A Compative Study of Learning Organization Models PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/341426974
A Comparative study of Learning Organization models -A critical review
Article · December 2016
CITATION READS
1 1,042
2 authors, including:
Rajesh N Pahurkar
SavitribaiPhule Pune University, (Formerly University of Pune)
18 PUBLICATIONS 58 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Rajesh N Pahurkar on 16 May 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Research Journal of Management
Science & Technology
ISSN 2250 – 1959(0nline)
2348 – 9367 (Print)
A REFEREED JOURNAL OF
Shri Param Hans Education &

Research Foundation Trust
www.IRJMST.com
www.SPHERT.org
Published by iSaRa
IRJMST Vol 7 Issue 12 [Year 2016] ISSN 2250 – 1959 (0nline) 2348 – 9367 (Print)
A Comparative study of Learning Organization models – A critical review
Jaya Nair
Research student
Jnair_1972@yahoo.com
Department of Management Sciences (PUMBA)
Savitribai Phule Pune University
(Formerly University of Pune)
Pune, 411007, Maharashtra (India)
Dr. Rajesh N. Pahurkar

pahurkarrajesh@gmail.com
Assistant Professor
Department of Management Sciences (PUMBA)
Savitribai Phule Pune University
(Formerly University of Pune)
Pune, 411007, Maharashtra (India)
Abstract
Knowledge and niche skills gained over years by organizations are essential for innovation and
transformation thereby bringing in competitive advantage. This knowledge is acquired and
disseminated throughout a learning organization as it transforms and reinvents itself, adapting in
response to the external environment. Individual learning is transferred into organizational learning
through shared mental models and a strong facilitative leadership that encourages experimentation.
This paper brings together theories proposed by various scholars on Learning Organizations and
seeks to understand its applicability and relevance in the globalized world where the mobility of
skilled individuals, access to corporate intelligence and a rapidly changing technology are rewriting
the rules of the game.
In a VUCA-Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous world, organizations are expected to

weather economic turbulence, deal with internal eddies caused by a churn of resources, and take on
competition persisting in the face of uncertainty. A learning organization that sustains in such
situations will have the strength of a honeycomb structure which represents efficiency, allows for
free flow of information, has the strength to withstand fluctuations in the external environment, is
lean and its industrious members are working towards a single shared vision. This honeycomb design
enables the re-conceptualization of the learning organization framework representing the attributes
and characteristics of a learning organization in the modern world. These attributes are the
International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

http://www.irjmst.com Page 396
Organizational Environment, External Connect, Transformational Leadership, Organizational

Learning and Knowledge Management.
This paper is organized as follows, beginning with a brief introduction to the concept of Learning
organization, it moves on to summarize debates around Organizational learning and learning
organization, definitions and models put forth by scholars of learning organization framework
followed by an alternative theoretical perspective.
Keywords: Learning organizations, Environment, External connect, Transformational leader,

Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, Entrepreneurship
INTRODUCTION
The role of human resources in driving Organizational Learning when building the growth strategy
for any organization was highlighted as early as 1959 in strategists (Penrose, 1959)[1]. Twenty Five
years later, in 1984 Wernerfelt (1984)[2], once again highlighted the relationship between
organizational resources, organizational learning and competitive advantage. In the early 90s and
20th century as the Learning organization concept began to crystallize and take shape, there was a
proliferation of research papers and articles that discussed the dichotomous link between Individual
learning and Organizational learning and what characteristics define a Learning Organizations. All of
them attempted to augment existing research and capture the cognitive and behavioural elements of a
Learning organization. This concept has also been derided by some scholars as being a passing fad
and an abstract concept with little relevance or impact on organizational performance (Furnham,
2004; Caldwell 2012,)[3][4].
A comprehensive Learning Organization model was proposed by Peter Senge in 1990[5] in his path-
breaking book ―The Fifth Discipline‖ where he integrated key attributes of a Learning Organization
using ―Systems Thinking‖. Senge provided guidelines to enable organizations to invest in learning,
encourage team work, sharing of experiences and adapt to the changing environment and work
towards a common vision. Inspired by Senge, there have been several models proposed in the last
two decades, each of them augmenting the existing literature and exploring additional dimensions
that form learning organizations. A typology of available research was attempted by Moingeon et al.
Ortenbald et al., (Moingeon & Edmondson, 1996 Ortenblad 2004;)[6][7]. Some of the past research
has taken a descriptive approach where generalized concepts were being applied to understand ‗how
do organizations learn‘? (Tsang, 1997)[8]. Some have taken a more prescriptive approach
recommending ‗how should an organization learn‘? (Dawson,1994)[9]. Scholars have identified
factors that influence the building of effective learning organizations; these were organization
culture, structure, policies, leadership and the vision. The (VUCA) volatile uncertain, complex and
ambiguous world we currently live and work in demands innovation through customized products
and services, efficiency and agility. To meet with this demand a leader needs to identify new ways to
engage with their teams, customers and partners. This is possible by acquiring external knowledge,
reflecting on experiences, stimulating transformational ideas and leveraging tools and technologies

evolving at an extremely fast pace (Nonaka, 1994)[10]. Organizations learn, when the individuals
that form them learn therefore organizational learning is the collective learning of its individual
members, their ideas, activities, processes, systems and structures (Levitt and March, 1996)[11].
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS
Organizations do not necessarily learn like individuals do, nor is it limited to collective learning of
individuals and its leaders (Watkins & Marsick, 1993)[12]. Experiential learning is typically
happening at an individual level, how this is archived and leveraged at an organizational level will
make it a learning organization. This brings into focus the dimensions that define a learning
organization. The term ―learning‖ is used as a metaphor for the process of knowledge being
transferred from source domain - individual) to target domain - organization (Tsoukas, 1991)[13].
Tsang cautions against this metaphoric approach, since individual learning is itself complex (Tsang,
1997)[8]. A cognitive aspect of learning takes into account, knowledge, formation of beliefs and
attitude, while the behavioural aspect evaluates the impact of learning on behaviour and its ability to
adapt to changing situations. Therefore, how does Organizational Learning relate to Learning
organizations? Organizational learning is defined as the ―activity and the process by which
organizations eventually become a learning organization.‖ (Finger and Brand 1999)[14]. It is
therefore the process where an organization, under certain circumstances and culture, builds its
knowledge and management systems to improve its competitiveness (Argyris and Schon, 1996)[15].
Garvin argues that there is a marked difference between a Learning Organization and Organizational
Learning. Learning organizations display continuous learning and adaptive characteristics or have
attempted to instill them, while organizational learning only alludes to collective learning
experiences to develop knowledge and skills. (Garvin, 1993)[16]. To simplify it can be said that
Organizational Learning is a process, while Learning Organization is the structure Ang & Joseph
(1996)[17]. Organizational learning describes specific activities within an organization while the
learning organization refers to a particular type of organization, therefore – a learning organization is
one, which can simply be defined as being good at organizational learning (Tsang, 1997)[8].
Definitions that integrate Organizational learning and Learning organizations
Writings on Organizational Learning focus on the ‗processes of learning‘ within organizations taking
an academic approach being more descriptive and therefore have been accused of lacking empirical
foundation. In contrast work done on Learning Organizations are more evaluatory and prescriptive in
terms of how to design a learning organization to support organizational learning that encompasses
the three dimensions or individual learning, team learning and organizational learning. Senge in his
pioneering work on learning organizations brought all these together through the five pillars of a
learning organization ‗The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Practice of The Learning organization‘,
1990. Senge defined Learning Organizations as a place where people continually expand their
capacity to create 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 how to
learn.
Learning encompasses routine procedures, guidelines, and policies all which reflect in the products
and services offered by the organizations. To survive and sustain competitive advantage it is

