THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 45(2), 107116

Vivienne Collinson
Tanya Fedoruk Cook
Sharon Conley

Organizational Learning
in Schools and School Systems:
Improving Learning, Teaching,
and Leading

Teachers and administrators in school systems
across the United States and Canada have been
inundated during the last several decades with sil-
ver bullets and quick fixes in an effort to improve
education. The reforms have had limited success
and little long-term effect on schools and school
systems. This article proposes that organizational
learning (ongoing learning in a deliberate man-
ner with a view to improvements supporting the
organizations goals) has the potential to help
schools and school systems renew themselves from
the inside out and to improve learning (for stu-
Vivienne Collinson is an Associate Professor of Educa-
tion at Michigan State University. Tanya F. Cook is an
Education Consultant in Bethesda, MD. Sharon Conley
is a Professor in the University of California, Santa
Barbara.
Correspondence should be addressed to Vivienne
Collinson, 736 Bedford, Grosse Pointe Park,
MI 48230. E-mail: colli221@msu.edu
dents and adults), teaching, and leading in school
systems. The authors identify 6 interrelated condi-
tions that appear to foster organizational learning
and provide a practical illustration of the condi-
tions in the form of a fictional school created from
examples in the literature.
I MAGINE THAT YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED
teacher visiting Beechwood Middle School for
the first time. Your car winds through streets in the
modest suburb of Beechwood and you pull into
the parking lot of a 1960s-style school. As you ap-
proach the main door, you are puzzled by what,
from the street, appeared to be attractive flower-
beds. You notice that the flowerbeds are carefully
planned and labeled plots. You stoop to read signs
such as 50% mulch, 40% clay, 10% sand and
watered every other day. A student notices your
interest and says with pride,

107
Learning, Teaching, Leading: A Global Perspective
This is the sixth-grade project this year. We got soil
samples from 10 different places in our district and
were using our flowerbed data to learn graphing
and statistics. At the end of the year, were going to
make a pamphlet for people in our district to show
them which flowers like which soil and how much
water each kind of soil needs for these kinds of
flowers.
You enter a spacious foyer whose walls are
covered with photos, samples of work, and tro-
phies. One photo arrangement entitled I Did It!
includes a photo of a student holding a large
salmon, a teacher at the summit of a mountain, and
the school secretary at the bottom of the Grand
Canyon. Another display called Our Best
includes a pennant with National Spelling Bee
Participant, a watercolor landscape, a poem, the
winning answer from an Odyssey of the Mind
competition, and a photo of a championship
swimming team. As you walk through the build-
ing, you are struck by the hum of activity and
can-do attitude around you.
Why does this school seem to have such a great
atmosphere? you ask the principal. He replies:
Oh, thats easy. We made a joint decision 5 years ago
to actively engage in organizational learning, and
you would hardly recognize us as the same school
now. Sometimes we can hardly believe how much
weve changed. At the beginning, we didnt even
have a common definition of the word learning.
Were still learning and thats part of what makes it
exciting. In fact, thats what organizational learning
is all about. Would you like to talk with some of the
teachers about it?
Although we are not trying to describe a school
that is perfect or infer that a school can function in
isolation within the school system, we are suggest-
ing that organizational learning is a desirable ideal.
The purpose of this article is to suggest some direc-
tions for reexamining organizational learning in
schools and school systems as a way to encourage
collective learning for adults and students, and to
sustain organizational renewal. Drawing on theo-
retical, conceptual, and empirical scholarship, the
article describes six interrelated conditions that ap-
108
pear to foster organizational learning in schools:
prioritizing learning for all members, facilitating
the dissemination of learning, attending to human
relationships, fostering inquiry and its collateral
learning, enhancing democratic governance in
schools and school systems, and encouraging
members self-fulfillment. Although each of these
conditions alone can encourage organizational
learning, they work most strongly in concert. Given
the complexity of and connections among these
conditions, creating a school environment that sup-
ports organizational learning requires new learn-
inglearning that has the potential to influence
teaching and leading in schools.
