Learning Organizations: A Methodology for Organizational Effectiveness

Darren Zink Supervisor: Teresa Rose

April 2, 2007

Applied Project Athabasca University Word Count 18,782

Zink, 2

Abstract
This conceptual paper provides a critical analysis of how Learning Organizations can drive effectiveness in organizations. The concept of the Learning Organization is that the successful organization must and does continually adapt and learn in order to respond to changes in the environment and to grow. This raises a range of scholarly and theoretical questions relating to what it means for an organization to learn, and practical questions around what organizations need to do in order to learn and adapt. (Wikipedia, 2007) The objective of this study is to investigate these questions while offering credence as to why Learning Organizations are a must. The paper is divided into 3 distinct sections. Firstly, it commences with a background of learning frameworks, complemented with an understanding of why they are critical and the various barriers that exist in the modern business world. Subsequently the key issues are identified followed by analysis that includes how communication, leadership, commitment, and teamwork variables figure into Learning Organization frameworks. Secondly, a new integrated learning model, termed OLM (Optimized Learning Model), is introduced to address the gap in the academic world whereby an implementable learning model is evidently lacking. The theories of leading learning thinkers, including Peter Senge, David Cayla, Robert Flood, Nick Bontis, and Popper & Lipshitz, are then investigated in relation to OLM. Thirdly, recommendations for implementation are also provided for OLM and beyond. The writings of Dr. Prasad Kaipa are employed as the foundation for this portion of the report. Specific executables from Susan Heathfield are also incorporated in this section.

Zink, 3

1.0 Table of Contents

2.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................5 2.1 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................5 2.2 CHALLENGES IN TODAYS ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................7 2.3 WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING?..............................................................................7 2.4 WHAT IS A "LEARNING ORGANIZATION"? ...............................................................................8 2.5 WHY IS A LEARNING FRAMEWORK CRITICAL TO ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS? ..............9 2.6 BARRIERS TO LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS ............................................................................13 3.0 OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUES AND STUDY PURPOSE ..............................................13 4.0 WHY TEAMS TRUMP INDIVIDUALS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ...............................15 4.1 UNIFORM QUALITIES WITHIN EFFECTIVE TEAMS ...................................................................15 4.2 SHARED VISION WITHIN TEAMS ...........................................................................................16 5.0 LEADERSHIP AND DRIVING LEARNING DISTINCTION.......................................17 6.0 GAINING COMMITMENT.............................................................................................18 7.0 CULTURE AND THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION.................................................20 8.0 THE BIRTH OF A NEW LEARNING MODEL - OLM ................................................21 8.1 A MODEL FOR LEARNING EXCELLENCE - OLM ....................................................................22 8.2 EXAMINING THE MODEL OLMS FUNCTIONALITY ..............................................................23 8.2.1 Leadership................................................................................................................23 8.2.2 Learning ...................................................................................................................24 8.2.3 Project Management.................................................................................................25 8.3 OLMS CONTRIBUTIONS AND SHORTFALLS...........................................................................26 8.4 SENGE OVERVIEW AND COMPARISON TO OLM ..................................................................28 8.4.1 Realizing Senges Five Disciplines............................................................................28 8.5 CAYLA OVERVIEW AND COMPARISON TO OLM..................................................................31 8.5.1 Learning at Level I....................................................................................................31

Zink, 4 8.5.2 Learning at Level II ..................................................................................................32 8.5.3 Learning at Level III .................................................................................................33 8.6 FLOOD OVERVIEW AND COMPARISON TO OLM..................................................................34 8.7 BONTIS OVERVIEW AND COMPARISON TO OLM .................................................................35 8.8 POPPER & LIPSHITZ OVERVIEW AND COMPARISON TO OLM ..............................................36 9.0 EXECUTION BRINGING OLM TO LIFE ..................................................................39 9.1 STEP 1 CREATING A FOUNDATION......................................................................................40 9.2 STEP 2 ESTABLISHING A NEW CULTURE .............................................................................42 9.3 STEP 3 INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION ..........................................43 9.4 STEP 4 DESIGNING A NEW GAME .......................................................................................44 9.5 SPECIFIC TACTIC RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................45 10.0 PITFALLS TO AVOID IN IMPLEMENTATION........................................................46 11.0 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................48 12.0 KEY LEARNINGS..........................................................................................................48 13.0 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................50 13.1 APPENDIX A. CHRONOLOGY OF LEARNING ORGANIZATION CONCEPTS .............................50 13.2 APPENDIX B. - CHARACTERISTICS OF A LEARNING ORGANIZATION AND ASSOCIATED BEST PRACTICES.................................................................................................................................54 13.3 APPENDIX C. LEARNING ORGANIZATION MODELS ...........................................................56 13.4 APPENDIX D. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS AND RESOURCES APPLIED IN THIS STUDY .......................................................................................................................................58 14.0 REFERENCE LIST ........................................................................................................60

Zink, 5

2.0 Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to provide substantive support for why organizations should move towards adopting Learning Organization (LO) frameworks, while presenting a capable strategic and implementable model for how to achieve this objective. The analysis herein focuses on why learning frameworks are essential in todays business world. The fact that organizations far and wide have neglected to embrace learning is the key issue exposed, thus strategy and implementation recommendations for driving learning excellence is an appropriate critical response to this challenging issue. But why should we be concerned at all with current management trends in the business world? Our prevailing system of management has destroyed our people, writes W. Edwards Deming, leader in the quality movement. People are born with intrinsic motivation, self-esteem, dignity, curiosity to learn, joy in learning. On the job, people, teams, divisions are ranked reward for the one at the top, punishment at the bottom. MBO, quotas, incentive pay, business plans, put together separately, division by division, cause further loss, unknown and unknowable." (Senge, p. 2) This statement emphasizes a lack of coordination, collaboration, and commitment across organizations. Consequently an environment not overly conducive to learning prevails. I will explore these elements in greater detail. Brabazon, Matthews, Piranfar, and Tlemsani (2003) argue that: Given an environment of rapid technological change and intense competition, firms continuously seek sustainable sources of competitive advantage: core competences and dynamic capabilities. The ability to learn and adapt is a key feature in this quest, how can these faculties be built into organizational processes and behaviour? The answer that they must be built into organizational routines and architectures is not convincing: they are equally capable of stifling the development of the new. In fact a paradox exists. In a dynamic environment, adaptive capabilities are prized. (p. 1) Furthermore, the theories presented by Charles Darwin some time ago still hold true in this context. Only the strong will survive in the corporate world, these being adaptable, empowered, knowledgeable learning machines that have mastered this critical approach. 2.1 Background Management theory originated during the progressive years of the industrial revolution, and although it has evolved dramatically since this period, we still have so much further to go. The following excerpt provides an overview of how management theory originated: The Classical Management Perspective evolved during the industrial revolution over a century ago as the first recorded management approach in organizational history. The Classical school of thought began

Zink, 6 around 1900 and continued into the 1920s. Traditional or classical management focuses on efficiency and includes bureaucratic, scientific and administrative management. Bureaucratic management relies on a rational set of structuring guidelines, such as rules and procedures, hierarchy, and a clear division of labor. Scientific management focuses on the "one best way" to do a job. Administrative management emphasizes the flow of information in the operation of the organization. (Telecollege, 1998) Traditional organizational structures that originated from the classical framework focused on vertical hierarchies with little communication from the top to the bottom of the structure. Furthermore, the lower-levels contributed very little to organizational strategy and implementation decisions despite having intimate knowledge of the endusers of products. There was little involvement or participation, yet organizations felt that a concentration of power in the executive boardroom was the optimal approach. Or rather, were executives simply threatened by the thought of quality ideas being generated from those deemed to be less significant individuals within the structure? Whatever the case, todays modern business world has changed very little in the past few decades as learning capabilities have been brought to the forefront. Daft (2004) comments: To a great extent, managers and organizations are still imprinted with the hierarchical, bureaucratic approach that arose more than a century ago. Yet the challenges presented by todays environment global competitiveness, diversity, ethical concerns, rapid advances in technology, the rise of e-business, a shift to knowledge and information as organizations most important form of capital, and personal and professional growth call for dramatically different responses from people and organizations. The perspectives of the past do not provide a road map for navigating the world of business today. (p. 26) Organizations at present have failed to address these concerns adequately. How can these challenges be confronted? Initial findings point towards engaging, empowering, mobilizing, and motivating individuals into action. The team dynamic is equally as important. According to Larsen, McInerney, Nyquist, Santos, and Silsbee (1996) those who work in Learning Organizations are fully awakened people. They are relentlessly engaged in their work, striving to reach their full potential, by sharing the vision of a valuable goal with team colleagues. Furthermore, their personal goals are in alignment with the mission of the organization. Larsen et al continue on to declare that: Working in a Learning Organization is far from being a slave to a job that is unsatisfying; rather, it is seeing ones work as part of a whole, a system where there are interrelationships and processes that depend on each other. Consequently, awakened workers take risks in order to learn, and they understand how to seek enduring solutions to problems instead of

Zink, 7 quick fixes. Lifelong commitment to high quality work can result when teams work together to capitalize on the synergy of the continuous group learning for optimal performance. (p. 1) Therefore, employees in Learning Organizations are not slaves at all, but rather they are well prepared for change and working with others. 2.2 Challenges in Todays Environment What are the primary challenges facing todays corporations? The following list offered by Michael Marquardt (1996) highlights the major challenges that all organizations must not only be aware of, but also must manage effectively. If these issues are not addressed adequately, the resulting impacts are potentially perilous. !" Reorganization, restructuring, and reengineering !" Increased skills shortages, with schools unable to adequately prepare for work in the Twenty-first century !" Doubling of knowledge every two to three years !" Global competition from the worlds most powerful companies. !" Overwhelming breakthroughs of new and advanced technologies !" Spiraling need for organizations to adapt to change There are four major areas, which have changed profoundly over the past few years. These too could present challenges for organizations if they are disregarded. According to Marquardt (1996) these are as follows: 1. The Economic, Social and Scientific Environment, which includes globalization, economic and marketing competition, environmental end ecological pressures, new sciences of quantum physics and chaos theory, knowledge and societal turbulence, 2. The Workplace Environment, which includes: information technology and the informated organization, organizational structure and size, total quality management movement (Competitive advantage comes from the continuous, incremental innovation and refinement of a variety of ideas that spread throughout the organization), workforce diversity and mobility, and a boom in temporary help, 3. Customer Expectations, and 4. Workers who thrive will have problem identifier skills, problem solving skills and strategic broker skills. Corporations depend on the specialized knowledge of their employees. Knowledge workers do, in fact, own the means of production and they can take it out of the door with them at any moment. (p. 2) I believe that these potential challenges can be more appropriately tackled in an organization that is adaptive and responsive. 2.3 What is Organizational Learning? There has been increasing focus in recent years on organizational learning for many significant reasons. The rapid advancement of technology, globalization, and accelerating customer expectations in the past decade has brought this concept to the

Zink, 8 forefront both in academia and the business world. Malhotra (1996) offers his perspective for this phenomenon: Among the reasons behind this growth (Dodgson, 1993; Easterby-Smith et al., 1998) is the new characteristics of the business world, together with the extensive analytical value of organizational learning in contributing to the improvement of the understanding of organizations and their activities, are both of great significance. (Easterby-Smith and Araujo, 1999) Argyris (1977) defines organizational learning as the process of "detection and correction of errors." In his view organizations learn through individuals acting as agents for them: "The individuals' learning activities, in turn, are facilitated or inhibited by an ecological system of factors that may be called an organizational learning system". (p. 117) Huber (1991) identifies four distinct areas that are fundamental in the organizational learning process. These are as follows: knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory. He clarifies that learning need not be conscious or intentional. Further, learning does not always increase the learner's effectiveness, or even potential effectiveness. Moreover, learning need not result in observable changes in behavior. Taking a behavioral perspective, Huber notes: An entity learns if, through its processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors is changed. (Malhotra, 1996, 2) Weick (1991) assesses the landscape with harsh criticism of learning deficiencies in organizations today. He argues that learning has been largely neglected as of late. His view takes the stance that organizations are not built to learn in their current structures and the resulting impact will be common mistakes repeated from the past. 2.4 What is a "Learning Organization"? How can organizational learning be institutionalized to form a true Learning Organization? According to Malhotra (1996), Peter Senge describes the organization as an organism with the capacity to enhance its capabilities and shape its own future. A Learning Organization is any organization (e.g. school, business, government agency) that understands itself as a complex, organic system that has a vision and purpose. It uses feedback systems and alignment mechanisms to achieve its goals. It values teams and leadership throughout the ranks. ( 4) Michael Marquardt (1996) believes that a systematically defined Learning Organization is an organization, which learns powerfully and collectively and is continually transforming itself to better collect, manage, and use knowledge for corporate success. It empowers people within and outside the company to learn as they work. Organizational learning refers to how organizational learning occurs, the skills and processes of building and utilizing knowledge. (p. 4)

Zink, 9 Peter Senge (1990) characterizes Learning Organizations as businesses in which you cannot not learn because learning is so insinuated into the fabric of life. He proceeds to define Learning Organizations as groups of people continually enhancing their capacity to create what they want to create. Yogesh Malhotra (1996) defines Learning Organizations as "Organizations with ingrained philosophies for anticipating, reacting and responding to change, complexity and uncertainty." (p. 1) He further argues that the concept of a Learning Organization is increasingly relevant given the increasing complexity and uncertainty of the organizational environment. Senge (1990) additionally remarks that the rate at which an organization learns can develop into the paramount sustainable source of competitive advantage for the business. McGill et al. (1992) also propose a definition for the Learning Organization as "a company that can respond to new information by altering the very "programming" by which information is processed and evaluated." (Malhotra, 1996, p. 1) I believe the key is in the word adaptation; the world is ever changing and businesses must stay one step ahead to be competitive and improve their chances of continually realizing sustenance. I believe that a Learning Organization is one in which people at all levels are collectively working to achieve common goals. Learning is the means to achieve this end objective. According to Richard Karash (1994) learning to do is enormously rewarding and personally satisfying. For those of us working in the field, the possibility of a win-win is part of the attraction. That is, the possibility of achieving extraordinary performance together with satisfaction and fulfillment for the individuals involved. ( 3) As witnessed above, Learning Organizations are defined in many differing ways, but a few commonalities exist around teamwork, sharing, empowerment, collaboration, communication and participation. It is irrefutable that these elements are critical to the process. 2.5 Why is a Learning Framework Critical to Organizational Effectiveness? I discussed the challenges facing organizations in the previous section of this study, those of which provide a persuasive enough argument that supports why learning is crucial. Learning today is undoubtedly a non-negotiable. The following quote from Peter Senge (1990) emphasizes why a relentless pursuit of learning excellence is so important to organizational success. If anything, the need for understanding how organizations learn and accelerating that learning is greater today than ever before. The old days when a Henry Ford, Alfred Sloan, or Tom Watson learned for the organization are gone. In an increasingly dynamic, interdependent, and unpredictable world, it is simply no longer possible for anyone to figure it all out at the top. The old model, the top thinks and the local acts, must now give way to integrating thinking and acting at all levels. While the challenge is great, so is the potential payoff. The person who figures out how to harness the collective genius of the people in his or her