essential for organizations to constantly innovate its processes and products and this can only be
possible through learning (Prahlad and Hammel, 1994)[18]. Sustained learning requires building
repositories that are regularly being updated based on experiences (Levitt and March, 1988). These
routines are located above the level of individual learning (Schulz, 2000)[20] yet run the risk of
forming competency traps (Levitt and march, 1988) when they limit the ability of the organization to
take an action and are constrained by past experiences that masquerade as learning. Individual
learning that occurs from knowledge that is acquired and experiences need to transfer into team
learning through sharing, and team learning must transfer into organizational learning (Kim, 1993;
Edmondson, 1999)[21][22].The concept of single loop learning attempts to address the mismatch
between goals and assumptions, while double loop learning emphasizes questioning the underlying
values and actions taken (Argyris, Schon, 1978, 1996)[23]. The concept of triple loop learning refers
to examining the ways of learning to learn (Issac, 1993)[24]. Cohen et al., draw attention to their
‗absorptive capacity‘, which is the ability of the organization to identify, assimilate transform
external knowledge as they learn and reflect (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990)[25]. Absorptive Capacity
can therefore be a constraint that organizations attempt to overcome through structured R&D
functions that are equipped with experience, academic credentials and exposure to external
environment to rethink and redesign their products and processes.
3.1 Definitions of Learning Organizations

Some of the key definitions of learning organizations that shaped the concept and guided further
research have been listed below in a chronological order:
Proposed By Proposed in Definition
Peter Senge[5] 1991 Learning organizations are places 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
Pedler[27] 1991 Learning Organization is an organization

which facilitates the learning of all its
members and continuously transforms
itself
David Garvin[16] 1993 A learning organization is an

organization skilled at creating,
acquiring, interpreting, transferring, and
retaining knowledge, and at purposefully
modifying its behaviour to reflect new
knowledge and insights.

McGill et al[28] 1992 A Learning Organization is a company

that can respond to new information by
altering the very "programming" by
which information is processed and
evaluated
Daniel Kim[21] 1993 ―Organizational Learning‖ is the

organization‘s capacity to take action
O'Brien & Kremer 1994 A Learning Organization is an

Bennett[29] organization that has woven continuous
and enhanced capacity to learn, adapt and
change into its culture
Watkins& Marsick[12] 1993] Learning organizations learn

continuously and can ―transform‖
themselves as it empowers the people,
encourages collaboration and team
learning, promotes open dialogue, and
acknowledges the interdependence of
individuals and the organization
Marquardt[26] 1996 Learning organization is an organization

that learns powerfully and collectively
and is continually transforming itself to
better collect, manage and use knowledge
for corporate success
Yogesh 1996 Organization with an ingrained

Malhotra [30] philosophy for anticipating, reacting and
responding to change, complexity and
uncertainty
David Bohm 2003 Learning Organization is one in which

[31] people at all levels individually are
continually increasing their capacity to
produce results they really care about
Jamali Khoury 2006 A type of organization that promotes

Shayoun [32] continual organizational renewal by
weaving/embedding a set of core
processes that nurture a positive
propensity to learn, adapt, and change
Table I: Definitions of Learning Organization

Learning organization (LO) is therefore a particular type of organization and organizational learning
(OL) is related to specific activities that facilitate learning (Garvin, 1993). All these definitions have
several common themes- leverage the employees‘ commitment to learning across all levels, role of
leaders, ability to adapt using insights, enhance their level of performance and be more effective.
Learning Organization Models
Learning organizations are a continuous project in progress as they respond to the changing external
environment and based on the definitions above, constantly reinvent themselves to deal with
competition and add value to the customer. An analysis of the various models of the learning
organization proposed by various scholars over the last two and half decades indicate some common
attributes such as the role played by leadership, a nurturing environment, team learning, shared and
knowledge management as being critical to the success of the organization . The following section
presents a view of the multiple models and the key attributes identified in each.
Model Proposed by Attributes of a Learning organization
Five Building blocks Peter Senge Shared Vision, team learning, Personal
[5] Mastery, Mental models, Systems Thinking
Twelve Building Bennet O Brien Strategy / vision, executive practices,

Blocks [29] managerial practices, climate,
organizational / job structures, information
flow, individual and team practice, work
processes, performance goals, training,
individual and team development, rewards
and recognition
INVEST Model Pearn et al Inspired learners, Nurturing culture, Vision

[1995] of the future, enhanced learning, supportive
Management, Transforming structures
Five indicators of Marquardt Empowering People, knowledge

learning organization Management, learning expansion,
[26] environmental changes, technology
utilization
E- flow model Pedler et al Participative Policy making, Informating,

accounting and control, internal exchange,
reward flexibility, enabling structures,
boundary workers, inter-company learnings,
learning climate, Self development
opportunity
Bundle of managerial Swee Goh Clarity of mission and vision, shared

and organizational leadership, participation, experimentation,

practices [1998] knowledge transfer, organizational ability,

organizational culture
Nine building blocks Bryan T Philips Strategic thinking, vision, Communication,

[35] leadership, innovation, learning and
development, change management,
intellectual capital, knowledge
management, reward and recognition,
measurement and assessment
DLOQ dimensions of Yang, Watkins & Continuous Learning opportunities, Inquiry

Learning organization Marsick and dialogue, Collaboration and Team
questionnaire [36] learning, systems for capturing and sharing
learning, empower people towards a
collective vision, Connect to the external
environment, strategic leadership
3 Building blocks Garvin A supportive Learning environment,

