]

Barriers
Even within or without learning organization, problems can stall the process of learning or cause
it to regress. Most of them arise from an organization not fully embracing all the necessary
facets. Once these problems can be identified, work can begin on improving them.
Some organizations find it hard to embrace personal mastery because as a concept it is intangible
and the benefits cannot be quantified; [6] personal mastery can even be seen as a threat to the
organization. This threat can be real, as Senge points out, that 'to empower people in an
unaligned organization can be counterproductive'.[6] In other words, if individuals do not engage
with a shared vision, personal mastery could be used to advance their own personal visions. In
some organizations a lack of a learning culture can be a barrier to learning. An environment must
be created where individuals can share learning without it being devalued and ignored, so more
people can benefit from their knowledge and the individuals becomes empowered. [3] A learning
organization needs to fully accept the removal of traditional hierarchical structures.[3]
Resistance to learning can occur within a learning organization if there is not sufficient buy-in at
an individual level. This is often encountered with people who feel threatened by change or
believe that they have the most to lose.[3] They are likely to have closed mind sets, and are not
willing to engage with mental models.[3] Unless implemented coherently across the organization,
learning can be viewed as elitist and restricted to senior levels. In that case, learning will not be
viewed as a shared vision.[9] If training and development is compulsory, it can be viewed as a
form of control, rather than as personal development. [9] Learning and the pursuit of personal
mastery needs to be an individual choice, therefore enforced take-up will not work.[6]
In addition, organizational size may become the barrier to internal knowledge sharing. When the
number of employees exceeds 150, internal knowledge sharing dramatically decreases because
of higher complexity in the formal organizational structure, weaker inter-employee relationships,
lower trust, reduced connective efficacy, and less effective communication. As such, as the size
of an organizational unit increases, the effectiveness of internal knowledge flows dramatically
diminishes and the degree of intra-organizational knowledge sharing decreases.[13]
Problems with Senge's vision include a failure to fully appreciate and incorporate the imperatives
that animate modern organizations; the relative sophistication of the thinking he requires of
managers (and whether many in practice are up to it); and questions regarding his treatment of
organizational politics. It is certainly difficult to find real-life examples of learning organizations
(Kerka 1995). There has also been a lack of critical analysis of the theoretical framework.
Based on their study of attempts to reform the Swiss Postal Service, Matthias Finger and Silvia
Bűrgin Brand (1999) provide a useful listing of more important shortcomings of the learning
organization concept.They conclude that it is not possible to transform a bureaucratic
organization by learning initiatives alone. They believe that by referring to the notion of the
learning organization it was possible to make change less threatening and more acceptable to
participants. 'However, individual and collective learning, which has undoubtedly taken place,
has not really been connected to organizational change and transformation'. Part of the issue,
they suggest, has to do with the concept of the learning organization itself. They argue that the
concept of the learning organization:
1. Focuses mainly on the cultural dimension and does not adequately take into account
the other dimensions of an organization. To transform an organization, it is necessary
to attend to structures and the organization of work as well as the culture and processes.
'Focussing exclusively on training activities in order to foster learning… favours this
purely cultural bias'.
2. Favours individual and collective learning processes at all levels of the organization,
but does not connect them properly to the organization's strategic objectives.
Popular models of organizational learning (such as Dixon 1994) assume such a link. It is,
therefore, imperative 'that the link between individual and collective learning and the
organization's strategic objectives is made'. This shortcoming, Finger and Brand argue,
makes a case for some form of measurement of organizational learning – so that it is
possible to assess the extent to which such learning contributes or not towards strategic
objectives.
Challenges in the transformation to a learning organization
The book The Dance of Change[14] states there are many reasons why an organization may have
trouble in transforming itself into a learning organization. The first is that an organization does
not have enough time. Employees and management may have other issues that take priority over
trying to change the culture of their organization. The team may not be able to commit the time if
an institution does not have the appropriate help or training. For an organization to be able to
change, it needs to know the steps necessary to solve the problems it faces. As a solution, a
mentor or coach who is well versed in the learning organization concept may be necessary.
Also, the change may not be relevant to the organization's needs. Time should be spent on the
actual issues of the organization and its daily issues. To combat this challenge, a strategy must be
built. The organization should determine what its problems are before entering into the
transformation. Training should remain linked to business results so that it is easier for
employees to connect the training with everyday issues.
Problems organizational learning addresses
Some of the issues that learning organizations were designed to address within institutions is
fragmentation, competition and reactiveness.[ Fragmentation is described as breaking a problem
into pieces. For example, each organization has an accounting department, finance, operations,
IT and marketing. Competition occurs when employees are trying to do better or 'beat' others in
an assignment instead of collaborating. Reactiveness occurs when an organization changes only
in reaction to outside forces, rather than proactively initiating change.
Google as learning organization-
Google is the most goggled company in business today. Just as IBM & coca-cola were the "best
companies" in youth and everyone wants to pattern them after Google now.
First, it is clear from our research that Google is relying heavily on innovation to grow. The
companies hire the "best & brightest" and have created a work environment which is the envy of
any generation X and Y employee. Government cafeterias, flexible working conditions and the
20% policy which enable each and every employee to spend up to one day per week working on
a special and innovative project of their own. Few companies today can afford to lavish such
luxuries on every employee.
Second, the company has also built a culture of product innovation. Dozens of new products &
services are available from Google today & engineers are encouraged to continuously
newones.engineers who finds bugs in others engineer's products are encouraged to check out the
code line and suggest a fix.
While most of the "new products "from Google never became market leader, some do. Google
finance, Goggle maps & Gmail are all products which entered the market with strong entrenched
compitition.through innovation and strong execution each of these products have take on
tremendous market share in a short part and when the company sees a tremendous market
opportunity to enter through acquision. Google takes the plunge(YouTube & blogger)
Following are the points that consider Google as learning organisation very truly-
1. Greater Motivation
2. The Workforce Is More Flexible.
3. People Are More Creative.
4. Improved Social Interaction.
5. Knowledge Sharing.
6. Interdependency
7. The Breakdown of Traditional Communication Barriers.
8. Customer Relation.
9. Information Resources
10. Innovation & Creativity
OD LEADING TO LO
The concept of Organizational development research (ODR) is closely connected to LOR and
OLR. ODR uses the same references as LOR and OLR, for instance Senge, Argyris, Argyris and
Schön and many more. Organization development is the process through which an organization
develops the internal capacity to be the most effective it can be in its mission work and to sustain
itself over the long term (“Organizational Development”, Wikipedia).
Organization development (OD) is a planned change approach to help organizations grow and
improve their performance (Beckhard, 1975; Beer, 1980;McLean, 2006). In order to improve
performance in the knowledge economy era, organizations are encouraging employees to
embrace change, take risks,break from the bureaucracy, and find revolutionary ways to ensure
the company’s future. This involves eliminating barriers to communication between individuals
and groups and helping people engage in the type of decision making that is most appropriate for
the situation (Korth, 2000). OD provides
processes by which organizations can manage such change.

