Organizational learning is at the epicenter of conversations in the numerous literatures seeking for improving the ability to obtain knowledge and growing the degree of proficiency. While the courses of learning have grown and grown in the theoretical modification, the association between the organizational learning and organizational change could be distant from the seamless. According to the last contributions, this work is going to explain organizational learning as a process of transforming the organizational practices by the means of new knowledge and comprehension. This results in the consideration of organizational change, which has attained negligible attention in the sector of organizational learning. This study will link the barriers of organizational learning, with the success of good performance and under-performance.
The objective of this study is come up with a theoretical basis that brings together the prevalent evidence and theory on barriers and challenges to organizational learning. A definition of organizational learning is going to be offered and continue to list the barriers to the same, offering an analysis of the statistics obtained in the various case studies. After this, solutions to the problem is to be presented, and eventually a conclusion.
Concept of Organizational Learning
Organizational learning can be defined as an organizationally controlled combined learning process where a personal or categorized learning experience regarding the modification of the performance of a company and or objectives is shifted the traditions of the firm. Also, the shift could be in the process, the framework of the organization, which subsequently influences the future learning practices of the staff in the organization. This explanation puts into consideration three aspects in the literature:
First, individual and organizational learning are jointly dependent. This is because individuals learn as ambassadors of their firm. The knowledge obtained must be kept properly (for example, through documents, routines, and structures) so that it can be accessible even if the person exists the firm. Second, companies ought to utilize the prevalent ideas and opportunities and to discover new ones so that they could triumph in the changing surroundings. Though the exploration and discovery are linked to the idea of learning experiences developed by people and groups, exploitation and utilization are considered by incorporating the trait of disseminating the experiences into routines, framework, and processes of the firm. Last, there is the distinction between double-loop or higher-degree, and single-loop and lower-degree learning. The two aspects of learning process mean the perception of the organization learning as a way of resolving performance-associated or objective-related gaps in companies globally.
Use of the 4I Model as a Framework for the Organizational Learning Barriers
In situations of competition, the small disparities in the competence at learning will lead to amass via the competency multiplier, making the slow learners in the organizations to other procedures. Eventually, some of the companies will be compelled to change. If there are some companies that are influential enough to come up with their personal environments, the weaker companies, will learn to embrace and adapt to the environment of the dominating organizations. In this case, the small firms will be compelled to learn for a change. At the back born in the situations of organizational learning, there is usually some degree of change taking place. Barriers and challenges to the global organizational learning can also be the challenges to organizational change.
For an illustration of the barriers to organizational learning, in a coherent way, a suitable model (4I model) for the organizational learning is designed. This concept was developed in the work of Crossan et al. (1999),whereas they came up with the organizational learning as a means of strategic renewal in the firms, their design has various advantages which are applicable in this work. The model: first, is dynamic and pronounces sub-processes in the discipline of organizational learning. This is referred to as the process-character of the design. Second, it incorporates individuals and groups, and the organizational degrees of assessment (the multilevel character of the design, considers the interplay of a person and organizational learning). Third, combines the crucial tension between discovery (exploration) and utilization (exploitation) in the organizational learning. Fourth, is relatively accessible to various types of transformations based on experiences (the higher and lower learning levels). The 4I design outlines four processes through which the various degrees of organizational (personal and organization) are mutually interlinked (pp. 524-530):
Intuiting: this refers to the procedure of coming up with new insights and opinions by individual experience that rests on a person.
Interpreting: in this phase, the person describes his or her insights using words and actions to himself or herself, and most significant to other people.
Integrating: this process considers a group level in which common understanding among persons and groups is attained which permits for coherent, collective action in the firm.
Institutionalizing: common understanding is executed in systems, framework, steps, rules and the plans thus becoming independent of its personal or group origins, and directs the actions of an organization.
Lawrence et al. (2005) use some other four socio-political process, namely influence, force, discipline, and dominance to complement the above process. Influences constitute a vast scope of political techniques, for example, moral suasion, negotiation, and persuasion. As a way of impacting the costs and advantages that another staff of the organizations relates to an opinion, the creator can persuade others to embrace is or her idea. The force process is associatedwith establishing cases that control the choices available to staff of an organization by the use of the official rule to execute the new idea. To overcome the likely resistance to institutionalizing shifts, domination is considered as an effective approach. The aspect of discipline means changing the costs and benefits related to the actions available to the staff of a company. It comprises of such tasks as staffing, socialization, payment, training and group work.
The above social psychological phases of intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing are applicable in grouping the barriers to organizational learning by the phases of the organizational learning process. As per se, the dynamic feature of the organizational learning is put into consideration. For the reasons of better comprehension of the challenges and barriers to the organizational learning, it is better to combine integrate this process aspect with a categorization by the form of the barriers. In regards to the various forms of power, the barrier factors are first actionable-personal (associated with personal, self-interested practices as shown in the process of influence and force). The other is structural-organizational (associated with the prevalent routines, framework, and activities of the firm as shown in the aspects of discipline and dominance).