[37] Concrete Learning process, Leadership
Table II : Current Learning organization Models
4.1 Review of the attributes and characteristics in various models of Learning Organizations
In the Fifth Discipline (Senge 1991)[5] Peter Senge was able to successfully integrate the fifth
building block- Systems thinking which binds personal mastery, team learning, mental models and
shared vision. It also enables a view of the whole, with linkages and patterns between the other
disciplines to enhance the combined efficiencies of each as people agree and accept the collective
purpose of the organization. Senge also seems to freeze a few variables that influence learning
behaviour while attempting to focus on others. The model appears to be based on an ideal almost
mythical organization which easily absorbs and adapts to the changing external environment. There
is also a mythical employee who is completely committed and loyal to the well being of the
organization (Fielding, 2001)[38] and for whom work life is assumed to be an expression of their
individual aspirations and personalities. Individuals in the organization are assumed to be equally
rational and participative in the creative endeavors of the organization to evolve, adapt and improve
in response to the changing external environment. It does not factor in the role played by the
community in shaping behaviour and response of the individual participants. Considering the
present day employer and employee relationship with this approach the ―what is in it for me‖ or the
WIIFM element is completely set aside. Thus there is a tendency to view the organization as an ideal
singular entity that is insulated from both, the vagaries of the external environment and human
nature. Senge makes no recommendation on how to build a learning organization (Friedman, et.al,
2005)[39]. The role of the leader in a learning organization, is to ―clarify reality‖ by referring to his
own mental model. This expectation is not factoring negative experiences or competency traps
(Levitt and March, 1988) that the leader may be guilty of. Leaders‘ experiences will need to be
augmented with new learnings, tools as the business environment and the internal systems, processes
and resources become complex and keep pace with technology. Leaders are made to appear as

heroes (Senge, 1994)[40] who never make wrong decisions while undermining the ability of their
teams as a group of people who lack the ability and vision to proactively adapt to the changing
scenario on their own.
Pedler‘s e-Flow model includes the team and the external stakeholders calling it Participative policy
making process (Pedler et al, 1997)[27] to enhance the sense of accountability and ownership. The
E-Flow model also scores higher when it highlights the external and internal exchanges taking place
within the organization. The role played by Boundary workers in scanning the external environment
and keeping the organization updated on activities that may serve as opportunities or threats. The
internal exchange in the process of routine work provides opportunities to learn and develop tacit
knowledge that finds its way into the organizational culture. The eleven characteristics identified by
Pedler were comprehensive and applied in organizations such as ABB, Billiton, Canon, HSBC,
Marks and Spencer, Motorola, Pilkington, Rover and SEMCO to survey the organization and
implement the Learning organization framework. Pedler almost seems ahead of his times when he
refers to Informating as a way to leverage public domain as a means to speed up information flow.
A Learning organization will reflect on the learning- referred to as the double loop cognitive process
(Argyris, 2002)[41], when successfully implementing the shared leanings through the change in
mental models (Senge, 1991, 2006, Argyris 2002). Kim‘s OADI-SMM model (Daniel Kim,
1993)[21] is the starting point for inclusion of the cognitive processes in organizational learning. It
incorporates concepts of double loop learning (Argyris, Schon, 2002)[41]. Kim‘s OADI-SMM model
refers to Observe (from experience), Assess (reflecting on observations), design (from abstract
concepts) and Implement (Testing the concepts)- Shared Mental Models. It makes a distinction
between organization and individual and takes into account complexities in an organization as well
as efforts made at individual learning. It explains how an individual learning, double loop learning
and shared mental models integrate to generate Organizational learning. Garvin drew attention to the
knowledge flow process within the organization (Garvin, 1993)[16]. Garvin et al presented an
approach that took into account the cognitive, socio-cultural dimension of organizational learning
(Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino, 2008)[37]. The three building blocks questionnaire enabled leaders
to measure the learning organization and take corrective action by highlighting need for
psychological safety, a structured learning process and the role leadership to drive innovation and
creativity.
O Brien (Bennet O Brien, 1994)[29] developed the twelve fundamental blocks supporting
organization learning where we see behavioural aspects being included along with strategy, visions,
managerial practice, team learning and the flow of information. The INVEST model by Pearn et al
(Pearn Roderick & Mulrooney, 1995)[33] also found a great deal of industry acceptance as it was
accepted by several organizations such as 3M, British Airways, British Nuclear Fuels, Courage
breweries, IBM, Kodak, National Westminister Bank, Royal Dutch shell, Southern Life Assurance. It
clearly called out the competencies needed to build the Learning organization and drive
Organizational learning as well as the interrelation and interaction of the 6 factors but did not go
beyond enhancing Training and development for better organizational performance. Along similar
lines Goh contextualizes the organizational design which can impact the skills and competencies
required (Swee Goh, 1998)[34]. With a synthesis of existing models Marquardt links commitment to

learning with strategic advantage in his book- Building the Learning Organization: Achieving
Strategic Advantage through a Commitment to learning (Michael J Marquardt, 1996)[26]. He
focused on the collective intelligence and wisdom of people within the organization and the
motivating force they generate. He supported this theory through a second publication that had more
tools and techniques to make action learning more successful (Marquardt, 1996, 2002)[42].
Learning organizations are expected to empower employees to experiment and grow with no fear of
reprisal, reflect on experiences, share their learning and are driven by shared vision. Managers who
are pre-occupied with managing clients, service / product delivery and people are generally wary of
excessive freedom and democracy since it entails a new set of issues. Loosening authority leading to
indiscipline and unmanageable demands is a regular cause for concern. In what has been termed as a
frustrated organization (Carre‘ and Pearn, 1992)[43] employees may choose not actively participate
in the decision-making process (Lindberg & Meredith, 2012)[44]. Experimentation comes at a cost
when money and credibility are at stake. Leaders who need to grapple with the realities of business
have limited time and resources to indulge in fanciful experiments and would find it difficult to be
benevolent and forgiving of failures. Yet a learning organization is able to strike the right balance
through coaching and mentoring of its supervisors and defining the risk appetite of the organization.
The interaction between inter-related systems and the first mention of a people-centered approach are
made by Gephart and Marsick (1996)[45]. This model was revisited in the Dimensions of the
Learning organization (Yang Watkins and Marsick, 2003)[46]. It captured seven interrelated
dimensions of Learning Organization at individual, team and organizational Level. These cover
continuous learning that creates opportunities for learning for all, a culture of questioning, feedback
and experimentation, team learning to reflect collaboration and collaborative skills. Empowerment
that created a shared collective vision and feedback on perceived gaps in achieving this future state,
embedded system that enables capture and sharing of learning within the organization, global
thinking that connects internal and external environments and strategic Leadership. The DLOQ
instrument developed has found a high degree of acceptance as it extends beyond learning to also
evaluate how the learning and knowledge transforms into organizational improvements through the
three components: continual learning, knowledge outcomes and organizational performance in a
continuum. The survey findings help determine if the business is using learning to improve
performance and provide strategic action needed to address the priorities that emerge from that
information. DLOQ has been adopted by Columbia Business School Executive, Small Family
businesses, Non profit organizations, Financial and High Tech firms, For Profit organizations,
Government organizations and academic institutions. It factors in the role of individual and the
culture of the organization based on employee‘s perceptions and had has a high reliability, depth and
scope. DLOQ can be used in conjunction with other validated measurement tools to also capture the
maturity of the training function in the organization (Bersin by Deloitte, 2012)[47].
5.Learning Organizations in the VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) world
The organization in the VUCA world is confronted by major challenges as it navigates through the
labyrinth of advancing technology, increased competition from a globalized economy and an
upwardly mobile and highly aspirational workforce that offers its skills to the highest payer with
little thought being paid to organizational loyalty. The organization is expected to come with the

