Organisational Learning: Theoretical Shortcomings and Practical Challenges

ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING: THEORETICAL SHORTCOMINGS

AND PRACTICAL CHALLENGES

Jon Aarum Andersen

jon.andersen@oru.se

Abstract

This paper addresses two problems related to learning and the use of knowledge at work. The first problem is the theoreical shortcomings stemming from the controversy between three different concepts of ‘organisaional learning.’ In order to enhance scholarship in this field the noion that organisaions - as organisaions - can learn need to be re-jected for theoreical and empirical reasons. The metaphorical use of ‘organisaional learning’ creates only confusion. Learning is a process and knowledge is the outcome of that process. It is argued that learning and knowledge is only related to individuals. Knowledge is thus the individual capability to draw disincions, within a domain of acion, based on an appreciaion of context or theory. Consequently, knowledge becomes organisaional when it is created, developed and transmited to other individuals in the organisaion. In a strict sense knowledge becomes organisaional when employees use it and act based on generalisaions due to the rules and procedures found in their organisaion. The gravest problem is pracical challenges due to the fact that the emphasis on learning, knowledge and competence of the working force do not materialize in the applicaion of the knowledge acquired. It is evident that employees do not use their increased knowledge. However, we do not know why they do not use it. An enormous waste of money is spent on learning and knowledge in organisaions which does not yield what is expected. How can managers act in order to enhance the applicaion of increased knowledge possessed by the workforce?

Keywords:individual learning, organisaional learning, knowledge, metaphor, anthropomorphism

1. INTRODUCTION

Despite many years of research on organisa-ional learning the concept is neither properly de-fined nor is the phenomenon fully understood. When organisaions need to be changed those who work in organisaions must take on new tasks or do the same tasks differently. Thus learning and knowl-edge will be decisive for organisaional change and development efforts to be successful. However, all work in all organisaions is based on knowledge.

There is a controversy regarding learning in or-ganisaions as three conflicing concepts prevail. They all emerge from the noion of individual learn-ing and individual knowledge. Knowledge is the

abil-ity of the individual to draw disincions related to acions in a context or a theory. Addiionally, to make disincions between data, informaion and knowledge is crucial for the understanding of indi-vidual knowledge. Three different aspects of learn-ing have also been presented: the construcive aspect, the contextual context and the funcional or instrumental aspect. Learning is a process while knowledge is the outcome of this process.

Three different and conflicing standpoints are evidence of the theoreical shortcoming. Some scholars argue that organisaional learning nothing else than individuals learning at work. Others argue that organisaional learning is a metaphor implying that organisaions are seen as ifthey can learn even though they cannot actually learn. The final

ment presented is that organisaions as organisa-ions in fact can learn. In order to advance the schol-arship on organisaional learning this controversy must be solved.

The implementaion of organisaional learning is the largest problem. It is related to the fact that more efforts and more resources are put into em-ployees’ learning at work. The emphasis on knowl-edge and competence of the working force do not materialize in the applicaion of the knowledge ac-quired. Managers do report, more oten than not, that large amounts of money have been spent of ed-ucaional programmes - external as well internal ones. However, a more competent workforce does not impact organisaional performance. This is sim-ply due to the fact that any individual who has learned more and increased his or her knowledge does not guarantee or imply that the individual will use it. It is evident that employees do not use their knowledge. However, we do not know whythey do not use it. This enormous waste of money spent on learning and knowledge in organisaions does not yield what is expected. So, the problem prevails. How can managers act in order to enhance the em-ployees’ applicaion of their knowledge?

2. THEORETICAL SHORTCOMINGS

2.1 On individual learning

Knowledge is something that can be achieved and structured through the efforts of a human being. It is the outcome of individual learning. So, what does it take for an individual to learn and thus acquire knowledge and understanding? Individual learning requires percepion (through the five senses), cogniion and memory. In humans the im-pressions perceived are canalised to the brain. In the brain interpretaions and analyses as well as storage of what has been perceive and understood take place. The concepts of cogniion, knowledge and learning are ightly interwoven. Learning process may result in a change of behaviour, ai-tudes or assumpions. Learning as a concept has to do with what goes on inside the individual. It may occur as a consequence of atending school, train-ing, personal aciviies and studying efforts as well as incidents.

The dominant view today is that knowledge and learning are expressed in argumentaion and acion in social contexts in order to atempt to see and understand the world in disincive ways. Learn-ing is a process while knowledge is the outcome. Three aspects on knowledge are oten presented based on contemporary research (SOU, 1992). These three aspects do not compete with each other but rather complement each other.