A Background of Organizational
Learning Concepts
The concept of organizational learning has
generated interest in private sector organizations
for more than 4 decades. Education scholars, too,
are increasingly researching and applying the con-
cept in educational organizations (Leithwood,
Leonard, & Sharratt, 1998; Rait, 1995). Due to a
well-developed body of literature on organiza-
tional learning, there are multiple definitions of
the term. This section provides only a sketch of
some original ideas from the most oft-cited theo-
rists (Crossan & Guatto, 1996). The section closes
with our synthesis of five assumptions that under-
lie these prevailing theories of organizational
learning.
Argyris and Schon (1978) focused on collec-
tive inquiry to describe how organizational mem-
bers learn through an iterative process of action
and reflection. Two of these authors most influen-
tial ideas involve the distinction between espoused
theories of action and theories-in-use, and the dis-
tinction between single-loop learning and dou-
ble-loop learning. Theories of action are the rou-
tines and practices that express the knowledge of
an organization. Espoused theories of action rep-
resent the assumptions or beliefs that members say
guide organizational behavior. Theories-in-use, as
the term implies, are the theories of action that
guide what members actually do. Theories-in-use
Collinson, Cook, and Conley Organizational Learning in Schools and School Systems: Improving Learning
are often implicit and unexamined; they are ac-
cepted as the way we do things around here
(Schein, 1992). For example, a common the-
ory-in-use in schools is that students learn best in
classes organized by chronological age. Addi-
tionally, espoused theories and theories-in-use
may be contradictory; that is, a high schools slo-
gan (espoused theory) may be Students First, but
bus and school schedules may be influenced by
business concerns rather than by research on teen-
agers sleep patterns (theory-in-use).
Organizational learning involves changing the-
ories of action, either by refining them (sin-
gle-loop learning) or by questioning shared as-
sumptions and norms to reach new theories-in-use
(double-loop learning). The difference is similar
to teachers becoming increasingly proficient using
one particular student assessment software pro-
gram (single-loop learning) or teachers reexam-
ining how students are assessed to select the
software program that best suits the schools cur-
ricular aims and goals (double-loop learning).
The first represents behavioral change, whereas
the second represents cognitive and behavioral
change. Thus, Argyris and Schon (1978) defined
organizational learning as a process of individual
and collective inquiry that modifies or constructs
organizational theories-in-use.
Variations and elaborations of this theory fol-
lowed. Fiol and Lyles (1985) proposed a distinc-
tion between behavioral change (single-loop
learning) as organizational adaptation and cogni-
tive change as organizational learning (i.e., new
insights, understandings, and associations be-
tween past and future actions). Daft and Weick
(1984) focused on organizations as interpretation
systems and considered the distinctive feature of
organizational learning to be the sharing of per-
ceptions and data. In their theory, members scan
the environment and interpret their perceptions
in a way that builds shared understandings.
For them, organizational learning is represented
through a new action or response based on in-
terpretations of the members. Thus, individual
members can come and go in an organization,
but the organization can preserve knowledge, be-
haviors, norms, and values over time. Levitt and
March (1988) referred to these practices as rou-
tines that include the rules, procedures,
conventions, and strategies by which an organi-
zation operates. Individual learning becomes or-
ganizational when it creates, modifies, or re-
places organizational routines. However, because
routines are embedded in the organization, they
can survive considerable personnel turnover.
Although a single, clear definition of organiza-
tional learning remains elusive, these theorists and
others have contributed to five assumptions cur-
rently associated with organizational learning:
1. Organizational learning is multilevel in the
sense that it depends on learning at the in-
dividual, group, and organizational level
(Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999);
2. Organizational learning includes inquiry
(e.g., to uncover taken-for-granted assump-
tions or to detect errors);
3. Organizational learning relies on shared (of-
ten tacit) understandings among members;
4. Organizational learning involves behav-
ioral and cognitive change (Rait, 1995;
Shrivastava, 1983);
5. Organizational learning includes embedding
new knowledge and practices in organiza-
tional theories-in-use or routines.
In the practical world of schools and school
systems, organizational learning provides a sus-
tainable avenue for change and an opportunity for
continuous renewal from within. In sum, schools
can examine and exploit what they have already
learned, as well as innovating, solving problems,
and learning strategies and knowledge to meet
new challenges. Organizational learning encour-
ages a proactive stance instead of a reactive posi-
tion. Schools are familiar with constant, externally
imposed changes and innovations, often by man-
dates or inducements that may be contradictory or
incompatible with a schools beliefs and aims.