Zink, 10 organization, according to former Citibank CEO Walter Wriston, is going to blow the competition away. (p. 10) According to Richard Karash (1994), Learning Organizations drive collaborative atmospheres like no other type of organizational approach. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, they involve simply doing the right thing. Karash comments, it seems possible that the Learning Organization can bring into our enterprise institutions the possibility of systems thinking in action, and shorten the feedback loops so that collective action for the general welfare is not just possible, but expected. Thus the Learning Organization, unlike other technologies for business, is not about the bottom line first. It is about living with paradox and choosing life-affirming values. ( 35) By extrapolating and adding to Karashs point, it becomes clear that doing the right thing, by putting values first, will augment business results in the long-term as customers realize that a responsible, accountable, and winning strategy is in play. Therefore, learning frameworks are not only a business imperative, they are also a winning proposition in every sense. Art Kleiner (1996) offers the view that current business perspectives have failed to evolve with the changing times; Because we need a different way of viewing the process of conducting activity in a business environment and of achieving change within that environment. Our existing views and ways of understanding are not keeping up with the realities of that environment nor with our own belief system, which defines that environment. ( 5) Kleiner provides the following list highlighting the critical reasons why organizations must relentlessly adapt and learn: !" To realize superior performance and competitive advantage !" For customer relations !" To avoid decline !" To improve quality !" To understand risks and diversity more deeply !" For innovation !" For our personal and spiritual well being !" To increase our ability to manage change !" For understanding !" For energized committed work force !" To expand boundaries

Zink, 11 !" To engage in community !" For independence and liberty !" For awareness of the critical nature of interdependence !" Because the times demand it Karash (1994) provides additional reasons for creating Learning Organization structures. These include giving people hope, increasing satisfaction in the workplace, generating creativity and idea sharing, leveling vertical hierarchies, and augmenting participation. I think another driver towards organizational learning is change. It's been said frequently but the greatest constant of modern time is change. With regards to the organizations we are in, change consistently challenges traditional institutional practices and beliefs. As accelerated change drivers intensify in the years ahead it will be all the more urgent to be responsive and adaptable. (Karash, 1994) A structured system approach to change dynamics will ensure that organizations are adequately prepared for what will come next. Forward thinking and learning from previous experiences are also significant aspects of this new evolution. The Optimized Learning Model (OLM) discussed in this study highlights these two necessities in further detail. Commitment is a key in the learning process, as individuals must feel that they can truly have impact and make a difference. Once it is perceived that all team members are vital in the process it will begin to be institutionalized. Karash (1994) supports this view, Where I am becomes a Learning Organization the moment I perceive it to be one, as I share insights with others. It is born with the discovery that together we can contribute to evolution, that not knowing how to stretch together we can each learn how. ( 18) The concept of unity shines through. The team aspect behind Learning Organizations is significant in every respect. Karash (1994) proceeds to contrast organizational behaviour in non-learning and learning environments. The old way is for senior managers to do all the thinking while everyone else "wields the screwdrivers". The old way works, but doesn't tap the greater energy available when the team is fully engaged. Tapping into this energy can result in improved products and services for customers, and an improved work environment. The Learning Organization approach is a new way that promises to tap into this energy. Any approach that increases joy in work and the quality of products and services raises the overall quality of life. I'm only interested in Learning Organizations insofar as they: (1) Provide people with more satisfying lives, so they are happier, do more interesting things with their lives, and are more fun to have lunch with; and (2) Promote systems thinking enough so we have a snowball's chance in hell of restoring enough sanity to our motives so we don't fall into any of the "Limits to Growth" scenarios during my lifetime. (Or

Zink, 12 hopefully many centuries to come, though knowing the collapse may well come while I'm around lends a bit more urgency.) ( 23) Karash goes on to extrapolate the benefits of Learning Organizations forward to economic returns. It is clearly evident that doing the right thing ethically and morally can bring colossal gains within the economy as well. Because I believe that there is a new level of efficiency and effectiveness to be gained in organizations that master the intricacies of the Learning Organization. I think it is the next level of evolution for organizations and I'd like to help my company and mankind to get there. (Karash, 1994, 28) Why do we want Learning Organizations? Shoshana Zuboff (2004) has written: The behaviours that define learning and the behaviours that define being productive are one and the same. Learning is the heart of productive activity. To put it simply, learning is the new form of labour. (q. Marquardt, 1996, p. 2) Karash (1994) expands on this view by providing a broad overview for why learning is so critical. He pronounces: We want to live "divided no more." We want work and personal goals to be in sync or chosen for legitimate reasons. We want to instill greater levels of personal commitment and creativity in the work force. We want to have our work and our organization work be in harmony not at odds. We want to be able to produce exceptional business results in an ever-changing environment. ( 48) Integration is extremely important in the argument for learning frameworks. I feel strongly that Karash has made a significant point in this respect. The personal gains mentioned above will drive the business forward in every sense. The cart (bottom line results) should never be put ahead of the horse (personal and team gains) again. So why do we want to establish a Learning Organization? Karash (1994) believes that such an environment is essential to the continued growth and development of organizations. He also imagines that work should not be an obligation but a joy and that learning and creativity drive the future. Karash then declares, without Learning Organizations we will not be able to transition into the next millennium and meet the challenges ahead. ( 50) Meeting lofty corporate goals and expectations is dependent upon this successful transformation he argues. In conclusion we need Learning Organizations primarily because they provide the healthiest kind of environment for human beings to be in. Secondarily, they improve the bottom line effectiveness of organizations; this effectiveness is achieved through continuous learning resulting in continuous improvement. Dr. Eileen Pepler (2006) coined the phrase tell me and Ill forget, show me and I may remember, involve me and Ill truly understand. This saying resonates with me and provides further credence behind Learning Organization ideology.

Zink, 13 2.6 Barriers to Learning Organizations What stops us from learning and implementing learning cultures within our organizations? Karash (1994) outlines some of these barriers as follows: !" Defensive routines !" Dynamic complexity of systems !" Inadequate and ambiguous outcome feedback !" Misperceptions of the feedback !" Poor interpersonal and organizational inquiry skills Defensive routines generally imply complacency, complex systems are intimidating, a lack of concrete feedback means that inaccurate decisions often result, and communication gaps are perhaps the most deadly of all. These obstacles are not easy to overcome from an organizational perspective. If we could collectively see and to some extent overcome these barriers, the environment, our families, our communities and our organizations would all dramatically improve, thus another reason for pursuing organizational learning. We need to take the holistic view. I believe that the greatest impediment to driving a learning framework is fear of the unknown, which ultimately results in complacency. Many organizations fail to buy-in to this modern ideology for the reasons outlined above by Karash. As more businesses achieve large-scale wins in the near future the importance of learning will once again be front and center. The following section of this paper identifies the key issues prevalent and the resulting study purpose.

3.0 Overview of the Issues and Study Purpose

According to Fortune magazine (Domain, 1989), "the most successful corporation will be something called a Learning Organization, a consummately adaptive enterprise." (p. 48-62) Businesses must evolve with the changes in society. They must keep up with technological, customer-focused, and globalization trends. Responsiveness is key. So why do so many organizations resist this critical transformation in favour of traditional vertical structures that are largely ineffective in todays business world? Richard Karash (1994) views many of the existing organizational forms and processes as machinelike, where humans are seen as parts of the machine, and not only in traditional bureaucracies either. This error in management perception and approach is dangerous in any economy where human input is deemed to be merely another commodity in the production process. Mark Smith (2001) interprets the issue as nearsightedness on the part of organizations who fail to take the long-term view. Simply put organizations fail to see

Zink, 14 the true benefits of learning frameworks because they are shortsighted, focused on simply satisfying near-term goals and metrics. A failure to attend to the learning of groups and individuals in the organization spells disaster in this context. Leadbeater (2000) has argued, companies need to invest not just in new machinery to make production more efficient, but also in the flow of know-how that will sustain their businesses. Organizations need to be good at knowledge generation, appropriation and exploitation. ( 14) In 1990 Peter Senge, the father of modern Learning Organizational theory, introduced new concepts and strategies for driving continuous learning frameworks within organizations. While his theories provided great substance in this area of management theory, issues were also brought to the forefront. These include a failure to fully appreciate and incorporate the imperatives that animate modern organizations; the relative sophistication of the thinking he requires of managers and questions around his treatment of organizational politics. It is certainly difficult to find real-life examples of Learning Organizations (Kerka, 1995). There has also clearly been a lack of critical analysis of the theoretical framework. (Smith, 2001) Finger and Brand (1999) bring attention to the following Learning Organization shortcomings: The concept of the Learning Organization: 1. Focuses mainly on the cultural dimension, and does not adequately take into account the other dimensions of an organization. To transform an organization it is necessary to attend to structures and the organization of work as well as the culture and processes. Focusing exclusively on training activities in order to foster learning favours this purely cultural bias. 2. Favours individual and collective learning processes at all levels of the organization, but does not connect them properly to the organizations strategic objectives. Popular models of organizational learning (such as Dixon 1994) assume such a link. It is, therefore, imperative, that the link between individual and collective learning and the organizations strategic objectives is made. And 3. Remains rather vague. The exact functions of organizational learning need to be more clearly defined. (p. 146) These shortcomings, Finger and Brand argue, make a case for some form of measurement of organizational learning, so that it is possible to assess the extent to which such learning contributes or not towards strategic objectives. (Karash, 1994) Also, I completely agree that learning objectives must be in sync with strategic objectives. We must be working towards common goals to be effective. There are a number of flaws in Senges model, and the subsequent models that have followed, according to the research uncovered in this study. Chiefly they are theoretically underpowered and there is some question as to whether they can be brought into practice effectively. These implementation questions are particularly concerning. It seems likely that these opinions and models continue to be treated as the

Zink, 15 prototypical answers to organizational problems, but in reality none of which has the legs to meet these visions in isolation. (Smith, 2001) In summation, a severe, and potentially perilous, learning deficiency exists at present in the business world. This critical concern stems from the actuality that a viable holistic learning framework is nonexistent for leadership teams to embrace. Consequently, the following objective of this study has been born. To develop a macro strategic and executable framework capable of launching learning excellence within organizations across the corporate world. This objective effectively addresses both the theoretical and practical deficiencies currently prevailing in the business world. The organizational shortcomings mentioned in this section of the study clearly act as obstacles when organizational leaders are deciding whether to take up a learning structure and mentality. As a result, the following section of this study will analyse learning frameworks in a manner that addresses the issues here within.

4.0 Why Teams Trump Individuals in the 21st Century

4.1 Uniform Qualities within Effective Teams Authors French and Bell (1995) consider teams and work groups to be the fundamental units of organizations and the key leverage points for improving the functioning of the organization. (p. 171) Teams and teamwork are the hottest thing happening in organizations today (p. 97) A workplace team is more than a work group, a number of persons, usually reporting to a common superior and having some face-toface interaction, who have some degree of interdependence in carrying out tasks for the purpose of achieving organizational goals. (p. 169) Teams are a fundamental aspect of Learning Organizations, as individuals work together and learn from all of their shared experiences. A number of writers have studied teams, looking for the characteristics that make some successful. Larson and LaFasto (1989) looked at high-performance groups as diverse as a championship football team and a heart transplant team and found eight characteristics that are always present. They are listed below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. A clear, elevating goal A results driven structure Competent team members Unified commitment A collaborative climate Standards of excellence External support and recognition Principled leadership

Zink, 16 (Larson and LaFasto, 1989, in French and Bell, 1995, p. 98) This list covers the key areas enclosed in this study teamwork, leadership support, commitment, communication, and collaboration. Lippett (1982, p. 9) maintains that high-performance teams operate on four distinct levels, which includes: organizational expectations, group tasks, group maintenance, and individual needs. Lippett goes on to define teamwork as the means by which a group is able to solve its problems. Teamwork is demonstrated in groups by: (a)...the groups ability to examine its process to constantly improve itself as a team, and (b) the requirement for trust and openness in communication and relationships. Group interaction, interpersonal relations, group goals, and communication characterize the former. The latter is characterized by a high tolerance for differing opinions and personalities. (Lippett, 1982, p. 207-208; Larsen et al, 1996) Therefore, it is strikingly evident that teams are a central importance behind organizational success. 4.2 Shared Vision Within Teams Shared visions must be built from the individual visions of an organizations members. This implies that organizational visions must not be created by the leader; rather, the vision must be created through interaction with the individuals in the organization. In LOs the key is in participation and involvement. According to Larsen et al (1996), Only by compromising between the individual visions and the development of these visions in a common direction can the shared vision be created. The leader's role in creating a shared vision is to share their own vision with employees. This should not be done to force that vision on others, but rather to encourage others to share their vision too. Based on these visions, the organization's vision should evolve. (p. 6) In my opinion this is one area that requires attention by senior management teams across the globe. Often they push a vision through the organizational framework without gaining support through mutual contributions. Larsen et al (1996) believe that it would be naive to expect that the organization can change overnight from having a vision that is communicated from the top to an organization where the vision evolves from the visions of all the people in the organization. (p. 6) The collective view is paramount in the context of creating support and commitment. Larson et al (1996) investigated the question of whether all individuals within a Learning Organization must share a common vision. They wrote, reflection on shared vision brings the question of whether each individual in the organization must share the rest of the organization's vision. The answer is no, but the individuals who do not share the vision might not contribute as much to the organization. (p. 5) Senge (1990) stresses that visions cannot be sold. For a shared vision to develop, members of the organization must enroll in the vision. The difference between these two is that through enrollment the members of the organization choose to participate. Learning Organization achievement can only be realized in a true sense when a shared vision with full, unwavering commitment is prevalent. The team element within

Zink, 17 this context is also so important. Individuals must truly be committed to a team-based vision for the business moving forward. Leadership plays a key role in establishing this guidance, which will be discussed next.

