THE CONCEPT OF THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION

Organizational effectiveness is increasingly

dependent on developing an environment which
fosters learning and the sharing of information
as a foundation to deal with uncertainty.

The Concept of
the Learning
Organization
Penny West

Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18 No. 1, 1994, pp. 15-21

MCB University Press Limited, 0309-0590

Rapidly changing market environments and increasing

global interdependency have created the need for
flexibility in organizational design and performance.
Following from this, the volatile nature of consumer
demand and changes in work patterns create a need for
organizations and individuals to tolerate and deal more
effectively with ambiguity and paradox[1].
The development of new forms of organization to meet
such challenges effectively could potentially result in a
dramatic effect on society itself and the ways in which
both organizations and work are perceived.
Current views reflected in initiatives such as Investors in
People and total quality approaches now focus on the
principles that people are the only sustainable source of
competitive advantage within a complex environment;
that employing their skills, knowledge and experience to
better advantage will benefit not not only the
organization but the individual; and that investment in
peoples learning and development is essential so that
they are equipped to take on the greater responsibilities
which the future of work organization demands.
Increasingly, it is recognized that members of
organizations must be equipped to create and sustain
values, knowledge bases, processes, skills and systems

15

which promote effective responses to change. This

dictates the need for higher-trust cultures, for responsive
systems and knowledge workers who are capable of
participating in making decisions and solving problems
at point of discovery and without reliance on a complex
command- and-control system.
A growing emphasis on the learning of the individual to
promote flexibility and responsiveness to change in the
environment implies a departure from what Western
society has come to regard as the norm in terms both of
peoples expectations of work organization and of the
underlying philosophies and cultures which have
traditionally shaped organizations themselves.
It involves moving from the security of culturally
established and specific patterns of behaviour based
on bureaucratic regimes, management control
mechanisms[2] and assumptions so deeply internalized
that they are truly within us[1], towards the
empowerment and participation of the individual.
By creating a climate in which people are well informed,
flexible, skilled and supported there are considered to be
greater chances both of national economic success and
organizational survival.
The development of an organization which has the types
of culture and processes to create the climate and systems
needed to ensure that the organization can learn
continuously may result in what is now known as a
learning organization.
The phrase learning organization is a comparatively
new term for a complex mix of ideas which have been
present for a long time. It broadly encompasses the
concept that successful adaptation to change and
uncertainty is most likely to occur when sufficient and
appropriate learning takes place throughout the
organization all the time[3].
In this way, people understand the need and direction for
change; they are clear about what new values, processes
and skills are likely to be needed and where relevant
changes and development are happening, on an organic
basis.
Clearly, the concept of the learning organization has
profound implications in terms of culture, design and
control and, when interpreted in its fullest sense, the
position of organizations within society.
There are numerous interpretations and ways of thinking
of the learning organization. As a working description
and definition, Burgoyne[4] offers:
A learning organization continuously transforms itself in
the process reciprocally linked to the development of all its
members.

16

JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL TRAINING 18,1

This encompasses learning for organizations as entities

in their own right, in addition to learning for the total of
individuals within the organization.
The key focus is organizational transformation
which differs fundamentally from the approach of
organizational development which gained support
during the 1960s and 1970s. The term transformation
implies that there is a greater emphasis on the process by
which the organization develops itself rather than being
changed by outside intervention[5].
The development of a learning organization essentially
involves agreement with the basic assumptions that:
learning is of value;
while learning happens all the time, the quantity
and quality of learning can be increased if it is
done deliberately rather than by being left to
chance;
learning is a continuous process with no beginning
and no end;
shared learning with other people is easiest to
sustain.
It is clear that the philosophy of a learning organization
goes beyond the definition of a company which provides
a high degree of training. Essentially, there is a priority
objective of developing all human resources, enhancing
skills and then being responsive to learning from those
people regarding how the organization can be improved.
In this way, the essence of learning within the company is
that it is a cyclical process.
From the past history of organizational development, it is
apparent that much is known about individual training
opportunities. What remains in the process of evolution is
how the fundamental problem-solving capacity of
organizations can be enhanced and developed. In other
words, exactly how the organization might accomplish
continual transformation.

implication is that they take their learning away and

there is no benefit to the organization.
A further suggestion regarding how organizations learn
concerns the systematization of knowledge into practices,
procedures and processes in other words, the
routinization of knowledge. They can also learn by
absorbing other organizations by merger or acquisition,
after which occurs the transference of knowledge
embodied in the other firms processes and personnel[7].