Schools have become adept at reacting and adapt-
ing to demands (behavioral change). They are less
skilled at taking a proactive position made possi-
ble by organizational learning (cognitive and be-
havioral change).
109
Learning, Teaching, Leading: A Global Perspective
Conditions That Foster Organizational
Learning in Schools
Organizational learning represents ongoing
learning in a deliberate manner, with a view to in-
ternal implementation of changes as improve-
ments supporting the organizations goals. Indi-
vidual human beings learn, deliberately or
accidentally, from many sources. Organizations
can only learn from the collective experiences,
perspectives, and capabilities of individuals (Rait,
1995).
Because all change involves learning con-
ditions that support learning must be part and par-
cel of any change effort (Fullan & Miles, 1992, p.
749). The sociology of teaching literature, as well
as conceptual and empirical work from education
literature, suggests six interrelated conditions that
may foster organizational learning in schools and
school systems:
prioritizing learning for all members;
facilitating the dissemination (sharing) of
knowledge, skills, and insights;
attending to human relationships;
fostering inquiry;
enhancing democratic governance; and
providing for members self-fulfillment.
Prioritizing learning for all members. Intel-
lectual learning has always been a fundamental
aim of schools, but within the last century, schools
have also been responsible for helping students
learn social and moral principles that allow them
to become independent thinkers, lifelong learners,
and productive citizens capable of sustaining dem-
ocratic life and coping with change (Dewey,
1934/1964). More recently, however, scholars
have also emphasized the importance of teachers,
principals, and superintendents learning in
school systems (Barth, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1989;
Sarason, 1990). Research indicates that the
greater teachers opportunities for learning, the
more their students tend to learn (Rosenholtz,
1989, p. 7). Adult learning is the primary condi-
tion for organizational learning. The paucity of lit-
erature showing organizational learning in schools
does not necessarily suggest that individual adults
110
in school systems are not learning, but it does sug-
gest that collective learning is not yet a tradition or
a priority.
Typical sources of collective learning in educa-
tion, as well as in business and industry, include
professional friendships, networks, working in
teams, analysis and feedback of performance, dia-
logue, error detection and correction (inquiry),
oral or written information (e.g., databases, poli-
cies, stories, e-mails, meetings), external feedback
(e.g., surveys, consultants), and hiring new per-
sonnel (Collinson & Cook, in press). All of these
sources offer opportunities to examine assump-
tions, mistakes, and practices and then devise
ways to improve.
Facilitating dissemination of learning. Be-
cause organizational learning is multilevel, a sec-
ond condition is necessary; individuals learning
must be disseminated or shared at the group or or-
ganizational level. Dissemination involves a col-
laborative exchange of ideas, perspectives, knowl-
edge, skills, and insights. Although purposeful
teacher interactions are essential for school im-
provement and change (Fullan, 2001), schools do
not have strong mechanisms for disseminating in-
dividuals learning to other levels or for new mem-
bers or generations to rethink and reevaluate
assumptions and routines. In many schools, teach-
ers innovations and insights travel no further than
their own classroom (Little, 1987).
Dialogue (understanding perspectives and
seeking common ground) appears vital for cogni-
tive change and dissemination of learning, but at
the same time, can create conflict and make teach-
ers feel vulnerable. Other factors that can enable
dissemination include principals involvement in
guiding regular dialogue about school goals,
teaching, and learning; encouraging teachers to
share through workshops, staff meetings, or con-
ferences; providing common planning time; en-
couraging collaborative work through team teach-
ing; and fostering positive norms of continuous
improvement of teaching instead of blaming a
lack of student learning on external factors such
as society or parents (Collinson & Cook, 2004;
Leithwood et al., 1998; Rosenholtz, 1989).
Collinson, Cook, and Conley Organizational Learning in Schools and School Systems: Improving Learning
Attending to human relationships. Because
individuals are social beings, individual or organi-
zational change depends on the social system in
which human beings interact and learn. Simply
put, dialogue (open communication) and dissemi-
nation (sharing) depend on the quality of human
relationships within schools and school systems.
Values associated with healthy human relation-
ships include a love of learning, consideration of
and compassion for others, and optimism. Being
attuned to healthy human relationships depends
more on nonverbal and interpersonal skills than on
verbal, intellectual ability. Skills required for
smooth relationships include communication
skills, conflict management and resolution skills,
consultation skills, [and] group process skills
(Donaldson, 2001, p. 116).