Figure 1: 4I Model (Lawrence et al., 2005, p. 183)
Barriers to Organizational Learning from the Application of the Model
Though Lawrence et al. (2005) pay attention to the politics in the perspective of organizational learning; the interest of this work is in a more general assessment of the barriers to OL. Power and influence can be key barriers to organizational learning. Conversely, consideration should be given to other aspects, such as cognitive biases, and mindsets as Brown (2000) notes in their work. As a result, there is the adoption of an extensive description of actional-personal and structural-organizational types of challenges to the organizational learning. Actional-personal challenges are associatedwith individual thoughts, attitudes, and deeds. On the other hand, the structural-organizational impediments are sourced from the plan, technology, tradition, and formal controls of the firm. The two categories are of significance but still there is the third barrier to organizational learning which is also considered, which is the environmental.
Senge (1990) notes that, “by the aspects mentioned earlier, there is the barrier that is as a result of the restriction to the job status. This happens when the staff of a firm pays attention to their status of employment but have less sense of the responsibility of the other individuals that they associate with at the place of work (p. 107).”When this challenge takes place, it is difficult to come out with the reason for its happening. This situation is the same to the ‘role-constrained learning’ which takes place when people are restrained by their obligations in the firm and makes it difficult to focus on their learning. The other challenge is called the ‘the enemy is out there’, and it results when staff tends to come across an external person or something to accuse in the case when situations do not go as expected. This is seen on the associations in the territories of the department. The departmental boundaries and dysfunctional compensation and the regulation systems encourage individuals and groups to keep their opinions and proposals for their personal use, which results in the letdown of organizational learning.
‘The deception of taking charge’ is the other barrier that is as a result of the aspects mentioned earlier. This refers to the irony of being proactive or reactive which can lead to impeding the learning in an organization. Consequently, firms may fail to act or avoid tests as a result of the organizational restrictions, mistakes, laziness or complacency. This results in the failure of change in the firm. There is the challenge which results when individuals go through elusive environmental changes. This relates to the concept of incomplete learning cycle and linked to the irrational learning; ignoring subtle transformations or being unable to act on it can irritate. Because of this, the staff of a firm can make inappropriate conclusions regarding the effect of the action of the organization on the environment of the firm.The firms may bend to small changes productively though they are not ready for the categorical transformations which may happen when small shifts have aggregated. Besides, when the environmental change is not clear, the staff of the organization may misrepresent what they view.
Analysis of the Barriers to Organizational Learning
Global organizational learning emerges to be an issue if an organization fails to supervise its experience in the entire organization. The barriers discussed by the extensive socio-psychological aspects and the environmental attributes so that it could show whether it could or could not have effects on the various learning mechanism in the organizations. It is key to pronounce that while the barriers are not equally distributed in the learning organization, it does not imply that the barriers will prevail in these aspects. The following figure illustrates that these barriers may affect to a greater level or a lesser level. The following barriers shown may or may not appear by the organization or even a department of the organization that is being examined. What is implied in figure 2 is that the barriers will influence the organizational learning ability to identify, establish, and share information and knowledge. Thus, a more appropriate look of the learning in an organization is illustrated in figure 3.
Figure 2: Learning with barriers Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
Figure 3: Comparison of Traditional and Pragmatic Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
Figure 3 illustrates a traditional look as given by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) compared with a more pragmatic look giving the impact the quadrant associated barriers has on the organizational learning process(p. 128). The image is a hypothesis that the effect of the barrier is dependent on the existence of the barrier, and the extent to which the organization controls the same. Considering the pragmatic outlook, if the organizational learning barriers are permitted to influence the creation of knowledge and dissemination without identification and regulation, the learning spiral could collapse. In situations that the barriers did not look in the same way in the firm, this would subsequently show disparities in the accessibility of information among the members of the organization.
Solution and Conclusion
The managers of the organizations have to come up with ways that enable and motivates the sharing of knowledge among the employees. They could come up such philosophies as ‘Knowledge is Power’ and through inculcation such a syndrome among the staff then the mindset of the members will be that it is good to share information. Organizations should use the push/ pull strategy of knowledge transfer to deal with the barriers to organizational learning. The push approach is top-down in themodel and depends on technology for the flow of knowledge. On the other hand, the pull technique is bottom-up in themodel and depends on a person’s inner desire to learn. It is through this need together with a tradition of cooperation in the organization that determines the success and effectiveness of the pull/push strategy. The fear to be criticized or laughed upon for lack of enough knowledge, organizational silence, the fear of loss of ownership, and insufficient political abilities should be eliminated. This is because they are negatively associated with the successful communication of new opinions to other colleagues.
The manner in which firms collect, share and develop information is key if an innovative, a receptive business is to exist. The study has given an understanding of the problematic and blind impacts by presenting the challenges of promoting organizational learning and transformations in the multinational organizations. Organizations should be aware of the way in which the members come up with information in line with the named processes and where the barriers are perceived to affect. It is after this has been attained that the organizations can effectively adjust the performance of the process by doing away with the controlling of the significant barriers to organizational learning. Eliminating the barriers is key, but not enough condition for organization learning. This is because doing away with these factors is the initial process in offering assistance organizational learning. There have to more processes to come up with prior conditions for effective and prosperous learning.
References
Brown, A. a. (2000). Organizationalidentity and learning: a psychodynamic perspective. Academy of Management Review, 102-120.
Crossan, M. L. (1999). An organizational learning framework: fromintuition to theinstitution. Academy of ManagementReview, 522-537.
Lawrence, T. M. (2005). The politics of organizational learning:integrating power into the 4I framework. Academyof Management Review, pp. 180-191.
Nonaka, I. a. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies. London: Oxford Press.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning. New York: Doubleday.