tensile strength needed to weather these storms and manage the turbulence. The composition of the
workforce too is changing to a hybrid one with bots and humans working together. The shortcomings
in theorizing the existing learning organization framework can be overcome by re-conceptualizing
the construct of the previous models and recommending a hybrid model that leverages the most
relevant aspects of the existing models.
How can organizations take a creative approach when responding to new challenges such as shifting
purchaser demographics, changing customer preference, a buyer‘s market and economic downturns?
How much of empowerment is required in a VUCA world where skill mobility, changing
technology, growing competition and limited customer loyalty dictate priorities for the organization?
The need is to constantly invent something new and alter the way the organization operates by
reflecting the newly gained insights (Garvin,1993)[16]. Garvin recommended a systematic approach
to problem solving, experimentation, leveraging past experience, industry benchmarking and
dissemination of knowledge within the organization as being critical to the process.
Three interconnected elements are contributing to disruption in the learning function: emerging
digital technologies are enabling new agile, speedy and rapidly changing management practices;
generational changes in the workforce require a new learning approach; and the responsibility for
learning is shifting from the organization to the individual. In a VUCA world, organizations are
expected to weather economic turbulence, deal with internal eddies caused by a churn of resources,
and take on competition persisting in the face of uncertainty. A learning organization that sustains in
such situations will have the strength of a honeycomb structure which represents efficiency, allows
for free flow of information, has the strength to withstand fluctuations in the external environment, is
lean and its industrious members are working towards a single shared vision. Drawing from the work
done by scholars of Learning organization, the honeycomb design has been used to re-conceptualize
and represent the attributes and characteristics of a learning organization in the modern world. These
attributes are the organizational environment, External connect, transformational Leadership,
Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management.
5.1 Hybrid model of Learning Organizational Model in the VUCA world

Figure 1: Hybrid model of Learning Organizational Model in the VUCA world
Learning Organizations are built over many years of putting into practice robust structures that
enable the organization to learn and grow. An organization that is aspiring to become a learning
organization needs to first cultivate an environment that is conducive to learning by allowing time
for reflection, analysis and planning of next steps post an assessment of customer needs and the
competitive landscape (Garvin, 1993)[16]. The six essential elements capture the essence of various
models and take into account the modern world and its social and emotional nuances defining what
makes a learning organization succeed. Successfully measuring the impact on the organization helps
eliminate barriers to learning and propel learning higher on the organization‘s strategic agenda
(Garvin, 1993)[16].
5.1A. Organizational Environment: Drawing from Garvin‘s work on need to provide a safe
learning environment free from threats allows for creativity and innovation to thrive. A supportive
learning environment ensures that creative disagreements are considered an alternative view,
allowing participant members to ask questions which may sound naive without being the subject of
ridicule; it encourages accountability and ownership of errors in the absence of reprisal. (Garvin,
Edmondson and Gino, 2008)[37].The key question is, in a highly unstable environment, is there
room to address this requirement or does it sound too utopian?
A word of caution on how managers may tend to view learning which is the core learning principles
of the industry (Antonacopoulou, E. P 2006)[48]. Managers play a manipulative role when defining
the learning needs for their teams. While they perceive experiential learning as being most critical
even for new joiners who are expected to learn on the job, they also attribute equal importance to off
the job learning for themselves. For their teams they often see value only in what is being delivered
through formal trainings organized by the organization that spoon feed concepts and ideas with very
little initiative been taken to self –learn. The organizations schedules these trainings, perceived as the

legitimate way of learning, based on the organization‘s idea of ‗how the members should develop‘,
and interpret these specific skills as being highly valued by the organization which is inadvertently
indicating control over what its members learn. This organizational hegemony can define what is to
be learnt, and controlling the same with individuals depending on the organization for all learning
requirements. The right learning environment can be provided by addressing three basic needs:
Recognition for innovative ideas, Psychological safety and a Career path that is linked to
regular opportunities for up-skilling.
Recognition for innovative ideas: Competitive advantage comes from continuous incremental
innovation and refinement of a variety of ideas that spread throughout the organization (Michael J
Marquardt, 1996)[26]. Organization leaders are encouraged to discuss challenges related to the
process or product with representatives from all levels and solicit improvement ideas. A Learning
organization will have structures in place to encourage this process in the form of forums to discuss
the idea, social media platforms to debate and review these ideas and most importantly a recognition
and rewards mechanism that serves as an incentive. In making this a community process the
organization is able to leverage the expertise of all its functional teams in evaluating a concept and
the idea contributor is not penalised in the event of failure.
Psychological safety: In a learning organization employees who dissent with a popular opinion, or
hold alternative views cannot be belittled or marginalized. An appreciation of difference and valuing
different perspectives can increase motivation and spark new ideas, preventing the system from
slipping into a lethargic state (Garvin et al, 2008)[37]. Time for reflection is a luxury in the current
world where individuals and projects are constantly rushing from one project into another and are
overstressed by deadlines. However a manager who insists on time for project debriefs, recording of
learnings is contributing to the learning process by creating the needed supportive environment.
Garvin coined the term ―blameless reporting‖ to enable a presentation and evaluation of events as
they occurred without an individual being blamed (Garvin et al, 2008)[37]. Providing for this safe
environment has seen a decrease in errors and an improvement in organizational processes that
indicate organizational learning (Edmondson, 2002)[49].
Career-path: The average tenure of an employee in an organization does not extend beyond six to
ten years. In a rapidly changing world where employees will soon be jostling for space with bots and
Robots, organizations will be required to a lot more to retain talent and avoid knowledge loss. In a
Learning organization employees feel more engaged as the organization invests in learning and
creates opportunities to gain exposure and learn new skills, even as they work towards meeting the
organization‘s mission. Career paths refer to forms of career progression, including the traditional
vertical career ladders, dual career ladders, horizontal career lattices, career progression outside the
organization and encore careers. A career development path provides employees with an ongoing
mechanism to enhance their skills and knowledge that can lead to mastery of their current jobs,
promotions and transfers to new or different positions. Implementing career paths may also have a
direct impact on the entire organization by improving morale, career satisfaction, motivation,
productivity, and responsiveness in meeting departmental and organizational objectives.