Virtually all studies on continuous improve-
ment in schools indicate that purposeful teacher
interaction and genuine collaboration are essential
for learning and change (Fullan, 1991). In addition
to learning more easily in a supportive environ-
ment, collaboration provides other benefits. First,
teachers become more confident about their
knowledge. Their confidence then allows them to
support colleagues strengths and accommodate or
help improve their weaknesses. Second, schools
with norms of learning and sharing can undertake
innovations that would exhaust the skills and re-
sources of an individual teacher. Third, such
schools are capable of easing teacher turnover by
providing assistance to newcomers and socializ-
ing them to existing values and norms of organiza-
tional learning and renewal (Little, 1987). Finally,
these schools are better positioned to incorporate
the knowledge, enthusiasm, and ideas of new
teachers.
Fostering inquiry and its collateral learning.
Inquiry generally occurs to resolve a problem,
question, dilemma, or uncertainty and involves
problem identification, data collection, analysis/
interpretation, and action. Since the time of Aris-
totle, the West has increasingly recognized inquiry
as a powerful source of learning. Dewey (1933/
1960) observed that inquiry can spawn collateral
learning such as curiosity, open-mindedness, re-
spect for evidence, critical thinking, a willingness
to suspend judgment, and intellectual responsibil-
ity (thoroughness and consideration for conse-
quences of actions). Argyris and Schon (1996)
viewed inquiry as necessary for organizational learn-
ing, especially for detecting and correcting errors.
Teachers inquiry, such as action research, in-
volves systematic, intentional, and self-critical
study of their work (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999). Within the last 2 decades, educators have
encouraged teacher inquiry as a potent source of
learning and improvement for teachers and
schools, a way to check the accuracy of prevailing
assumptions and cope with uncertainties, a desir-
able form of feedback, a means to improve prob-
lem-solving skills, and a potential source for dou-
ble-loop learning when the evidence warrants
restructuring norms and changing prevailing theo-
ries-in-use. Inquiry has also been linked to innova-
tion, a necessity for organizational renewal. In
learning enriched schools, when groups of teach-
ers or the whole school faculty engaged in inquiry
together or felt supported in experiments with in-
novations, their confidence grew, encouraging
them to innovate again (Rosenholtz, 1989).
Enhancing democratic governance. Learn-
ing, sharing knowledge, collaboration, and in-
quiry have all been associated with a democratic
model of governance that values and nurtures the
capacity of human beings: a capacity to cherish
individuality and inspire communality (Rosen-
holtz, 1989, p. 221). Numerous scholars have ar-
gued that learning, change, innovation, and or-
ganizational renewal are best supported by a dem-
ocratic system (e.g., Gardner, 1963/1981; Good-
lad, 1994). Leadership in a democratic model is
not necessarily formalized; it is treated as an orga-
nizational quality that can flow among multiple
roles (Ogawa & Bossert, 1995). When all mem-
bers (teachers, principals, support staff, adminis-
trators, and students) may lead and exert profes-
sional influence over school and work decisions,
individuality and communality are enhanced.
Effective leadership in a democratic model
serves others, is ethical, is educative, values hu-
mans well being, and helps others envision possi-
111
Learning, Teaching, Leading: A Global Perspective
bilities. Such a model requires shared decision
making (a dispersion of power), a rigorous tradi-
tion of criticism and questioning, tolerance for di-
verse views, and a multidirectional flow of in-
fluence (Collinson & Cook, in press). It also
demands that leaders learn to lead from different
strengths and in different ways (Smylie, Conley, &
Marks, 2002; Wasley, 1991).
Providing for members self-fulfillment. Be-
cause continuous renewal depends on conditions
that encourage fulfillment of the individual (Gard-
ner, 1963/1981, p. 2), providing for members
self-fulfillment is strongly related to the purpose
of organizational learning; namely, sustained re-
newal of the system. This condition is also related
to or dependent on the five conditions previously
discussed. The literature suggests three ways that
organizations can nourish members self-fulfill-
ment and also enhance organizational renewal:
communicate meaningful values and goals to
members;
nurture members personal aspirations for
growth; and
share individuals or groups beliefs and in-
sights with other members.