(1) The construcive aspectof knowledge implies that knowledge is the way in which the world is made comprehensible without seeing knowl-edge as a direct reflecion of the world. Knowl-edge is constructed by individuals based on their experiences. Knowledge is developed through an interacion between what the indi-vidual wants to achieve, the knowledge the in-dividual already possesses and the problems the individual faces. Theoreical knowledge is not an impression of reality but rather a human construcion. In that way we may claim that knowledge is not true or false in any absolute sense, but something that we can argue in favour of and test out.

(2) The contextual aspectimplies that knowledge is dependent on context or situaion that consi-tutes the background which makes knowledge comprehensible. Knowledge is always linked to a context - being a pracical, social or linguisic situaion. Knowledge is both in terms of learning of and applicaion of knowledge always depend-ent on the situaion or context at hand.

(3) The funcional or instrumental aspectof knowl-edge implies that knowlknowl-edge is a vehicle. Knowl-edge solves problems and makes work easier. When addressing the funcional or instrumental aspect of knowledge we regard knowledge as an instrument or a tool. Knowledge helps solv-ing a problem or facilitates an effort. The func-ional aspect implies that knowledge is regarded as a means to achieve an end. The cir-cumstances under which the knowledge is ap-plied become therefore important.

2.2 On organisaional learning

theo-reical shortcomings of contemporary scholarship. What does organisaional learning mean? Does it exist? Researchers have presented three different and conflicing concepts of organisaional learning. Unless this controversy is resolved theoreical and theoreical advances cannot be made. Here are the three conflicing concepts:

(1) Organisaional learning refers to learning by employees at work.

(2) Organisaional learning and learning organisa-ions are metaphors. The argument is that we may perceive organisaions as ifthey are learn-ing (even if they in fact no not).

(3) Organisaions as organisaions can in fact learn and possess knowledge.

(1) Organisaional learning concerns learning by people in organisaions

The model presented by March and Olsen (1976) spells out the interacions between individ-uals and organisaions in organisaional learning. It is individuals who act and who learn from acing; or-ganisaions are the stages where acing takes place. Klein et al. (1991: 6) say: ‘Clearly, in a literal sense, an organisaion can't learn. When an organisaion is described as learning something, what is meant is that the people in it learn individually and that the learning is available in an insituional way.’ Ed-mondson and Moingeon (1998: 12) define organi-saional learning as ‘a process in which an organisaion's members acively use data to guide behaviour in such a way as to promote the ongoing adaptaion of the organizaion.’

(2) The term ‘organisaional learning’ is a metaphor

Levit and March (1988: 319) wrote: ‘Organisa-ions are seen as learning by encoding inferences from history into rouines that guide behaviour.’ Sim-ilarly, Argyris and Schon (1978: 11) wrote that ‘it is true that we do apply to organisaions many of the terms we also apply to individuals. We say that or-ganisaions learn, or fail to learn. Nevertheless, a closer examinaion of these ways of speaking sug-gests that such terms are metaphors.’ From these ex-amples it is clear that organisaional learning is used

by some writers metaphorically to mean the study of organisaions as if(or seen as) they can learn.

The use of metaphors in organisaion theory is not new (e.g., Fayol, 1937, Gulick, 1937). The issue here is the negaive consequences of the human metaphor in scholarship on learning in organisaions. However, the study objects of learning and knowl-edge need to be conceptualized (understood, per-ceived) in some ways. The conceptualizaion can be expressed by definiions or by metaphors. The dis-incion between definiion and metaphor may be expressed as follows. What an object or a phenome-non is can be expressed by the use of a definiion. Oten definiions list those characterisics that make it possible to disinguish one study object from oth-ers. Definiions are problemaic, as no definiion is able to give an unambiguous contour of the quality or nature of the phenomenon. However, Pirsig (1999: 206) keeps reminding us: ‘If you can’t define some-thing you have no formal raional way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference be-tween inability to define and stupidity.’

How we perceive something can be expressed by the use of a metaphor. Metaphor can be trans-lated with “as if X were Y.” A metaphor is a formula-ion where a term or phrase is used about something for which it is not normally applicable in order to in-dicate a similarity of some kind. However, a metaphor implies a similarity between two objects or phenomena, which in all other respects are differ-ent. When organisaions are seen ‘as if’ they learn it does not imply that organisaions do learn. Andersen (2008: 178) pointed out: ‘Metaphors require defini-ions. Definiions do not need metaphors.’

mem-bers of the organisaion do learn. Yet, most organi-saion theorists keep using concepts such as organ-isaional behaviour, organorgan-isaional slack, and organisaional learning, because there are many sit-uaions where it is meaningful to interpret organi-saions as cohesive eniies that act purposely and that learn from their acions’ (ibid.,: 6).

Argyris and Shon (1978) have writen that metaphors may reveal hidden aspects and give new insight. But metaphors can cause confusion. Literally taken, virtually all metaphorical uterances are false (Fogelin, 1988). Atribuing human traits like learn-ing and knowledge to non-human eniies like or-ganisaions is anthropomorphism. It is one of the pifalls of the overuse of the human metaphor (An-dersen, 2012).