5.0 Leadership and Driving Learning Distinction

Our traditional view of leaders, as special people who set the direction, make the key decisions, and energize the troops, is deeply rooted in an individualistic and nonsystemic world-view. In a Learning Organization, leaders' roles differ dramatically from that of the charismatic decision maker. Leaders are designers, teachers, and stewards. These roles require new skills: the ability to build shared vision, to bring to the surface and challenge prevailing mental models, and to foster more systemic patterns of thinking. In short, leaders in Learning Organizations are responsible for building organizations where people are continually expanding their capabilities to shape their future, that is, leaders are responsible for learning. (Senge, 1990) According to Senge (1990), it is fruitless to be the leader in an organization that is poorly designed. The first task of organizational design concerns designing the governing ideas of purpose, vision, and core values by which people will live. Few acts of leadership have more enduring impact on an organization than building a foundation of purpose and core values. The second design task involves the policies, strategies, and structures that translate guiding ideas into business decisions. Behind appropriate policies, strategies, and structures are effective learning processes; their creation is the third key design responsibility in Learning Organizations. Senge remarks: Leader as teacher does not mean leader as authoritarian expert whose job is to teach people the "correct" view of reality. Rather, it is about helping everyone in the organization, oneself included, to gain more insightful views of current reality. The role of leader as teacher starts with bringing to the surface people's mental models of important issues. These mental pictures of how the world works have a significant influence on how we perceive problems and opportunities, identify courses of action, and make choices. (p. 6) In Learning Organizations, this teaching role is developed further by virtue of explicit attention to mental models and by the influence of the systems perspective. Leaders as teachers help people restructure their views of reality to see beyond the superficial conditions and events into the underlying causes of problems, and therefore to see new possibilities for shaping the future. Specifically, leaders can influence people to view reality at three distinct levels: events, patterns of behavior, and systemic structure. (Senge, 1990) According to Senge (1990), contemporary society focuses predominantly on events, less so in patterns of behavior, and very rarely on systemic structure. Leaders in Learning Organizations must reverse this trend, and focus their organization's attention on systemic structure. This is because event explanations, who did what to whom, doom their holders to a reactive stance toward change; pattern-of-behavior explanations

Zink, 18 are limited to identifying long-term trends and assessing their implications, they suggest how, over time, we can respond to shifting conditions (adaptive learning). The structural explanations are the most powerful, only they address the underlying causes of behavior at a level such that patterns of behavior can be changed (generative learning). Leaders engaged in building Learning Organizations naturally feel part of a larger purpose that goes beyond their organization. They are part of changing the way businesses operate, not from a vague philanthropic urge, but from a conviction that their efforts will produce more productive organizations, capable of achieving higher levels of organizational success and personal satisfaction than more traditional organizations. (Senge, 1990) Introducing a Chief Learning Officer role within an organization is also a significant move in recognizing and rewarding learning initiatives. This champion will oversee all learning within the structure. Organizational leaders, such as CEOs and Presidents should not overlook the importance of this guiding role. Walker (1998) provides more perspective: Learning organizations use shared leadership principles to maximize their resources and develop leadership capacity within individuals. The organization can be described as one that learns continuously and transforms itself. Current literature on leadership development characterizes the leader as a coach, facilitator and guide. Images of leadership have shifted from expert, director, and controller to catalyst, information sharer, and coordinator. Leadership in learning organizations is based on cooperative and collaborative partnership approaches. (p. 1) Senges (1990) view, in that Learning Organization leaders are designers, stewards and teachers, is a valid one. Leaders are responsible for building organizations where people continually expand their capabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models; in essence they are responsible for learning. Learning Organizations will remain a good idea, until people take a stand for building such organizations. Taking this stand is the first leadership act, the start of inspiring (literally to breathe life into) the vision of the Learning Organization. Bringing this visionary and ideological model to life is the most powerful, and rewarding, move any executive team can undertake. (p. 340)

6.0 Gaining Commitment

Kofman & Senge (1995) have stated that building Learning Organizations requires basic shifts in how we think and interact. They go on to argue that the main issues in today's organizations are actually the consequences of their success in the past. These dysfunctions, therefore, are not problems to be solved; they are frozen patterns of thought to be dissolved. The solvent they propose is a new way of thinking, feeling and being: a culture of "systems." In this new systems world-view, we move from the primacy of pieces to the primacy of the whole, from absolute truths to coherent interpretations, from self to community, from problem solving to creating. Thus, by

Zink, 19 commitment, they mean "commitment to changes needed in the larger world and to seeing our organizations as vehicles for bringing about such changes." (Santos, 2006, 7) The position stated above by Santos regarding Kofman and Senge is a valid one. Organizational leaders, from a top-down perspective, must understand the impact that they can have. Commitment is a key when any change management initiative is undertaken. Support from above will enable a trickle down effect through the structure within a business; this point cannot be lost with senior management. Thus, the effectual communication of corporate commitment is as vital as having commitment period. (Kofman et al, 1995) The approach adopted by MIT's Organizational Learning Center, when the Center gets involved with organizations that desire to become Learning Organizations, states that the members of such organizations should be committed to a "galilean shift" of mind, and explains what that means in terms of changes in individual values and organizational culture. (Santos, 2006) Commitment is therefore paramount in the decision to take up a Learning Organization. Aldo Santos (2006) adds context to this assertion: In Learning Organizations, the leaders are those building the new organization and its capabilities. Such leadership is inevitably collective. The clash of collective leadership and hierarchical leadership nonetheless poses a core dilemma for Learning Organizations. The dilemma can become a source of energy and imagination through the idea of "servant leadership," people who lead because they chose to serve, both to serve one another and to serve a higher purpose. ( 28) Santos continues on by positioning Learning Organizations as being anchored in three foundations: (1) a culture based on transcendent human values of love, wonder, humility, and compassion; (2) a set of practices for generative conversation and coordinated action; and (3) a capacity to see and work with the flow of life as a system. He believes that as a resulting impact of these capabilities, Learning Organizations are both more generative and more adaptive than traditional organizations. This is due to their commitment, openness, and ability to deal with difficulties. Employees, in his view, find security not in stability but in a dynamic equilibrium realized in an environment of constant change. (Santos, 2006) When defining commitment the question persists, commitment to what? Employees must be committed to openness and communication in a participatory atmosphere. Furthermore, positive feedback is critical when individuals or groups take risks to improve the business. It also involves communication that flows as much from the bottom of a hierarchy to the top as vice-versa. Inquiry allows individuals to become adept at questioning things as a normal course of their work. It encourages people to take risks in improving aspects of their work. Positive feedback involves activities that are designed to let people learn from their inquiries, to build a personal knowledge base

Zink, 20 that is defined by proactive rather than reactive or defensive thinking. It involves those with more experience helping those with less experience understand not just the right way to do things, but what can be learned from doing things the wrong way. The key elements are communication, reflection, feedback, flexibility, and inquiry. Mutual respect and support are also significant pieces. This involves treating co-workers, supervisors, and employees uniformly with respect to one's ability to contribute positively to the organization, regardless of where that person is located in the organizational hierarchy. The ultimate answer to the question becomes commitment to a cultural shift that incorporates all of these critical aspects. (Albany Education, n.d.) Consequently gaining commitment is as straightforward as driving a corporate culture that empowers, involves, engages, and encourages action and participation in a team-oriented setting. It must be also noted that the entire organization from the boardroom to the trenches has to believe, adamantly buying-in and supporting the entire system.

7.0 Culture and the Learning Organization

A positive relationship exists between strong culture and LO effectiveness. Daft (2004) provides a worthy opinion in respect to culture: One of the primary characteristics of a Learning Organization is a strong organizational culture. In addition, the culture of a Learning Organization encourages change and adaptation. A danger for many successful organizations is that the culture becomes set and the company fails to adapt as the environment changes. When organizations are successful, the values, ideas, and practices that helped attain success become institutionalized. As the environment changes, these values may become detrimental to future performance. Many organizations become victims of their own success, clinging to outmoded and even destructive values and behaviors. (p. 371) According to Daft, one of the defining characteristics of Learning Organizations is a strong adaptive culture that incorporates the following values: 1.The whole is more important that the parts and the boundaries between the parts are minimized, 2. Equality and trust are primary values, and 3.The culture encourages risk taking, change, and improvement. The culture of a Learning Organization encourages openness, reduced boundaries, equality, empowerment, continuous improvement, and risk taking. Adaptive cultures allow organizations to respond to internal and external pressures in an efficient manner. Employees of all ranks, due in large part to this level of responsiveness, embrace change because they know that they have the ability to be creative and bring conceptual theory to practice. The ability to know that you can make things happen is extremely valuable from a motivational perspective. (Daft, 2004, p. 372)

Zink, 21 Other key aspects of an adaptive learning culture are perpetual communication and collaboration through teamwork. Information and knowledge exchange must be shared through all areas of the organization. By instilling an open, team-oriented culture a sense of family or community will be born. This will reduce barriers in respect to communication, encourage collaboration, and support a Learning Organization framework. (Daft, 2004, p. 372)

8.0 The Birth of a New Learning Model - OLM

As stated previously in this study, creating a learning culture and structure is a long-term effort contingent on continuous improvement that must be supported at all levels of the organization. Organizational Development, from structure and strategy all the way down to individual processes, will be improved through an enhanced learning framework that incorporates the critical ingredients mentioned in the previous section of this paper. (Larsen et al, 1996) After completing a great deal of research for this paper, I have constructed a learning model, termed Optimized Learning Model (OLM), to support organizations in driving learning excellence during organizational formation and development and beyond. This model is unique in the sense that strategy and structure are finally being integrated with learning excellence into a complete model for application. Learning, from overall structural design, the identification of certain departments, individual roles and relationships, the formation of teams, and the use of certain communication, to information and systems, will be analysed comprehensively in the new framework. OLM is the product of the research discussed in the analysis portion of this study. It addresses organizational needs in respect to culture, information sharing and flow, leadership, team fundamentals, and commitment. Section 8.2 initiates a thorough analysis of the model in respect to how it consolidates and builds on these elements. Subsequently, the theories of Peter Senge, Nick Bontis, Popper & Lipshitz, Robert Flood, and David Cayla are reviewed and critically investigated to illustrate linkages and contrasts to OLM. Hence presumably providing further support for the new approach. It must be noted that all of these works individually and in isolation fall short of fully integrating a learning model capable of immediate implementation in the business world. Furthermore the framework is explored in isolation to uncover its internal shortcomings and benefits as well. Section 8.1 provides an illustration of the new OLM model.

Zink, 22 8.1 A Model For Learning Excellence - OLM

Optimized Learning Model

Leadership
CEO

Ongoing Communication

Learning
CLO

Organizational Strategy
Functional Areas Management Team

Learning Strategy

Continuous Improvement Team

Learning Team

(4Is)

Project Management
Definition Clarity Structure Support

Multi-Faceted Teams
Empowerment Collaboration Communication Trust Adaptability Autonomy Experimentation Diversity

Project Fulfillment

Performance Results

Learning Results

Outcomes

Zink, 23 8.2 Examining the Model OLMs Functionality OLM, as illustrated above, is a dynamic, pervasive model that focuses on the flow of knowledge through an organizational structure. It further draws distinct responsibilities for the organizational parts of the structure. Specifically, two critical elements are recognized. These are Leadership and Learning. A third element, distinctive but entirely influenced by Leadership and Learning, is the Project Management aspect that physically puts strategy into action. We are finally beginning to recognize that vitalizing the relationships between the parts of the system is of greater consequence than optimizing the parts of the system. (Crother-Laurin, 2006, p. 5) Therefore, it is critical for efficient and effective interaction among these moving parts. These three elements will be investigated further in isolation and jointly as they apply to the model. 8.2.1 Leadership Fostering an environment that is supportive of learning is no easy feat. Leadership teams are responsible for setting this stage before any steps are taken to implement learning strategies. Further, ensuring that a corporate culture shift has transpired is also essential. Additionally, Leadership teams are responsible for bonding collective learning processes with the vision, mission, and strategic objectives of the firm. This implies that a genuine and enduring commitment to learning is necessary for effectiveness within OLM. Leadership teams are accountable for ensuring that individuals are in a position to embrace learning cultures. This is extremely vital to the success of effectively driving learning excellence. Crother-Laurin (2006) believes that it is clear that organizational transformation does not begin with management providing or mandating opportunities for collaboration or teamwork. It begins with each individual, and therefore, is the responsibility of the leaders to foster each individuals learning and development such that collectively the organization can realize the capacity and contribution of each member. Compensation is also a key in the new OLM framework from a leadership perspective. Team-based incentive pay will be employed as a primary motivator to enhance group cohesion. In order to improve idea generation and knowledge sharing, bonuses will be paid to individuals that take risks and drive results. This approach will deviate from individual recognition programs that encourage personal rather than teambased activities, which ultimately contrasts the basis behind learning environments. Shared knowledge is best achieved where group rewards drive information exchanges throughout the organization. Leadership teams must design compensation models that are consistent with this imperative methodology. In the context of OLM formalized rules must be limited to allow individuals and teams to have free reign to generate ideas, share knowledge, and collaborate. Nonetheless formal rules are still required to provide a certain level of structure in respect to procedures. They will mostly govern the proceedings that occur within the project component of the structure where the operational aspect of the business

Zink, 24 persists. The Learning team is responsible for ensuring that formal and informal rules do not act contrary to the learning capabilities of the organization. How should business leaders assess progress in a Learning Organization? Traditionally organizations have used financial results as the primary measure of success. In the context of OLM, I recommend that the true measure of progress be held in the level of learning generated from within. Team gains, through cross-functional project returns, are a further measure of success. A collective view of project effectiveness will determine the success of the organization regardless of the financials. The quantity and quality of ideas flowing through the structure are the means to achieve the desired end in our rapidly evolving business world. 8.2.2 Learning OLMs success, at a high-level, hinges on organizations releasing the restraints on learning, which ultimately unleashes its full capability. Bingham (2006) comments, organizations need to quantifiably understand the impact of learning on their respective businesses. Driving that understanding is the responsibility of learning professionals. (p. 15) The Learning Division must have complete and absolute autonomy within the structure. Although the CLO (Chief Learning Officer) will report directly into the CEO, the CEO will remain hands-off from the day-to-day operations of the learning function. Ultimately this autonomy will promote an unbiased long-term approach to learning. Communication between the two groups is also important as Learning must understand corporate strategy and Leadership must be aware of the knowledge coming out of the learning system. OLM will encourage this positive relationship. All information within the organizational structure will flow into the Learning Department at one point or another. Projects will define the work that is required to be completed within OLM. This ranges from fulfilling client orders to change management tactics, and everything there in between. The most important aspect of the system is the constant and relentless flow of information. Alcorta (2005) defines feedback loops as cycles of interaction within and between organizations. He believes that they emerge in the chain-linked model of innovation between downstream and upstream phases of the firm, including short-loops linking each downstream phase, which defines knowledge infrastructure as the range of generic, multi-user, divisible and enabling organizations supporting the production of knowledge. The central chain with the phase immediately preceding it, e.g. marketing and production, and longer feedback loops linking extreme phases, i.e. research with marketing. They also emerge between organizations. (p. 21) Lundvall (1992, 1994) argues that responsive feedback loops between individuals and teams can allow the organization to obtain updated and precise information when demands and competencies evolve. Metcalfe (1997) points to the role of formal links and feedback loops that progressively accelerate the connectivity between organizations and, as a result, lead into learning from each other. Therefore, the use of feedback loops, in enhancing internal and external organizational communication, is clearly paramount.