Put simply, schools and school systems that
nourish individual members self-fulfillment pro-
vide professional learning opportunities and chal-
lenges to all members, including opportunities to
develop special abilities (Conley & Levinson,
1993), assume various roles, work together, and
share decisions. They pay careful attention to re-
cruitment criteria and hiring practices, as well as
nurturing and moving members to positions where
they can do their best. For example, such school
systems insist that principal and superintendent
candidates demonstrate excellence in teaching,
successful leadership, good human relations
skills, and the ability to conduct research. They are
also expected to be continuous learners and en-
courage the same in teachers (Johnson, 1996;
Rosenholtz, 1989).
112
In the remainder of the article, we take you
back to Beechwood Middle School, a fictional
composite we have created from examples of real
schools described in the literature. The intent of
the following section is to depict how organiza-
tional learning can look in practice and to indicate
how the six conditions that we have identified
work together holistically to promote organiza-
tional learning.
Beechwood School Continued
You settle into an armchair in the staff lounge
with a half dozen teachers. Still puzzled about the
principals opening conversation, you say, If
youre so different now, 5 years after engaging in
organizational learning, what were you like be-
fore? A wave of laughter engulfs the teachers, a
babble of comments washes over you, and as the
laughter dies down, Karrie tries to explain:
We would all have said 5 years ago that we were
good teachers because we were doing our best. And
in the district, our school would have been consid-
ered average or slightly above average, I think. We
certainly had our share of personality conflicts,
which we now know were really big philosophical
and theoretical differences about teaching and learn-
ing. I cringe just thinking about some things I did in
the classroom back then. As a faculty, we actually
worked on human relations, group dynamics, and
conflict resolution skills before we started talking
specifically about teaching and learning. We started
out by thinking about how well we really knew our
colleagues in the school and we brainstormed each
others professional and personal strengths.
We used our professional development money to
pay a communications consultant to work with us that
first year, too. We started by looking at a communica-
tion skills continuum that showed us what weak and
strong communication skills look like. I always
thought I was a reasonably good communicator but it
was fantastic how much more there was to learn. We
also worked together to create group norms that we
wanted to follow. One of them was to talk about col-
leagues, parents, or students as respectfully as if they
were sitting there listening to all our comments. I
mean, as the consultant helped us to really listen to
Collinson, Cook, and Conley Organizational Learning in Schools and School Systems: Improving Learning
how we talked about students and how we answered
questions like What does learning mean to you?, we
realized that we had a lot of weak communication
skills, like interrupting or rebutting speakers com-
ments before they were finished. And at that time,
new teachers didnt even speak at meetings.
Karrie shakes her head and exclaims, Incredi-
ble! We really had no idea how to share with each
other or work together or deal with conflict back
then.
Joes laughter bubbles up again. And do you
remember how hard we laughed the first time Tom
[the principal] said, How can I be helpful?
As new gales of laughter engulf you, you ask,
Why was that funny?
Chandra composes herself enough to explain
that the faculty was accustomed to hearing man-
dates, solutions, and directives come from Tom
and that they either accepted them passively or
held private negative conversations about them,
usually in the parking lot.
At that meeting, we had just finished an activity on
what was working in our school and what wasnt
working, and finding the reasons why it was or wasnt
working. We had also just learned from the consultant
about a week earlier that an attitude of How can I be
helpful? and listening to differing perspectives are
indicators of good communication skills. Tom was
obviously trying them out and it just struck us as hilar-
ious until we realized that we should all be saying to
Tom and each other, How can I be helpful? instead
of always taking problems to him without suggesting
solutions or seeing ourselves as part of a team. I think
that was a real turning point for us. We started to
see ourselves as a real part of the school and we start-
ed feeling responsible for more than our individual
classrooms. And it was around the same time that we
realized we should be looking at our teaching through
the kids eyes instead of our own.
Lorie nods vigorously and continues:
We discussed what a democratic school of profes-
sionals dedicated to students learning would look
likeI mean, what it would really mean for Tom
and all of us to practice democracy. We decided to
team either by grade level, subject level, friendship,
or experience, and we moved classrooms so teams
would be close together. We decided that each team
would stay with the same group of students for the 3
years theyre at our school. We also changed the
schedule so teams could plan and have lunch to-
gether. Joe was taking a masters course in assess-
ment so our team decided to examine our teams as-
sessment practicesyou know, looking at patterns
of students performance over time and subject area,
and getting feedback from the kids. We read a lot and
talked a lot, especially at staff meetings, and so our
inquiry and enthusiasm spread to the whole school.