5.1B. External connect: Organizations need to align their goals with the constantly changing
external environment. Being aware of customer needs, evolving technology, competitors, resource
availability, and social, political and economic trends necessitate need to procure this information
from Analysts, periodicals, benchmarking studies etc.
Market Intelligence, Tools and Technology, Customer centric approach
Market Intelligence: Reflection and internal assessments are not the only source of learning. Most
powerful insights come from looking beyond the immediate environment to gain new perspective
(Garvin, 1993)[16]. Organizations that operate in a completely different domain can be a source of
ideas and stimulate creative thinking in the current environment. Most creative outcomes come from
organizational learning being augmented with market information on changing customer needs,
competitor activities and new tools and technologies An example of this has been the adoption
branding and application of six sigma in GE companies across the world. Six-sigma was a concept
first designed by Motorola, Jack Welch borrowed the concept and encouraged his employees to
adopt the idea, redesign, customize and launch it throughout the organization. Benchmarking
performance against industry standards brings in a outside in perspective and is essential to stay
relevant by comparing how the organization is doing, and also to work on a regular SWOT.
Tools and technologies: This is probably the one change that is impacting current businesses more
than any other development in recent times. While manufacturing has been through this painful
process a couple of decades ago with the assembly lines making an entry, the digital technologies
and App-based tools are disrupting the service industry, along similar lines. With customers
expecting speed and customization the need to innovate is higher than it has ever been. Technology
is also changing the way organizations learn, with individuals picking up the responsibility to acquire
knowledge and stay up-skilled rather than stagnate with a redundant technology. Learning
Organizations need a strong technological foundation to survive competition. And organizations
need to learn quickly and learn right. Technology also provides the right platforms that provide the
space for shared learning, anytime-learning, bite-sized learning. Embracing these options for
enhanced access to learning is a hallmark of a learning organization as they nudge millennials to
learn using Gamification and social learning tools.
Customer-centric approach: A customer‘s impression of a product or service will depend upon the
overall experience and is not limited to the touch points, yet each of these touch points provide an
opportunity to provide great customer experience and gain customer loyalty. A learning organization
has all its members actively engaged in meeting a common goal and delivering a superior product or
service. They are able to keep the customer at the center of the design and delivery of the process, as
the learnings and experiences of each individual is leveraged through a shared mental model (Senge,
1991)[5]. A effective customer experience team is able to provide a outsider‘s view through the best
practices, and customer insights from other domains or competitors, opportunities, and challenges to
provide potential solutions.
5.1C. Transformational Leader
Modern day Learning Organizations require a different style of leadership where the role extends
beyond clarifying reality (Senge, 1991)[5]. Having a vision of the future, and empowering
employees with the right skills needed to keep pace with time and better handle the challenges are
essential skills for a Learning organization. (Johnson, 1998; Prewitt,2003; Sadler, 2003)[50][51][52]
Transformational Leadership significantly impacts organizational learning and knowledge
management abilities of the organization (Slater & Narver, 1995)[53]. Transformative leaders who
are able to articulate a shared vision of innovation and its impact on performance and market success
are able to elicit support from their team (Jung et.al, 2003)[54]. Transformative leaders are the
change agents (Tichy, Devanna, 1990)[55] who are able to transform the organization through their
own innovative and revolutionary ideas (Bass, 1985)[56] bringing a intellectual transformation of the
workforce (Waldersee, 1997)[57]. Johnson was able to highlight played by these transformative
leaders in driving change (Johnson, 1998)[58]. Transformational leaders keep the needs and
aspirations of the people in mind and constantly try to motivate their teams to work together by
elevating their consciousness keeping self interest at bay, they thereby reach out to their need for self
actualization (Bass, 1985)[56].
Experimentation: To gain competitive advantage and sustain the same, organizations need to
enhance their ability to identify opportunities and exploit them better than their competitors, rapidly
learning from their success and failures making course correction as required (Marquardt, 1996)[26].
What distinguishes a transformational leader from a traditional leader? Transformational leadership
influences the level of innovation in the learning organization (Jung et,al 2003[54]). While providing
an environment that encourages risks and yet keeps a close eye on the activities being undertaken,
the transformative leader is able to encourage transparency, creativity and innovation.
Active Listener: Garvin emphasizes the role of the leaders in influencing organizational learning, as
they ask questions, listen to employees and prompt a dialogue and debate (Garvin et al, 2008)[37].
This is a demonstration of their willingness to listen to alternate views, and it encourages participants
to offer their opinion and stimulate a constructive debate. In a learning organization a
transformational leader will be open to suggestions and encourage a two way feedback instead of
being defensive. They are open to criticism and cultivate the art of attentive listening (Garvin,
1993)[16].
Ability to articulate a single vision: Transformational leaders will prompt a dialogue and empower
their team towards a single vision. Transformational leaders therefore are able to identify and
articulate a vision, provide a model and approach, encourage group acceptance of the goals, set high
expectations from the team providing support and intellectual stimulation (Podsakoff et al,
1990)[59]. Importantly transformative leaders are themselves keen learners and walk the talk. By
using their ability to influence and strong persuasive skills transformative leaders are able to sustain
the group‘s commitment and compliance to the shared vision thereby influencing the culture of the
organization (Yukl, 2003)[60].
5.1D. Organizational learning: Innovation in the organization depends on organizational learning

(Cohen and Levinthal 1990) which needs to be effectively integrated with the organization‘s
structure and strategy. This is made possible through Mentoring, Mental models and Team learning.
Senge refers to generative learning and adaptive learning (Senge,1991)[5], While the former refers to
the development of new products and processes, the latter alludes to a response to changes in the
external environment. Learning organizations have been successful at taking concrete steps to

actively involve its members, acquisition, and dissemination of information all of which enable
organizational learning. As highlighted by Garvin for maximum impact knowledge must be
systematically and clearly defined (Garvin et al, 2008)[37]. The objective could vary depending upon
the situation. Innovation in organizations is not an individual project but is a collective achievement
which is stimulated by driving organizational learning (García-Morales et al, 2008)[61] and
organizational learning enhances this capacity for innovations (Argyris and Schon, 1978)[23].
Organizational learning needs to be augmented through Mentoring structures, shared mental
models and team learning.
Mentoring: Mentoring did not feature in Senge‘s LO model for a learning organization. Mentoring
applies principle of androgogy and is the process where an experienced mentee is guiding his mentor
to develop their own perspective and achieve new professional skills and competencies. This is
usually a collaborative partnership that benefits the organization as the informal learning help
develop talent, apply new knowledge, provide opportunities to brain-storm, evaluate new
developments or technologies and assist with developing new strategies. Mentoring is a thus a
reflective process with double loop learning (Argyris, 2002)[41]. In a learning organization
mentoring would include role modeling, ensuring the mentee gets visibility and gets the right
exposure, learning opportunities, acceptance, protection and support (Allen et al, 2007)[63].
Mental models: Learning organizations are committed to continuous learning and improvement and
promote a culture that accelerates learning at all levels as individuals test their assumptions and
transform new insights into actions. Learning could refer to gaining new information, picking up new
functional or behavioural skills, gaining insights from personal experiences. Mental models refer to
the shaping one‘s decisions and actions by a reflective process of questioning of assumptions, to
clarify understanding of the world around us (Senge, 1991; Kim, 1993)[5][21]. Mental maps usually
help individuals simplify and organize the complex and dynamic world and this is reflected in their
behaviour or response to situations. In a learning organization, mental models are constantly being
questioned and refined by discarding redundant beliefs and embracing new ones based on facts and
evidenced data.
Team learning: Learning Organizations benefit from the collective intelligence, creativity and
commitment of its team members as they learn from each other. Ideas or opinions shared by one
stimulate many more ideas enabling the organization to come up with innovative solutions,
opportunities to design, and launch new products and services. There are multiple opportunities for
team learning in learning organizations where cross functional teams are encouraged to come
together on projects bringing in different perspectives brining in the elements of ―systems thinking‖.
Psychological safety is essential for team learning which is a generative process (Senge, 1991)[5] to
occur in the current competitive world and is a part of the double loop reflective learning process
(Argyris, 1991; Edmondson, 1999)[64][65][66] It therefore involves shared beliefs and shared
behaviors amongst team members which impact the reactions and experiences. Teams develop tacit
coordinating skills as they continue working together having built the trust and understanding. The
Learning organization is thus able to harness the brain power, knowledge and experiences of its
members to evolve continuously