Zink, 25 Leadership and Learning elements will help to shape the undertakings of the project function. More specifically, Leadership will define and convey strategic initiatives while Learning focuses the project world on continuous improvement through experience and collaborative efforts. As information pours into the Learning Department it will be stored, interpreted, analysed, and disseminated. This evolution from data to knowledge is significant in the structure. All the more important however, is the distribution and accessibility of such. Knowledge storage and retrieval is a responsibility of the Learning Department through the use of a database system, intranet, and mass email system. Every employee will be included in the system, regardless of his or her position within the company. This approach will enhance commitment, through active involvement, as feedback loops will exist in all directions. Of principal importance is the constant flow of information with a sense of urgency universally. Further, the analysts within the learning area are accountable for interpretation and analysis of all information that flows into their department. Making heads or tails of this data, in an effort to transform it into knowledge and intelligence, is critical to success. Moreover, a determination on the importance or priority of information is also a key to success, as is the speed of transference achieved. The organizations that best accomplish this mandate will have a competitive advantage against their competitors. Mentorship is another critical element within the learning function. Senior employees will meet with groups of junior employees to convey their knowledge and skills, thus encouraging learning in an open environment. (George-Leary, p. 29) The Learning function will oversee this process for the various areas within the structure. Of primary importance here is to enhance the quality of knowledge and capability in the three key areas of the organization (Learning, Leadership, and Project Management) through mentorship tactics. The essence of OLM is not just focused on informational flows but teamwork and collaboration in this innovative horizontal structure. The Learning Department is also responsible for encouraging information exchange through collaboration and teamwork excellence. Therefore it is critical that the Learning function be given the full autonomy to drive this outcome. 8.2.3 Project Management Project Management is at the heart of the new structure because project performance is the means by which a major component of the work within a business is achieved. This includes everything from completing client orders to distribution logistics to marketing a new line of products to inventory counting. Projects enable us to adapt to changing conditions. (Verzuh, 1999, p.10) Given the rapid change evolution that the world is currently witnessing, it is clear that project success is critical in staying ahead of the curve. For clarity, it must be noted that the term Project Management in the context of this study is used universally to reflect the means by which any organization

Zink, 26 undertakes fulfilling strategy and objectives. However, in my opinion a formalized Project Management element is nonetheless the optimal approach for all organizations. Project management success hinges on consistency and transparency. In order to achieve standardization, the project office staff will develop a custom learning development project management methodology that blends the best practices of project management with instructional systems design. The team will focus on identifying strengths and weaknesses in project management processes, establishing a project management capability baseline, setting up a continuous improvement program, and integrating effective project management principles. (George-Leary, p. 30) Fundamentally project outcomes power businesses forward, or conversely, will set them back. Therefore, it is vital to learn from successes and failures that stem from project initiatives. This said, feedback loops must remain open with uninterrupted information flowing into the Learning Department. Collection, analysis, interpretation, dissemination, and storage and retrieval are the next significant elements in the system, the responsibility of Learning champions. The Project Management group, in so many ways, will therefore constantly evolve from this continuous improvement process. In summation, learning is driven through the structure from project initiation to fulfillment to feedback loops back to the learning center. OLM, from a strategic perspective, delivers a model to business leaders that will combat the challenge of driving learning excellence within their boundaries. Learning effectiveness in the modern business age will allow organizations to remain competitive as they confront globalization, technology, and customer threats and opportunities that they have never witnessed before. 8.3 OLMs Contributions and Shortfalls OLM delivers a number of significant contributions and shortfalls. I will first compare this new model to a list of essential LO dimensions from Marquardt (1996) to assess whether these necessities are existent. Marquardts dimensions are as follows: !" Learning is accomplished by the organization system as a whole !" Organization members recognize the importance of ongoing organization-wide learning !" Learning is a continuous, strategically used process integrated with and running parallel to work !" There is a focus on creativity and generative learning !" Systems thinking is fundamental !" People have continuous access to information and data resources

Zink, 27 !" A corporate climate exists that encourages, rewards, and accelerates individual and group learning !" Workers network inside and outside the organization !" Change is embraced, and surprises and even failures are viewed as opportunities to learn !" It is agile and flexible !" Everyone is driven by a desire for quality and continuous improvement !" Activities are characterized by aspiration, reflection, and conceptualization !" There are well-developed core competencies that serve as a taking-off point for new products and services !" It possesses the ability to continuously adapt, renew, and revitalize itself in response to the changing environment The OLM is uniform to Marquardts dimensions. It delivers systematic thinking with dynamic flow from one team to the next. The structure is established as multifaceted teams that work to achieve project success. Moreover, feedback loops are continually streaming into the Learning Department where gathering, consolidation, analysis, dissemination, and storage are undertaken. Learning of all types are fostered and embraced no knowledge is too trivial in this model. Commitment is realized through involvement, empowerment, and recognition. Employees at all levels are encouraged and rewarded for thinking outside of the box. They are challenged to introduce knowledge that the Learning Department has yet to experience, positive rewards for such will result. Furthermore, risk taking will not be penalized in this model, but risks must be team plays to ensure that a multitude of cross-functional specialists have been employed. In Marquardts words failures are all opportunities to learn. (p. 4) Moreover, the framework is based on the belief that Project Management success is best achieved in a system of continual and relentless learning. Project Management is therefore seen as a key element in OLM as the means to achieve the end it is the implementation arm of the framework for putting strategy into action. The contributions of OLM are numerous, many of which have been discussed previously in this study. Fundamentally this model introduces a framework that business leaders can utilize to improve their organizations chances of survival in our fast paced world. OLM links Learning and Leadership with Project Management into a framework with free information exchange and flow. The benefits of these characteristics are extensive and powerful in and of themselves.

Zink, 28 The shortcomings of OLM are as follows: !" The model is untested in a practical sense !" Total Leadership commitment is essential to success !" The model is not modular parts are all linked together !" The model calls for sweeping changes in most cases to culture, organizational structure, and processes which may question its feasibility OLM, like all other theoretical models, comes with a host of question marks in combination with so many positives. Notably, it is a model that will deliver great benefits for organizations that are committed to a long-term framework for success. Thus, shortterm oriented organizations need not apply. The following sections of this study investigate OLM versus a whole host of leading theoretical approaches from some of the great thinkers of our day. 8.4 Senge Overview and Comparison to OLM Peter Senge is deeply influential in the organizational learning arena. His theoretical work around Learning Organizations has single handedly reshaped organizational behaviour in the past few decades. According to Senge (1990), Learning Organizations possess the capability to: !" Anticipate and adapt more readily to environmental impacts !" Accelerate the development of new products, processes, and services !" Become more proficient at learning from competitors and collaborators !" Expedite the transfer of knowledge from one part of the organization to another !" Learn more effectively from its mistakes !" Make greater organizational use of employees at all levels of the organization. !" Shorten the time required to implement strategic changes !" Stimulate continuous improvement in all areas of the organization The following section addresses the aspects that Senge sees as paramount in learning structures. 8.4.1 Realizing Senges Five Disciplines Peter Senge (1990) defines Learning Organizations as organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set

Zink, 29 free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together. Senge frames our understanding of the Learning Organization with an ensemble of disciplines, which he believes must converge to form a Learning Organization. (Heathfield, 2006) Senge's Learning Action Model creates a disciplined system that provides a logical map to guide strategists through a process that produces real results and continuous learning. The model assists to recognize where you are now in any given process, suggests what to do when you're there, and what to do next. (Shibley, 2001) Senge identifies five key areas for his theory, which are discussed next. Personal Mastery Personal mastery is the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively. (Senge, 1990, p. 7) Senge proposes that an organizations learning is only as effective as that of each of its individual members. Consequently, personal mastery and the desire for continuous learning integrated deeply in the belief system of each person is critical for competitive advantage in the future. (Heathfield, 2006) Senge (1990) provides further context into personal mastery by proclaiming that people with a high level of personal mastery live in a continual learning mode. They never arrive. Sometimes, language, such as the term personal mastery creates a misleading sense of definiteness, of black and white. But personal mastery is not something you possess. It is a process. It is a lifelong discipline. People with a high level of personal mastery are acutely aware of their ignorance, their incompetence, their growth areas. And they are deeply self-confident. Paradoxical? Only for those who do not see the journey is the reward. (p. 142) Mental Models Heathfield (2006) defines mental models as deeply held pictures that each of us holds in our mind about how the world, work, our families, and so on work. Mental models influence our vision of how things happen at work, why things happen at work, and what we are able to do about them. Moving the organization in the right direction entails working to transcend the sorts of internal politics and game playing that dominates traditional organizations. In other words it means fostering openness. (Senge 1990; Smith, 2001) This implies that control and decision-making is most effective at a local level in the hands of those that can best create optimal solutions to the issues at hand. Team Learning Senge (1990) acknowledges that teams, not individuals, are the fundamental learning unit in modern organizations. (p. 10) Heathfield (2006) believes that the dialogue among the members of the team results in stretching the ability of the organization to grow and develop. When teams learn together, Peter Senge suggests, not only can there be good results for the organization, members will grow more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise. (Smith, 2001)

Zink, 30 Shared Vision Senges view of shared vision involves a collective buy-in from the entire organization. This buy-in is unconditional and offers the organizations members guidance and hope for the future. It is a vision of the utopian state in a sense. (Heathfield, 2006) Peter Senge (1990) starts from the position that if any one idea about leadership has inspired organizations for thousands of years, its the capacity to hold a shared picture of the future we seek to create (p. 9). Such a vision has the power to be uplifting and to encourage experimentation and innovation. (Smith, 2001) Systems Thinking A great virtue of Peter Senges work is the manner in which he puts systems theory to work. (Smith, 2001) The underlying structure and the interlinking components of each of our work systems, shape a great deal of the behavior of the individuals who work inside of the work system. (Heathfield, 2006) Senges ability to direct focus holistically on organizational systems is a key component of his theoretical approach. Smith (2001) provides further context into systems thinking, Peter Senge argues that one of the key problems with much that is written about, and done in the name of management, is that rather simplistic frameworks are applied to what are complex systems. We tend to focus on the parts rather than seeing the whole, and to fail to see organization as a dynamic process. Thus, the argument runs, a better appreciation of systems will lead to more appropriate action. ( 19) The concept of systemic thinking is one of Senges key contributions to this area of study. John Van Maurik (2001) suggested that Peter Senge has been ahead of his time and that his arguments are insightful and revolutionary. (p. 201) He goes on to say that it is a matter of regret that more organizations have not taken his advice and have remained geared to the quick fix. OLM builds on his groundbreaking theory by taking the next step through extending the model to apply to organizational strategy and structure, while offering real world application tactics. Furthermore, Smith (2001) offers a view of the benefits that Senge has brought to the table. We can make some judgments about the possibilities of his theories and proposed practices. We could say that while there are some issues and problems with his conceptualization, at least it does carry within it some questions around what might make for human flourishing. The emphasis on building a shared vision, team working, personal mastery and the development of more sophisticated mental models and the way he runs the notion of dialogue through these does have the potential of allowing workplaces to be more convivial and creative. ( 55) Capitalizing on this potential is truly in the hands of organizational strategists and they are accountable for nothing short of excellence in driving stakeholder value. OLM enhances the capability of organizational effectiveness in this regard as leaders attempt to leverage this opportunity.

Zink, 31 So the question becomes, what consistencies and contrasts do Senges theories maintain with OLM? Clearly his vision for shared learning, teamwork, commitment, and systematic thinking provides a solid foundation for any learning model going forward, and consequently has been incorporated into OLM. Furthermore, my new model capitalizes on his theoretical approach as to the effective flow of information through an organizational structure. This is absolutely a critical element in any business. In respect to contrasts, firstly OLM relates powerful theoretical concepts to organizational strategy and structure, which continues on from where Senge stops short, and secondly, it presents an implementation dimension (to be discussed in the following section of this study). Therefore, it is evident that marrying strategy and implementation elements are essential in driving a learning framework, and notably this improvement on Senges model will enhance the chances of success for OLM in the business world. 8.5 Cayla Overview and Comparison to OLM David Caylas (2004) work, A Cognitive Approach to Organizational Learning, focuses primarily on structures rather than parts. It takes the macro view of interactions of units as a unified whole that works towards a common goal. This is supportive and consistent with the OLM framework outlined previously. In Caylas words the cognitive approach is built on the fact that the world is an ever-evolving state. Another particularity of the cognitive approach is to focus on evolutions and transformations instead of equilibriums. When the organization is taken as a whole, it becomes impossible to determine unchanging data or parameters on which it would be possible to rest on, for each datum evolves with all the others. It is thus impossible to determine one ultimate focal point on which the organization may tend. (p. 1) OLM provides an answer to this change threat by driving a continuous reassessment of the organizational environment through the learning frameworks association of elements. In order to ensure that potentially complacent aspects of a business, such as strategy, structure, and process, are less threatening in nature, they must be uncovered and contested at source. OLMs relentless offensive methodology provides a foundation for constantly re-evaluating all facets of the business. In a cognitive approach, the central questions deal with how - how firms evolve, how do they adapt themselves to the market. (Cayla, 2004, p. 2) OLM offers this level of flexibility, autonomy, and adaptability. Learning Organizations that employ OLM will relentlessly reinvent themselves in strategy, process, structure, and all other components of their business. Complacency is a word that truly doesnt exist in this environment as the model survives and thrives in constant flux. 8.5.1 Learning at Level I The first of the three levels that Cayla (2004) details is one with intense formal rules. In his words: A Level I learning supposes a change in the informal rules system without a change in the formal rules system. Members of an organization can adapt themselves to a new situation creating a new behavioral routine in order to overcome a particular constraint or to reach a precise objective.

