c
 

 c c
 cc  
Human beings personally learn by experience, doing things and from others. They memorize those
learning and apply them to continually improve their life. Similarly organizations also learn from direct
experience and from others. But organizations learning differ in many ways from personal learning. The
learning remains in the brain of the human being and the brain is inseparable from human being. But
organization has no brain of its own, the people͛s learning which transforms into organizational learning
many times get carried away when the man separates from the company. The paper captures these
aspects of organizational learning. The theories behind organizational learning, interpretation of the
learning and memorizing in the form of ͞Routines͟ have been discussed in-depth in the paper.

The process of organizational learning can be categorized into two ways:-

p c  
 
   The learning from direct experiences are based on themes
which are given below:-
2p 2
2
  2   
. The effect of cumulated production and the increase in
productivity in one of the finest examples of learning by doing. If Ci is the direct labour cost of
the ith product produced and ͚a͛ is a constant, then the direct labour cost can be given by the
empirical formula Cn=C1n-a. Thus cumulative experience by repeatedly doing the work increases
productivity.
p  
2:- However the learning by above principle may make the organization fall into
the trap of ͞Competency Trap͟. By repeatedly using a system and procedures one will definitely
gain specialization in those. Competency trap occurs when favorable outcome with an inferior
procedure makes an organization specialist in it and makes them reluctant to use superior
procedure.
p  2
    2
:- The next step of learning from experience (or we can tell
͞experiential learning͟) is the interpretation of experience. As human beings are not perfect
statisticians the interpretations are prone to errors. There can be overestimation and under-
estimation and many times people assume big effects have big causes.
The biggest difference between individual learning and organizational learning is simultaneous
learning by many individuals from the same experience. The interpretation of experience varies
from person to person which results in conflicting interpretations. Thus different groups develop
alternate stories that interpret the same experience quite differently.
p þ 

 2
:- So when success and failures are evaluated ambiguously ͚Superstitious
Learning͟ takes place. e.g. success or positive outcome may be interpreted ambiguously to be
the result of routines and procedures being followed, where as in reality it may due to low
target setting. This superstitious learning about the ͞routines͟ makes the organization venerable
to failure at bad times.
p 

:- The next aspect of learning from direct experience is ͞memorizing͟ the learning.
As discussed in the beginning lessons, experience should be maintained and accumulated as
rules, procedures, technologies, beliefs and cultures that are conserved within the organization
despite turnover of personnel. Thus though the ͚brain͛ of individual detaches from the
 organization with separation of individual, the ͞organizational memory͟ in the form of above
͞routines͟ remain with the organization throughout its life and helps it to shape its future.
But to record every ͞routine͟ that comes out of transformation of experiences is difficult and
involves cost. But with the advent of today͛s computer based information technology recording
the routines and building the ͚knowledge bank͛ and easy retrieval of same has become feasible.
However here also there is danger of memorizing of conflicting and confusing interpretations of
history.
rp c  

 þThe article beautifully captures the learning of organization from others
by an analogy with spread of disease. 
2p A disease may be transmitted from a single source to a population. In case of organizational
learning it may be related to Govt Agencies, trade associations, professional bodies and unions.
This is known as ͞coercive learning͟. 
p The second process of spreading of disease occurs through contact between an affected and an
unaffected people. The Routines learnt by contracts among organizations, by consultants and by
movement of people can be analogous to this, which is called ͞mimetic learning͟. 
p The third one known as ͞normative learning͟ is analogous to spread of disease by two-stage
diffusion, first within a small group and then broadcasting to larger population. Learning through
educational institutions, experts, publications fall into this category. 

Apart from above process of learning in an organization the article gives one interesting concept of
͞ecology of learning͟. We are in ecology of learning organizations where learning in influenced in two
ways:-

1.p 2

2  2 :- It is seen that the rate at which organizations learn and adopt
to new routines adopted by others is dependent on the number of competitors in the ecology of
learners. If competitors are more organizations tend to learn and change routines faster. 
2.p 2
  2 :- Many organizations tend to be slow learners. But when in ecology of
learning from experience becomes the competitive strategy organizations realize they must
learn to be successful. That is they learn to learn. 

The above ͞learning to learn͟ concept gives rise to another beautiful concept given in the article i.e.
͞Learning as a form of Intelligence͟. Learning is a process rather than an outcome. Just like personal
intelligence is referred to as ability of person to learn quickly, organizational intelligence can be referred
to as the ability of organization to learn quickly and precisely.

Learning in an organization is affected by (a) paucity, (b) redundancy and (c) complexity of experience in
an organizational set up. Therefore learning does not always lead to intelligent behavior as learning
from experience is prone to superstitious learning, competency traps and erroneous inferences. But
those organizations who learn to get way above difficulties stand out as intelligent organizations.