5.1E. Knowledge management:
Experiential learning, knowledge and information are key resources that help organizations learn and
develop (Levinthal & March, 1993; Levitt & March, 1988)[67][19]. This experiential learning is
gained as people gain expertise through the sense –making process (Huber, 1991)[68] and is
impacted by the absorptive capacity of the organization (Cohen, Levinthal, 1990)[25]. Knowledge
must spread quickly and efficiently throughout the organization to be appropriately leveraged. Ideas
give way to concrete concepts only when they have been shared broadly, critiqued and improved by
a larger group. Knowledge gained from failures is more valuable than success. However, failing to
reflect on failures through post –audits and team discussions can lead to a loss of valuable
opportunity to learn (Garvin, 1993)[16]. Regular forums that update the individual members on the
performance of the organization, challenges faced by the organization bring in a transparency that is
valued, prompting them to play an active role in solving for these issues. Knowledge management
would encompass Knowledge acquisition, Knowledge Curation, and Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge acquisition: An organization learns when any of its units acquire knowledge and
develops a uniform understanding of its interpretation as this knowledge is recognized as being
potentially useful to the organization (Huber, 1991)[68]. Knowledge acquisition is the process by
which knowledge is obtained. This may happen in five ways (Huber, 1991)[68], Congenital learning,
experiential learning, vicarious learning, grafting and searching. Congenital learning refers to the
knowledge inherited at its conception and the additional knowledge acquired prior to its birth.
Experiential learning comes from its own experiments, a self appraisal, un-intentional learning and
from its own learning curve. Vicarious learning refers to second hand experience or learning coming
from corporate intelligence (Porter, 1990)[69]. Grafting of knowledge is when individual with
specific skills are deliberately brought in or become a part of the organization post a merger or
acquisition. Searching refers to the scanning of the environment, and initiating a focused search and
through regular performance monitoring.
Knowledge Curation: In Learning Organization individuals learn as agents for the organization and
the knowledge is stored in the memory (Ortenbald, 2001)[70] of the organization for future use
(Huber, 1991)[68]. Yet in the modern world where there is an avalanche of data, information and
knowledge there is a need to curate relevant knowledge to make it accessible. The High impact
learning Organization study (Bersin by Deloitte 2012)[47] indicates that employees do not learn not
for want of information but because there is too much of it. A Learning organization will have
figured out ways to make the learning journey smooth and motivate learners. Knowledge Curation
refers to identifying the most relevant information for a specific group and contextualizing and
organizing it prior to being presented, and learners get information that is relevant, and worth their
time and attention. A Learning organization takes cues from learner‘s feedback, is aware of the
evolving business needs, and stays on top of evolving trends to engage with and deliver valuable
content to learners.
Knowledge Transfer: Knowledge transfer is critical to organizational learning as it facilitates

effective sharing of individual and team knowledge. This knowledge is the organization‘s intangible
asset inclusive of its data, policies, procedures, and all related documents. It includes both explicit
and tacit knowledge and will be archived within the organization in a variety of ways. Organizations

commitment to learning is exhibited in its willingness to model and reward employees who willingly
share the knowledge they carry without reservations. Similarly creative problem solving, brain
storming, reflection and inquiry are encouraged. Knowledge transfer plays a critical role in a
globalized organization with different cultures contributing to its evolution and learning. Three
problems with Knowledge transfer: Knowledge could be highly dispersed and some of it may be in
the individual‘s memories, unless it has been documented and curated. Knowledge can also be
ambiguous (Tsoukas, 1996)[71]. Semantic barriers become an impediment to Knowledge sharing
(Carlile 2002)[72], what works in such situations is to build a common understanding (Nonaka,
1994)[10] to enable knowledge transfer. Knowledge can also be disruptive when it undermines the
expertise of a certain group who then can prevent or resist the knowledge transfer process to retain
their own power.
5.1F. Entrepreneurship: Joseph Schumpter coined the word entrepreneurial spirit when he was
referring to ―doing of new things or doing of things in a new way‖ and stemming directly from the
effort of entrepreneurs. He was also firm in his belief that agents that drive innovation are large
companies that have the ability to invest in research and experiments given the economies of scale
they are able to generate (Schumpter, 1942)[73]. When an organization encourages its members to
think like entrepreneurs, it is with the belief that it has put in sufficient systems and procures in place
to make this a fool proof process. The entrepreneurial mindset encourages ideation and
experimentation in its pursuit for exploiting a new opportunity and expanding the horizon (Garvin,
1993)[16]. A learning organization will constantly encourage the flow of new ideas through
programs and competitions. Evaluation of these recommendations will be based on shared
experiences and mental models of its experienced members. Some of behavioural traits that would
define the entrepreneurial mindset are: De-risking approach, Growth mindset, Competitive spirit
De-risking approach: Innovations and Transformative solutions are always accompanied by a great
deal of risk. De-risking involves emphasizing an entrepreneurial approach to evidence a products
commercial viability, when working on innovative products is an essential element for a Learning
Organization that prides itself on the space and innovative capabilities it holds. While a learning
Organization is expected to provide its teams and individual members the space to think creatively,
and experiment, it does not nullify the responsibility of those involved in ensuring all eventualities
have been accounted for before a full-fledged launch. Most often the experiential knowledge curated,
benchmarking, running of proof of concepts, shared learning and pilot debriefs will precede the
launch. Managers and leaders exhibit the ability to wear the entrepreneurial hat and evaluate the
efficacy of continuing with a product based on factual data.
Growth mindset: Organizations benefit from a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006)[74]. Dweck tapped
in the cognitive make up of the organization when she attempted to identify what differentiates a
growth mindset organization -Learning organization that has an innovative risk taking culture, from
those with affixed mind-set (Traditional hierarchical one). Supervisors in growth-mindset companies
held a positive opinion about their team members than supervisors in fixed-mindset companies. The
growth mindset supervisors considered them as being more innovative, collaborative, and committed
to learning and growing. Her research indicated that 34% of its people are likelier to feel a strong
sense of ownership and commitment to the company (Dweck, 2006)[74].