Zink, 32 The creation of a new behavioral routine is however limited by the formal rules system, because only routines that are compatible with it can emerge. It should come a moment then, where in the framework of a particular formal rules system, the Level I learning cannot permit the organization to adapt itself to the environment. (9) Cayla raises an interesting point in his Level I assessment. Organizations must have the ability to maintain adaptability to adjust for current developments in their industry or the marketplace in general. Thus level I learning is deemed to be rigid in the context of creating an optimized learning structure such as OLM. OLMs learning methodology addresses this concern by putting the necessary power in the hands of empowered Learning specialists, who are able to support new informal rule systems. OLM reduces the barriers to learning that come in the form of an overabundance of formalized rules, which is led by the Learning contingent with input from Leadership. 8.5.2 Learning at Level II Level II contains less rigidity than the first level, but it still falls short of an optimal environment that encourages relentless learning. Cayla (2004) believes that: An organization learns at Level II when it changes its formal rules system (contacts, regulations) without changing the coherence and the main objectives of the organization. Effects of Level II learning have however a part of uncertainty for the reason that it is impossible to modify the formal rules system without generating as a result a change in informal rules. Moreover, it is impossible for the management to precisely forecast the content of rules that are implemented in a spontaneous and decentralized way. (p. 10) As part of the Learning Organization evolution, organizations must flatten their usage of formalized rules. The resulting impact will be an increase of informal rules created during team business processes. The critical aspect here is that Learning champions must monitor the informal rules within their structures to ensure that these new protocols are consistent with an optimized learning framework. For instance informal rules around communication methods (i.e. email) must be compatible with the Learning system to enhance efficiency, but more significantly than this physical flow is the acceptance of electronic communication in the structure in an informal sense. Furthermore, this acceptance must be pervasive throughout the three segments of the organization. This is where consistency is so key. Cayla (2004) describes the counterbalancing effect of how new processes and routines evolve in Level II to replace informal rules. This emphasizes how the business is becoming more adaptive and responsive. Like individual learning, organizational level II learning gives rise to a cost by destroying some informal rules that were helping coordination and increasing the efficiency of the organization. Of course, this destruction

Zink, 33 may be offset by the emergence of more adapted routines; but a certain time can be expected between the lost of old routines and the emergence of new ones. And by the time they appear, the world can change again and the new routines may not be efficient anymore. It is so not always profitable to respond to short-term changes in the state of the world by a Level II learning. (p. 10) While I agree with Cayla in the sense that an adjustment period will certainly prevail in Level II, I further feel that informal behaviours and routines can be modified swiftly if the entire organization is supportive of this approach. This rapid progression will allow the business to operate efficiently and effectively with ample flexibility. However, organizations must still strive to achieve Level III learning. 8.5.3 Learning at Level III According to Cayla (2004) Level III learning occurs when the organization is able to release the constraints. Finally formal rules systems develop dynamically to changing elements in the environment. The strategic objectives of the organization are also relentlessly progressing. This modification has to touch the management team that determines formal rules. In this sense, a Level III learning has to mean either a new strategic orientation taken by the organization management, or a change in the composition of this team. (p. 10) This implies that leaders in the new culture either become genuine advocates or are replaced. Learning Organization candidates who embrace learning as a critical strategic and competitive approach must drive learning at Level III, this is non-negotiable. Leadership teams that welcome OLM will strive to commonly reduce the barriers to learning in their structures. This implies that formalized rules will be replaced with informal rules systems that encourage risk taking. The strategic changes, referred to by Cayla above, are primarily related to driving an empowerment structure where all individuals are free to learn, share, communicate, collaborate, and participate. This is the ultimate team orientation that is monitored by Leadership for strategy and Learning for knowledge capability, and carried out by the Project Management team. It must be noted however, that the Learning element may determine that certain formalized rules are required during their continual analysis of the organizations functions and capabilities from a learning perspective. (Cayla, 2004) Differently from an individual person, an organization may develop a Level III learning. This kind of learning is however very costly because it necessitates a deep reorganization of the formal rules system and, as a consequence, of informal rules. On the other hand, it also allows the organization to develop new adaptation strategies that would be more adequate to the state of the world. (Cayla, 2004, p. 10) I concur with Cayla in respect to the expensive nature of this transformation to Level III learning, but to successfully power a Learning Organization this is a necessary process and every cent is clearly worth it in the end as the business moves to realize competitive advantages.

Zink, 34 As stated by Cayla (2004) being able to develop these three learning levels, an organization may modify its behavior, adapting it to variations to the outside world. Organizational learning is however not a spontaneous phenomena. It needs a true coordination between Level I, Level II, and Level III learning. (p. 11) OLM builds on Caylas theories by introducing the concept that organizations of all breeds should endeavor for Level III learning within the Leadership and Learning elements of the framework. However in certain cases a more formalized rules structure can be introduced, not to imply heavy formalization by any means, in the project element to ensure that proper procedures are followed in redundant and standardized environments such as manufacturing. This is not to say that learning should and will not occur at all levels of a manufacturing structure, but rather that a degree of formalized rules is nevertheless essential. In summation, Level III learning is even more strategic and makes the choice event more difficult. To what extent does a firm have to respond to a difficulty by changing its rules system or by changing its strategic orientation? (Cayla, 2004) The Learning division within a OLM Learning Organization best answers these questions, but we should not forget that Level III learning within a OLM LO at least provides the means to confront challenges of this daunting nature. 8.6 Flood Overview and Comparison to OLM Robert Flood (1999) in his book Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable highlights that the management theories employed as early as 10 years ago are outdated in our rapidly evolving business world. Therefore, organizations are faced with adaptation or extinction. Further, Learning Organization frameworks are a means to confront this challenge by ensuring that organizations are constantly ahead of the curve. Flood (1999) proceeds to investigate Senges Five Disciplines with the view of adding some level of certainty to his theoretical approach. More specifically he attempts to break down systematic thinking into a realistic set of expectations. This is directly applicable to OLM, a model based on the sum of its parts rather than the actual parts themselves. It is clearly about interaction and flow. Furthermore, Flood supports Senges view that remedial tasks and routines in production environments will decrease morale and motivation. He states, Efficiency and effectiveness is in part and in times undermined because people experience drudgery. They become demotivated by tasks that they are expected mindlessly to perform. Furthermore, organizational activities are increasingly impacted on by turbulence in operational and administrative environments. They are simply unable to respond swiftly enough. Open systems theory promised to address these concerns. (p. 13) OLM is responsive to this concern in many respects. For instance, the Learning function will aspire to, and regardless of the type of business under investigation, introduce and maintain job rotation, job shadowing, mentorship programs, etc. to enhance employee satisfaction in the workplace. Openness, participation, collaboration, integrity, trust, and empowerment are other key characteristics of the system that will

Zink, 35 act to eliminate the threat of drudgery. The resulting impact will become a workforce that is not only capable of responding swiftly to challenges on the horizon, but also a team-based group that welcomes trials and tribulations with personal desire to act in the best interests of their organization that they are genuinely proud to be a part of. 8.7 Bontis Overview and Comparison to OLM Dr. Nick Bontis (2002) focused on the relationship of stocks and flows across levels in an overall organizational learning system in his article entitled Managing an Organizational Learning System by Aligning Stocks and Flows. His study concentrates on surveying managers across all levels within 32 organizations to derive concrete and defensible conclusions about the flow of information within organizational structures. Bontis (2002) provides an overview of the turbulence currently prevalent in the global business environment. He goes on to affirm that an organizations capacity to learn may be its only sustainable competitive advantage (p. 1) in the future. This opinion is consistent with organizations moving towards an OLM type learning structure to become more competitive and adaptive. In his study he applied the 4I Framework originally developed by Crossan et al (1999) as the theoretical basis for his research and this particular study. A broad overview of the model is provided by Dr. Bontis as follows: Crossan et al. conceive of organizational learning as a dynamic process of strategy renewal occurring across three levels of the organization: individual, group and organizational. Four key premises form the foundation for their framework. First, organizational learning involves a tension between assimilating new learning (exploration) and using what has already been learned (exploitation). Second, organizational learning is multi-level: individual, group, and organization. Third, these three levels of organizational learning are linked by four broad categories of social and psychological processes: intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing (4Is). Finally, cognition is seen to affect action (and vice versa). (p. 440) The exploration and exploitation elements are equally critical in the learning process. OLM advocates that the primary responsibility of the Learning function is to explore and exploit the information presented to it through regular flows. The 3 levels that feed the information into the system will do so with the understanding that all information will be utilized to form the strategic and tactical knowledge base of the business. The 4Is, as defined by Crossan et al, represent the mission of the Learning Team in driving a winning learning program. What is extremely important in the Crossan work is that a major focus is concentrated on the dynamic nature of the process. (Bontis, 2002) OLM is also built with the understanding that persistent information flows are positive for the learning base of the entity. Crossan et al. (1999) highlight how feedback types, new learnings and former learnings, are difficult to integrate:

Zink, 36 Not only does learning occur over time and across levels, but it also creates a tension between assimilating new learning (feed-forward) and exploiting or using what has been learned (feed-back) . . . The concurrent nature of the feed-forward and feed-back processes creates a tension, which can be understood by arraying the levels against one another. (p. 532) OLM takes this process one step further by integrating the responsibility of the knowledge cycle into the hands of the Learning function. They will create a macro approach to these feedback loops through integration and assimilation. Learning Analysts, under OLM, are responsible for interpreting the information gathered in the structure for which knowledge can be generated, stored, and distributed. A practical example is applying the knowledge learned from a previous IT project. Lets use the introduction of a new CRM system for example, with new knowledge acquired during the cleanup of the technology infrastructure. The learnings from the CRM project must be related to the cleanup project to create a more positive outcome. In the context of OLM the tensions mentioned by Crossan et al are reduced as the Learning function, an independent party of sorts, collects, analyses, interprets, stores, and distributes this knowledge across the organization. This improves the integration of the loops and provides accessibility, but more importantly an objective opinion is provided from the Learning function in respect to how to proceed going forward. This is a win-win for all parties. So what were the results of Bontis findings? Notably the conclusion is that organizations are over-investing in the development of individual competencies, knowledge, and skills and under-investing in the systematic approaches to learning such as the flow of knowledge between the levels within the framework. What is critical too is that individual investments will be inconsequential if the gains cannot be shared beyond the individual level. (Bontis, 2002) This is where OLM, a model built on the flow of knowledge, steps in to provide focus for businesses who wish to maximize investments in learning. Conceptually OLM minimizes the individual components in the system by concentrating on groups and teams, as well as the flow between them. What is critically important is that no one person can make the system work; it is impossible in this respect. Rather the sum of the parts and their integration are the essential pieces. Furthermore, Bontis (2002) research supports the view that there is a positive relationship between the stocks of learning at all levels and business performance. Conversely the opposite is also true in that a misalignment of learning stocks and flows will adversely affect business results. From a high-level this outcome supports the opinion that both Learning Organizations and OLM will enhance stakeholder value by improving an organizations performance. 8.8 Popper & Lipshitz Overview and Comparison to OLM Popper and Lipshitz (1998) present a multi-faceted structural and cultural methodology to organizational learning in their study entitled Organizational Learning

Zink, 37 Mechanisms: A Structural and Cultural Approach to Organizational Learning. They provide a broad overview of the primary pieces, structure and culture, of their study: The structural facet focuses on organizational learning mechanisms, which are institutionalized structural and procedural arrangements allowing organizations to systematically collect, analyse, store, disseminate, and use information that is relevant to the performance of the organization. The cultural facet focuses on the shared values, without which these mechanisms are likely to be enacted as rituals rather than as means to detect and correct error. (p. 1) Popper and Lipshitz (1998) observed that the distinction between integrated and nonintegrated and between dedicated and dual-purpose learning mechanisms can be used to establish different levels of organizational learning. At the lowest (and easiest to achieve) level, learning is assigned to individuals away from the core mission of the organization. At the highest level, organizational learning and task performance are indistinguishable. (p. 2) This is precisely where OLM aspires to be. Here all members of the organization are continuously engaged in learning, helping others to learn, and sharing their learning with others. The key word in this sentence is continuous; I cannot stress enough the dynamic nature of an effective learning process. Popper and Lipshitz clearly defend this view as well. According to Lundberg (1985), modifying organizational culture requires organizational learning tactics. Conversely, it is evident that effective organizational learning is contingent on establishing a culture that promotes inquiry, openness, and trust (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984; McGill, Slocum, & Lei, 1993). Thus, organizational learning has two facets, a tangible "hardware" facet that consists of learning mechanisms and an intangible "software" facet that consists of shared values and beliefs that ensure that the mechanisms produce actual learning (i.e., new insights and behaviors) and not mere rituals of learning. The former being structural while the latter is cultural. (Popper and Lipshitz, 1998) OLM integrates these two aspects in an organizational system. A flat hierarchy broken into the 3 key segments (Learning, Leadership, and Project Management) provide the mechanisms for learning in the form of feedback loops, collaborative energy, team synergy, and constant improvement initiatives. Shared values and beliefs are anchored in the culture of a OLM LO, as established by Leadership, Learning, and the Project Management teams; in other words it is a collective responsibility. New learning behaviours are driven during this process, which will lead to the activities that promote solid business results, as per Bontis findings, for the benefit of all stakeholder groups. Popper and Lipshitz (1998) offer insight into the type of culture that augments learning in an organization with a breakdown of 5 key elements.