(3) Organisaions do learn

Some writers claim that organisaions can learn. Here are a few examples. ‘Organisaions must im-prove their ability to learn new behaviours and un-learn inefficient old ones’ (Jones, 1998: 482). Hedberg (1981: 3) discussed ‘how organizaions con-inue to learn as they travel through different envi-ronments.’ Levit and March (1988) confuse us. Even though they say, ‘organisaions are seen as learning’ they go on claiming that ‘despite the problems, or-ganisaions learn’ (ibid: 336). Jones (1998) wrote about learning not only on organisaional level, but also on group and inter-organisaional levels.

The standpoint that ‘organisaional learning concerns learning by people in organisaions’ is un-complicated as learning is assigned to individuals. Organisaions cannot learn, but may enhance or hinder individual learning. The other standpoint that ‘organisaional learning is used as a metaphor’ is equally acceptable as long as the metaphor is maintained in the descripion. When applying metaphors the vitally important phrase ‘as if they were learning’ quite oten becomes ‘are learning.’ In this connecions we saw that Levit and March (1988) wrote, ‘organisaions are seen as learning’ which very soon became ‘organisaions learn’ in the same text. Claiming that organisaions do learn has totally different implicaions.

2. 3 On individual and organisaional learning

It is imperaive to demonstrate how individual learning is related to organisaional learning, how-ever, not by trying to explain how individual learning is transformed into organisaional learning. As we have seen, several writers have atempted to do so, but failed. The ambiion here is to show that specific aspects of individual learning match with specific standpoints on what organisaional learning is all about. The concept of organisaional learning is in-evitably based on our understanding of how individ-uals learn. It is paramount for the development of the field of organisaional learning to acknowledge that individual learning and pedagogy is the plaform for organisaional learning. Hedberg (1981: 6) has un-derlined that ‘the literature on organisaional learn-ing borrows heavily from research on individuals' cogniion and learning.’ As yet, we cannot think of or-ganisaional learning being something absolutely dif-ferent and totally apart from individual learning.

The standpoint that ‘organisaional learning’ concerns learning by people in organisaions is clearly linked to individual learning theory, which emphasise that the individual constructs knowledge based on experiences made. Knowledge develops as an interacion between what the individual wants, the exising knowledge, the problem per-ceived and the experiences the individual has. This is called the construcive aspect of knowledge. It is only individuals who learn. They may learn at work. This standpoint is also linked to the funcional or in-strumental aspect of individual learning. Knowledge is an instrument or a tool that helps us solve a prob-lem or facilitates an effort. The management sees the competence and knowledge held by employees as an instrument. Knowledge is considered as a tool of management and should mainly be relevant for work performance (Poell et al., 2000).

These organisaional learning posiions em-brace all three aspects of learning and knowledge. The main point is that the ‘individuals learn’ posiion and the ‘organisaions learn’ posiion do focus some aspects stronger than others do. The metaphorical standpoint is in fact nothing but the ‘individuals learn’ posiion.

3. THEORETICAL SHORTCOMINGS

3. 1 Organisaional learning refers to the learning by employees at work.

When the concept of organisaional learning is defined as humans in organisaions learn, it is basi-cally the argument that only humans who can learn. Groups and organisaions (‘collecive actors’) cannot learn. The organisaion, however, offers an arena where learning can take place. Consequently, organ-isaional knowledge does not exist.

What does it take for an individual to learn? The answer is percepion, cogniion and memory. What human beings perceive through their senses is regis-tered in the brain where soring, analysis and inter-pretaion take place. Finally, what has been perceived and understood is stored. The concepts of percep-ion, cognipercep-ion, learning and knowledge are closely linked. As Tsoukas and Vladimirou ( 2001) have pointed out most people intuiively idenify knowl-edge with individual knowlknowl-edge. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995: 58-59) have argued that ‘knowledge is essenially related to human acion.’ Addiionally, Polanyi (1962) more than anything else, insisted on the personal character of knowledge. Indeed, Polanyi (1975: 44) wrote: ‘All knowing is personal knowing.’

When addressing the quesions of learning and knowledge it is imperaive to disinguish between data, informaion and knowledge (Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001). Data can be defined as a piece of informaion, e.g., a name in the index of a book or a digit. Informaion can be defined as an arrange-ment or relaionship between data (e.g., subject index of a book). Data and informaion is not knowl-edge. These three concepts can be arranged as a coninuum depending on the extent to which they reflect human involvement and effort. Data requires only a minimum of human judgment whereas knowledge requires maximum effort.

‘Organizaional knowledge is much talked about but litle understood’ (Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001). We may add that it is sill so. Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001: 973) have claimed that ‘knowledge is the in-dividual capability to draw disincions, within a do-main of acion, based on an appreciaion of context or theory, or both.’ However, it is unclear in what sense knowledge merits the adjecive organisaional. Addiionally, they (ibid.) stated that ‘organizaional knowledge is the capability that members of an or-ganisaion have developed to draw disincions in the process of carrying out their work.’ Knowledge is thus defined as the ability of an individual to draw disinc-ions related to acdisinc-ions in a reladisinc-ionship or in a theory (e.g., the difference between cause and effect or the disincion between normal or dangerous, between important and less important). If we accept the defi-niion of knowledge given by Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) then it becomes possible to see the sense in which knowledge becomes organisaional. Arguably, knowledge is organisaional simply by its being gen-erated, developed and transmited by individuals within organisaions.

The capability to assess and judge is dependent on the will of the individual to organise or re-phrase what the individual already knows in order to create new knowledge. The will to re-organise present knowledge leads to new ways to look at a problem or new ways of solving as task. The capa-bility to judge consists of two components. Firstly, the capability to draw disincions, and secondly, to draw disincions related to the problem and to other people and in a work situaion.

methods exist because they contribute to organisa-ional goal atainment. In order to achieve this, the employees need to have almost the same percep-ion of what the rules imply. It was Polanyi’s (1975) idea that pracical knowledge had two characteris-ics. Knowledge is inevitably and irreducibly per-sonal. If knowledge is to be applied effecively it must be a means to achieve something (funcional, instrumental). Once again: Knowledge is the individ-ual capability to draw disincions, within a domain of acion, based on an appreciaion of context or theory, or both. Addiionally, organisaional knowl-edge is the capability of employees of an organisa-ion have developed to draw disincorganisa-ions in the process of carrying out their work based on rules and procedures based on common percepions of and experiences with what these rules imply.

Now, we may conclude that what makes edge organisaional is that individuals have knowl-edge related to rules and procedures and work methods. The technical or professional knowledge possessed by an employee is used to solve tasks ac-cording to the rules, methods and procedures of the workplace.

3.2 One more ime: Can organisaions learn?

Those who claim that organisaions as collec-ive units can learn need to demonstrate that organ-isaions have the capability for learning. Two different strategies or approaches have been adopted amongst those who argue that organisa-ions as such can learn.

The ‘linking’ strategy tries to demonstrate that individual learning is transformed into organisa-ional learning. Klein et al. (1991) deal with the re-laionship between individual skills and corporate skills when discussing organisaional learning. When many people in the organisaion acquire skills they imply that the organisaion learns. How human, in-dividual skills become or are transformed into cor-porate skills is not explained. However, Klein et al. (1991: 6) say that, ‘in a literal sense, an organisaion can't learn: organisaions don't have memories.‘ Ac-cording to Klein et al. (1991) the people in the or-ganisaion learn individually and learning is available in an organisaional seing. Kim (1993) argues that the crucial issue is how individual learning is

trans-ferred to the organisaion. He tries to show the process through which individual learning becomes embedded in an organisaion's memory and struc-ture. Kim (1993) suggests a model of organisaional learning which, he claims, resolves the dilemma of imparing intelligence and learning capabiliies to a nonhuman enity. Kim argues that individual learn-ing is transformed to individual mental models, which in turn are transformed to shared mental models. And, shared mental models are organisa-ional learning. He writes (ibid.: 44) ‘the mental models in individuals' heads are where a vast ma-jority of an organisaion's knowledge lies.’ Can we accept the noion that when several people in the organisaion have the same way of reasoning (men-tal models) it is the definiion and logical explana-ion of organisaexplana-ional learning? Organisaexplana-ional learning and knowledge are thus nothing but the sum of the employees’ learning and knowledge. It is temping here insert a comment. When several people in the organisaion have the same mental models, creaivity and innovaion will cease.

The ‘linking strategy’ is facing a problem not solved in social sciences - the problem of levels (the aggregaion problem). Many scienific disciplines contribute to our understanding of organisaion. The various disciplines operate on different levels. The field of psychology helps us understand individuals. If we understand all individuals in a group we cannot aggregate this knowledge to become knowledge of the group. When moving from one level to the next we face the problem of aggregaion. Learning on one level cannot be summarised to become learning on the next level. When it is said that a group ‘thinks’, ‘feels’ or ‘decides’ we are borrowing terms that have only meaning at the individual level (Allport, 1962). Probably the most serious atempt to deal with the problem of levels was done by Roberts et al. (1978). The authors did not find any soluions to the aggre-gaion problem and admited (ibid: 109): ‘We pose no soluions except clarity in analyical thinking. At this ime one can only say that the potenial impact of aggregaion on research and theory must be ad-dressed before soluions can be developed.’ In con-clusion, the linking strategy is bound to fail.

the sum total of individuals' learning within the or-ganisaion (the linking strategy). According to Lave and Wenger (1991) individual cogniion and learning can be regarded as being a social phenomenon and the context as part of the learning process. Note that the phrase ‘can be regarded as being’ is nothing but a metaphor. In pedagogy the research on learning is about the break out of its previous individualisic ap-proach (SOU 1992:94). The importance of the social context in individual learning is more frequently em-phasised. Individuals learn in a collecive environ-ment, for instance, in school or at work. The way in which work is organised can act as a support struc-ture for the knowledge to be transformed or it may hinder knowledge accumulaion.