Competitive spirit: It is a competitive world and sustaining the market position requires the
organization to display a competitive spirit. In a learning organization the competitive spirit is not
toxic or negative, it is generative and the competition is with the market number, and not with a
competitor. In the current world where niche skills are much sought after, there is a competition for
talent, there is a competition amongst team members and at the centre of this competition is
knowledge. A learning organization is able to successfully funnel this competitive spirit for the
benefit of the organization by providing all its members opportunities to learn and display that
learning in a meaningful way, and building a culture that rewards sharing of information and
knowledge.
6. CONCLUSION
The concept of learning organization has never been more relevant than it is today. Knowledge
intensive businesses, technological innovation and the short shelf life of products and service
offerings necessitate that organizations constantly reconfigure their systems and processes to keep up
with this challenge. Knowledge is the one weapon in the strategic arsenal which is specific and not
easily imitable making it one of the key resources that can bring in competitive advantage. As
organizations create the supportive environment to exploit capabilities it has gained over a period of
time, there is an urgent need to address the behavioural and cognitive elements that drive individual
and team behaviour. This can be done by investing in learning and developing in-house talent,
communicating this effort and providing avenues to present the insights gained. Through a
partnership approach that accepts the reality of individual aspirations the learning organization will
be able to harness the mental models of its members and bring in the collaboration and team learning
that will drive organizational learning. The characteristics of a learning organization are not linear
and the interdependencies weave together the various attributes creating the ‗bee-hive‘ building the
competitive advantage required to sustain its market position. ―Learning‖ in a Learning Organization
is synergistic, holistic, all inclusive and systematic process that is not limited to training but brings
changes to the shared values and vision.
REFERENCES
[1] Penrose, E. T. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley 1959
[2] Wernerfelt, B.(1984) ―A resource based view of the firm‖ Strategic Management
Journal. Volume5,Issue2 April/June1984 Pages 171–180. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250050207
[3] Furnham, A. Management and myths: Challenging business fads, fallacies and fashions
New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2004
[4] Caldwell, R (2012): Systems Thinking, Organizational Change and Agency: A Practice
Theory Critique of Senge's Learning Organization, Journal of Change Management,
DOI:10.1080/14697017.2011.647923
[5] Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline. London: Random House,1990, 2006
[6] Moingeon, B & Edmondson, A. Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage.
London: Sage Publications, 1996
[7] Ortenblad, A. (2004) 'Toward a contingency model of how to choose the right type of
Learning organization', Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3):347-350.
[8] Tsang, E. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy
between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 1, 73–89
[9] Dawson.P. Organizational Change: A Processual Approach. January 1994. Human

Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 15 (4) 385–402 (2005) © 2005 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Inter Science (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hfm.2003
[10] Nonaka, I. (1994) A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation,
Organization Science, 5(1), pp. 14-37
[11] Levitt, B. & March, J.G. (1996) ‗Organizational learning‘. In M.D. Cohen and L.S.
Sproull (Eds) Organizational Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[12] Watkins, K.E., & Marsick, V.J.. Sculpting the learning organization: lessons in the art
and practice of a systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass1993
[13] Tsoukas, H (1991) "The missing link : a transformational view of metaphors in
organizational science ", Academy of Management Review, 16, 3, 566-585
[14] Finger, M., & Brand, S. B. The concept of the ‗learning organization‘ applied to the
transformation of the public sector. In M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo, & J. Burgoyne (Eds.),
Organizational learning and the learning organization. London: Sage 1999
[15] Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996): Organizational Learning II. Theory, Method and
Practice. Reading: Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-201-62983-6. First published: September 1998.
DOI: 10.1177/103841119803600112
[16] Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 71, No. 4, 78-91
[17] Ang, S., & Joseph, D. (1996). Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations:
Trigger Events, Processes, and Structures. Nanyang Technological University: Singapore
[18] Prahalad, C. & Hamel, G., (1994). Competing for the future: Breakthrough strategies
for seizing control of industry and creating the markets of tomorrow. Boston: Harvard
Business School.
[19] Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), ―Organizational learning‖, Annual Review of
Sociology, No. 14.
[20] Schulz, M. (2000) Pathways of Relevance: Exploring Inflows of Knowledge into
Subunits of MNCs Working Paper. University of Washington. Department of Management
and Organization
[21] Kim, D.H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning, Sloan
Management Review, 37-50
[22] Edmondson, A. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams Volume:
44 issue: 2, page(s): 350-383 Issue published: June 1, 1999 https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
[23] Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational Learning. Addison-Wesley,
London.
[24] Isaacs, W. N (1993) Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational
learning. Organizational Dynamics 22(2): 24–39
[25] Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on
Learning and Innovation Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 35, No. 1, Special Issue:
Technology, Organizations, and Innovation (Mar., 1990), pp. 128-152. DOI:
10.2307/2393553
[26] Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization: a systems approach to
quantum improvement and global success. New York: McGraw-Hill
[27] Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. & Boydell, T. 1991. The Learning Company. Maidenhead:
McGraw-Hill
[28] McGill.M.E & Slocum, J.W. Unlearning the Organization, Organizational Dynamics
Vol.22, Issue No. 2, 67-79
[29] Bennett, J. K., & O‘Brien, M. J. (1994). The building blocks of the learning
organization. Training 31(6):41-9

[30] Malhotra.Y., (1996): Organizational Learning and Learning Organization: An

Overview. January 2004
[31] Bohm. D, Why a Learning Organization? On Dialogue London , New York :
Routledge, 1990, 2003
[32] Jamali.D., Khoury.G, & Sahyoun.H (2006) "From bureaucratic organizations to
learning organizations: An evolutionary roadmap", The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 Issue:
4, pp.337-352, https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470610667724
[33] Pearn, M., Roderick, C. & Mulrooney, C. (1995). Learning Organizations in Practice.
McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead
[34] Goh, S. C.(1998). Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks.
SAM. Advanced Management Journal 63(2):15-20
[35] Phillips, B. T. (2003). A four-level learning organization benchmark implementation
model. The Learning Organization, 10(2), 98-105
[36] Yang, B., Watkins, K.E. & Marsick, V.J. (2004), ―The construct of the learning
organization: dimensions, measurement, and validation‖, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 15, Spring, pp. 31-55
[37] Garvin. D.A., Edmondson A C. & Gino, F. (2008). Is Yours a Learning organization?
HBR March 2008 issue of Harvard Business Review
[38] Fielding, M., (2001). Learning Organization or Learning Community? A Critique of
Senge. Reason in Practice Volume 1 Number 2 2001
[39] Friedman. V. J., Lipshitz, R & Popper. M., (2005) The Mystification of
Organizational learning. Journal of management Inquiry. Volume: 14 issue: 1, page(s):19-30
Issue published: March 1,. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492604273758
[40] Senge, P. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a
Learning Organization. Currency, Doubleday. ISBN. 0385472560, 9780385472562
[41] Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 1, 206-218
[42] Marquardt MJ (2002). Building the LO: Mastering the 5 elements for corporate
learning. Davies-Black Publishing, Palo Alto, California
[43] Carre‘ and Pearn, 3 models of Organizational Learning.
https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/113/5/Chapter%203%20.pdf
[44] Lindberg, A., & Meredith, L. (2012). Building a culture of learning through
Organizational development: The experiences of the Marin County Health and Human
Services Department. Journal of Evidence - Based Social Work, 9,27 -42.
doi:10.1080/15433714.2012.636309
[45] Gephart, M. A., and Marsick. V. J. (1996), Learning organizations come alive.
Training & Development 50 (12): 34-44
[46] Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2003) 'The construct of the learning
organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation', Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 15(1):31-55
[47] Bersin. J. (2012) The New Best-Practices of a High-Impact Learning Organization.
Bersin by Deloitte
[48] Antonacopoulou. E. P. (2006). The Relationship between Individual and
Organizational Learning: New Evidence from Managerial Learning Practices. Management
Learning 2006; 37; 455 DOI: 10.1177/1350507606070220
[49] Edmondson, A. C.(2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in
organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science 13(2) 128-46
[50] Johnson, J.R. (1998). Embracing change: a leadership model for the learning
organization. International Journal of Training and Development, 2(2): 141-150