Zink, 38 Following Schein (1990), we define organizational culture as a normative system of shared values and beliefs that shape how organization members feel, think, and behave. Values are not observable entities. Rather, their existence is inferred from the rhetoric that culture members use to describe what is appropriate, important, and worthy of sacrifice (espoused values) and from what members actually do that requires sacrifice or some lesser investment of resources and effort (values in use). We hypothesize that productive organizational learning requires a learning culture that includes five hierarchically arranged values: continuous learning, valid information, transparency, issue orientation, and accountability. (p. 3) OLM encompasses these elements within its methodology; the following sections of this study will provide a brief overview of how so. Prominence must be given to relentless learning in todays rapidly evolving world. Continuous learning is valued in Learning Organizations because it is vital for surviving-let alone prospering-in dynamic and competitive environments. (De Geus, 1988; Garvin, 1993; Nonaka, 1991; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984; Schein, 1990; Senge, 1990; Popper and Lipshitz, 1998) This is the most critical piece in my opinion. Without continuous learning, Learning Organizations are clearly doomed to fail. OLM, by designating a dedicated Learning function that independently oversees all learning elements, is responsive to this essential within its structure. OLM strives to encourage data and information exchange by rewarding those that share readily. This is a top-down exercise where the Leadership element must openly communicate that no one will be punished for taking risks or causing errors, these are actually all learning experiences that will be rewarded in the framework. Therefore, it is quite a shift in culture to understand that the opposite effect will result in an organization adopting the OLM model of learning. Transparency embodies the ability to create an open sharing environment within an organizational framework. According to Popper and Lipshitz (1998) transparency is the willingness to hold oneself (and one's actions) open to inspection in order to receive valid feedback. Holding transparency as a value that guides one's actions serves valid information by decreasing the likelihood of self-deception and by countering pressures to distort or suppress threatening information. Legitimizing the admission of error encourages transparency. (p. 4) Huber (1991) believes that true information environments retain characteristics such as completeness, unbiasedness, and clarity that are important predictors of organizational learning. OLMs structure is worthy of much praise in the areas of independence and autonomy, which are the keys for the model. And further, by separating the Leadership component, OLM achieves full transparency. This is so because information will flow through project work into the Learning element for which it will be analysed, interpreted, stored, and distributed. The flat nature of OLMs team-based model will ensure that

Zink, 39 Leaders will simply support, empower, and guide the strategic nature of the organization. Therefore, employees will operate in a completely non-threatening environment fully removed from domineering management elements. Popper and Lipshitz (1998) believe that issue orientation is manifested when opinions and assertions are judged according to their merits, divorced from the identity and status of the person pronouncing them. Issue orientation is related to (but is more focused than) democratization, power equalization, and participation. Similar to these values, it opens communication channels, thereby enhancing innovation and learning. (p. 174) This is a considerable point that must be discussed further. As information flows from the Project function (the execution of all operation aspects of a business) into the Learning element within OLM, it must be received as completely anonymous and thus unbiased. However, tracing back idea generation is also critical in rewarding individuals for taking chances and sharing information. Accountability is another important characteristic that must be addressed. Popper and Lipshitz (1998) believe that accountability is generally defined as holding oneself responsible for one's actions and their consequences and for learning from these consequences. Accountability facilitates overcoming obstacles to effective learning in the form of action barriers that prevent the implementation of lessons learned. (p. 174) In OLM accountability will be defined slightly differently, although the differences are not slight. Accountability is holding oneself responsible for communicating ones actions and the resulting business consequences to the Learning function of the organization so the information can be employed for the good of the whole. Therefore, accountability is no longer about retribution. The fundamental importance is that learning, from individual or team actions and the resulting impacts, is always at the forefront. Popper and Lipshitz (1998) make it clear that building effective learning mechanisms involves changing both the organization (introducing learning forums and processes into the task structure of the organization) and its members (changing their values to conform more closely to the values of a culture of learning). (p. 175) OLMs strategic approach champions this view of holistic cultural and structural assimilation in a new learning format; change is essential a constant theme behind this academic study. I have now provided a thorough overview of OLMs strategic approach with support and justification provided by some of the leading theorists in this area of study in recent decades. Strategy is only one aspect of the model however; the following section will provide an execution overview for business leaders to leverage.

9.0 Execution Bringing OLM to Life

David Garvin (1994) believes that Learning Organizations are not built overnight. Most successful examples are the products of carefully cultivated attitudes, commitments, and management processes that have accrued slowly and steadily over time. (p. 91) We covered the strategic facet that supports a OLM learning framework in the previous section. With respect to execution, the question becomes, how can we

Zink, 40 bring this model to life? Here Im setting out to answer this question with a practical implementation model that can be leveraged throughout the business world. Implementing a learning environment in which knowledge, skills, competency and capacity are all developed and embraced is no easy task. The following four steps, introduced by Dr. Prasad Kaipa (1998), provide a viable execution model that will be investigated further in the context of OLM. Kaipa believes that in a general sense, an organization that learns pays attention to creating an environment that supports physical well being, (and development), provides emotional support (affects the sense of belonging and psychological health), challenges, and stretches intellect and facilitates creation of new knowledge through products, processes and services. The key to such learning is emotional development and hence the leader's attention has to be to find a way to open the hearts of people so that they co-create the organization that supports the development in other dimensions. ( 43) I will now investigate these steps that create such an environment. 9.1 Step 1 Creating a Foundation The first step is what Kaipa (1998) refers to as 'creating a foundation'. This step lays the foundation for implementing OLM in an organization. According to Kaipa: It involves creating boundary conditions and ground rules for designing and differentiating this organization from others. In other words, the purpose of the rules is to clarify the game that we are choosing to play. The ground rules shouldn't be limiting to people, their purpose is to create a consistent playing field with room to maneuver, where there is a common understanding for working together. In a mundane sense, restructuring a learning environment is like developing operand conditioning a la Skinner. More people are involved in creating such rules; the better the foundation the more interested people are in playing the game. ( 44) In the context of OLM, the Learning and Leadership segments will accept this responsibility as a major part of their mandates. The foundations success hinges on the element of participation that Kaipa mentions above. Specifically the new organizational structure, as defined in section 8.1 of this study, will be adopted as a new change element. When individuals are engaged in the process they will experience full buy-in. From this perspective this first step must be tackled with a bottom-up style. Kaipa (1998) feels that ground rules should not be broken. Not because of authority but because you chose to create them in the first place. There cannot be exceptions to ground rules at the foundation level. True leadership is about modeling the behavior, 'walking the talk' that you wish others to follow. By making the ground rules minimal and clear-cut and by following them religiously, you create a safe space for other people to play with you and build with you. In that respect, the first step is all about leadership. ( 45)

Zink, 41 Foundational rules are fundamental to success, but in OLMs context they will remain at a high-level, governing the holistic cornerstones of the entity. Rules in general will be kept to a minimum, and this is especially the case at a local-level. Kaipa (1998) raises a valid point here too that Leaders must buy-in to the rules that were collectively created by an organizations people. Their support must be nothing short of genuine either. So what are the next steps? According to Kaipa (1998), once there is a certain level of buy-in to support the rules that are created, the game begins. Leaders have the role of ensuring that all participants are playing the game clean, abiding by what is agreed upon. They are guiders not dictators. Their role is supportive primarily. And finally, it is critical that only after all of the participants agree and commit, can the game move forward to the next level with the rules adopted. OLM stresses the essential nature of Leaders playing a supportive game as a team member and coach rather than a dictator. Commitment of all parties to this new foundation, that was created jointly by all, is absolutely critical. An inventory of principles and practices at this stage is identified. These include: applying facts and data, open listening, no secrets, supporting each other, enjoying each other and the journey, being relentless, continual planning, and sustaining emotional resilience. (Kaipa, 1998) All of these principles and practices are important in the first phase of the implementation of a OLM LO. Breaking it down further, communication, participation, empowerment, collaboration, and organization are the key elements during this early step in the process. I would also like to add one other point here. These principles/practices are applied in establishing foundational rules for the organization moving forward, but I also believe that a thorough understanding of additional key stakeholder requirements is essential. These are as follows: !" Roles and Responsibilities !" Stakeholder Expectations !" Mission and Vision !" Corporate Goals and Objectives !" Timelines for Key Milestones It is transparent when ownership, responsibility and accountability all emerge out of clear ground rules. A participatory field in which you have choice and freedom to do what works for you and the team is also vital. These outcomes are all the product of a strong foundation. Therefore, it is understandable to approach this first phase of implementation comprehensively without being hurried. (Kaipa, 1998)

Zink, 42 9.2 Step 2 Establishing a New Culture The second step in this implementation process involves initiating a new learning culture within the organization. According to Kaipa (1998), once the required ground rules are clear and in practice, it is very important to design a caring and nurturing environment. Both the physical and emotional environments are involved as well. Both of which are influenced by the values designed within the ground rules. Corporate culture is what empowers or disempowers people. Kaipa (1998) goes on to state that in essence, this section is about empowerment ---creating, sharing, and nurturing. A nurturing emotional environment is created through principles and practices that reflect values like care, empathy, trust, listening, sharing, risk-taking and learning from mistakes. ( 52) While the rules and boundary conditions established in Step One define the playing field, these cultural principles make the game interesting, fair, and fun to play. These are the intangible elements that are present in all pleasurable work settings. In relation to the learning dimensions, a nurturing corporate culture leads to emotional engagement. Emotional engagement is paramount to success in a learning framework. (Kaipa, 1998) OLM encourages this cultural shift by adopting independence in both the Learning and Leadership functions, which encourages individuals and teams to participate, learn, and create change through empowered learning. During this process it is recommended that organizations allow time to let the cultural ingredients fall into place. Only a participatory process with autonomy will result in full commitment throughout the organization. Popper and Lipshitz (1998) feel that employees must be given elbowroom. They go on to state that in all planned change efforts, the key element in building a Learning Organization is generating the organization members' commitment to learning. (p. 175) They also feel that commitment is most likely obtained when members (a) espouse the desirability of building a Learning Organization and (b) are allowed to design and test the learning mechanism that they think is most suitable for their needs. This autonomy is essential because direct participation is critical in generating understanding and commitment across the workforce. Kaipa (1998) makes a strong point in declaring that a solid foundation is key before moving forward. This foundational reference refers to the first two steps in the process. He comments, when good ground rules based on the several dimensions of learning are present, and their implementation has created a safe and enjoyable learning environment, a 'learning culture' forms that is roughly analogous to what we called the phase of 'conditioning' in the cycle of learning. The culture reflects the design of the ground rules and environment, so if one of the dimensions of learning was not included in the design, the culture that arises will not stand on a strong base for learning. ( 53) In Learning Organizations that apply OLM there is a need for strong organizational culture that encourages change and adaptability. Thus, this process is not static after a learning culture is established initially. The culture must be worked and

Zink, 43 reworked to accommodate both internal and external transformations in the environment. If not realized complacency will prove to be any organizations downfall. In summation, the culture of a OLM Learning Organization encourages openness, boundarylessness, equality, continuous improvement, and risk taking. 9.3 Step 3 Individual and Organizational Transformation Now that an organization has institutionalized a sound foundation and shaped a new adaptive culture, it is finally time to put strategy into action. Individuals are now deeply entrenched in the new organizational values and methodology. They are empowered people, as they embrace and are likewise embraced as whole-hearted team members. In a sense they have been freed from the corporate restraints of yesteryear. (Kaipa, 1998) Once this step is realized, transformed individuals will work in transformed teams to carryout the operational aspects of the business whatever it may be. They will operate within the adaptive boundaries previously established and supported by the encouraging corporate culture that was collectively formed in step two. This step could also be referred to advocacy, as there is total, unrelenting buy-in at all levels. (Kaipa, 1998) According to Kaipa (1998) The third step in creating conditions conducive to learning is to focus on individual transformation. While clear boundary conditions and an empowered environment are extremely important, individual transformation is the key to organizational transformation. This means cultivating the context for individual creativity, therefore allowing innovation to occur. ( 56) Dr. Kaipa (1998) goes on to emphasize the importance of the preceding steps in the process. The more firmly we establish the first two steps, the more possibilities emerge in this third step. The more people know and value the structure, the more they expand to fill it. The more nurturing and empowering the culture is, the more people want to go beyond it. This going beyond, breaking the mold does not occur collectively at first. It begins with an individual transformation. ( 57) Both the Leadership and Learning teams must get involved to understand and release their inner geniuses. Kaipa (1998) believes that this can be achieved through forcing individuals to expand their cognitive maps and by appreciating and acknowledging who they are and what their impact is on the business. He explains that one of the key principles and practices for creating an environment conducive to bridging the gap between the individual and the group is that of acknowledgment and appreciation. Subsequent to being involved and engaged, people see how they are perceived and appreciated by others. They then begin to make changes to themselves accordingly, while attempting to bridge that gap between who they think they are and who others think they are. And further they now see a vision of being a team member rather than simply an individual. Finally, after all of these years, they have uncovered their inner genius.

Zink, 44 It is clear that in todays turbulent business environment all individuals must assume the role of change champion. This mastery of change, which brings forth exceptional customer service, product development, and innovation, comes through this personal transformation step more than it does through mere ground rules or a supportive environment. But the first two steps are the foundation upon which this third step is built. Without them, personal transformation is not possible or sustainable. And without personal transformation there is no group transformation. (Kaipa, 1998) 9.4 Step 4 Designing a New Game The fourth, and final, step in executing a learning environment is to complete the execution process by ultimately driving the necessary change elements. Kaipa (1998) believes that success in the first three steps will result in a substantial number of leaders and advocates who are effective at setting clear boundary conditions, and know how to drive a powerful learning environment. Further, these leaders are themselves personally transformed and are persistently coaching others to transform themselves. All individuals are team members, leaders, advocates, strategists, etc. at this level. All are fully liberated to achieve their destinies. This is the place where generative learning and new innovations of a high order take place as people are constantly engaged with creating and sharing new knowledge. This is not about competing with an external customer or being perfect. It is about truly pushing the boundaries of human innovation. It is about co-creativity, teamwork and collective generative learning. It is about taking chances. It is also about contribution and integration of leadership, empowerment, and creativity in one and the same person and every person in the group. It is about synergy and generation of new knowledge. (Kaipa, 1998) This is where an organization attempting to effectively implement OLM aspires to be. Another imperative point is to always respect the dynamic nature of this implementation process. It doesnt start and end with steps one through four, but rather continues to loop relentlessly. Kaipa (1998) states, this fourth step is about learning to learn and is what brings the focus back onto the first step. Once we experience paradigm shifts and breakthroughs that lie hidden in the fourth step, setting new ground rules is a natural consequence for the bigger and new game that we design! ( 66) Kaipas model is summed up in the following graphical illustration:

Zink, 45

source: Kaipa, P. (1998) http://www.mithya.com/learning/designorg.html#1.3

In summation, communication and learning at all levels is the desired outcome in implementation. In such a place there is choice and freedom for individuals and organizations to create, lead, and empower each other while doing something larger than the sum of their individual capabilities and capacities. (Kaipa, 1998) This is essentially the meaning of a OLM Learning Organization. 9.5 Specific Tactic Recommendations The preceeding section provides a comprehensive execution framework, that brings learning strategy into reality, which glaringly lacks specific implementable tactics. As such, the following list provides executables that will assist organizations in driving learning frameworks. This set of tactics, which originated from Susan Heathfield (2006), will be introduced in step one of this execution model and leveraged continuously throughout the looping 4 step cycle. These executables are as follows: !" Build individual development plans quarterly. List negotiated expectations for growth and learning over the quarter. These plans may include cross-training, skill stretching assignments, and representing the department at organization-wide meetings, as well as education. This should be done at the individual and team levels. !" Put each person directly into contact with customers. When each individual personally knows customer needs, he/she is enabled to make better decisions to satisfy customers. This includes internal customers as well. !" Promote field trips to other organizations. Even organizations in different industries can provide opportunities for learning. See and learn what others are doing about the challenges you experience in your organization.