Most organizations must relate to their environments to gain the resources and information
needed to function. These relationships influence organizational strategies to deal with their
environments (Cummings & Worley, 2004).From a strategic change perspective, organizational
learning (OL) has become an important OD intervention by which to transform organizations.
Learning organizations [are] organizations where people continually expand their capacity to
create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured,
where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole
together. The Learning Company is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought about
simply by training individuals; it can only happen as a result of learning at the whole
organization level. A Learning Company is an organization that facilitates the learning of all its
members and continuously transforms itself.
Learning organizations are characterized by total employee involvement in a process of
collaboratively conducted, collectively accountable change directed towards shared values or
principles.

EXAMPLE
Sengeís learning organisation (LO) concept was introduced in many Singaporean schools to
promote a learning culture. The implementation of the LO concept in organisations was in
response to Singapore’s call for all schools to be thinking schools and the Singapore Ministry of
Educations pronouncement that the foremost prerequisite of a thinking school is that it must be a
learning organisation.
The practice of LO has produced significant progress towards an environment of a shared
learning culture, effective communication and good working relationship among staff and has
fostered critical and creative thinking among students. There were two issues that are noteworthy
in this research.
First, there were some concerns about cultural inhibitions with the practice of the LO concept.
For example, Singaporeí s power relations and inequalities are in direct contrast to the LO
concept that promotes an egalitarian power-based relationship (Dixon, 1998) between superiors
and subordinates. Authoritarian leadership is considered a positive attribute among Singapore
employees. This is supported by the findings of Zhangís (1994) study on 200 Singapore school
principals that revealed authoritative leadership as one of the key common characteristics
displayed by successful principals and this attribute is a cultural characteristic of Singapore.
Many studies have concluded that learning is inhibited in traditional bureaucratic structures
(Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998; Fullan, 1993) and my findings add credence, particularly from a
cultural
perspective. In spite of the cultural inhibitions the research participants were confident that given
a bit more time, they will be able to overcome these constraints. This highlights their critical
reflective attitude towards personal mastery and their Commitment and support towards the
school s vision. Second, though the teachers were constrained by syllabus, time and to a certain
extent, a lack of knowledge of creative strategies for nurturing critical and creative thinking, their
efforts are noteworthy. In terms of implications for practitioners and academics, the findings
show that while the teachers were positive and enthusiastic about fostering critical and creative
thinking through the LO concept, the curriculum was not conducive to fully embracing a
thinking culture. To harness critical and creative thinking, it is important for schools to redesign
curriculum to include methodological principles and to develop competence to engage students
in higher-order thinking. Also teachers should be rained and made proficient in skills and
strategies not merely for teaching their specific subjects but also to develop their students
creativity in general.