Individuals, groups, societies

and organizations can be
seen as organisms
Conversely, there is also the risk that the organization
may collect unwanted practices, procedures and
behaviours which may disrupt the established norms or
that there will be resistance and lack of co-operation as a
result of acquisition.
If the problem is considered from a systemic approach,
this may provide some clearer indications. In terms of the
evolution of organizational development, the systems
approach has resulted from exploration of a number of
theoretical perspectives.
Essentially, individuals, groups, societies and
organizations can be seen as organisms consisting of
interdependent parts interacting with an environment,
where there is an exchange of energy, information or
materials across the boundary.
Consequently, if organizations are continually influenced
by, and can influence their environment, the future of an
organization cannot be predicted by knowing its present
state, but can be determined only by how effectively the
component parts are integrated to respond to changes[8].

How organizations are able to learn in the collective sense

to achieve such transformation has been the topic of
considerable debate. Indeed, it could be argued that as
organizations are essentially constructions they cannot
learn within the confines of our present limited
understanding of the term.

James D. Thompson[9] investigated the work of

contingency theorists but felt that they did not go far
enough in terms of examining the influence or effect of
the interaction between people, the organization and the
environment.

Morgan[6] suggests that you cannot create a learning

organization but can strive to enhance peoples
capacities to learn and then align their activities in
creative ways.

For example, Burns and Stalker[10], examined the link

between the environment and organizational structure
and indicated that a stable environment dictated a
mechanistic, bureaucratic structure whilst an unstable,
turbulent environment called for a more organic, flexible
approach.

But if learning is seen as an individual phenomenon

which benefits the organization, this indicates a very
haphazard occurrence. As individuals leave, the

Emery and Trist[11], explored the implications of

different types of uncertainty in organizational

THE CONCEPT OF THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION

17

environments in terms of how managers needed to

operate. They described the turbulent field of
technological and market developments in which
management had little or no control. They also suggested
that such conditions may be severe enough to force
managers to redefine the basis on which their
organizations were to compete, or even their overall
mission.

pathways and self-corrective patterns of circular process.

It promotes the ability to remain open to changes in the
environment and to challenge operating assumptions in a
fundamental way. The importance of feedback is stressed
in terms of the principle that information about the
system returns to it and thereby influences it. Positive
feedback changes the systems stability; negative
feedback stabilizes the systems changing.

Lawrence and Lorsch[12] considered that different kinds

of structure were needed to deal with different markets
and technology. They were also of the opinion that a
turbulent unstable environment required a higher degree
of internal differentiation. Integration by way of
established hierarchical patterns was inappropriate in
such a situation but required a more flexible approach by
way of multidisciplined project teams, which required
personnel skilled in co-ordination and conflict resolution.

Third, Thompson focuses on a structured environmental

domain. By this he considered that some organizations
try to structure the environment/market so that they can
aim directly at it and so reduce elements of uncertainty.

The importance
of power must
be considered

On this basis, it is important to be able to scan and sense

changes in the task and contextual environments, to
bridge and manage critical boundaries and areas of
interdependence and to be able to develop appropriate
strategic responses.