We now use school inquiry to investigate any major
problems we have or any curricular changes wed
like to try. Its amazing how much weve learned
from our research, and weve also learned a lot about
how to research. We used to think inquiry was some-
thing you do for graduate school with no practical
use but it really helped us. We were making some
poor decisions before because of inaccurate assump-
tions that didnt hold up when we analyzed our data.
Debra, evidently the youngest teacher present,
becomes more animated as Lorie mentions in-
quiry. Thats about the time I arrived at Beech-
wood as a brand new teacher. She turns directly to
you and says,
When I talk with my college friends in other school
systems, I cant believe how lucky I am to be at
Beechwood and working with my team. Ive learned
to think and teach in a whole new way and to explain
to students and parents what were doing and why
were doing it. Ive learned to let my students ques-
tion and participate in class just the way Tom helped
us participate in decisions and running the school
the teachers and support staff, I mean. We can raise
issues and help generate and choose solutions. We
take turns preparing and chairing staff meetings.
That was really hard for me so Im having my stu-
dents practice in class so theyll be good at it by the
time they reach the working world. The faculty here
is pretty good and getting better at compromising,
too, because we always work from the question,
What will the students be learning if we do this or
that? And I could never have come up with so many
creative lessons by myself. After Tom sent Lorie to a
conference on lesson study, she taught all of us and
we read more. We learned so much and our lessons
are getting better and better. Thats really cut down
113
Learning, Teaching, Leading: A Global Perspective
on behavior problems cause the kids are so
interested.
You nod your head as you recall the students
explanation of the flowerbed experiments and be-
fore you can formulate a question, Bob chimes in:
About assessment! Other schools are still doing tra-
ditional tests like multiple choice, but here at
Beechwood, our team just did a fabulous assessment
for geometric angles. The kids had to measure an-
gles in the exterior architecture of their own home or
apartment and they also had to calculate shadows
and decide where they would plant trees and what
size of trees so that the trees could best shade their
building in the spring, summer, and fall. We knew
right away who needed extra teaching and follow-up
because the kids couldnt do the assessment without
really understanding the science and math princi-
ples. Thats what learning is all about and theres just
no way one person can do it alone.
Challenges and Rewards
of Organizational Learning
If schools or school systems are interested in
beginning the process of organizational learning
as Beechwood did, they should be aware that there
is no prescription. Each organization has a unique
and changing environment, culture, and group dy-
namic. Organizational learning is a long-term,
continuous investmenta way of thinking and
doingthat takes time. Its processes become part
of members jobs rather than a job add-on, al-
though initial attempts may feel like extra work
and effort, in the same way that learning any new
sport or set of skills at first feels awkward and
slow. As a first step, members can assess where
their organization stands now in relation to each of
the six conditions and agree to take on one task or
one condition at a time. Once members have ana-
lyzed their strengths and weaknesses for each con-
dition, they may want to pick the condition that is
likely to lead to fairly quick success to create mo-
mentum before moving to a condition that re-
quires more effort. Or, as a first step, members can
create dynamic tension for change by discussing
114
and recording what their ideal organization would
look like and comparing it to where they are now.
Then members can choose to start working on the
condition that is a barrier to change.
One of the worst legacies of silver bullet think-
ing is that anything can be fixed once and for all.
As members soon learn, the six conditions are in-
terrelated and one change quickly leads to others.
Rather than becoming overwhelmed, members
have to prioritize and systematically work to-
gether with the understanding that organizational
learning is a process that provides schools and
school systems with an approach to resolve any of
the inevitable challenges organizations face. As
members are working through the process, they
are renewing the school or system as a whole, and
at the same time enhancing their own learning as
individuals and as an organization. (For more spe-
cific assistance to get started, see the suggested ad-
ditional readings.)