Zink, 46 !" Meet regularly across departments, or in a smaller organization, as a whole company. People have to understand the whole work system; otherwise they improve just their small part of the system. This hits on the point of systemic thinking the whole is more important than the various pieces. Integration is key here. !" Use cross-functional teams to solve problems, scout for new opportunities, and cross-fertilize units with new ideas. OLM is built on the concept of multi-faceted teams who carry out the organizational mission. !" Pay for education for all employees. The goal is to foster learning it should be assumed that any investments in learning translate into more effective work performance over time carried out by more satisfied team members. !" Coach improved performance from all members of the organization. Work constantly to enable people to set and achieve their next goals. Spend time with people thinking about and planning their next objective. !" Form study groups. Internally, and even externally, these groups can focus on any topic of interest. The key is to engage people period. !" Take time to read, to think, to talk about new ideas. Create discussion areas, conference rooms, and break areas that foster people communicating. !" Hold brainstorming (idea generation) sessions !" Foster an environment of collegiality. All team members are equally important in the system. !" Use your performance management system effectively. In addition to the development plan, mentioned above, provide 360-degree feedback from peers, reporting staff members, and senior management. In this section of the study I have introduced a comprehensive execution model, based on the works of Dr. Prasad Kaipa, and subsequently followed it up with specific implementables that will support the transformation. There is no doubt that bringing a Learning Organization to life is no easy feat, however, the rewards are worth the effort. In summing up this execution model, Kaipa (1998) says it best, This integral, cyclical approach has the potential to create the intellectual property of the organization, tap into the intrinsic motivation of the employees, allow a sense of fulfillment in work, and truly develop an organizational spirit that works to a competitive advantage. ( 68)

10.0 Pitfalls to Avoid in Implementation

The first, and foremost, point to establish is that Learning Organizations are not created overnight. Further, it takes huge investments in time, energy, and money to successfully drive a winning learning model in an organization. According to CIO Magazine (1996) trying to achieve Learning Organization status takes a lot of hard work on the parts of managers and employees and is not for those seeking instant

Zink, 47 gratification. People have to fundamentally change the way they think and interact with others in the organization. Fostering sustained change in an individual's belief system is a tall order; trying to do it on a widespread basis is beyond the capabilities of many organizations. ( 5) This implies that organizations must be patient during the implementation phase. A secondary issue in respect to measurement persists as well; the article goes on to state that there are as yet no foolproof ways to measure how effective-or ineffectivelearning initiatives may be. (1996, 6) Senge has commented that traditional measures, such as bottom line growth, may actually be flawed at first because Learning Organizations should not focus on short-term returns. Both quantitative and qualitative measures should be applied as well. Criteria such as time to market or manufacturing costs are relatively easy for an organization to get its hands around. But getting a handle on whether employee learning is enhanced is challenging. Further it is obvious that the process of measuring learning is highly subjective as it involves assessing perceptions of what has been achieved. During Step 1 of implementation, leaders must ensure that an appropriate mission and vision is established, as well as SMART goals and objectives. Learning is simply a means to an end, a tool to be employed in a process. It is not a desired end state. According to CIO Magazine (1996) organizations that launch initiatives with the goal of becoming a "Learning Organization" are likely to be disappointed with the results. The energy and drive for learning should come from wanting to be the best at its business. Learning initiatives should be tied to core goals and competencies. ( 7) The article continues on by uncovering a few pitfalls to be avoided in execution as follows: Learning initiatives often require sweeping changes throughout the organization. Yet there's a danger that any learning program-simply because it requires a lot of hard work to implement-can become marginalized to small pockets of the company. Learning efforts must permeate the entire enterprise in order to be effective and long-lasting. Otherwise, serious fissures can appear between nonbelievers and faithful followers. That almost inevitably creates an "us versus them" atmosphere that rarely promotes anything productive. Successful learning is also a function of the systems, structures and processes within the organization. As a result, organizations have to change everything that reinforces old behaviors and patterns of thinking. Organizational systems and individual training and development must be linked together; paying attention to either one in isolation will undermine the overall effort of any learning initiative. ( 8) Finally, it must be noted that change is never an easy process. Before employees learn anything at all about a new format or structure they must eliminate or unlearn past processes or techniques. This is a challenging state of uncertain affairs for any individual, as he or she must put faith in the unknown. It is obvious that potential

Zink, 48 perils exist in all ventures. Leaders must be aware that in driving learning excellence there is no exception to this rule.

11.0 Conclusion
Why would an organization want to become a Learning Organization? Because it gives organizations the ability to understand who they are, what their mission is, how they can achieve it, and define the quality of organizational life they wish to pursue. Introducing the tools of LOs has given some a new lens to understand the disconnectiveness associated with our rapidly evolving technological world. (Karash, 1994) The end goal for any organizational structure is to execute a business model that thrives rather than merely survives. The result of which continually drives extraordinary results. In my view, organizational learning is a means in order to achieve strategic objectives. Creating a Learning Organization is also a tool, albeit an essential one, since the ability permanently and collectively to learn is a necessary precondition for thriving in todays chaotic world. Therefore, the capacity of an organization to learn, that is, to function like a Learning Organization, needs to be made more concrete and institutionalized, so that the management of such learning can be made more effective. (Smith, 2001) Michael Marquardt (1996) highlights the importance of driving learning in organizations below: There was a time when the prime business of business was to make a profit and product. There is now a prior, prime business, which is to become an effective Learning Organization. Not that profit and product are no longer important, but without continual learning, profits and products will no longer be possible. Hence: the business of business is learning and all else will follow. (p. 2) This quote from Michael Marquardt sums up the critical nature of learning effectiveness for organizations. This study offers substantiation for this argument. It further presents a viable strategic model for implementation that can be adopted throughout the business world regardless of industry or geographic location. Its not to say that all organizations should undertake this process, but rather that all organizations need to be aware of the critical nature of learning. Each should however prioritize to fully understand how learning impacts their organization and industry. From this discovery process it will become clear whether OLM can assist in driving sustainability.

12.0 Key Learnings

!" Learning is critical in all we do, professionally and personally !" Institutionalizing an optimal learning framework within organizations is a key to competitiveness !" Execution effectiveness is critical to the success of a Learning Organization

Zink, 49 !" Competitive advantages in learning are extremely valuable !" Complacency will lead to organizational destruction adaptation to change is essential (Darwin)

Zink, 50

13.0 Appendices
13.1 Appendix A. Chronology of Learning Organization Concepts In his book Experience and Education, John Dewey publishes the concept of experiential learning as an ongoing cycle of activity. 1947s Macys Conferences organized by Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson and Lawrence Kubie bring "systems thinking" to the awareness of a cross-disciplinary group of key intellectuals. 1940s Scottish psychologist Kenneth Craik coins the term "mental models," which later makes its way to MIT through Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert. 1946 National Training Laboratories co-founder Kurt Lewin proposes idea of "creative tension" between a person's vision and sense of reality. 1956 Jay Forrester begins developing "system dynamics" Ed Schein's research on brainwashing in Korea paves way for understanding of process consultation. 1960 The Human Side of Enterprise (Douglas McGregor) is published. 1961 Industrial Dynamics (Jay Forrester) is published. This first major application of system dynamics to corporations, describes the turbulence of orders in a typical appliance value chain. 1964 MIT graduate students develop the "beer game" to illustrate Industrial Dynamics, one of the first simulations of systems (conveniently converting toasters to beer) 1969 Urban Dynamics (Jay Forrester) is published, codifying the "Shifting the Burden" archetype 1970 Chris Argyris and Donald Schn begin their collaboration into "Action Science," the study of how espoused values clash with the values that underlie real actions. 1972 Limits to Growth (Dennis Meadows, Donella Meadows, et al) is published, applying Forrester's systems dynamics to the "world problematique" for the Club of Rome, triggering a furious reaction from economists. 1973 Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn (Don Michael) is published, a book for policy makers that sets out the idea of organizational learning for the first time. 1971- Erhard training seminars (est) demonstrate the powerful 1975 attitude shifts that can come about in a seminar lasting several days.

1938

Zink, 51

1974 1975

1982

1984

1985 1987

1988

1989

Theory in Practice (Chris Argyris, Donald A. Schn) is published. "Management change" consultant Charlie Kiefer, Forrester student Peter Senge, and "creative process" researcher/artist Robert Fritz design the "leadership and mastery" seminar that becomes the focal point of their new consulting firm, Innovation Associates. Working at Procter & Gamble, and helping them follow up their famously secretive sociotechnical systems work, Forrester alumna and Innovation Associates consultant Jennifer Kemeny, along with Kiefer and Senge, develops the "systems archetypes" -- a technique for translating system dynamics complexities into relatively simple conversation-starters. Pierre Wack, scenario planner at Royal Dutch/Shell, spends a sabbatical at Harvard Business School, and for the first time writes his article about scenario practice as a learning activity. Senge, Arie de Geus, Hanover Insurance CEO Bill O'Brien, Analog Devices CEO Ray Stata, and other executive leaders form a Learning Organization study group, meeting regularly at MIT. Action Science (Chris Argyris, Robert Putnam, Diana McLain Smith) is published. Drawing on this group's work, Senge and de Geus begin working on a book together, brokered by Shell networker Napier Collyns, who introduces them to Doubleday editor Harriet Rubin. de Geus publishes his ideas in a key Harvard Business Review article, called "Planning as Learning," in which he concludes, "The greatest competitive advantage for any organization is its ability to learn." Peter Schwartz, Stewart Brand, Napier Collyns, Jay Ogilvy, and Lawrence Wilkinson form the networked organization Global Business Network, with a charter to foster organizational learning through scenario planning. Senge and de Geus decide that they should develop separate books. Senge finishes his manuscript, for a book ultimately titled The Fifth Discipline, a few months after his second son is born. Oxford University management scholar Bill Isaacs, an associate of quantum physicist David Bohm's, introduces Senge to Bohm and to the concept of dialogue as a process for building team capability.

Zink, 52 The Center for Organizational Learning is formed at MIT, with Senge as director, and with Ed Schein, Chris Argyris, Arie de Geus, Ray Stata, and Bill O'Brien as key advisors and governors. The research staff of the "learning center," as it's called, includes Daniel Kim and systems researcher Janet Gould; later, Bill Isaacs, Fred Kofman, and future "Dance of Change" coauthor George Roth will join the staff. Daniel Kim, MIT researcher on the links between Learning Organization work and the quality movement, cofounds the Systems Thinker newsletter, the first ongoing publication of "fifth discipline" - related issues with writer/editor Colleen Lannon-Kim. The parent organization, Pegasus Communications, launches an annual Systems Thinking in Action Conference the following year. The Age of Unreason (Charles Handy) is published. The Fifth Discipline is published, drawing upon a large body of work: system dynamics, "personal mastery" (based on Fritz' work and the concept of creative tension), mental models (based on Wack's and Argyris' work), shared vision (drawing on the organizational change traditions at Innovation Associates), and team learning (drawing on dialogue and David Bohm's concepts). The popularity of the "Learning Organization" community is recognized when 350 people from around the world gather for four days at a conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. Harvard University professor David Garvin publishes an article in the Harvard Business Review on organizational learning, arguing that only learning that can be measured will be useful to managers. -The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook is published. Its authors include Peter Senge along with longstanding Learning Organization consultants Charlotte Roberts, Rick Ross, and Bryan Smith (who is also the president of Innovation Associates of Canada), along with writer Art Kleiner, who becomes editorial director. The "Fieldbook" concept becomes a new management book genre. Philip J. Carroll becomes CEO of Shell Oil Company, and fosters a four-year "transformation" initiative that will involve Shell Oil deeply with organizational learning.