All learning is contextual, but does not always take place in a social environment. An important part of the environment is other people - the social context in which knowledge is communicated. Learning can also take place when, for instance, an individual reads a book. The pracical situaion also affects how knowledge is structured and thinking is shaped. Some researchers now talk about situa-ional cogniion to denote the relaionship between individual cogniion and social interacion. A shit has taken place from the psychological concept teaching to the pedagogical concept of learning, which implies that the acive and social dimensions are emphasised rather than what is taking place in-side the human brain. The term ‘situaional learn-ing’ has been developed in order to characterise the contextual aspects of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). By adoping this approach, the differences between the cogniive and the social are dissolved. Individual understanding and individual thoughts match the requirements of the social situaion. Ac-cording to this standpoint individual cogniion and learning can be regarded as being a social phenom-enon and the context as part of the learning process. Again the metaphorical formulaion ‘can be regarded as being’ reappears.

To Schwandt (1999) organisaional learning is not only a social phenomenon but also a social ac-ion phenomenon. When organisaac-ional learning is related to individual learning we must - in order to accept the idea that organisaions as collecive units learn - require that organisaions have the capability for learning. Organisaions must therefore have

some sort of (1) percepion (to perceive through senses), (2) cogniion and (3) memory.

Do organisaions as collecive units have what it takes to learn? Do organisaions have senses? Have any writers addressed the quesion of the or-ganisaion’s percepion?

If organisaions can learn, organisaions must have the ability to understand, to have a cogniive ca-pability. What consitute the cogniion of the organ-isaion? Levit and March (1988) wrote that within their perspecive it is important to study how organ-isaions develop conceptual frameworks or para-digms for interpreing that experience. Hedberg (1981: 6) stated that ‘organisaions do not have brains, but they have cogniive systems.’ If the organ-isaion does not have a brain, where do we find the cogniion? In fact, no theory of organisaional learn-ing is based primarily on observaions of organisa-ions' behaviour. Instead, experiments with individual humans, mice, and pigeons provide the basis upon which theories of organisaional learning are mostly built (ibid.). In the organisaion, Schwandt (1999) claims, the locaion of the learning process is con-tained within the social dynamic acions and the complexity of the interacing components of the or-ganisaion. According to Schwandt (1999) there is no cogniive centre in an organisaion. Again, where is the mind, the cogniion? Schwandt (1999: 10) offers this answer: ‘In an organizaion, the locaion of the learning process is everywhere and therefore difficult to ascertain due to the complexity of the interacing units of the organizaion.’ This very claim, however, is not based on empirical evidence. Schwandt (1999) assumes that the learning process (e.g., learning cen-tre or brain) is located everywhere. It may just as well be that organisaional learning is located nowhere. It is possible that organisaions do not learn at all.

norms, and values over ime.’ Schwandt (1999: 5) wrote: ‘When we speak of a person's memory, we as-sume the brain is the place where he or she stores accumulated knowledge. The applicaion of similar assumpions and metaphorical descripions concern-ing organisaional learnconcern-ing results in confusion and even disbelief.’ Where do we find the views, the ide-ology and memory in the organisaion? Kim (1993) reminds us that litle empirical work has been done on the construct of organisaional memory and shared mental models.

Walsh & Ungson (1991) have noted that de-spite the fact that memory is one of the core con-cepts in informaion-processing theories the understanding of this concept is limited in organisa-ion theory. To the extent that organisaorganisa-ions exhibit characterisics of informaion processing, they should incorporate some sort of memory, although not necessarily resembling human memory (ibid.). According to Walsh and Ungson (1991) organisa-ional memory is both an individual- and an organ-isaional-level construct. The consequence of this concept of organisaional memory the authors tried to (1) locate the memory, (2) examine the processes by which informaion can be acquired, stored, and retrieved, and (3) invesigate the effect of organisa-ional memory on organisaorganisa-ional performance. They found no locaion, but several storage faciliies.

Ad-diionally, when retrieving informaion (not knowl-edge) from the memory, Walsh and Ungson (1991) did not stress that individuals can tap the experi-ence informaion stored and found in files including organisaional rules and procedures Organisaions can neither read books nor follow procedures. Indi-viduals can, and someimes they do.

An increasing number of researchers perceive learning as a social phenomenon implying that knowledge and learning is shared between two or more persons. The aim of this approach is to stress that learning takes place when people co-operate. Learning and understanding are created and im-proved through this social process. By acceping a social approach it may be possible to think that the group and the whole organisaion learn and pro-duce knowledge exceeding and being something other than just the sum of the learning and knowl-edge of individuals. As yet, no logically convincing arguments have been presented nor has the claim that organisaions as such can learn been estab-lished empirically. Argyris and Schon (1978: 11) wrote: ‘We say that organisaions learn, or fail to learn.’ They go on saying ‘it is not iniially clear how we might go about tesing whether or not they do so.’ Figure 1 sums up the aspects of individual learn-ing and the correspondlearn-ing standpoints on organisa-ional learning as well as the strategies employed.

4. PRACTICAL CHALLENGES

The pracical challenges are not related to whether organisaions can learn or not. The chal-lenge is related both to the applicaion of what is learned at work as well as the impact of knowledge. Scholarship on organisaional learning would benefit if moving away fromaddressing whether organisa-ions as such can learn or not and how to support theoreically and empirically the claim that organisa-ions can learn. The main atenion ought to be trans-ferred tothe outcome of organisaional learning and knowledge. Do organisaions become more success-ful, compeiive and effecive when the competence of the people in the organisaion increases?

In order to implement organisaional change those who work in the organisaion need to do some-thing new or somesome-thing differently. Thus, learning and knowledge become key components. All organi-saions are knowledge organiorgani-saions in as much as all work today is based on the knowledge of the em-ployees. Knowledge is basically linked to human ac-ivity. Whatever knowledge is, knowledge is assumed to impact human acions. How knowledge affects our acions is, however, not clear.

The research, which focus on the instrumental aspect of knowledge aims at assessing the conse-quences of improved individual competence amongst employees in terms of organisaional effeciveness. It is not only in the interest of the organisaion and its owners that individuals learn more at work. It is equally important for the individual in relaion to job saisfacion, moivaion and career opportuniies. Through this enire debate one fact remains: individ-uals do learn. This fact may be the only plaform needed in order to do research on learning in organ-isaions. One important issue ought to be on factors that enhance and hinder learning in organisaions. In the end the major issue ought to be on the outcome of knowledge. Therefore, we need to study factors that enhance and facilitate organisaional learning like moivaion to learn, reward systems, social norms, culture, organisaional design and structure as well as strategy, leadership and other internal factors. Exter-nal factors like compeiion, governance, recruitment situaion, labour market condiions etc. may also be addressed. It is argued for re-thinking organisaional learning away fromlearning or not by organisaions

tofactors affecing learning in organisaions and the outcome of knowledge. The main challenge must be to substaniate that organisaions become more suc-cessful, compeiive and effecive when the compe-tence of the people in the organisaion increases.

The second challenge is related to the fact that individual knowledge like professional and technical competence related to the individual’s work tasks is not used by the employee. Many managers report their frustraion and despair when huge amounts of money are invested to improve employees’ knowl-edge which in the end has no effect. The employees have been given the opportunity to improve their professional knowledge. The training programmes are paid by the company or public agency. The em-ployees are paid more due to increased competence. But the outcome does not materialise. The employ-ees do not deliver work of higher quality. They do not do fewer mistakes. The do not produce more. There are no data available on the magnitude of costs re-lated to training and educaional programmes in the private and public sectors. Collins (2001) and Carey et al. (2011) report on the costs of management training programmes.

Professional knowledge represents a potenial for behaviour or acion, not for acion itself. In other words, there is no determinisic relaionship between knowledge on one side and behaviours and efforts on the other. Consequently, no guarantees are given that investments in employees’ learning and knowl-edge will pay. This is the main challenge: How to make knowledge into acion related to improved or-ganisaional performance. Management gets access to the competence of the employees through a con-tract with the individual employee. For the managers the challenge is to uilise and benefit from the com-petence of the workforce. This is what knowledge management is all about. What kind of knowledge is needed, who need it, when do they need it and how shall the knowledge be used by the employees?

compei-ive factor (e.g., Boisot, 1998). The funcional aspect of knowledge is definitely the main concern of own-ers and managown-ers. Knowledge is assumed to be the means to a more effecive and successful organisa-ion. Whether that is the case or not, remains to be empirically tested.

Collins (2001) assessed 54 studies of leadership development research (1984-2000) in order to deter-mine the extent to which the intended outcomes fo-cused on organisaional performance. Outcomes of leadership development programs were reviewed in terms of organisaional performance, which was de-fined as ‘a measure of effeciveness or efficiency.’ Only three studies (19 per cent) addressed financial-level performance as the outcome variable (ibid.). There is no evidence in this survey to support the as-sumpion that learning at work improves effecive-ness. Addiionally, Carey et al. (2011) performed a literature review (1996-2010) of 1,414 research itles on coaching models and leadership development. Coaching and leadership development are iniiaives to enhance organisaional change and effeciveness (ibid.). This survey does not contain any data on the effect of organisaional performance from leadership development programmes.

5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

There is no way that the field of organisaional learning can be disconnected from individual learn-ing. But, there is one way of avoiding the anthropo-morphism - making organisaions humans - and that is to reject the idea that organisaions can learn. That idea is not convincingly supported - neither theorei-cally nor empiritheorei-cally. The controversy is eliminated if the term organisaional learning is reserved for the noion ‘learning by individuals in organisaions.’

The main issue of learning in organisaional set-ings must be that organisaions become more suc-cessful and effecive when the competence or the employees in the organisaion increase. The three as-pects on individual learning and knowledge are re-lated to three posiions on organisaional learning. So, why not do research on this insight? By the con-strucive aspect of knowledge we emphasise that in-dividuals construct knowledge based on experiences being made. Understanding individual learning and

learning in organisaions is imperaive to all, and es-pecially to management and HRM staff.

By the contextual aspect of learning we implied that knowledge is coningent on its context and situ-aion. Organisaional learning and learning organisa-ion is based on this aspect. We have seen conceptual developments from individuals learning at work or in groups to learning being perceivedas situaional or groups/organisaions regarded as learning. More so, some scholars claim that organisaions do learn. Ex-pressions like ‘perceived as’ and ‘regarded as’ are metaphors. As yet, the posiion taken, that organisa-ions as collecives can learn, is a challenging thesis. Whether it can become theoreically convincing and empirically supported remains to be seen. Why should we wait? The main point is maybe not whether organisaions do learn or not. The main point is no doubt that people in organisaions do learn. From that fact follows that if the knowledge and competence of the employees is important, there are a number of ways in which organisaions can en-hance and promote individual learning at work which are relevant to work and organisaional performance. By the funcional aspect of knowledge we mean that learning and knowledge is an instrument or a tool. Why do we find this emphasis on organisaional learning in recent years? For the organisaion and its management the competence and knowledge held by employees is seen as a vehicle - an instrument for making producion of goods and services beter and cheaper. Edmondson and Moingeon (1998: 16) re-mind us that ‘both Senge and Argyris view properies of individual learning as the criical source of leverage for creaing effecive organisaions.’

EXTENDED SUMMARY / IZVLEČEK

Prispevek obravnava dva problema povezana z učenjem in uporabo znanja na delovnem mestu. Prvi problem izvira iz teoreičnih pomanjkljivosi, ki izhajajo iz neusklajenosi treh različnih konceptov »organizacijskega učenja«. Učenje je proces, znanje pa je rezultat učenja. Trije vidiki vezani na znanje so pogosto predstavljeni kot rezultai sodobnih raziskav. Ti vidiki si ne nasprotujejo temveč se prej dopolnjujejo. (1) Konstrukiven vidikznanja pomeni, da je znanje način na katerega razumemo svet, ne da bi gledali na znanje kot na neposreden odsev sveta. Znanje kreirajo posamezniki na osnovi svojih izkušenj. Znanje nastaja z interakcijo med tem, kar posamezniki želijo doseči, znanjem ki ga posamezniki že imajo in problemi, s katerimi se srečujejo. Teoreično znanje ni odsev realnosi, ampak je človeška konstrukcija. Na ta način lahko trdimo, da znanje ni resnično ali napačno v nekem abso-lutnem smislu, ampak nekaj kar lahko dokazujemo in tesiramo. (2) Kontekstualni vidikpomeni, da je znanje odvisno od konteksta ali situacije, ki določajo okoliščine, ki naredijo znanje razumljivo ali dojemljivo. Znanje je vedno povezano s kontekstom – pa naj gre za prakične, družbene ali jezikovne. Znanje je tako v smislu učenja kot njegove uporabe zmeraj odvisno od situacije ali trenutnega kon-teksta. (3) Funkcionalni ali instrumentalni vidikznanja pomeni, da je znanje izrazno sredstvo. Znanje rešuje probleme in olajšuje delo. Ko govorimo o funkcionalnem ali instrumentalnem vidiku znanja, gledamo na znanje kot na inštrument ali orodje. Znanje pomaga reševai problem ali olajšuje naše napore. Funkcionalni vidik pomeni, da je znanje sredstvo za dosego cilja. To pomeni, da postanejo pomembne okoliščine, v katerih je znanje uporabljeno.

