focus on the economics of strategy also often include sections on communication, education, goals, objectives, and rewards, admitting that even the best strategy is of little use unless executed properly, and that the alignment of employees and strategy is critical (e.g., R. S. Kaplan & Norton, 2001). Many writers see that the field of OD offers the field of strategic planning the ability to address the human and personal aspects of organizational change, while a focus on strategy requires OD practitioners to better understand the business, internally and externally, and the context for change.
The change management movement encouraged practitioners to address the organization’s vision, mission, goals, and strategy. Practitioners connected this vision and goals to the organization’s social, political, technological, and cultural elements to ensure consistency, remove barriers, and involve multiple levels of the organization. This has had a significant influence on how OD is done today, as it has required that OD practitioners understand the environment and its challenges to the organization (whether it be a business, educational system, nonprofit organization, or government entity). Models and theories of organizational change are such a foundation of organization development work and such an important background for the OD practitioner that we devote our entire attention to them in Chapter 4, and we discuss the reengineering movement more specifically in Chapter 12.
Organizational Learning
Personal learning and development has been a theme of organization development work since the first T-groups were run in the 1940s, and researchers had been writing about organizational learning since that time. Arguably the major contributor to the field of organizational learning has been Chris Argyris. Argyris (2008) writes that organization learning is defined as “the detection and correction of error” (p. 53), which many people erroneously define as problem solving. To truly be learning, Argyris (1991) argues,
managers and employees must also look inward. They need to reflect critically on their own behavior, identify the ways they often inadvertently contribute to the organization’s problems, and then change how they act. In particular, they must learn how the very way they go about defining and solving problems can be a source of problems in its own right. (p. 100)
To help understand the process of organizational learning, Argyris introduces the concepts of single-loop learning (correcting mistakes as they occur) and double-loop learning (in which we question or modify policies, objectives, or practices to prevent errors the next time; Argyris & Schön, 1978). Still a third kind of learning, deutero-learning, occurs when organizational members understand how and when they learn, and develop an environment in which learning can occur (Argyris & Schön, 1978). Argyris notes that many professionals are skilled and rewarded for single-loop learning but that these same skills often inhibit them from double-loop learning. When solutions to problems fail, our defensive mechanisms prevent us from stopping to question, analyze, and therefore learn.
To illustrate why organizations often fail to learn and explain the defensive mechanisms that inhibit learning, he defines two implicit models of managerial thinking, called Model I and Model II (Argyris & Schön, 1996). Managers who adopt Model I thinking set their objectives and work at them, strive to win and curtail losses, reduce the expression of feelings (particularly negative ones that would be embarrassing to oneself), and take an objective, rational stance. Such thinking, Argyris and Schön point out, encourages the manager to behave as an individual in a self-protective manner, resulting in defensiveness and blame of others in a competitive, political environment. When this behavior is widespread, managers (and the organization as a whole) fail to explore issues at any deeper level, insulating the manager from information that contradicts beliefs already held and promoting a failure to learn from mistakes. By contrast, managers adopting Model II thinking promote “valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment” (p. 117). That is, they take a stance of inquiry from a cooperative standpoint rather than a stance of advocacy from a competitive one. This results in a less defensive position and creates a spirit of joint problem solving where learning can take place.
In the 1990s, organizational learning became popularized with practitioner audiences with the publication of Peter Senge’s (1990) book The Fifth Discipline. The popularity of the concept was due, in part, to some of the same reasons why strategic change became a concept of interest. Organizations were changing rapidly, with new markets, rising customer expectations, and shorter product life cycles, and the most successful organizations were also those that were able to learn from previous mistakes and to adapt to new routines. Some have argued that the concept of organizational learning is also highly connected to and grew quickly as a result of interest in organizational culture, as cultural understanding (how we work here and what we know about how this organization functions) is really a manifestation of what the organization has learned about itself (Normann, 1985; Weick & Ashford, 2001). In addition, culture is not just composed of the beliefs that people have about the organization, but the ways that they behave. These behaviors are learned, relearned, and changed over time. Thus, organizational learning is also connected to the cultural stories that help organizational members interpret their history and apply it to present problems (Levitt & March, 1988).
Reflecting the trend in thinking about larger, systemwide concerns in organizations, Senge (1990) wrote that many organizations have a “learning disability” in that they fail to think systemically about problems. He argued that learning could occur more quickly if individuals in organizations were to build capacity in the following five areas:
Systems thinking. The ability to see the organization as a system, to see how parts interrelate and affect one another, and to see how structures and systems influence behavior
Personal mastery. The choice to engage in and commit to a personal vision, goals, and development
Mental models. Learning to recognize the unarticulated ideas and ideologies that comprise our worldviews and color our interpretations
Building shared vision. The leadership ability and responsibility to rally organizational members around a single vision that motivates action
Team learning. The ability to engage in a dialogue among team members so that the team can recognize patterns that hinder their productivity
Though some argue that many of the concepts in Senge’s work are not new, just restatements of historical OD concepts (Weick & Ashford, 2001), it is clear that this restatement garnered the attention of many managers and OD practitioners.
Researchers and writers quickly picked up on organizational learning as interest in the concept blossomed after publication of Senge’s book. An initial challenge was how to recognize when and how an organization actually learned. Outcome-based theories of learning were prevalent, as one could notice when an organization had chosen a different path from a previous one. But how could a manager or OD practitioner promote learning in a team or organization? An outcome-based definition of learning gave way to concerns about the process by which learning is encouraged and practiced (Dodgson, 1993).
As the concept of organizational learning became more well known and adopted among OD practitioners, several techniques were developed to promote organizational learning. One of the most commonly used has been a learning history (Roth & Kleiner, 1998), in which organizational members discuss and document problems, choices, solutions, and thinking in a narrative document. In addition, Argyris and Schön (1996) advocate an exercise in which managers write down a conversation in two columns: on the right side they write what was said, and on the left they write what they were thinking during the conversation. The result is a rich intervention in which managers can see the ways in which they might more effectively move to Model II thinking and behavior.
The