Thompson[9] expanded these theories and used open

systems analysis to emphasize uncertainty. He
considered that organizations had to contend with three
basic sources of uncertainty which he described as the
culture at large, the sociotechnical domain (the interaction
of people and technology) and internal interdependencies
(groupings, departments, etc.).
Thompson suggested that three strategies were
appropriate for dealing with uncertainty. First, he
suggests a strategy of administrative co-ordination in
which managers see their role as one of co-ordination
rather than of control and encourage participation,
empowerment and team-building. The importance of
power must be considered as organizations function on
the basis of where power is and that it can shift at
different times.
Second, he considers systematic organizational
intelligence which focuses on information and the
development of a cybernetic system which encourages
the philosophy of learning to learn, questioning and
double-loop learning.
Gregory Batesons work[13] in cybernetics focuses on
notions of difference and meaning in which structure and
processes are integrated. Cybernetics is the study of the
organization of systems in terms of communicational

Open systems analysis therefore emphasizes that

companies should organize with the environment in
mind. The environment can be the task environment, that
is the direct interaction between customers, competitors,
suppliers, unions and government agencies. It is also the
contextual environment the world itself.

Within the organization there are interrelated subsystems

(individuals, groups, divisions, departments, etc.) which
are themselves complex open systems on their own
account and are characterized by a continuous cycle of
input, internal transformation, output and feedback.
Feedback is the vital element which provides the
information which is necessary for monitoring standards
established for the successful output both of products and
services, so that peoples performance, rewards and
satisfaction and high levels of motivation can be
achieved.
It is important to establish congruencies between
different systems and to identify and eliminate potential
dysfunctions. By eliminating potential dysfunctions
through differentiation (recognizing difference in terms of
change and opportunity) and integration (integrating the
difference within the organization) the ultimate goal is
synergy working together as a whole to achieve far
more than the individuals, working separately, could
have done[14].
Moving beyond the concept of organizations as open
systems, the ideas of scientists Maturana and Varela (in
[15]), have challenged the view that change is something
which comes from the environment. They argue that
organizations are not open systems interacting with the
environment, but are closed, autonomous systems of
interactions, making reference only to themselves.

18

JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL TRAINING 18,1

They suggest that this autonomy, circularity and selfreference allows living systems to self-renew, using the
word autopoesis for the process. According to this view,
the organization and identity of the company are its most
important products.
The impact of such thinking is that rather than the
organization being subject to the environment, the
environment is seen as a reflection of, and is part of the
organization. In this way, a company produces itself and
its own environment as part of that production. The
environment is part of its inner identity.
However, if there is to be an understanding of the
environment, there must first be an understanding of the
organization itself. Also, that the organization is only one
part of the environment which must be understood in
terms of the greater whole.
The linkage with the philosophy of the learning
organization is that the process of autopoesis indicates
that there can be an entirely different relationship with
the environment. By gaining a full understanding of the
wider context in which they operate, learning
organizations are able to be proactive in a systemic sense,
to shape and create their own fate and to construct their
environments along with their own identities.
The impact of the development of learning organizations
may therefore be profound for as they assert their own
identities, they can instigate significant change and
transformation in their environments. Morgan[15] quotes,
an example of a chemical industry that has a systemic
sense of identity could attempt to transform itself to
eliminate the threat of toxics to the environment.

Structural Implications
It is clear that organizational effectiveness is increasingly
dependent on developing an environment which fosters
learning and the sharing of information as a foundation
to deal with uncertainty, in which there is potential for
ideas to provide the engines of the new industrial
order[5].

Greek philosopher Heraclitus, whose thoughts focused on

the hidden tensions and connections that simultaneously
create patterns of unity and change and who suggested,
in 500 BC, that:
Everything flows and nothing abides: everything gives way
and nothing stays fixed Cool things become warm, the
warm grows cool; the moist dries, the parched becomes
moist It is in changing that things find repose.

Present-day physicist, David Bohm[17], describes the

universe as a flowing and unbroken wholeness in which
process, flux and change are fundamental, with the state
of the universe at any point in time reflecting a more basic
reality. He refers to this reality as the implicate order,
which he distinguishes from the explicate order
manifested in the world around us. Bohm suggests that
the explicate order realizes and expresses potentialities
existing within the implicate order.

