Building a Learning Organization by David A Garvin - Article Example

Critical evaluation of the article titled: Building a learning organization by David A. Garvin Introduction A learning organization involves facilitation of learning of its members of an organization as it strives to transform itself continuously (Argyris, 1991; de Geus, 1988). As noted by David in this article, this definition lacks modality of implementing it and thus needs some modification to enable it to be more practical. This paper critically evaluates David’s article on ways of building learning organization. It highlights the benefits of the article to managers and at the same time highlights the weaknesses of the article. Finally, the paper highlights some recommendations concerning the article and makes a conclusion based on the discussion. Benefits to managers Many organizations are under competition from other organization. This competition forces the organizations to seek ways of remaining afloat. One of the ways modern firms are employing is learning organization process. However, David notes that many of the definitions of learning organization lack practical applicability (Rheem, 1995). This is true from the examples highlighted in his article. He proposes that learning organization be defined as a firm skilled in creation, acquisition and transmission of knowledge and the same time be able to modify its behaviour as a reflection of the newly acquired knowledge and insights (Kaplan and David, 1996.). Learning is a process of acquisition of knowledge, understanding and skills. It involves discovery and invention. Thus, the definition of David of a learning organization fulfils the definition of learning. The creation of knowledge constitutes discovery and invention (Wack, 1985). Once new knowledge has been discovered or invented, the knowledge can be transferred to the members of an organization. The acquired knowledge can then be manipulated for generation of new ides or concepts. This is in line with David’s last part of definition where learning results in modification of organization behaviour. Thus, managers who strictly adhere to David’s definition of learning organization can be able to transform their firms into learning organizations (Senge, 1990). Learning in organization should involve collection and analysis of data to generate new facts. The facts generated are used to make new conclusions or to modify old facts. In addition, changes in business conditions are recognized to aid in development or acceptance of new paradigms. Furthermore, the new knowledge and understanding is incorporated in the new products or technologies. The acquired facts are then used to transform the attitudes and beliefs of the members of the firm (Kim, 1995). Finally, the knowledge is transferred through various means such as teaching, communication, cross-fertilization or dialogue (Kaplan and David, 1996.). From the approach given by David in his definition of learning organization and building blocks of learning organization, any manager following it can achieve the learning process in organization. Systematic problem solving in organizations leads to better quality, robust solutions and the time consumed is similar to that used in intuitive problem solving. It involves collection of data during different stages of problem solving. Systematic problem solving uses structured methods, which are used to solve problems in today,’s Total Quality Management (TQM). Intuitive problem solving in organizations is usually dysfunctional or inefficient. Thus as a building block to organization learning, David outlines steps for systematic problem solving that are useful to managers who wish to transform their organization to learning organizations. He emphasizes the importance of accuracy and precision to make this process successful. He suggests that employees be more attentive to details in addition to being disciplined in order to make this building block of organizational learning process to be effective (Kim, 1995). Thus, managers need to take note of this and encourage members of the firm to be more active in the process of solving problems. They need to encourage their employees to base their problem solving on collected data rather than intuition (Kleiner and Roth, 1997). The fact that Xerox has used the six steps to successful solve problems should be awake up call for managers to try this out. The six steps include identification and selection of the problem, analysis of the problem, generation of potential solutions, selection and planning for the solution, implementation of the solution and evaluation of the solution (Wack, 1985). Experimentation is credited for fuelling discovery and creation of knowledge. Experimentation therefore results in the improvement in addition to development of products, systems, processes and organizations. Thus, experimentation is the cornerstone of many innovations in the world today. In spite this, it is expensive and time consuming (Nonaka, 1991). However, the fact that new technologies invented and innovated help an organization to challenge presumed answers and pose more questions makes it more essential for continued organization learning and out ways the disadvantage of experimentation (Wack, 1985). An organization that deploys new technologies without experimentation cannot capture its potential and cannot discover new knowledge. Thus for organization learning experimentation is vital for innovation, development, and improvement of its products, systems and processes (Senge, 1990). As David suggests in his article, organization members need to work hard even if they import ideas from outside. As demonstrated by Chaparral Steel given in David’s article the experimentation should be active involve gathering of information from both academic and industrial institutions. Thus, managers need to ensure that new ideas are well understood by carrying out experimentation (Repenning and Sterman, 2001). They should help the employees to make out the benefits of experimentation and demonstrate to them that the costs of experimentation are lower than the benefits for active participation (Johnson, 1993). The managers and employees need to undergo training in skills for carrying out performance and evaluation of experiments to encourage learning (Nonaka, 1991). As David suggests that experimentation should involve knowing how things are done and knowing why they occur, managers should instil in their employees these facts to move their firms to continuous learning organizations. The occurrence of a negative event in an organization is not enough for learning. The negative event is not enough to alter the behaviour of an organization. Change can only occur when the members of an organization chose to learn from an event. Failing to scan, integrate, provide incentive and learn from experiences makes an organization to fail to learn. Thus, managers need to ensure that they scan for past failures either within or without the organization, integrate the lessons from the failures, provide incentives to employees involved in identification and prevention of failure and draw important lessons from these experiences for them to build a learning