1990

1992

1993

1994

Zink, 53 The innovation of "learning histories," a method of using oral history techniques to assess organizational learning, begins at the Center for Organizational Learning. 1995 The first major visible Organizational Learning Center projects are finished. Many of them have produced remarkable results, but they also have led to disappointing career prospects for the line leaders who invested in them particularly for the two featured in The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, the 1994 Ford Lincoln Continental and the GS Technologies dialogue project. The Organizational Learning Center begins a two year process, working with Dee Hock, a founding CEO of VISA, to spring out into a more general international consortium called the Society for Organizational Learning. Peter Senge is named the first chairperson of SoL's elected governing council. A series of workshops and sessions take place, building on sessions that started in 1993 at the Learning Center, then at the Society for Organizational Learning, and then sponsored by the Fieldbook authors, to develop a better understanding of the forces that make it difficult to sustain organizational learning (and other change) projects. These lead to an unpublished paper, "The Ecology of Leadership," by Peter Senge, which develops the idea of innate "challenges of profound change." 1996 Arthur D. Little buys Innovation Associates; it is one of several consulting firms (others include Anderson Consulting and Ernst & Young) that invest heavily in building "Learning Organization" capability. The Age of Heretics (Art Kleiner) is published; Synchronicity (Joe Jaworski) is published. 1997 Jack Welch asserts in the General Electric annual report that GE's only competitive advantage is its ability to learn. The Living Company (Arie de Geus) is published. 1999 The Dance of Change, built around ten "Challenges of Profound Change," is published. source: http://www.fieldbook.com/DoC/DOCtimeline.html

Zink, 54 13.2 Appendix B. - Characteristics of a Learning Organization and Associated Best Practices Positive Byproducts Greater 1.Positive commitment to reinforcement from role the organization models/managers The ability to and to work; less 2.Sharing experiences honestly and rationalization of 3.More interaction time Self masteryopenly see reality negative events; between supervisory individual as it exists; to ability to face levels clarify one's limitations and 4.Emphasis on personal vision areas for feedback improvement; 5.Balance work/nonability to deal work life with change Less use of defensive The ability to 1.Time for learning routines in work; compare reality or 2.Reflective openness less reflexivity personal vision Mental models 3.Habit of inquiry that leads to with perceptions; - individual 4.Forgiveness of dysfunctional reconciling both oneself patterns of into a coherent 5.Flexibility/adaptability behavior; less understanding avoidance of difficult situations Commitment 1.Participative over compliance, openness faster change, The ability of a 2.Trust greater within group of 3.Empathy towards group trust; less Shared vision - individuals to hold others time spent on group a shared picture of 4.Habit of aligning a mutually dissemination interests; more desirable future 5.Emphasis on effective cooperation communication 6.A common language flows The ability of a 1.Participative Group selfgroup of openness 2.Consensus awareness; individuals to building heightened Team learning suspend personal 3.Top-down and collective group assumptions about bottom-up learning; each other and communication flows; learning "up and engage in 4.Support over blame; down" the Characteristic Definition Associated Best Practices

Zink, 55 hierarchy; greater cohesiveness; enhanced creativity Long-term The ability to see improvement or interrelationships 1.Practicing self change; rather than linear mastery decreased cause-effect; the 2.Possessing organizational ability to think in consistent mental Systems conflict; context and models thinking - group continuous appreciate the 3.Possessing a shared learning among consequences of vision group members; actions on other 4.Emphasis on team Revolutionary parts of the learning over evolutionary system change Adapted from the work of Senge (1990), Argyris and Schon (1996), Argyris (1991), and Schon (1983). source: (http://www.albany.edu/sph/Hoff_learning/hpm_tim_learnorg.htm, accessed Jan.1/07) "dialogue" rather than "discussion" 5.Creative thinking

Zink, 56 13.3 Appendix C. Learning Organization Models Several models have been proposed that facilitate understanding of organizational learning: Argyris and Schon (1978) distinguish between single-loop and double-loop learning, related to Gregory Bateson's concepts of first and second order learning. In single-loop learning, individuals, groups or organizations modify their actions according to the difference between expected and obtained outcomes. In double-loop learning, the entities (individuals, groups or organization) question the values, assumptions and policies that led to the actions in the first place; if they are able to view and modify those, then second-order or double-loop learning has taken place. Double loop learning is the learning about single-loop learning. March and Olson (1975) attempt to link up individual and organizational learning. In their model, individual beliefs lead to individual action, which in turn may lead to an organizational action and a response from the environment which may induce improved individual beliefs and the cycle then repeats over and over. Learning occurs as better beliefs produce better actions. Kim (1993), as well, in an article titled "The link between individual and organizational learning", integrates Argyris, March and Olson and another model by Kofman into a single comprehensive model; further, he analyzes all the possible breakdowns in the information flows in the model, leading to failures in organizational learning; for instance, what happens if an individual action is rejected by the organization for political or other reasons and therefore no organizational action takes place? Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) developed a four stage spiral model of organizational learning. They started by differentiating Polanyi's concept of "tacit knowledge" from "explicit knowledge" and describe a process of alternating between the two. Tacit knowledge is personal, context specific, subjective knowledge, whereas explicit knowledge is codified, systematic, formal, and easy to communicate. The tacit knowledge of key personnel within the organization can be made explicit, codified in manuals, and incorporated into new products and processes. This process they called "externalization". The reverse process (from explicit to implicit) they call "internalization" because it involves employees internalizing an organization's formal rules, procedures, and other forms of explicit knowledge. They also use the term "socialization" to denote the sharing of tacit knowledge, and the term "combination" to denote the dissemination of codified knowledge. According to this model, knowledge creation and organizational learning take a path of socialization, externalization, combination, internalization, socialization, externalization, combination . . . etc. in an infinite spiral. Nick Bontis et al. (2002) empirically tested a model of organizational learning that encompassed both stocks and flows of knowledge across three levels of analysis: individual, team and organization. Results showed a negative and statistically significant relationship between the misalignment of stocks and flows and organizational performance.

Zink, 57 Flood (1999) discusses the concept of organizational learning with Peter Senge and the origins of the theory from Argyris and Schon. The author aims to "re-think" Senge's The Fifth Discipline through systems theory. Where Senge's work has been critiqued as a sort of an organizational guru's self-help book, the author illustrates how advanced the concepts are by integrating them with key theorists such as Bertalanffy. Conceptualizing organizational learning in terms of structure, process, meaning, ideology and knowledge, theory development with the philosophy of science would further the discussion of how the theorists have been influenced by twentieth-century advances from the classical assumptions of science. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_learning (2006), accessed January 10, 2007

Zink, 58 13.4 Appendix D. Overview of Research Methods and Resources Applied in this Study An exploratory research approach was employed to bring structure to this project. The intent was not to critically evaluate a hypothesis, but rather uncover a need in the business world and build on it with specific implementable recommendations. To this end, specific research questions (see below) were addressed in this study to help identify the issues at hand, aid in analysis, and finally to support the succeeding recommendations. A thoroughly planned and structured framework for this study provided the necessary discipline to carry out the objective of critically investigating Learning Organizations in the modern business world. Versatility and autonomy were important elements in this investigation. Drawing on the opinions and ideologies of theorists requires this level of flexibility. Exploratory research is significant in this process. More specifically, exploratory application was exercised as a means to support my problem definition as well as while critically investigating the merits of learning model development. Furthermore, because much of the research and methodologies already conducted in this area of study focus on micro-related topics, I took a macro approach by building on and integrating these elements. Thus, this research paper closes the gap by creating an all-encompassing framework that can be embraced by business leaders. This new approach further incorporates both strategic and executable aspects to formally provide a model for driving practical results from theoretical concepts. Research Questions 1. Why is driving excellence in learning critical for organizations? If companies are failing to execute learning strategies, what are the implications of such? 2. What challenges and opportunities persist in todays business environment that affects learning capabilities? Describe the current state of organizations in the business world as they apply to learning culture? What barriers exist to adopting learning frameworks in a macro sense? 3. How does corporate culture, leadership, commitment, and teamwork play a role in a learning structure? 4. What recommendations can be provided to enhance learning in organizations? What would an optimized learning structure look like in theory and what are the implications of such in practice? How does OLM react with the theories of

Zink, 59 leading learning theorists (i.e. Senge, Bontis, Flood, etc.)? Is there further support generated for the proposed approach as a result? Does OLM address the shortcomings of each model as an integrated theoretical and practical approach for business effectiveness? 5. What are the factors that need to be assessed when considering implementing a Learning Organization, and more specifically the new learning framework introduced herein? What risk factors subsist in execution and subsequently thereafter? What mitigation strategies can be employed by leadership? Many research sources were utilized during the completion of this study including electronic and physical sources (i.e. magazines, books, etc.). The use of the AU library database, specifically the ABI/INFORM Global Database, as well as the University of Toronto library, were major resources. A list of sources applied is as follows: !" Academic books and course materials !" Websites and other on-line sources !" Trade/business journals !" Magazine articles !" Organizational handbooks !" Educational materials from leading educational institutions !" Speeches from conferences given on the topic !" Electronic forums pertinent to the subject of learning frameworks OLM, the new learning model introduced in this study, is the product of an integrated effort to combine the critical elements necessary for Learning Organizations. A few of the leading theorists in the area of learning theory are referenced in this paper as well. This includes the likes of Peter Senge, Nick Bontis, and Prasad Kaipa. These opinions are applied to generate additional support for the new model. A thorough list of the sources used in this paper is detailed in the Reference List Section (14.0) that follows.

Zink, 60

14.0 Reference List

Albany Education (n.d.). What is a Learning Organization?. Retrieved Jan.1/07, from http://www.albany.edu/sph/Hoff_learning/hpm_tim_learnorg.htm Alcorta, L. (2005). Organizational Learning, Innovation Systems and Developing Countries: presentation at the 3rd Globelics Conference. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2006,http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:gse8VVRRRUwJ:www.globelics200 5africa.org.za/papers/p0028/Globelics2005_Alcorta.pdf+Rethinking+the+Fifth+Di scipline:+flood+summation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ca Argyris, C. (1977). Organizational learning and management information systems, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, Pergamon Press, Oxford. Argyris, C., & Schn, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Bingham, T. (2006 Dec.). The centre of strategy is learning. Canadian HR Reporter; 19, 21; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 15 Bontis, Nick, Crossan, M. and J. Hulland. (2002). Managing an Organizational Learning System by Aligning Stocks and Flows, Journal of Management Studies . Brabazon, T., Matthews, R. Piranfar, H., & Tlemsani, I. (2003). Evolutionary Learning: The Significance for Business Organization and Strategy. Kingston University, Kingston Business School. p.1. Cayla, D. (2004). A Cognitive Approach of Organizational Learning. ESNIE 2004 Retrieved Dec.9/06. from http://esnie.u-paris10.fr/pdf/st_2004/cayla_papier.pdf, CIO Magazine (1996 June). Uneasy Pieces, Part Two The Learning Organization. Retrieved Dec.9/06. from http://www.cio.com/archive/060196_uneasy_5.html Crossan, M., Lane, H. and White, R. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 3, 52237. Crother-Laurin, C. (2006). Effective Teams: A Symptom of Healthy Leadership; The Journal for Quality Participation Daft, Richard L. (2004). Organization Theory and Design, 8th Edition. Thomson, South Western. Daft, R. L. and Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems, Academy of Management Review 9(2): 28495.

Zink, 61 Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and developing from managerial work experiences. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 169-183. De Geus, A. (1988). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, 66(4), 70-74. Deming, W.E. (1993). The New Economics for Industry, Government, and Education; Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study Domain, B. (1989). Fortune Magazine, pg. 48 62. Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. (1999). Organizational Learning: Current Debates and Opportunities, in M. Easterby-Smith, J. Burgoyne and L. Araujo (eds) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, pp. 121. London: Sage Publications. Flood, R. (2000). Rethinking The Fifth Discipline, Routledge, London. Finger, M. and Brand, S. B. (1999). The Concept of the Learning Organization applied to the transformation of the public sector in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage. French, Wendell L. and Bell, Cecil H. (1995). Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. 5th Edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Garvin, D. (1994). Building a Learning Organization, Business Credit, 96(1): 19-28. Heathfield, Susan M. (2006). Make Learning Matter: Become a Learning Organization. The New York Times Company. Retrieved Dec.20/06, from http://humanresources.about.com/od/educationgeneral/a/learning_org.htm, Huber, G. (1991). Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literature, Organization Science (88115). Kaipa, P. (1998). Designing Organizations that Learn: An Executive Guide to Learning Retrieved Dec.14/06, from http://www.mithya.com/learning/designorg.html#1.3 Karash, R. (1994). Learning-Org Dialog on Learning Organizations. Retrieved Dec.14/06, from http://world.std.com/~lo/WhyLO.html Kerka, S. (1995). The learning organization: myths and realities. Eric Clearinghouse, Ohio State University. Retrieved Dec. 14/06, from http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=archive&ID=A028.

Zink, 62 Kofman, F. & Senge, Peter M. (1995). Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations, Portland, Oregon: Productivity Press, pp. 14-43. Larsen K., McInerney, C. Nyquist, C., Santos, A. and Silsbee, D. (1996 May). Learning Organizations. Retrieved Nov. 20/06, from http://home.nycap.rr.com/klarsen/learnorg/ Leadbeater, C, (2000). Living on Thin Air, London: Penguin. Lippett, G.L. (1982), Organizational Renewal: A Holistic Approach to Organization Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJp. p. 207-208 Lipshitz, R. & Popper, M. (1998 Jun). Organizational Learning Mechanisms A Structural and Cultural Approach to Organizational Learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Arlington: Vol.34, Iss. 2; pg. 161, 19 Lundberg, C. C. (1985). On the feasibility of cultural intervention in organizations. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Lundvall, B-A. (ed.) (1992). National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London. Lundvall, B-A. and B. Johnson (1994 Dec). The Learning Economy, Journal of Industry Studies, Vol.1, No.2. Malhotra, Y. (1996). Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations: An Overview. Retrieved Dec.10/06, from http://www.brint.com/papers/orglrng.htm Marquardt, Michael J. (1996). Building the Learning Organization; McGraw-Hill, pgs. 220 -242. Metcalfe, S. (1997). Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework, in Archibugi, D. and J. Michie (eds.). Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104. Santos, A. (2006). Learning Organizations. Retrieved Dec.20/06, from http://home.nycap.rr.com/klarsen/learnorg/kof_sen.html Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119. Senge, P (Editor), Roberts, C., Ross, R. Smith, B., and Kleiner, A. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook : Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

Zink, 63 Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and Smith, B. (1999) The Dance of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, New York: Doubleday/Currency. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N. Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. and Kleiner, A. (2000) Schools That Learn. A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education, New York: Doubleday/Currency. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization New York Doubleday/Currency, Shibley, John J. (2001). A Primer on Systems Thinking & Organizational Learning. A Practice Theory for Organizational Learning: Introduction: What is a Practice Theory? The Portland Learning Organization Group. Retrieved Dec.14/06, from http://www.systemsprimer.com/what_is_a_practice_theory.htm Smith, M. K. (2001). The Learning Organization, the encyclopedia of informal education, infed. Retrieved Dec. 10/06, from http://www.infed.org/biblio/learningorganization.htm Telecollege: Management Modern: Management History. (1998). Retrieved Dec.2/06, fromhttp://telecollege.dcccd.edu/mgmt1374/book_contents/1overview/manageme nt_history/mgmt_history.htm Van Maurik, J. (2001). Writers on Leadership, London: Penguin. Verzuh, Eric. (1999). The Fast Forward MBA in Project Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Walker, Katie. (1993). Leadership in a Learning Organization. Kansas State University. Retrieved Dec.14/06, from http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/LEADS/FACT%20Sheets/fact9.pdf Weick, K. E. (1991). The Nontraditional Quality of Organizational Learning, Organization Science 2(1): 11623. Wikipedia. (2007). Learning Organization. Retrieved Dec.20/07, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_organization