Organizational learning

Organizational learning is a part of the social science subject area of the so-called learning organization, the patterns of action, conditions and investigations treated on both a theoretical and a practical level and to clarify the questions attempted such an organization must be constituted to be able to learn, and how ultimately this learning vonstattengeht and should be valued.

On the other hand, organizational learning and the pure learning process on the organizational level call, in which one assumes that not only the individual members learn for the purpose of increasing efficiency, but that the entire organization "learns". The manipulation of the knowledge base and the acquisition of various skills by individual members of the organization here is the most important part of organizational learning.

Organizational Learning by Chris Argyris and Donald A. Schön

Argyris and Schön dealt from several angles with the organizational learning and united in his own words for the first time the practical with the theoretical point of view. For Argyris and Schön offer not only a theoretical model, but also practical insights and suggestions for action.

Theories of action

First, they provide a basic model for causality -based theories of action: There are situations (S ), strategies for action (A) Results / Goals (E) and conductance (L). Action theories influence the choice of strategy for action A to get into a situation S to the result E. The conductance L explain in this context, the result E as desirable or anstrebsam.

There are two main ways of action theories: the theory represented (English espoused theory ) (hereinafter represented theory of action ) and the action-guiding theory (English theory -in-use ). The represented theory of action is that action theory that purports to use the doer. It is explicitly given by statements or documents. The action-guiding theory is actually used by the agent theory of action. The action-guiding theory is implicit.

The authors have found that there are often differences between the theories of action. The represented theory of action and the action-guiding theory of the same individual or the same organization often have differences that mostly go unnoticed. One reason for these differences is by Argyris and Schön in the combination of seasoned defensive and unproductive Einschleifenlernen ( "single - loop learning ", in the literature sometimes " single loop learning"), which affects the strategies used, but not to the conductance. Called this learning, also called " instrumental learning" is not necessarily "bad", hence the emphasis on " non-productive Einschleifenlernen ": The Einschleifenlernen that Argyris and Schön my here arises after the experience gained from a defensive behavior and to avoid bypass is used by situations that are perceived as embarrassing or threatening. For example, admissions of guilt or the fear that someone might discover that you made ​​a mistake in its conductance.

Models that guide action theories

Model I

The model of action-guiding theories describing the defensive behavior and Einschleifenlernen, is considered by Argyris and Schön as " Model I theories that guide action ". This model is highly simplified model of " keeping face ". Despite positive intentions such as " Do not show any negative feelings," which is incorporated herein mainly operated censorship and cover-up, which indeed one's own actions is manipulated, but the (perhaps false ) conductances are not checked.

An organization that prevails in the model I, is considered by Argyris and Schön OI learning system.

Model I includes mechanisms that impede the double loop learning effective. A distinction is made between the primary obstacle loop, the self-reinforcing model describes I- behavior which hinders the individual level, the double-loop learning, and the secondary loop obstruction that describes this behavior on an individual level.

Model II

A second model, the "Model II action-guiding theories ," as the model of openness and self-reflection could be called. In this model, is the investigation and possible correction of conductance in the foreground. This can be both to its own guiding values ​​that are communicated openly to be examinable by third parties, as well as the guiding values ​​of others, in its investigation one assists. This model is an idealized model that can never be fully achieved and therefore is more a mission statement. An achievement of " Model II " behavior in certain areas is non-persistent. The agent has to stay as close to Model II, be constantly striving to achieve this.

By means of model II, it is possible to establish the so-called double loop learning. This type of learning involves reflection and manipulation of the conductances. This makes it possible consequences, which first appeared as a desirable, but not so as to identify desirable. This allows a very different selection take place at strategies that can lead to better productivity, ultimately, than is possible with Einschleifenlernen.

In organizations where Model II is observed, Argyris and Schön speak of O- II learning systems. An organization that is an O- II learning system is considered by Argyris and Schön, acting as a learning organization.

Single loop and double loop learning

Scheme

---- >> Conductances ------ ----- >> strategies ------- >> consequences ---------- | (Main program) ^ | | | | | | Single loop learning ( single loop ) | | ---------------------------------------------- << ------------- | | | | | Double-loop learning ( Double Loop ) | ----------------------------------------------- << ------------------------------------ The double-loop learning involves both feedback loops; both the loop to the strategies as well as to the guideline values ​​. The single loop learning involves only the loop to the strategies.

Illustration

This illustration is the sphere of single loop and double loop learning something light, like the far elusive applicability of the concepts.

I ride the bike every day at the university. After a few days I hear a squeaking noise when driving. After graduating college, I look at the bike closely and examine the source of the squeaking noise. And I discover a loose screw. I prefer fixed this screw, the noise is gone. The action strategy " tighten screw " has the consequence of " noise is gone," pulled up, taking into account the conductance that a short-term, inexpensive solution is needed to get the sound off. After a few days it squeaks again. Since I have now learned how do I fix that, I prefer the screw again. ( Einschleifenlernen )

Would I extend my conductance, and demand that a sustainable solution is required, then the target is enough " noise is gone," no longer the requirement. A new destination " sound is permanently gone" now appears as the desirable goal. This goal, however I can not reach with the previous strategy of action. So I have to take a closer look and operate in this case root cause analysis. Then I would have learned in a double bow. Next is again a single loop, namely with which I am learning that I can use a lock washer for screw locking, for example.

From Model I Model II after

Argyris and Schön show some examples, such as model I and Einschleifenlernen has led to wrong decisions in organizations. Based on the case study, the book knowledge in action underlies Argyris shows how model II and double loop learning can potentially provide better results.

A step by step guide on how an organization of OI to O - II is used, ie at the organizational level learning is learning ( organizational equivalent of Gregory Bateson's deutero- learning) can not Argyris and Schön give only hints. Firstly, model II never be fully achieved, so the transition from OI to O -II is an ongoing process. On the other hand it is not possible the willingness of all parties to guarantee. Examples of tools that an organization help to become a learning organization, can be found in the literature.