Schools and school systems face, and will con-
tinue to face, a barrage of new demands requiring
innovation and change. Organizational learning,
when understood and implemented carefully, has
the capacity to help students, adults, and the orga-
nization learn better. By exploiting what they have
already learned as they innovate and learn new
things, faculties can respond proactively to inter-
nally generated improvements and externally im-
posed changes. Organizational learning is not a
quick fix solution or fad. It requires collective at-
tention and learning from members as they seek
continuous improvement for students, themselves,
and the organization. The six conditions for orga-
nizational learning are demanding, because thought-
ful change and the capacity to innovate require
adults in schools to be active learners in new areas
of professional development, such as communica-
tion skills, group dynamics, conflict resolution,
curriculum development, and inquiry. Adults may
also learn in nontraditional ways, for example,
learning by assuming a new leadership role.
Tensions and dilemmas inevitably accompany
change efforts. Challenges may include time con-
straints such as a lack of common planning time,
uncertainty about new ways of working individu-
ally and collaboratively, and discomfort with new
Collinson, Cook, and Conley Organizational Learning in Schools and School Systems: Improving Learning
roles, exposed disagreements, and new thinking
and attitudes. However, by engaging in organiza-
tional learning and fostering the conditions that
support it, members of schools and school systems
can better transform the demands of change into
opportunities for improvement on their own terms.
They can also enjoy rewards such as the satisfac-
tion of improving student learning, building and
sharing professional knowledge, gaining the cer-
tainty and confidence that come from careful in-
quiry, and participating in an organization that val-
ues human relationships, democratic practices,
and members self-fulfillment.
References
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational
learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational
learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within:
Teachers, parents, and principals can make the dif-
ference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher
research movement: A decade later. Educational Re-
searcher, 28(7), 1525.
Collinson, V., & Cook, T. F. (2004). Collaborating to
learn computer technology: A challenge for teachers
and leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3,
111133.
Collinson, V., & Cook, T. F. (in press). Organizational
learning: Improving learning, teaching, and leading
in school systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Conley, S., & Levinson, R. (1993). Teacher work rede-
sign and job satisfaction. Educational Administra-
tion Quarterly, 29, 453478.
Crossan, M., & Guatto, T. (1996). Organizational learn-
ing research profile. Journal of Organizational
Change and Management, 9(1), 107112.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
organizational learning framework: From intuition
to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24,
522537.
Daft, R., & Weick, K. (1984). Toward a model of orga-
nizations as interpretation systems. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 284295.
Dewey, J. (1960). How we think: A restatement of the re-
lation of reflective thinking to the educative process.
Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. (Original work pub-
lished 1933)
Dewey, J. (1964). The need for a philosophy of educa-
tion. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on ed-
ucation (pp. 314). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. (Original work published 1934)
Donaldson, G. A. (2001). Cultivating leadership in
schools: Connecting people, purpose, and practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational
learning. Academy of Management Review, 10,
803813.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational
change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right:
What works and what doesnt. Phi Delta Kappan,
73, 745752.
Fullan, M., with Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new mean-
ing of educational change (2nd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gardner, J. W. (1981). Self-renewal: The individual and
the innovative society. New York: W. W. Norton.
(Original work published 1963)
Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teach-
ers, better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The chal-
lenge of the new superintendency. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. (1998). Condi-
tions fostering organizational learning in schools. Edu-
cational Administration Quarterly, 34, 243276.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learn-
ing. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319340.
Little, J. W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richard-
son-Koehler (Ed.), Educators handbook: A research
perspective (pp. 491518). New York: Longman.
Ogawa, R. T., & Bossert, S. T. (1995). Leadership as an
organizational quality. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 31, 224243.
Rait, E. (1995). Against the current: Organizational
learning in schools. In S. B. Bacharach & B.
Mundell (Eds.), Images of schools: Structures and
roles in organizational behavior (pp. 71107).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rosenholtz. S. J. (1989). Teachers workplace: The so-
cial organization of schools. New York: Longman.
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educa-
tional reform: Can we change course before its too
late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leader-
ship (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
115
Learning, Teaching, Leading: A Global Perspective
Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational
learning systems. Journal of Management Studies,
20(1), 728.
Smylie, M. A., Conley, S., & Marks, H. M. (2002). Ex-
ploring new approaches to teacher leadership for
school improvement. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educa-
tional leadership challenge: Redefining leadership
116
for the 21st century (One hundred-first yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education, Part
I; pp. 162188). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Wasley, P. A. (1991). Teachers who lead: The rhetoric
of reform and the realities of practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.