Knowledge management 4 (organizational learning)
7 likes3,709 views
The document discusses organizational learning, emphasizing the transition from individual to collective learning within organizations and the importance of avoiding common traps that hinder this process. It highlights concepts such as double-loop learning, espoused theory versus theory-in-use, and the impact of defensive reasoning on learning effectiveness. Key frameworks like Model I and Model II are presented, illustrating different approaches to organizational behavior and knowledge mobilization.
![Surpersticious Learning
Surpersticious Learning
http://blogs.hbr.org/2011/07/superstitious-learning/
« Superstitious learning takes place when the connection
between the cause of an action and the outcomes
experienced aren’t clear, or are misattributed. »
« For instance, a major retailer prided itself on the steady,
profitable growth of its music CD business over a long
period of time. […] The real story was not one of success.
Rather, it was one of grabbing share from a market that
was in deep decline. »
david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/knowledgemanagement-4organizationallearning-140306012448-phpapp01/85/Knowledge-management-4-organizational-learning-7-320.jpg)
Knowledge management 4 (organizational learning)
- 2. Part 4. Contents From Individual to Organzsational Learning Organizational Traps Avoiding Organizational Traps Espoused theory and Theory-in-use A Loop Story… Model I Model II Model I Observed Deutero-Learning and the Learning Organization Does Organizational Development is Possible? Summary Exercise Ladder of Inference david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 3. From Individual to Organizational Learning « A learning organization actively creates, captures, transfers, and mobilizes knowledge to enable it to adapt to a changing environment » http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_learning An organization is much more than the sum of individuals How to implement Organizational Learning? Avoid Organizational Trap Think « Double Loop Learning » david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 4. Organizational Traps Levitt, B. and March, J. (1988), « Organizational Learning », Annual Review of Sociology, vol 14, pp. 319–40. Knowledge in Organization = Routines Competency Trap The Innovator’s Dilemma (C. Christensen) http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/04/05/ clayton-christensen-and-the-innovators-smackdown/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35z03U3wugs Surpersticious Learning http://blogs.hbr.org/2011/07/superstitious-learning/ = GOD COMPLEXhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5wCfYujRd E david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 5. The Innovator’s Dilemma (C. Christensen) - 1 The Innovator’s Dilemma (C. Christensen, 1997) http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/04/05/claytonchristensen-and-the-innovators-smackdown/ “That book documents how market-leading companies have missed game-changing transformations in industry after industry—computers (mainframes to PCs), telephony (landline to mobile), photography (film to digital), stock markets (floor to online)—not because of ‘bad’ management, but because they followed the dictates of ‘good’ management. They listened closely to their customers. They carefully studied market trends. They allocated capital to the innovations that promised the largest returns. And in the process, they missed disruptive innovations that opened up new customers and markets for lower-margin, blockbuster products.” david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 6. The Innovator’s Dilemma (C. Christensen) - 2 Example: “Similarly when Toyota was making rusty little subcompacts, it made no sense for General Motors to go after the subcompact market, when the profits they could get on bigger SUVs and pickup trucks made all the sense in the world. Toyota just made their products better and better, until eventually customers who used to bigger General Motors cars could now buy cheaper ones. Now Toyota is making the best in the world, while at the bottom, the Koreans, Kia and Hyundai, have stolen the low end of the market. It’s not because Toyota is asleep at the switch. They have to decide, ‘Should we go down and compete against Kia? Or should we go up and compete against Mercedes?’” david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 7. Surpersticious Learning Surpersticious Learning http://blogs.hbr.org/2011/07/superstitious-learning/ « Superstitious learning takes place when the connection between the cause of an action and the outcomes experienced aren’t clear, or are misattributed. » « For instance, a major retailer prided itself on the steady, profitable growth of its music CD business over a long period of time. […] The real story was not one of success. Rather, it was one of grabbing share from a market that was in deep decline. » david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 8. Avoiding Organizational Traps A lot of traps… How to avoid them? Meet Chris ARGYRIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Argyris Organizations need to learn to adapt Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974) Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Espoused theory and Theory-in-use david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 9. Espoused theory and Theory-in-use Espoused theory: values people believe their behaviour is based on - what individuals believe is how they would behave in a particular circumstance Theory-in-use: values implied by their behaviour, or the maps they use to take action - how individuals actually behave in that circumstance When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is his theory-in-use; furthermore, the individual may or may not be aware of the incompatibility of the two theories (Argyris and Schön, Theory in Practice, JosseyBass, 1974, p 11.) david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 10. A Loop Story…(1) Organizational learning is about detecting and correcting error Source: http://www.afs.org/blog/icl/?p=2653 david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 11. A Loop Story…(2) C. Argyris, “Double-Loop Learning in Organisations“, Harvard Business Review Vol 55, No 5, 1977, pp 115–125. C. Argyris & D. Schön, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, 1978. Single-Loop learning => Model I (theory-inuse) Double-Loop learning => Model II (theory espoused) david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 12. Model I (a) The governing Values of Model I are: Achieve the purpose as the actor defines it Win, do not lose Suppress negative feelings Emphasise rationality Primary Strategies are: Control environment and task unilaterally Protect self and others unilaterally david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 13. Model I (b) Usually operationalised by: Unillustrated attributions and evaluations eg. "You seem unmotivated" Advocating courses of action which discourage inquiry eg. "Lets not talk about the past, that's over." Treating ones' own views as obviously correct Making covert attributions and evaluations Face-saving moves such as leaving potentially embarrassing facts unstated Consequences include: Defensive relationships Low freedom of choice Reduced production of valid information Little public testing of ideas david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 15. Model I (d) « Skilled Incompetence » Organizational Defensive Routines (ODR) Organizational Defensive Pattern (ODP) david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr Defensive Reasoning ≠ Productive Reasoning
- 16. Model II (a) The governing values of Model II include: Valid information Free and informed choice Internal commitment Strategies include: Sharing control Participation in design and implementation of action david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 17. Model II (b) Operationalised by: Attribution and evaluation illustrated with relatively directly observable data Surfacing conflicting views Encouraging public testing of evaluations Consequences should include: Minimally defensive relationships High freedom of choice Increased likelihood of double-loop learning" david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 19. Model I Observed C Argyris, “Teaching Smart People How to Learn“, Harvard Business Review, 1991, p 100. Learning behaviours in US consultancies Inability to learn from failure david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 20. Deutero-Learning and the Learning Org. When an organization engages in deutero-learning, its members learn, too, about previous contexts for learning. They reflect on and enquire into previous episodes of organizational learning or failure to learn. They discover what they did that facilitated or inhibited learning, they invent new strategies for learning, and they evaluate and generalise what they have produced. The results become encoded in individual maps and images and are reflected in organizational learning practice (Argyris and Schön, Theory in Practice, Jossey-Bass, 1974, p 27). david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 21. Does Organizational Development is Possible? From Organizational I (O-I) learning systems to Organizational II (O-II) learning system Intervention strategy in 6 phases Phase 1 Mapping the problem as clients see it Phase 2 The internalization of the map by clients Phase 3 Test the model Phase 4 Invent solutions Phase 5 Produce the intervention Phase 6 Study the impact david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr
- 23. An exercise: Left hand column Think of a work situation you are concerned about Divide a piece of paper into two columns Ladder of inference david.vallat@univ-lyon1.fr