Introduction to 3M-
At 3M, we pair imaginative thinking with science-based technology to create globally-renowned
products. We lead scores of markets: health care, safety, office products, and transportation - to
name a few. So what's our secret? It's simple: We approach real-world problems with our array
of technologies to satisfy customers. Leading this process are some of the world's best and
brightest employees who share a commitment to innovation and excellence.

Learning environment of 3M
3M is a learning organisation committed to continuous improvement in both the company's result
& each individual's performance. A learning environment is more than a comprehensive training
program. It is a philosophy that says that learning is a part of every employee's job every day.
Continuous learning gives all employees greater opportunity to realize their potential .in a
learning environment the role of the employee is to be a continuous learner, the role of the
manager is to reinforce learning & model learning behaviour and the role of the company is to
create system that allow cross functional knowledge sharing throughout the organisation.
3M supports learning through on the job training, traditional class room setting, online learning
& functional communication of practice .each employee is responsible for his or her individual
growth plan. The goal of our commitment to learning is engaged employee who understand how
their action contribute to 3M's success & make decision as if they owned the business.

ETHICAL VALUE FRAMEWORK

A FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING ETHICAL DECISIONS. Decisions about right and wrong
permeate everyday life. Ethics should concern all levels of life: acting properly as individuals,
creating responsible organizations and governments, and making our society as a whole more
ethical.

Many organizations have standards of (business) conduct. These are often developed or start off
with a describable set of Values that are then codified into a set of Principles and ultimately into
Policy which serves as the means to communicate to employees their expected behavior. In
short, the “Principle” often serves as a key bridge between Values and Policy, thereby creating a
meaningful framework that can then be operationalized in the organization.
ADVANTAGES
Ethical people are those who recognize the difference between right and wrong and consistently
strive to set an example of good conduct. In a business setting, being ethical means applying
principles of honesty and fairness to relationships with coworkers and customers. Ethical
individuals make an effort to treat everyone with whom they come in contact as they would want
to be treated themselves.
Build Customer Loyalty
Consumers may let a company take advantage of them once, but if they believe they have been
treated unfairly, such as by being overcharged, they will not be repeat customers. Having a loyal
customer base is one of the keys to long-range business success because serving an existing
customer doesn’t involve marketing cost, as does acquiring a new one. A company’s reputation
for ethical behavior can help it create a more positive image in the marketplace, which can bring
in new customers through word-of-mouth referrals. Conversely, a reputation for unethical
dealings hurts the company’s chances to obtain new customers, particularly in this age of social
networking when dissatisfied customers can quickly disseminate information about the negative
experience they had.
Retain Good Employees
Talented individuals at all levels of an organization want to be compensated fairly for their work
and dedication. They want career advancement within the organization to be based on the quality
of the work they do and not on favoritism. They want to be part of a company whose
management team tells them the truth about what is going on, such as when layoffs or
reorganizations are being contemplated. Companies who are fair and open in their dealings with
employees have a better chance of retaining the most talented people. Employees who do not
believe the compensation methodology is fair are often not as dedicated to their jobs as they
could be.
Positive Work Environment
Employees have a responsibility to be ethical from the moment they have their first job
interview. They must be honest about their capabilities and experience. Ethical employees are
perceived as team players rather than as individuals just out for themselves. They develop
positive relationships with coworkers. Their supervisors trust them with confidential information
and they are often given more autonomy as a result. Employees who are caught in lies by their
supervisors damage their chances of advancement within the organization and may risk being
fired. An extreme case of poor ethics is employee theft. In some industries, this can cost the
business a significant amount of money, such as restaurants whose employees steal food from
the storage locker or freezer.
Avoid Legal Problems
At times, a company’s management may be tempted to cut corners in pursuit of profit, such as
not fully complying with environmental regulations or labor laws, ignoring worker safety
hazards or using substandard materials in their products. The penalties for being caught can be
severe, including legal fees and fines or sanctions by governmental agencies. The resulting
negative publicity can cause long-range damage to the company’s reputation that is even more
costly than the legal fees or fines. Companies that maintain the highest ethical standards take the
time to train every member of the organization about the conduct that is expected of them.

Globalization, Business Ethics and Competitive Advantage

Industries and companies globalize because shifts in technology, customer needs, government
policy, or country infrastructure create major differences in competitive position among
companies from different nations or make the advantages of a global strategy more significant.
Firms are on the front line of international competition. They must increasingly compete globally
(Porter, 1998).
Sustainable competitive advantage has proved elusive for companies in the 1990s. While making
enormous investments in technology, research and state–of–the art marketing, many of today’s
managers seem to ignore the single most important factor in achieving and maintaining
competitive advantage: People (Pfeffer, 1994). In this regard, it is important to design an ethics
program that is perceived by employees to be first and foremost about shared organizational
values and about guiding employees to act on their ethical aspirations. Ethics program that
guides the process of value creation within a company in a unique way is actually a critical
source of competitive advantage. When a company is implementing a value creating strategy not
simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitors, then we can say the
company has a competitive advantage. And when potential or actual competitors are unable to
duplicate the benefits of this strategy, then we can say that the company has a competitive
advantage that derives from business ethics. Globalization has brought about greater involvement
with ethical considerations and most importantly achieving competitive advantage through
business ethics.
Corporate reputation reflects the organization’s strategy, culture, and values. A good corporate
reputation signifies trust in a firm; it creates an emotional and intellectual bond with a number of
stakeholders and acts as the source of authority and credibility for all the company’s dealings
“ethics of strategy”. It is increasingly important for companies to deal with ethics as a corporate
strategy that, if uniquely implemented, could achieve competitive advantage for the company
rather than waiting to react to possible ethical issues of importance to the targeted stakeholders.
It is the necessity of being ethically proactive company rather than being ethically reactive
company.
Business Ethics as Competitive Advantage
Business ethics should become part of corporate codes, and if implemented in the line of
business as a corporate philosophy it should help achieving a competitive advantage for the firm.
While short-term competitive advantage isobtained by appealing to customers in targeted
external markets (in the context of globalization), long-term sustainable competitive advantage is
the result of exploiting an enduring core of relevant capability differentials cultivated by
responsible management of tangible and intangible internal skills and assets (Petrick & Quinn,
2001). Business ethics of a firm has been defined as one of the invaluable intangible assets for
competing. In general, intangible assets are assuming increasingly competitive significance in
rapidly changing domestic and global markets. As the speed of comparable tangible assets
acquisition accelerates and the pace of imitation quickens, firms that want to sustain distinctive
global competitive advantages need to protect, exploit and enhance their unique intangible assets,
particularly integrity (building firms of integrity is the hidden logic of business ethics).
Sustainable global competitive advantage occurs when a company implements a value-creating
strategy which other companies are unable to imitate. For example, a company with superior
business leadership skills in enhancing integrity capacity increases its reputation capital with
multiple stakeholders and positions itself for competitive advantage relative to companies
without comparable leadership performance. Companies could perceives stakeholder
interdependence, demonstrate ethical awareness, and respond effectively to moral issue
management put themselves in a position of a competitive advantage in comparison to other
companies without those internal resources, by providing a more comprehensive list of ethics
capacities (Petrick & Quinn, 2001). International organizational leaders can and should be held
accountable for enhancing the intangible strategic asset of integrity capacity in order to advance
global organizational excellence. The marketplace with globalization is becoming increasingly
aware of, and increasingly discriminating against, corporations that fail to meet the criteria of
ethical business operations and ethical management principles (Svensson & Wood, 2004).
Furthermore, sustaining advantage requires change. It demands that a corporation exploit, rather
than ignore industry trends (one of the major trends is the demand of business ethics). It also
demands that a company invest to close off the avenues along which competitors could attack
(Porter, 1998). Business ethics as competitive advantage involves effective building of
relationships with a company’s stakeholders based on its integrity that maintains such
relationships. Business relationships, like personal ones, are built on trust and mutual respect
(Boatright, 2005; White, 2006). Successful business must treat the parties affected by the
corporation’s actions as constituents to be consulted rather than spectators to be ignored. Doing
so was just smart business. This was a novel step in that it was among the first attempts to
characterize the impact of ethical behavior on a company’s financial performance.
Knowledge Management
Knowledge management is important because it provides the necessary elements to solve critical
problems related to adaptation of the organization, survival and competence to cope with
changes in the business environment. Knowledge management must identify the organizational
processes that achieve a synergistic combination between the data processing capacity of
information technologies and human capacity to create and innovate.
There are many approaches related to KM, but we can say that KM allows organizations to
maximize their return and generate value from intellectual and knowledge-based assets. Most
often, generating value from such assets involves capturing what employees know and sharing
that information to drive a competitive advantage (