organization. This is because failure is essential for learning. Thus as David advocates in his article, managers need to realize the importance of productive failures (Gephart et al 1996). In addition, they need to remember past mistakes of the organization and other firms and draw lessons from them to plan for future success. This will enable it to be transformed to learning organization (Kleiner and Roth, 1997). Thus, managers need to learn from their past mistakes in addition to learning from others. Proper use of David’s advice on learning from experiences and from others can encourage continuous learning in an organization. From definition of learning, there is need of transferring knowledge to encourage innovation. Thus in the fifth building block, David outlines ways through which knowledge can be transferred and managers can use this to transform their firms into learning organizations. Organization members need to be actively involved in the process of knowledge transfer (Stata, 1989). Finally measurement of learning need to be comprehensive as suggested by David for any company to be learning organization (Kleiner and Roth, 1997). This should include costs, quality, new products and delivery. Managers have long been known to only measure costs while ignoring other output variables that are essential for organization learning. Thus, evaluation and measurement modalities for the learning process should be well designed and suggestions given by David can be very useful. Weaknesses of the article Dynamic learning involves five drivers. They include the integration power of managers, previous experience, external linkages, repeated practice and experience codification (Garvin, 1994). The articulation of dynamic learning can help a company to be competitive in the business environment. Even though David’s article addresses some of these drivers through the five building blocks they are not wholly addressed (Kim, 1993). The power of integration of routines by managers helps an organization to articulate, accumulate and implement knowledge. Little emphasis is given to this driver in David’s article even though it is known that managers with strong integration capabilities are in better position of transforming an organization into a dynamic learning organization (Repenning and Sterman, 2001). The integration power is instrumental in elaboration, consolidation and expansion of organization knowledge resources. Other drivers of dynamic learning have been well articulated in the article. Problem solving in an organization can involve both systematic and intuitive methods (Senge, 1996). Research has shown that intuitive, ad hoc and idiosyncratic processes are the key to competent performance in both routine and novel problems (Senge, 1990). However, the article emphasizes the use of systematic problem solving. There is need to integrate both methods in the process of solving an organization problems. Conclusion and recommendation To great extend, David has demonstrated best ways that an organization can transform itself to a learning organization. The five building blocks for building a learning organization as illustrated by David can be successful help in transforming an organization into a dynamic learning organization if the steps and suggestions given in the article are adhered to by managers. However, we recommend that managers indenting to employ these steps need also to consider their integration powers for them to be successful in dynamic learning process. In addition, they also need to employ some of intuitive methods of solving novel and routine problems at the organization as they emphasize on systematic problem solving. References Argyris, C. 1991., Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), pp. 99-109. de Geus, A. 1988. Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, (March-April): 70-74. Garvin, D., 1994. Building a learning organization. Business Credit, 96(1), pp. 19-28. Gephart, M. A., Victoria J. Marsick, M. E., Van, B., and Michelle, S., 1996. Learning organizations come alive. Training & Development, 50(12), pp. 35-45. Johnson, W. 1993. The learning organization: what is it? why become one? Navran Associates' Newsletter. Kaplan, S., and David P. N., 1996. Strategic planning and the balanced scorecard. Strategy & Leadership, 24(5), pp. 18-24. Kim, D. H. 1993. The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning. Sloan Management Review, (Fall), pp. 37-50. Kim, D. H. 1995. The Vision-Deployment Matrix(TM): A Framework for Large-Scale Change. Systems Thinker, 6(1). Rheem, H. 1995. The learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), pp. 10. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. 1996. Leading Learning Organizations. Training & Development, 50(12), pp. 36-40. Kleiner, A. and Roth, G., 1997. How to make experience your company's best teacher. Harvard Business Review (Sept/Oct). Nonaka, I. 1991. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, (November-December), pp. 96-104. Repenning, N. and Sterman, J. 2001. Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems that Never Happened: Creating and Sustaining Process Improvement. California Management Review, 43(4). Senge, P. M. 1990. The leader's new work. Sloan Management Review, 32(1). Senge, P. M. and Kofman, F., 1993). Communities of commitment: the heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, (Autumn), pp. 5-23. Stata, R. 1989. Organizational learning - The key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review, (Spring), pp. 63-74. Wack, P. 1985. Scenarios: Unchartered waters ahead." Harvard Business Review, (September-October): 73-89. Wack, P. 1985. Scenarios: Shooting the rapids. Harvard Business Review, (November-December), pp. 139-150. Other Important Readings Bowman, C. and Carter, S. 1995. Organising for competitive advantage, European Management Journal, 13(4), pp. 423-434. Crossan, M.M., Lane Henry, W. and White, R.E. 1999. An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), pp. 522-537. Ellerman, D., Denning, S. and Hanna, N. 2001. Active learning and development assistance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), pp. 171-179. Finerty, T. 1997. Integrating learning and knowledge infrastructure. Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), pp. 98-105. Ford, J. 1996. The Learning Organisation: Organisational Transformations in Sweden, The Quality Magazine. Australia Quality Council, 5(3), pp. 36-41. Garratt, B. 1999. The Learning Organisation 1r years on: some personal reflections. The Learning Organization, 6(5), pp. 202-206. Hall, B.P. 2001. Values development and learning organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1) pp. 19-32. Huber, G. 1991. Organizational Learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), pp. 88-115. Massey, C. and Walker, R. 1999. Aiming for organisational learning: consultants as agents of change. The Learning Organization, 6(1), pp. 38-44. Maula, M. 2000. The senses and memory of a firm - implications of autopoiesis theory for knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), pp. 157-161. McElroy, M.W. 2000. Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3), pp. 195-203. Read More