Information is
the basic biological
element
The theories both of Bohm and Heraclitus reverse the
usual relationship between reality and change. While
science has encouraged us to see change as an attribute of
reality and see the world as changing, Bohms theory
suggests that the world itself is merely a moment in a
more fundamental process of change. The implication is
that, deeper within our reality, there are hidden processes
or logics of change which help to explain the form of the
world at any point in time.
Morgan explores change by means of three different
images which he sees as means of explaining how the
reality of an organization is embedded in the logic of
change itself.

Drucker[16] considers that this represents a shift from a

mechanical worldview to a biological approach to
management in which the perception of the whole is
critical. More significantly, he suggests that while matter
is the foundation for mechanistic organizations, it is
information which is the basic biological element. As
information has no boundaries, it will also serve to form
the basis for newly interactive communities of people.

First, he uses the biological context of Maturana and

Varela[15] to understand organizations as self-producing
systems which have the capacity to create their own
environments, as previously discussed. This view links to
the ideas of learning organizations having the potential to
affect their environmental context by enriching and
developing it, rather than interpreting it as a force with
which to be reckoned.

Gareth Morgan[15] describes a new view of

organizational evolution and change in which flux and
transformation are continuous processes. He cites the

Second, Morgan uses cybernetic ideas to suggest that the

logic of change is contained within a network of mutual
causality shaped by positive and negative feedback. He

THE CONCEPT OF THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION

cites Gregory Batesons term systemic wisdom[13] to

indicate the need to find interventions which attempt to
influence the patterns of relations defining a system,
rather than trying to manipulate causes and effects.
The implication for organizations is that they must be
able to develop a capacity for learning, to learn to change
with change, influencing and shaping the process when
possible, but being sensitive to the idea that in changing
times new forms of system organization must be allowed
to emerge.
Third, Morgan discusses dialectical change or the study
of opposites, in which he cites examples from Taoist
philosophy (the dynamic interplay of yin and yang)
crystallizing the notion that all life is shaped by coming
and going, growth and decay, everything in the process of
becoming something else.
Over the years, such dialectical views have influenced
the works of the German philosopher Hegel, Mao Tsetung and Karl Marx, who have considered that the
world evolves as a result of internal tensions between
opposites.
Marx, for example, revealed how economic and social
contradictions within a society provide a basis for its selftransformation. In his detailed analysis in Das Kapital, he
places much emphasis on the relationship between
opposing forces, encouraging a view that all change is the
product of such tension.
The use of dialectical analysis demonstrates that
the management of organizations, of society and of our
own lives involves the management of contradiction
and of crisis situations in which problems emerge. If
problems are formulated on the basis of opposing
interests, it is likely that solutions will focus on win/lose
formulae.
If, however, problems are understood in terms of the
logics of change which produce them, this may result in a
change to the logic of the system itself and a realignment
of the relations between those involved.
In terms of the evolution of the learning organization, this
implies that, if a learning orientation is to be instilled, the
role of management must shift from a process of control
to one of interpretation. Vicere[18] considers that:
Management by control is focused on techniques and
analyses that extrapolate the past into the future.
Management by interpretation helps managers to
observe changes, but also to interpret and proactively
respond to those changes through a heightened awareness
of the strategic directions and capabilities of the firm.

19

An emphasis on co-ordination rather than control

provides a basis to increase the compatibility of
individual and organizational learning by way of
participation, team-building, empowerment and selfawareness.
Similarly, any management control systems such as
accounting, budgeting and reporting within a learning
organization should essentially be structured to assist
learning from the consequences of managerial decisions.
This may be achieved by involvement, participation and
knowledge of systems and procedures, and by processes
of reflection upon the outcomes of actions and inquiry
into the appropriateness of the decisions[19].

Individuals should contribute

to the organization in a
democratic way
Individuals should be encouraged to contribute to the
organization in a democratic way with innovation
fostered in a climate of trust and safety. Learning
opportunities may occur by feedback and exchange of
information (for example within the Investors in People
framework and in total quality programmes) by
questioning, reflecting and reformulating values and
premisses in terms of how they affect the organizations
goals and objectives.
Characteristics of the learning organization may also
include:
Internal exchanges with departments are seen as
customer-supplier relationships with effective and
collaborative negotiation.
Enabling structures such as roles and careers are
designed to facilitate growth with the ability to
respond to change.
Boundary workers are seen as environmental
scanners who develop an awareness and a positive
interaction externally.
Inter-company learning is encouraged with
collaboration and joint ventures pursued within a
learning climate of continuous improvement.
Difference is not only tolerated but also is regarded
as essential to promote learning and creativity.
Self-development opportunities are freely
available for all employees, with the exploration of
needs being central to appraisal and career
planning.