S konceptom organizacijskega učenja imamo še vedno probleme, ker se srečujemo s teoreičnimi pomanjkljivostmi. Kaj pomeni organizacijsko učenje? Ali sploh obstaja? Raziskovalci predstavljajo tri različne in nasprotujoče si koncepte organizacijskega učenja. Dokler ta nasprotja ne bodo rešena na teoreični ravni, ne bo možen nii teoreičen napredek. Trije nasprotujoči si koncepi so: (1) organi-zacijsko učenje se nanaša na zaposlene pri njihovem delu; (2) organiorgani-zacijsko učenje in učenje orga-nizacije sta le metafori – razlog je ta, da dojemamo organizacijo, kot da se uči (tudi če se v resnici ne); in (3) organizacija sama zase lahko poseduje znanje. Da bi omogočili objekiven znanstveni pristop na tem področju, moramo iz teoreičnih in empiričnih razlogov ovreči predpostavko, da se organizacija – kot organizacija – lahko uči. Metaforična uporaba »organizacijskega učenja« ustvarja samo zmedo. Učenje je proces in znanje je rezultat tega procesa. Trdimo lahko, da sta učenje in znanje povezana s posameznikom. Znanje je torej sposobnost posameznika, da potegne ločnice pri določenih akivnosih, ki temeljijo na sprejemanju kontekstualne teorije. Posledično, znanje postaja organizacijsko, ko nastane, se razvije in prenese na druge posameznike v organizaciji. V najožjem pomenu postane znanje organizacijsko, ko ga zaposleni uporabljajo in delujejo na osnovi njegovih posplošitev v skladu s pravili procesi opredeljenimi v njihovi organizaciji.

REFERENCES

Allport, F. H. (1962). A structuronomic concepion of be-haviour: Individual and collecive. Journal of Abnor-mal and Social-Psychology, 61, pp. 301-311.

Andersen, J. A. (2008). An organizaion called Harry. Jour-nal of OrganizaioJour-nal Change Management, 21 (2), 174-187.

Andersen, J.A. (2012). Seven pifalls in organisaion liter-ature. Dynamic Relaionships Management Journal, 1 (1), 48-59.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizaional learn-ing: A theory of acion perspecive.Reading, MA: Ad-dison-Wesley.

Boisot, M. H. (1998). Knowledge assets: Securing com-peiive advantage in the informaion economy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carey, W., Philippon, D. J., & Cummings, G. G. (2011). Coaching models for leadership development: An inte-graive review. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 51-69. Collins, D. B. (2001). Organizaional performance: The

fu-ture focus of leadership development programs. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 7, 43-54.

Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1998). From organiza-ional learning to the learning organizaion. Manage-ment Learning, 29 (1), 5-20.

Evan, W. M. (1993). Organizaion theory: Research and design.New York: Macmillan.

Fayol, H. (1937). The Administraive Theory of the State. In: Gulick, L., & Urwick, L., (eds), Papers on the Science of Administraion. New York: Insitute of Public Ad-ministraion, pp. 100-114.

Fogelin, R. J. (1988). Figuraively speaking.Yale University Press, New Haven.

Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of the state. In Gulick, L. & Urwick, L. (eds), Papers on the Science of Administraion(pp. 2-45). New York: Insitute of Pub-lic Administraion.

Hedberg, B. (1981). How organisaions learn and unlearn. In Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. (Eds.), Handbook of organizaional design(pp. 3-27). Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Hermansen, M. (2000). Lärandets universum. Lund: Stu-dentliteratur.

Jones, G. R. (1998). Organizaional theory.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and orga-nizaional learning. Sloan Management Review, 35 (1),37-50.

Klein, J. A., Edge, G. M., & Kass, T. (1991). Skill-based com-peiion. Journal of General Management, 16 (4), 1-15. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991 ). Situated learning. Legii-mate peripheral paricipaion.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levit, B., & March, J. G. (l988). Organizaional learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14,319-340.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organisaions.Bergen: Universitetsforlaget. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The

knowledge-creat-ing company: How Japanese companies create the dy-namics of innovaion.New York: Oxford University Press.

Pirsig, R.M. (1999).Zen and the art of motorcycle main-tenance. An inquiry into values. London: Vintage. Poell, R. F., Chivers, G. E., Vander Krogt, F. I., &

Wilde-meersch, D. A. (2000). Learning-network theory. Man-agement Learning, 31 (1), 25-49.

Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge.Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Polanyi, M. (1975). ‘Personal knowledge.’ In Polanyi, M., & Prosch, H. (Eds). Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Raynolds, M. ( 1998). Reflecion and criical reflecion in management learning. Management Learning, 29 (2), 183-200.

Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). De-veloping an interdisciplinary science of organisaions. London: Jossey-Bass.

Schwandt, D. R. (1999). Linking organizaional acion pat-terns and collecive, cogniion.Paper presented at the 6th Workshop on Managerial and Organizaional Cog-niion. European Insitute for Advanced Studies in Management. University of Essex.

SOU 1992:94 (1992). Statens offentliga utredningar. Skola for bildning. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet. Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is

organiza-ional knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38 (7), 973-993.