[51] Prewitt, V. (2003). Leadership development for learning organizations. Leadership

and Organization Development Journal, 24(2): 58-61
[52] Sadler, P., (2003). Leadership.London: Kogan-Page
[53] Slater, S. F. and Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning
organization. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 59, No. 3, 63-74
[54] Jung, D.I.,Chow, C. and Wu, A.,(2003), The role of transformational leadership in
enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No 20,pp. 525-44
[55] Tichy, N.M., & Devanna, M.A. (1990). The transformational leader. New York:
Wiley
[56] Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The
Free Press
[57] Waldersee, R. (1997). Becoming a learning organization: the transformation of the
workforce. Journal of Management Development, 16(4): 262-273
[58] Johnson, J.R. (1998). Embracing change: a leadership model for the learning
organization. International Journal of Training and Development, 2(2): 141-150
[59] Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers‘ trust in leader, satisfaction
and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107-142
[60] Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in organizations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
[61] Garcia-Morales.V.J, Fernando. M. R, Hutardo-Torres. N. (2008). "Influence of
transformational leadership on organizational innovation and performance depending on the
level of organizational learning in the pharmaceutical sector", Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol. 21 Issue: 2, pp.188-212,
https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810810856435
[62] Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 1, 206-218
[63] Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2007). The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple
perspectives approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell
[64] Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 69, No. 3, 99-109
[65] Edmondson, A. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams Volume:
44 issue: 2, page(s): 350-383 Issue published: June 1, 1999 https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
[66] Mayo, A. & Lank, E. (1994) The power of Learning: A Guide to Gaining Competitive
Advantage. IPD House, London
[67] Levinthal, D. A. and March, G. (1993). The Myopia of Learning. Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 (Winter special issue), 95-112
[68] Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the
Literatures. Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, 88-115
[69] Porter. M. E. The competitive advantage of Nations. HBR March–April 1990 Issue
[70] Örtenblad, A. 2001. On differences between organizational learning and learning
organization. Learning Organization, Vol. 8 No. 3, 125-133
[71] Tsoukas, H. (1996), The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist
approach. Strat. Mgmt. J., 17: 11–25. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171104
[72] Carlile. P. R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary
Objects in new Product development. Organization Science 200213:4,442-455 .
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
[73] Schumpeter. J. A.,( 1950) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper
& Row, 1942, 381 pp.; Third edition, 1950, 431 pp

[74] Dweck, C., (2006). Harvard Business Review 2014: How Companies Can Profit from
a ―Growth Mindset‖ From the November 2014 Issue. Book ―Mindset: Changing The Way
You think To Fulfill Your Potential‖. Random House Publishing ISBN: 978-1-47213-996-2

Earn By Promoting Ayurvedic Products
Arogyam Weight Loss Program
Arogyam herbs for weight loss
⇩
Follow Arogyam diet plan for weight loss
⇩
Arogyam healthy weight exercise schedule
⇩
Mobilize stubborn fat
..
Shri Param Hans Education & Research Foundation Trust

www.SPHERT.org
भारतीय भाषा, शिऺा, साहहत्य एवं िोध

ISSN 2321 – 9726
WWW.BHARTIYASHODH.COM
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
ISSN – 2250 – 1959 (0) 2348 – 9367 (P)
WWW.IRJMST.COM

COMMERCE, ARTS AND SCIENCE
ISSN 2319 – 9202
WWW.CASIRJ.COM

MANAGEMENT SOCIOLOGY & HUMANITIES
ISSN 2277 – 9809 (0) 2348 - 9359 (P)
WWW.IRJMSH.COM
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
ISSN 2454-3195 (online)
WWW.RJSET.COM

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AND INNOVATION
WWW.IRJMSI.COM
View publication stats

A Compative Study of Learning Organization Models PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Compative Study of Learning Organization Models PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A Comparative study of Learning Organization models -A critical review

Article · December 2016

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Shri Param Hans Education &

A Comparative study of Learning Organization models – A critical review

Department of Management Sciences (PUMBA)

Savitribai Phule Pune University

(Formerly University of Pune)

Pune, 411007, Maharashtra (India)

Dr. Rajesh N. Pahurkar

Department of Management Sciences (PUMBA)

Savitribai Phule Pune University

(Formerly University of Pune)

Pune, 411007, Maharashtra (India)

In a VUCA-Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous world, organizations are expected to

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

Organizational Environment, External Connect, Transformational Leadership, Organizational

Keywords: Learning organizations, Environment, External connect, Transformational leader,

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS

Definitions that integrate Organizational learning and Learning organizations

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

3.1 Definitions of Learning Organizations

Proposed By Proposed in Definition

Peter Senge[5] 1991 Learning organizations are places where

Pedler[27] 1991 Learning Organization is an organization

David Garvin[16] 1993 A learning organization is an

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

McGill et al[28] 1992 A Learning Organization is a company

Daniel Kim[21] 1993 ―Organizational Learning‖ is the

O'Brien & Kremer 1994 A Learning Organization is an

Watkins& Marsick[12] 1993] Learning organizations learn

Marquardt[26] 1996 Learning organization is an organization

Yogesh 1996 Organization with an ingrained

David Bohm 2003 Learning Organization is one in which

Jamali Khoury 2006 A type of organization that promotes

Table I: Definitions of Learning Organization

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

Learning Organization Models

Model Proposed by Attributes of a Learning organization

Twelve Building Bennet O Brien Strategy / vision, executive practices,

INVEST Model Pearn et al Inspired learners, Nurturing culture, Vision

Five indicators of Marquardt Empowering People, knowledge

E- flow model Pedler et al Participative Policy making, Informating,

Bundle of managerial Swee Goh Clarity of mission and vision, shared

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

practices [1998] knowledge transfer, organizational ability,

Nine building blocks Bryan T Philips Strategic thinking, vision, Communication,

DLOQ dimensions of Yang, Watkins & Continuous Learning opportunities, Inquiry

3 Building blocks Garvin A supportive Learning environment,

Table II : Current Learning organization Models

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

5.1 Hybrid model of Learning Organizational Model in the VUCA world

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

Figure 1: Hybrid model of Learning Organizational Model in the VUCA world

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology

Market Intelligence, Tools and Technology, Customer centric approach

5.1C. Transformational Leader