20

JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL TRAINING 18,1

Cultural Implications
The concept of the learning organization demands that
organizations must develop a greater self-awareness of
the issues and variables which influence organizational
behaviour, together with collective and individual
learning. If organizational learning is to occur, this must
necessitate transformation of basic assumptions and
operating norms, together with the development of high
levels of trust and commitment towards shared
objectives.
It could be argued therefore that the quest to develop
a learning organization may be hampered, not only
by existing structures and processes, but also by
embedded attitudes and cultural dimensions which are
no longer appropriate.

Organizations must
develop a greater
self-awareness
This internalizes the key to maintaining organizational
performance by placing responsibility for anticipating
and dealing with environmental instability within the
company. In this way, the organization is able proactively
to transform or develop itself rather than being changed
by outside intervention.
Ideally, this will enable organizations to be better
equipped to be responsive and able to deal with a
dynamic and constantly changing environment in which
uncertainty predominates. They may also avoid
situations in which they are forced to embark on reactive
change programmes, often commenced in an atmosphere
of crisis, and usually offering minimal potential for
lasting success. Most typical are those companies
which, in the late 1970s and 1980s, responded to
Japanese competition by attempting to Japanize
their own industries with little knowledge or
understanding of the fundamental cultural implications
of such change[20].
The concept of the learning organization clearly
involves more than the adoption of tactics and
reformulation of structures in response to current crises.
It presents a more radical formula to inspire a new way
of thinking about the contribution of individuals and the
relationship between organizations and their boundaries,
so that responsiveness and continuous learning are
encouraged.

If we are to recognize the organization as a learning

organism, this must imply that our understanding must
move beyond the classical scientific analysis towards a
theory of chaos in which predictability is eliminated.
James Gleick[21] suggests that:
Believers in chaos speculate about determinism and free
will, about evolution and the nature of conscious
intelligence. They feel that they are turning back a trend in
science towards reductionism, the analysis of systems in
terms of their constituent parts They believe that they
are looking for the whole.

On the basis that the emergence of chaos applies to the

universe as we see and touch, and that everyday
experiences in our lives are legitimate targets for enquiry
and consideration, the value of the learning organization
fits well within this context.
As John Morris and John Burgoyne[22] have suggested
with regard to development in organizations, we should
focus not so much upon the development of human
resources but upon that of resourceful humans who are
capable of, and receptive to, enquiry and challenge.
This implies that the focus of attention needs to be
directed to the cultural dynamics of organizations and the
barriers to change which they create. In this way, instead
of resisting the transformation and flux in the
environment, organizational cultures, structures and
processes will anticipate and be responsive to them.
Perhaps even taking greater charge of their own destinies
within their environments by positively developing and
enriching them.
Clearly, by rejecting the traditional rationalist mentality
which is prevalent in many organizations in favour of a
greater capacity to reflect and think at a higher level of
intellectual complexity about their place in society,
organizations may be better equipped to survive and
grow in an increasingly complex arena.
The implications of absorbing such practices are
profound, given the cultural and behavioural norms
within many organizations. Existing structures,
processes, attitudes and systematic approaches appear to
have produced an intellectual framework which leans
towards binary thinking. We tend to limit and polarize
choices and decisions in our organizations so that we
operate in terms of either/or rather than both/and, seeing
limited perspectives and solutions to complex problems.
It is interesting to note that, as long ago as 1530, Niccol
Machiavelli asked the basic questions: How can a
complex, modern pluralist society in an era of rapid
change, be effectively governed? How can it evolve a unity
of action out of a diversity of interests, values and
institutions? And how can it derive strength and cohesion

THE CONCEPT OF THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION

from being surrounded by a multitude of competing

powers?
The importance of the ethos of the learning organization
is that it is attempting to deal with such issues and is
defining some of the essential rules for managing
complex organizations in the modern world. It offers a
radical and alternative formula for achieving and
maintaining organizational effectiveness by such means.
In the current global climate, it appears that any form of
structural rigidity in organizational design or
performance, functional specialization or poor learning
investment implies an inadequate foundation for national
or corporate success, for integrating the individual in
present or future society or for maximizing his or her
potential.
The reality of the learning organization is that ideally, it
encompasses the capacity to create and break paradigms
when they are no longer appropriate, and to look
constantly towards a higher-order capability beyond the
old. But while the concept may present a viable
alternative to traditional organizational ideologies, it may
be problematic for many managers to know which way to
adapt to a complex environment on a practical basis.
As we leave the age of organized organizations[6], it
seems that creativity and imagination must be essential
elements in our approaches to management. Much has
been written to enthuse companies of the benefits of
developing themselves as learning organizations, but
little has been offered in terms of guidance for managers
at all company levels. Although learning is undoubtedly
pivotal to success, questions focus on how to produce
appropriate learning and which barriers are likely to be
encountered.
References
1. Pascale, R., Managing on the Edge, Penguin,
Harmondsworth, 1990.
2. Hill, S., Why Quality Circles Failed but Total Quality
Management Might Succeed, British Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 29 No. 4, 1991, pp. 541-68.
3. Moss-Jones, J., The Learning Organization, The Open
University, Centre for Technology Strategy, Milton
Keynes, 1992.

21

4. Burgoyne, J., Creating a Learning Organization, Royal

Society of Arts paper, April 1992.
5. Pedler, M., Boydell, T. and Burgoyne, J., The Learning
Company Project Report. Manpower Services
Commission, Department of Employment, London, 1988.
6. Morgan, G., Imaginization: The Art of Creative
Management, Sage, London, 1993.
7. Quinn Mills, D. and Friesen, B., The Learning
Organization, European Management Journal, Vol. 10
No. 2, 1992.
8. Emery, F.E., Systems
Thinking, Penguin,
Harmondsworth, 1969.
9. Thompson, J.D., Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, 1967.
10. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M., The Management of
Innovation, Tavistock, London, 1961.
11. Emery, F. and Trist, E., The Causal Texture of
Organizational Environments, Human Relations, Vol. 18
No. 1, 1965, pp. 21-32.
12. Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J., Organization and
Environment, Harvard Graduate School of Business
Administration, Boston, MA, 1967.
13. Bateson, G., Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Ballantine, New
York, NY, 1972.
14. Carter, R., Martin, J., Mayblin, B. and Munday, M.,
Systems, Management and Change, Paul Chapman,
London, 1984.
15. Morgan, G., Images of Organization, Sage, London, 1986.
16. Drucker, P.F., The New Realities, Heinemann, New York,
NY, 1989.
17. Bohm, D., Wholeness and the Impl icate Order, Ark
Paperbacks, New York, NY, 1980.
18. Vicere, A.A., The Changing Paradigm of Executive
Development, Journal of Management Development, Vol.
10 No. 3, 1991, pp. 44-47.
19. Lessem, R., Developmental Management: Principles of
Holistic Business, Blackwell, London, 1990.
20. Ackroyd, S., Burrell, G., Hughes, M. and Whitaker, A.,
The Japanization of British Industry, Industrial
Relations Journal, 1987, pp. 11-23. (Paper presented to a
Conference at UMIST, 17-18 September 1987.)
21. Gleick, J., Chaos, Making a New Science, Heinemann,
London, 1988.
22. Morris, J. and Burgoyne, J., Developing Resourceful
Managers, Institute of Personnel Management, London,
1973.

Penny West is a Lecturer in Organization and Management Studies at Edge Hill College of Higher Education, Ormskirk,
Lancashire and is undertaking PhD research at Manchester University Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST).