On differences betweenorganizational learningand learningorganization

Anders Ortenblad

Introduction

Almost everyone once used the termsorganizational learning and learningorganization interchangeably if not assynonyms (eg Boje 1994 pp 433-34Hawkins 1994 Hedberg 1981 p 22 Levittand March 1988 p 323 Nevis et al 1995)At a time when the term learning organizationwas not yet coined this could easily have beenexplained by a variation in language Alearning organization was simply anorganization that learned (compareorganizational learning) At the turn of themillennium the mix of terms (see eg Fulmeret al 1998 Klimecki and Lassleben 1998Preskill and Torres 1999) is more difficult tounderstand since most of the literaturedifferentiates between organizational learningand learning organization (eg Argyris 1999Argyris and Schon 1996 Easterby-Smith1997 Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999Easterby-Smith et al 1998 Edmondson andMoingeon 1998 Elkjaer 1999 Finger andBurgin Brand 1999 Leitch et al 1996Tsang 1997) In this paper I will present anoverview of the existing distinctions Sincethey have not been totally accepted I will alsotry to clarify them further

Furthermore although the idea of learningorganization has celebrated its tenth birthdayit is still not very clear (eg Burgoyne 1999)Some theorists like the indistinctiveness of thelearning organization concept (Watkins andGolembiewski 1995) but ndash after all ndash thereseems to be a demand for conceptual clarityAlso the literature that distinguish betweenlearning organization and organizationallearning have probably either been lookingonly at the traditional perspective oforganizational learning or have made abundle of the traditional perspective and thesocial perspective I will borrow the term oflsquolsquonewrsquorsquo organizational learning from Turner(referred to in Gherardi 1999 p 108) forthis social approach of learning Also againreferring to Turner I will call the traditionalperspective organizational learning for lsquolsquooldrsquorsquoorganizational learning

The author

Anders OEgrave rtenblad is a Teacher and Researcher at the

School of Business and Engineering Halmstad University

Halmstad Sweden

Keywords

Organizational learning Learning organization Learning

Knowledge management

Abstract

This conceptual paper looks at and discusses differences

between the concepts of organizational learning and (the)

learning organization Since there still seems to be

confusion regarding the meaning of the two concepts

aims to clarify the two main existing distinctions plusmn that

organizational learning is existing processes while

learning organization is an ideal form of organization

Also distinguishes between a traditional and a social

perspective of organizational learning which the existing

distinctions have not plusmn at least not explicitly Thus

distinctions are made between three concepts In addition

to the improvement of the existing distinctions suggests

two complementary ones plusmn entities of learning and

knowledge location These two distinctions might make it

easier to distinguish also between the two perspectives of

organizational learning

Electronic access

The research register for this journal is available at

httpwwwmcbupcomresearch_registers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is

available at

httpwwwemerald-librarycomft Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at theconferences lsquolsquoEmergent Fields in ManagementConnecting Learning and Critiquersquorsquo 15-17 July1998 Leeds University UK and lsquolsquoInternationalConference on Advances in Managementrsquorsquo July1999 Baton Rouge USA

125

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 pp 125plusmn133

MCB University Press ISSN 0969-6474

Since the existing ways of distinguishingbetween organizational learning and learningorganization have not looked specifically atnew organizational learning this paper alsosuggests another pair of distinctions betweenthe two concepts of organizational learningand learning organization trying to make adistinction also between old and neworganizational learning These newdistinctions might also clarify the concept oflearning organization

Existing distinctions

Basically three distinctions have beensuggested in the literature to differentiatebetween organizational learning and learningorganization All of them imply lsquolsquoeither-orrsquorsquoie organizational learning has one definitionwhile learning organization has another andthey are mutely exclusive

The two most common ways to distinguishbetween organizational learning and learningorganization in existing literature are thatlearning organization is a form of organizationwhile organizational learning is activity orprocesses (of learning) in organizations andthat learning organization needs efforts whileorganizational learning exists without anyefforts These two distinctions often appeartogether

The existing distinctions are not empiricalAt least if we study the literature on learningorganization and organizational learning wewould find authors that for instance see thelearning organization as a necessity andorganizational learning as a certain kind oforganization Thus the distinctions arenormative In order to increase the possibilityof them being used I will try to clarify themWith such an ambition also this paper isnormative Although I also take intoconsideration how the labels are used todaytrying to minimise the risk of the distinctionsnot being used

Character of the content

The first of these two dichotomies is certainlythe most distinct one It deals with thecharacter of the content of the ideasorganizational learning means processes oractivities (of learning) in the organizationwhile learning organization is a form of

organization in itself Authors sometimes useit implicitly but in some cases they expressthe distinction explicitly

Organizational learning is a concept used todescribe certain types of activity that take placein an organization while the learningorganization refers to a particular type oforganization in and of itself (Tsang 1997pp 74-5 see also DiBella 1995 p 287 Elkjaer1999 p 75 Finger and Burgin Brand 1999pp 136-7 Lundberg 1995 p 10)

Authors using this distinction tend to useeither of the prefixes the or a in front of theterm learning organization since they see it asa noun

Both old and new organizational learningwould probably be seen as processes Oldorganizational learning is about individualslearning as agents for the organization (egArgyris and Schon 1978) Neworganizational learning also means learningby a collective (Cook and Yanow 1993) or byhumans as social beings (Brown and Duguid1991 Lave and Wenger 1991 Richter 1998Wenger 1991)

The problem with the distinction istwofold First organizations nowadays canalso nowadays be seen as processes The wordlsquolsquoorganizingrsquorsquo is sometimes used instead oforganization (Czarniawska-Joerges 1996)This makes the distinction between processesand organization form quite meaninglessFurthermore the learning organization issometimes described as continuous processesof change adaptation development andorlearning (see eg Swieringa and Wierdsma1992 pp 71-72) In order to clarify thisdistinction we have to view the concept oflsquolsquoorganization formrsquorsquo from a traditionalperspective Thus organizational learningwould be processes going on in the learningorganization (eg Jones and Hendry 1994p157) or learning organization is a specifickind of organizational learning (eg Easterby-Smith 1997 Huysman 1996) ie a form oforganization where processes of learning insome way or another are important

Second the concept of lsquolsquoorganization formrsquorsquois not very clear One definition inaccordance to the contingency approach isthat it is a form that fits in a certain situation(eg Mintzberg 1983) Another definitionimplies that some companies are a certainkind of organization like knowledge-intensivecompanies (eg Alvesson 1993) while othershave another character However as the next

126

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

distinction we will look at indicates thelearning organization is described assomething that any company can becomeThus learning organization must be a form oforganization that is not dependent onsituation or branch Instead we have tocompare it with such desirable characteristicsas effectiveness health and ethicality ieeffective organizations healthy organizationsand ethical organizations

Amount of normativity

The second distinction actually consists of arange of similar distinctions It contains somesomewhat different distinctions with a lot incommon It is based on learning organizationas a normative concept while organizationallearning means one or another kind ofdescription

First the perhaps most obvious implicationof the distinction distinguishes betweensomething that exists naturally without anyefforts and something that does not naturallyexist but needs activity or effort to be carried outIn this case all organizations would haveorganizational learning but only some wouldbe learning organizations For instanceDodgson (1993 p 380) uses the termlsquolsquonatural statersquorsquo for organizational learningwhile learning organization is seen to movebeyond natural learning

Organizational learning is as natural as learningin individuals the lsquolsquolearning organizationrsquorsquo canbe distinguished as one that moves beyond thislsquolsquonaturalrsquorsquo learning and whose goals are to thriveby systematically using its learning to progressbeyond mere adaptation (Dodgson 1993p 380)

Dodgson certainly sees organizationallearning as something that exists withoutefforts while learning organization demandsactivity

Second an ideal can mean somethingpreferable and the opposite something notdesirable However not desirable shouldprobably be interpreted as something neutral ndashnot as something unwanted Tsang (1997)distinguishes between the descriptiveorganizational learning research and theprescriptive learning organization research Inaddition Tsang labels the learningorganization as an lsquolsquoidealrsquorsquo (Tsang 1997p 81) It is quite obvious that learning

organization means a desirable stateaccording to Tsang

A number of books on how to develop a learningorganization have come out during the past fewyears These books adopt a prescriptive stanceand teach managers the way that a companyshould learn At the same time there havebeen some empirical researches onorganizational learning which describe howcompanies actually learn (Tsang 1997 p 74)

Easterby-Smith and Araujo (1999 p 8) claimthat the authors on learning organizationconcentrate on the development of normativemodels for improved learning processes andthat the organizational learning authors focuson understanding the nature and processes oflearning in organizations Also Argyris andSchon (1996) use the terms lsquolsquoprescriptiversquorsquo(p xix) and lsquolsquoidealrsquorsquo (p 180) but suggestlsquolsquononprescriptiversquorsquo as the other parameter ofthe distinction (p xix) (see also Argyris 1999pp 1-14)

Third an ideal is something not necessary ndashbut perhaps desirable ndash while the oppositemeans that it has to exist like breathing Thusorganizations have to learn in order to survive(organizational learning) but they do notneed to be learning organizations Forinstance Kim (1993) maintains thatcompanies would not exist withoutorganizational learning Hawkins (1994)states that all organizations learn ndash otherwisethey would not exist

Finally two ways to distinguish betweendescriptive and normative that are not easilyfound in the literature However since mostof the authors who distinguish betweenorganizational learning and learningorganization are not very specific it may verywell be that they implicitly use one of thesedistinctions First an ideal can meansomething unreachable while that which existswithout any efforts is of course also obtainable(Jones and Hendry 1992 pp 58-59)Second ideal could mean something that atthe present is unknown ie that nobody reallyknows what a learning organization wouldlook like (eg Swieringa and Wierdsma 1992p 72 Watkins and Marsick 1993 p xxii)while organizational learning is somethingknown

One problem is that it sometimes is difficultto decide how to interpret the literature Forinstance when Jones and Hendry maintainthat the idea of learning organization is alsquolsquodirectionrsquorsquo (Jones and Hendry 1994

127

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

p 157) it is not clear whether that means thatit is desirable unreachable unknown notnecessary or that it demands activityFurthermore many of the authors whodistinguish between organizational learningand learning organization might actually usemore than one of the suggested sub-distinctions Thus authors using thedescriptive versus normative distinctionshould specify to which variant of it they refer

Another problem is that organizationallearning can also be an ideal Especially oldorganizational learning is also preferable andneeds activity ndash at least as long as double-looplearning is included in the concept oforganizational learning (see eg Lundberg1995 p 13) Therefore we should try toavoid two of the sub-distinctions of thedescriptive versus normative distinctionnamely exists naturally vs needs activity andneutral vs preferable and instead use one orsome of the three remaining specifications ofthe descriptive vs normative distinctionAlthough both this paper and the existingdistinctions are normative and not empiricalI think it is important to take into accounthow the concepts are used today Otherwiseno one will ever use the distinctions

Group of target

Another popular way to differentiate betweenthe two terms or perhaps another variant ofthe descriptive vs normative distinction isthat the literature of organizational learning isacademic while the literature of learningorganization is practice-oriented and oftenwritten by consultants (eg Argyris 1999Argyris and Schon 1996 Easterby-Smith1997) This might be empirically true ndash theterm learning organization certainly does notimpress on some researchers (although othersuse the term learning organization and viceversa) And new organizational learning isprobably even more academic than theconcept of old organizational learning

To sum up (Table I) both of the mostcommon ways to distinguish betweenorganizational learning and learningorganization can very well be used for thatpurpose especially after a few minorelucidations and corrections Nevertheless Iwill suggest another and complementary wayto distinguish between the two concepts

Complementary dimensions

As complementary dimensions I suggestfirstly a distinction based on who or whatlearns and secondly a distinction based onwhere the knowledge exists Leymann(1989) argues that the term lsquolsquoorganizationallearningrsquorsquo hides who learns Thus onedimension that the literature on learningorganization and organizational learning willbe analysed from is lsquolsquowho learnsrsquorsquo SecondBurgoyne (1999) claims the importance ofwhether the organization is in control ofknowledge in the organization or notAccordingly the second dimension foranalysing the literature concerns knowledgelocation While Confessore and Kops (1998)were using the process vs organization formdistinction they also indicated these twoalternative dimensions (Figure 1) In thispaper I will clarify and develop themfurther

Entities of learning

There has been a debate for a long time inthe literature on organizational learningabout what the entity of learning is Some ofthe researchers argue that only individuals arecapable of learning not organizations (Kim1993 Leymann 1989 Simon 1991)Nowadays most of them who use thisindividual perspective claim that all or at leastmany individuals in the organization learn orshould learn Almost no one sees a fewmanagersrsquo learning for the organization asorganizational learning

Table I Differences between organizational learning and

learning organization

Organizational learningLearningorganization

Character of the contentProcesses Organization form

Amount of normativityDescriptive Normative

Exists naturally Needs activity

Neutral Preferable

Necessary Not necessary

Obtainable Unreachable

Known Unknown

Group of targetAcademics Practitioners

Consultants

128

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

It is no longer sufficient to have one personlearning for the organization a Ford or a Sloanor a Watson Itrsquos just not possible any longer tolsquolsquofigure it outrsquorsquo from the top and have everyoneelse following the orders of the lsquolsquograndstrategistrsquorsquo The organizations that will trulyexcel in the future will be the organizations thatdiscover how to tap peoplersquos commitment andcapacity to learn at all levels in an organization(Senge 1990a p 4)

Others argue that organizations likesuperpersons (Czarniawska-Joerges 1994) areable to learn either as they are ormetaphorically but that we need to understandin what ways organizations are similar toindividuals (Argyris and Schon 1978Hedberg 1981 Jones 1995) Accordingly wehave a distinction between individuals andorganizations as the learning entities

However according to Cook and Yanow(1993) both of these ways to look at learningare cognitive Either the individuals are seen tobe learning in a cognitive way or theorganization learns as if it is an individual theyargue Cook and Yanow suggest another wayto look at organizational learning Theircultural approach implies that the organizationlearns not as an individual or individuals butas a collective Cook and Yanow present this asa cultural approach to organizational learningand not a cognitive one as the two previousperspectives For instance the members of acar factory or a symphony orchestra havelearned together how to build a car or performa symphony No two car factories build a car inthe same way and no two symphonyorchestras perform one and the samesymphony in the same way An organizationmember that is newly recruited from anothersymphony orchestra has to learn from its neworchestra how it plays At the same time theorchestra learns more about its own way ofplaying In conclusion there are three optionsndash either the individuals learn or theorganization learns as an individual or thecollective learns

Knowledge location

The other dimension is based on whereknowledge exists Originally Blackler (1995)used this distinction to classify literature onorganizational learning According toBlackler (see also Collins 1993) knowledgecan be located in five different places Inaddition Blackler suggests a view ofknowledge which he calls lsquolsquoknowingrsquorsquo In thisperspective there is no knowledge to storeknowledge does not exist anywhere since itis a situated process Thus knowledge asknowing is a process and a verb not a nounthat can be stored

Let us now get back to the five places whereknowledge according to Blackler (1995) canexist First knowledge exists in individuals ndasheither in their bodies or in their brains Thusknowledge is lsquolsquoembodiedrsquorsquo or lsquolsquoembrainedrsquorsquoFurthermore knowledge can exist betweenpeople or as Blackler also puts it indialogues knowledge is lsquolsquoenculturedrsquorsquoAnother location for knowledge is in routinesknowledge is lsquolsquoembeddedrsquorsquo Finally accordingto Blackler knowledge can exist in symbolsas for instance words in various kinds ofdocuments In this approach knowledge islsquolsquoencodedrsquorsquo

In conclusion knowledge can either exist inthe individuals or outside them ie in theorganization in itself or not be stored atall lsquolsquoknowingrsquorsquo In the first case knowledgeexists in the brains or the bodies of theindividuals When located outsideindividuals knowledge exists in the culturein routines or in symbols

Analyses of the concepts

Let us now use the alternative distinctionsand analyse the concepts of old organizationallearning learning organization and neworganizational learning (Table II)

Figure 1 Alternative distinctions

129

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

Old organizational learning

Most traditional researchers on organizationallearning or lsquolsquooldrsquorsquo organizational learning seemto agree upon what organizational learning is(eg Argyris and Schon 1978 Dixon 1994Hedberg 1981 Huber 1991 Kim 1993Levitt and March 1988 March 1991Simon 1991) A quite common view oforganizational learning implies that theindividuals learn as agents for theorganization However in order to be valid asorganizational learning the knowledge mustbe stored in the memory of the organizationThis consists of routines rules proceduresdocuments and culture (ie shared mentalmodels)

Thus knowledge acquired by theindividuals is transferred to the organizationalmemory The shared mental models preservethat the individuals learn the lsquolsquocorrectrsquorsquoknowledge for the organization Inconclusion the learning entities are both theindividuals and the organization as anindividual and the knowledge exists outsidethe single individuals

Learning organization

In the literature on learning organization theindividuals are the learning entities Furtherthe literature emphasises knowledge storingoutside the individuals to a much lesser extentthan the literature on organizational learningInstead the individuals learn (see egGarratt 1990 Jones and Hendry 1992) andthe knowledge mostly stays in the individualsIn some cases the teams are said to belearning but also in these cases it seems likethe individuals learn Senge comments aboutteam learning

In dialogue a group explores complex difficultissues from many points of view Individualssuspend their assumptions but theycommunicate their assumptions freely Theresult is a free exploration that brings to thesurface the full depth of peoplersquos experience and

thought and yet can move beyond theirindividual views (Senge 1990a p 241 see alsoWatkins and Marsick 1993)

The team learning described by the learningorganization theorists is certainly notcomparable to Cook and Yanowrsquos (1993)collective learning since it is still theindividuals who learn although everyone islsquolsquofreersquorsquo to express their assumptionsAccordingly the knowledge sticks to theindividuals

Since the knowledge acquired by theindividuals is seldom made organizational theknowledge exists to a great extent in theindividuals (ie their bodies and brains) Thetransfer of knowledge in learningorganizations is supposed to go on betweenindividuals (see eg Garvin 1993) notbetween individuals and the memory of thecompany Instead of being a store house (asold organizational learning can be comparedto) the organization is more like an idealschool The organization provides a climatethat facilitates the learning of the individualsand the managers are supposed to be coachesinstead of directors (eg Garratt 1990McGill and Slocum 1993 Pedler et al 1991Senge 1990b) In this way the employeescan satisfy the needs of the customers (see egGarratt 1990)

After all in some cases some of theknowledge is stored outside the individuals ndashalthough authors on learning organizationmostly tend to describe that most knowledgeexists inside the individuals (ie in theirbrains) According to some of the studies onlearning organization the individuals areconnected to the organization by a sharedvision and by a perspective of wholeness(eg Senge 1990a) which we can comparewith the shared mental models that guide theindividuals in the perspective of oldorganizational learning In conclusion theindividuals learn and the knowledge is mainlylocated inside the individuals but alsooutside them

Table II An analysis based on alternative distinctions

Old organizationallearning Learning organization

New organizationallearning

Entities of learning Individuals the

organization

Individuals The collective (humans as

social beings)

Existence of knowledge Outside individuals Inside and outside

individuals

Cannot be stored plusmn

knowing

130

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

New organizational learning

In the 1990s a social approach to learning hasshown up in the organizational learningliterature (eg Brown and Duguid 1991Cook and Yanow 1993) There are two maindifferences between new organizationallearning and old organizational learning (seeeg Gherardi et al 1998 p 274) Firstly theformer perspective rejects both cognitivelearning by individuals and by theorganization as an individual Instead thehumans as social beings within a community ofpractice learn (Brown and Duguid 1991 Laveand Wenger 1991 Richter 1998 Wenger1991) Thus learning means participationnot acquisition of information Neither theindividuals nor the organization as anindividual learn Instead it is more correct tosay that the collective learns

Secondly while knowledge is storable in theperspective of old organizational learning it iscontext dependent in the new perspective oforganizational learning learning is situated(Lave and Wenger 1991) Accordinglyknowledge cannot be stored without changesin another situation the information willcertainly have another meaning

In sum the learning entity in theperspective of new organizational learning isthe collective (ie humans as social beings)Knowledge is a situational process ndash knowingndash and cannot be stored

Recommendations

In order to distinguish between thetraditional lsquolsquooldrsquorsquo perspective oforganizational learning and learningorganization the existing distinctions will dofine Although when we say that learningorganization is an organization form weshould clearly acknowledge that we meanlsquolsquoorganization formrsquorsquo in a traditional wayOtherwise it might be difficult to separateorganizational learning from learningorganization since both can meanlsquolsquoprocessesrsquorsquo Further since any organizationis said to benefit from becoming a learningorganization it must mean an idealorganization form which connects to theother of the two main existing distinctions

Anyone who uses the descriptive vsnormative distinction should specify whichone of a number of sub-distinctions they refer

to However some of the sub-distinctions areinappropriate since also organizationallearning can be normative in the sense ofpreferable and dependent upon activityThus I suggest the use of the followingmeanings of the descriptive vs normativedistinction necessary vs not necessaryobtainable vs unreachable known vsunknown

Since existing distinctions have made nodifference between old and neworganizational learning those who want todistinguish also between these two conceptscan instead use another pair of distinctionsnamely entities of learning and knowledgelocation The concept of old organizationallearning implies that individuals learn as wellas the organization as an individual Theknowledge is stored outside the individualsLearning organization means primarily thatthe individuals learn while the knowledge islocated both inside and outside theindividuals Finally new organizationallearning where the collective learns andwhere the knowledge is not storable

References

Alvesson M (1993) ` Organizations as rhetoricknowledge-intensive firms and the struggle withambiguityrsquorsquo Journal of Management Studies Vol 30No 6 pp 997-1015

Argyris C (1999) On Organizational LearningBlackwells Oxford

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1978) OrganizationalLearning A Theory of Action PerspectiveAddison-Wesley London

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1996) OrganizationalLearning II Theory Method and PracticeAddison-Wesley Reading MA

Blackler F (1995) ` Knowledge knowlege work andorganizations an overview and interpretationrsquorsquoOrganization Studies Vol 1 No 6 pp 1021-46

Boje DM (1994) ` Organizational storytelling thestrugglers of pre-modern modern and post-modernorganizational learning discoursesrsquorsquo ManagementLearning Vol 25 No 3 pp 433-61

Brown JS and Duguid P (1991) ` Organizationallearning and communities-of-practice toward aunified view of working learning and innovationrsquorsquoOrganization Science Vol 2 No 1 pp 40-57

Burgoyne J (1999) ` Design of the timesrsquorsquo PeopleManagement Vol 5 No 11 pp 38-44

Collins HM (1993) ` The structure of knowledgersquorsquo SocialResearch Vol 60 No 1 pp 95-116

Confessore SJ and Kops WJ (1998) ` Self-directedlearning and the learning organization examiningthe connection between the individual and thelearning environmentrsquorsquo Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly Vol 9 No 4 pp 365-75

131

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

distinction we will look at indicates thelearning organization is described assomething that any company can becomeThus learning organization must be a form oforganization that is not dependent onsituation or branch Instead we have tocompare it with such desirable characteristicsas effectiveness health and ethicality ieeffective organizations healthy organizationsand ethical organizations

Amount of normativity

The second distinction actually consists of arange of similar distinctions It contains somesomewhat different distinctions with a lot incommon It is based on learning organizationas a normative concept while organizationallearning means one or another kind ofdescription

First the perhaps most obvious implicationof the distinction distinguishes betweensomething that exists naturally without anyefforts and something that does not naturallyexist but needs activity or effort to be carried outIn this case all organizations would haveorganizational learning but only some wouldbe learning organizations For instanceDodgson (1993 p 380) uses the termlsquolsquonatural statersquorsquo for organizational learningwhile learning organization is seen to movebeyond natural learning

Organizational learning is as natural as learningin individuals the lsquolsquolearning organizationrsquorsquo canbe distinguished as one that moves beyond thislsquolsquonaturalrsquorsquo learning and whose goals are to thriveby systematically using its learning to progressbeyond mere adaptation (Dodgson 1993p 380)

Dodgson certainly sees organizationallearning as something that exists withoutefforts while learning organization demandsactivity

Second an ideal can mean somethingpreferable and the opposite something notdesirable However not desirable shouldprobably be interpreted as something neutral ndashnot as something unwanted Tsang (1997)distinguishes between the descriptiveorganizational learning research and theprescriptive learning organization research Inaddition Tsang labels the learningorganization as an lsquolsquoidealrsquorsquo (Tsang 1997p 81) It is quite obvious that learning

organization means a desirable stateaccording to Tsang

A number of books on how to develop a learningorganization have come out during the past fewyears These books adopt a prescriptive stanceand teach managers the way that a companyshould learn At the same time there havebeen some empirical researches onorganizational learning which describe howcompanies actually learn (Tsang 1997 p 74)

Easterby-Smith and Araujo (1999 p 8) claimthat the authors on learning organizationconcentrate on the development of normativemodels for improved learning processes andthat the organizational learning authors focuson understanding the nature and processes oflearning in organizations Also Argyris andSchon (1996) use the terms lsquolsquoprescriptiversquorsquo(p xix) and lsquolsquoidealrsquorsquo (p 180) but suggestlsquolsquononprescriptiversquorsquo as the other parameter ofthe distinction (p xix) (see also Argyris 1999pp 1-14)

Third an ideal is something not necessary ndashbut perhaps desirable ndash while the oppositemeans that it has to exist like breathing Thusorganizations have to learn in order to survive(organizational learning) but they do notneed to be learning organizations Forinstance Kim (1993) maintains thatcompanies would not exist withoutorganizational learning Hawkins (1994)states that all organizations learn ndash otherwisethey would not exist

Finally two ways to distinguish betweendescriptive and normative that are not easilyfound in the literature However since mostof the authors who distinguish betweenorganizational learning and learningorganization are not very specific it may verywell be that they implicitly use one of thesedistinctions First an ideal can meansomething unreachable while that which existswithout any efforts is of course also obtainable(Jones and Hendry 1992 pp 58-59)Second ideal could mean something that atthe present is unknown ie that nobody reallyknows what a learning organization wouldlook like (eg Swieringa and Wierdsma 1992p 72 Watkins and Marsick 1993 p xxii)while organizational learning is somethingknown

One problem is that it sometimes is difficultto decide how to interpret the literature Forinstance when Jones and Hendry maintainthat the idea of learning organization is alsquolsquodirectionrsquorsquo (Jones and Hendry 1994

127

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

p 157) it is not clear whether that means thatit is desirable unreachable unknown notnecessary or that it demands activityFurthermore many of the authors whodistinguish between organizational learningand learning organization might actually usemore than one of the suggested sub-distinctions Thus authors using thedescriptive versus normative distinctionshould specify to which variant of it they refer

Another problem is that organizationallearning can also be an ideal Especially oldorganizational learning is also preferable andneeds activity ndash at least as long as double-looplearning is included in the concept oforganizational learning (see eg Lundberg1995 p 13) Therefore we should try toavoid two of the sub-distinctions of thedescriptive versus normative distinctionnamely exists naturally vs needs activity andneutral vs preferable and instead use one orsome of the three remaining specifications ofthe descriptive vs normative distinctionAlthough both this paper and the existingdistinctions are normative and not empiricalI think it is important to take into accounthow the concepts are used today Otherwiseno one will ever use the distinctions

Group of target

Another popular way to differentiate betweenthe two terms or perhaps another variant ofthe descriptive vs normative distinction isthat the literature of organizational learning isacademic while the literature of learningorganization is practice-oriented and oftenwritten by consultants (eg Argyris 1999Argyris and Schon 1996 Easterby-Smith1997) This might be empirically true ndash theterm learning organization certainly does notimpress on some researchers (although othersuse the term learning organization and viceversa) And new organizational learning isprobably even more academic than theconcept of old organizational learning

To sum up (Table I) both of the mostcommon ways to distinguish betweenorganizational learning and learningorganization can very well be used for thatpurpose especially after a few minorelucidations and corrections Nevertheless Iwill suggest another and complementary wayto distinguish between the two concepts

Complementary dimensions

As complementary dimensions I suggestfirstly a distinction based on who or whatlearns and secondly a distinction based onwhere the knowledge exists Leymann(1989) argues that the term lsquolsquoorganizationallearningrsquorsquo hides who learns Thus onedimension that the literature on learningorganization and organizational learning willbe analysed from is lsquolsquowho learnsrsquorsquo SecondBurgoyne (1999) claims the importance ofwhether the organization is in control ofknowledge in the organization or notAccordingly the second dimension foranalysing the literature concerns knowledgelocation While Confessore and Kops (1998)were using the process vs organization formdistinction they also indicated these twoalternative dimensions (Figure 1) In thispaper I will clarify and develop themfurther

Entities of learning

There has been a debate for a long time inthe literature on organizational learningabout what the entity of learning is Some ofthe researchers argue that only individuals arecapable of learning not organizations (Kim1993 Leymann 1989 Simon 1991)Nowadays most of them who use thisindividual perspective claim that all or at leastmany individuals in the organization learn orshould learn Almost no one sees a fewmanagersrsquo learning for the organization asorganizational learning

Table I Differences between organizational learning and

learning organization

Organizational learningLearningorganization

Character of the contentProcesses Organization form

Amount of normativityDescriptive Normative

Exists naturally Needs activity

Neutral Preferable

Necessary Not necessary

Obtainable Unreachable

Known Unknown

Group of targetAcademics Practitioners

Consultants

128

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

It is no longer sufficient to have one personlearning for the organization a Ford or a Sloanor a Watson Itrsquos just not possible any longer tolsquolsquofigure it outrsquorsquo from the top and have everyoneelse following the orders of the lsquolsquograndstrategistrsquorsquo The organizations that will trulyexcel in the future will be the organizations thatdiscover how to tap peoplersquos commitment andcapacity to learn at all levels in an organization(Senge 1990a p 4)

Others argue that organizations likesuperpersons (Czarniawska-Joerges 1994) areable to learn either as they are ormetaphorically but that we need to understandin what ways organizations are similar toindividuals (Argyris and Schon 1978Hedberg 1981 Jones 1995) Accordingly wehave a distinction between individuals andorganizations as the learning entities

However according to Cook and Yanow(1993) both of these ways to look at learningare cognitive Either the individuals are seen tobe learning in a cognitive way or theorganization learns as if it is an individual theyargue Cook and Yanow suggest another wayto look at organizational learning Theircultural approach implies that the organizationlearns not as an individual or individuals butas a collective Cook and Yanow present this asa cultural approach to organizational learningand not a cognitive one as the two previousperspectives For instance the members of acar factory or a symphony orchestra havelearned together how to build a car or performa symphony No two car factories build a car inthe same way and no two symphonyorchestras perform one and the samesymphony in the same way An organizationmember that is newly recruited from anothersymphony orchestra has to learn from its neworchestra how it plays At the same time theorchestra learns more about its own way ofplaying In conclusion there are three optionsndash either the individuals learn or theorganization learns as an individual or thecollective learns

Knowledge location

The other dimension is based on whereknowledge exists Originally Blackler (1995)used this distinction to classify literature onorganizational learning According toBlackler (see also Collins 1993) knowledgecan be located in five different places Inaddition Blackler suggests a view ofknowledge which he calls lsquolsquoknowingrsquorsquo In thisperspective there is no knowledge to storeknowledge does not exist anywhere since itis a situated process Thus knowledge asknowing is a process and a verb not a nounthat can be stored

Let us now get back to the five places whereknowledge according to Blackler (1995) canexist First knowledge exists in individuals ndasheither in their bodies or in their brains Thusknowledge is lsquolsquoembodiedrsquorsquo or lsquolsquoembrainedrsquorsquoFurthermore knowledge can exist betweenpeople or as Blackler also puts it indialogues knowledge is lsquolsquoenculturedrsquorsquoAnother location for knowledge is in routinesknowledge is lsquolsquoembeddedrsquorsquo Finally accordingto Blackler knowledge can exist in symbolsas for instance words in various kinds ofdocuments In this approach knowledge islsquolsquoencodedrsquorsquo

In conclusion knowledge can either exist inthe individuals or outside them ie in theorganization in itself or not be stored atall lsquolsquoknowingrsquorsquo In the first case knowledgeexists in the brains or the bodies of theindividuals When located outsideindividuals knowledge exists in the culturein routines or in symbols

Analyses of the concepts

Let us now use the alternative distinctionsand analyse the concepts of old organizationallearning learning organization and neworganizational learning (Table II)

Figure 1 Alternative distinctions

129

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

Old organizational learning

Most traditional researchers on organizationallearning or lsquolsquooldrsquorsquo organizational learning seemto agree upon what organizational learning is(eg Argyris and Schon 1978 Dixon 1994Hedberg 1981 Huber 1991 Kim 1993Levitt and March 1988 March 1991Simon 1991) A quite common view oforganizational learning implies that theindividuals learn as agents for theorganization However in order to be valid asorganizational learning the knowledge mustbe stored in the memory of the organizationThis consists of routines rules proceduresdocuments and culture (ie shared mentalmodels)

Thus knowledge acquired by theindividuals is transferred to the organizationalmemory The shared mental models preservethat the individuals learn the lsquolsquocorrectrsquorsquoknowledge for the organization Inconclusion the learning entities are both theindividuals and the organization as anindividual and the knowledge exists outsidethe single individuals

Learning organization

In the literature on learning organization theindividuals are the learning entities Furtherthe literature emphasises knowledge storingoutside the individuals to a much lesser extentthan the literature on organizational learningInstead the individuals learn (see egGarratt 1990 Jones and Hendry 1992) andthe knowledge mostly stays in the individualsIn some cases the teams are said to belearning but also in these cases it seems likethe individuals learn Senge comments aboutteam learning

In dialogue a group explores complex difficultissues from many points of view Individualssuspend their assumptions but theycommunicate their assumptions freely Theresult is a free exploration that brings to thesurface the full depth of peoplersquos experience and

thought and yet can move beyond theirindividual views (Senge 1990a p 241 see alsoWatkins and Marsick 1993)

The team learning described by the learningorganization theorists is certainly notcomparable to Cook and Yanowrsquos (1993)collective learning since it is still theindividuals who learn although everyone islsquolsquofreersquorsquo to express their assumptionsAccordingly the knowledge sticks to theindividuals

Since the knowledge acquired by theindividuals is seldom made organizational theknowledge exists to a great extent in theindividuals (ie their bodies and brains) Thetransfer of knowledge in learningorganizations is supposed to go on betweenindividuals (see eg Garvin 1993) notbetween individuals and the memory of thecompany Instead of being a store house (asold organizational learning can be comparedto) the organization is more like an idealschool The organization provides a climatethat facilitates the learning of the individualsand the managers are supposed to be coachesinstead of directors (eg Garratt 1990McGill and Slocum 1993 Pedler et al 1991Senge 1990b) In this way the employeescan satisfy the needs of the customers (see egGarratt 1990)

After all in some cases some of theknowledge is stored outside the individuals ndashalthough authors on learning organizationmostly tend to describe that most knowledgeexists inside the individuals (ie in theirbrains) According to some of the studies onlearning organization the individuals areconnected to the organization by a sharedvision and by a perspective of wholeness(eg Senge 1990a) which we can comparewith the shared mental models that guide theindividuals in the perspective of oldorganizational learning In conclusion theindividuals learn and the knowledge is mainlylocated inside the individuals but alsooutside them

Table II An analysis based on alternative distinctions

Old organizationallearning Learning organization

New organizationallearning

Entities of learning Individuals the

organization

Individuals The collective (humans as

social beings)

Existence of knowledge Outside individuals Inside and outside

individuals

Cannot be stored plusmn

knowing

130

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

New organizational learning

In the 1990s a social approach to learning hasshown up in the organizational learningliterature (eg Brown and Duguid 1991Cook and Yanow 1993) There are two maindifferences between new organizationallearning and old organizational learning (seeeg Gherardi et al 1998 p 274) Firstly theformer perspective rejects both cognitivelearning by individuals and by theorganization as an individual Instead thehumans as social beings within a community ofpractice learn (Brown and Duguid 1991 Laveand Wenger 1991 Richter 1998 Wenger1991) Thus learning means participationnot acquisition of information Neither theindividuals nor the organization as anindividual learn Instead it is more correct tosay that the collective learns

Secondly while knowledge is storable in theperspective of old organizational learning it iscontext dependent in the new perspective oforganizational learning learning is situated(Lave and Wenger 1991) Accordinglyknowledge cannot be stored without changesin another situation the information willcertainly have another meaning

In sum the learning entity in theperspective of new organizational learning isthe collective (ie humans as social beings)Knowledge is a situational process ndash knowingndash and cannot be stored

Recommendations

In order to distinguish between thetraditional lsquolsquooldrsquorsquo perspective oforganizational learning and learningorganization the existing distinctions will dofine Although when we say that learningorganization is an organization form weshould clearly acknowledge that we meanlsquolsquoorganization formrsquorsquo in a traditional wayOtherwise it might be difficult to separateorganizational learning from learningorganization since both can meanlsquolsquoprocessesrsquorsquo Further since any organizationis said to benefit from becoming a learningorganization it must mean an idealorganization form which connects to theother of the two main existing distinctions

Anyone who uses the descriptive vsnormative distinction should specify whichone of a number of sub-distinctions they refer

to However some of the sub-distinctions areinappropriate since also organizationallearning can be normative in the sense ofpreferable and dependent upon activityThus I suggest the use of the followingmeanings of the descriptive vs normativedistinction necessary vs not necessaryobtainable vs unreachable known vsunknown

Since existing distinctions have made nodifference between old and neworganizational learning those who want todistinguish also between these two conceptscan instead use another pair of distinctionsnamely entities of learning and knowledgelocation The concept of old organizationallearning implies that individuals learn as wellas the organization as an individual Theknowledge is stored outside the individualsLearning organization means primarily thatthe individuals learn while the knowledge islocated both inside and outside theindividuals Finally new organizationallearning where the collective learns andwhere the knowledge is not storable

References

Alvesson M (1993) ` Organizations as rhetoricknowledge-intensive firms and the struggle withambiguityrsquorsquo Journal of Management Studies Vol 30No 6 pp 997-1015

Argyris C (1999) On Organizational LearningBlackwells Oxford

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1978) OrganizationalLearning A Theory of Action PerspectiveAddison-Wesley London

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1996) OrganizationalLearning II Theory Method and PracticeAddison-Wesley Reading MA

Blackler F (1995) ` Knowledge knowlege work andorganizations an overview and interpretationrsquorsquoOrganization Studies Vol 1 No 6 pp 1021-46

Boje DM (1994) ` Organizational storytelling thestrugglers of pre-modern modern and post-modernorganizational learning discoursesrsquorsquo ManagementLearning Vol 25 No 3 pp 433-61

Brown JS and Duguid P (1991) ` Organizationallearning and communities-of-practice toward aunified view of working learning and innovationrsquorsquoOrganization Science Vol 2 No 1 pp 40-57

Burgoyne J (1999) ` Design of the timesrsquorsquo PeopleManagement Vol 5 No 11 pp 38-44

Collins HM (1993) ` The structure of knowledgersquorsquo SocialResearch Vol 60 No 1 pp 95-116

Confessore SJ and Kops WJ (1998) ` Self-directedlearning and the learning organization examiningthe connection between the individual and thelearning environmentrsquorsquo Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly Vol 9 No 4 pp 365-75

131

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

p 157) it is not clear whether that means thatit is desirable unreachable unknown notnecessary or that it demands activityFurthermore many of the authors whodistinguish between organizational learningand learning organization might actually usemore than one of the suggested sub-distinctions Thus authors using thedescriptive versus normative distinctionshould specify to which variant of it they refer

Another problem is that organizationallearning can also be an ideal Especially oldorganizational learning is also preferable andneeds activity ndash at least as long as double-looplearning is included in the concept oforganizational learning (see eg Lundberg1995 p 13) Therefore we should try toavoid two of the sub-distinctions of thedescriptive versus normative distinctionnamely exists naturally vs needs activity andneutral vs preferable and instead use one orsome of the three remaining specifications ofthe descriptive vs normative distinctionAlthough both this paper and the existingdistinctions are normative and not empiricalI think it is important to take into accounthow the concepts are used today Otherwiseno one will ever use the distinctions

Group of target

Another popular way to differentiate betweenthe two terms or perhaps another variant ofthe descriptive vs normative distinction isthat the literature of organizational learning isacademic while the literature of learningorganization is practice-oriented and oftenwritten by consultants (eg Argyris 1999Argyris and Schon 1996 Easterby-Smith1997) This might be empirically true ndash theterm learning organization certainly does notimpress on some researchers (although othersuse the term learning organization and viceversa) And new organizational learning isprobably even more academic than theconcept of old organizational learning

To sum up (Table I) both of the mostcommon ways to distinguish betweenorganizational learning and learningorganization can very well be used for thatpurpose especially after a few minorelucidations and corrections Nevertheless Iwill suggest another and complementary wayto distinguish between the two concepts

Complementary dimensions

As complementary dimensions I suggestfirstly a distinction based on who or whatlearns and secondly a distinction based onwhere the knowledge exists Leymann(1989) argues that the term lsquolsquoorganizationallearningrsquorsquo hides who learns Thus onedimension that the literature on learningorganization and organizational learning willbe analysed from is lsquolsquowho learnsrsquorsquo SecondBurgoyne (1999) claims the importance ofwhether the organization is in control ofknowledge in the organization or notAccordingly the second dimension foranalysing the literature concerns knowledgelocation While Confessore and Kops (1998)were using the process vs organization formdistinction they also indicated these twoalternative dimensions (Figure 1) In thispaper I will clarify and develop themfurther

Entities of learning

There has been a debate for a long time inthe literature on organizational learningabout what the entity of learning is Some ofthe researchers argue that only individuals arecapable of learning not organizations (Kim1993 Leymann 1989 Simon 1991)Nowadays most of them who use thisindividual perspective claim that all or at leastmany individuals in the organization learn orshould learn Almost no one sees a fewmanagersrsquo learning for the organization asorganizational learning

Table I Differences between organizational learning and

learning organization

Organizational learningLearningorganization

Character of the contentProcesses Organization form

Amount of normativityDescriptive Normative

Exists naturally Needs activity

Neutral Preferable

Necessary Not necessary

Obtainable Unreachable

Known Unknown

Group of targetAcademics Practitioners

Consultants

128

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

It is no longer sufficient to have one personlearning for the organization a Ford or a Sloanor a Watson Itrsquos just not possible any longer tolsquolsquofigure it outrsquorsquo from the top and have everyoneelse following the orders of the lsquolsquograndstrategistrsquorsquo The organizations that will trulyexcel in the future will be the organizations thatdiscover how to tap peoplersquos commitment andcapacity to learn at all levels in an organization(Senge 1990a p 4)

Others argue that organizations likesuperpersons (Czarniawska-Joerges 1994) areable to learn either as they are ormetaphorically but that we need to understandin what ways organizations are similar toindividuals (Argyris and Schon 1978Hedberg 1981 Jones 1995) Accordingly wehave a distinction between individuals andorganizations as the learning entities

However according to Cook and Yanow(1993) both of these ways to look at learningare cognitive Either the individuals are seen tobe learning in a cognitive way or theorganization learns as if it is an individual theyargue Cook and Yanow suggest another wayto look at organizational learning Theircultural approach implies that the organizationlearns not as an individual or individuals butas a collective Cook and Yanow present this asa cultural approach to organizational learningand not a cognitive one as the two previousperspectives For instance the members of acar factory or a symphony orchestra havelearned together how to build a car or performa symphony No two car factories build a car inthe same way and no two symphonyorchestras perform one and the samesymphony in the same way An organizationmember that is newly recruited from anothersymphony orchestra has to learn from its neworchestra how it plays At the same time theorchestra learns more about its own way ofplaying In conclusion there are three optionsndash either the individuals learn or theorganization learns as an individual or thecollective learns

Knowledge location

The other dimension is based on whereknowledge exists Originally Blackler (1995)used this distinction to classify literature onorganizational learning According toBlackler (see also Collins 1993) knowledgecan be located in five different places Inaddition Blackler suggests a view ofknowledge which he calls lsquolsquoknowingrsquorsquo In thisperspective there is no knowledge to storeknowledge does not exist anywhere since itis a situated process Thus knowledge asknowing is a process and a verb not a nounthat can be stored

Let us now get back to the five places whereknowledge according to Blackler (1995) canexist First knowledge exists in individuals ndasheither in their bodies or in their brains Thusknowledge is lsquolsquoembodiedrsquorsquo or lsquolsquoembrainedrsquorsquoFurthermore knowledge can exist betweenpeople or as Blackler also puts it indialogues knowledge is lsquolsquoenculturedrsquorsquoAnother location for knowledge is in routinesknowledge is lsquolsquoembeddedrsquorsquo Finally accordingto Blackler knowledge can exist in symbolsas for instance words in various kinds ofdocuments In this approach knowledge islsquolsquoencodedrsquorsquo

In conclusion knowledge can either exist inthe individuals or outside them ie in theorganization in itself or not be stored atall lsquolsquoknowingrsquorsquo In the first case knowledgeexists in the brains or the bodies of theindividuals When located outsideindividuals knowledge exists in the culturein routines or in symbols

Analyses of the concepts

Let us now use the alternative distinctionsand analyse the concepts of old organizationallearning learning organization and neworganizational learning (Table II)

Figure 1 Alternative distinctions

129

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

Old organizational learning

Most traditional researchers on organizationallearning or lsquolsquooldrsquorsquo organizational learning seemto agree upon what organizational learning is(eg Argyris and Schon 1978 Dixon 1994Hedberg 1981 Huber 1991 Kim 1993Levitt and March 1988 March 1991Simon 1991) A quite common view oforganizational learning implies that theindividuals learn as agents for theorganization However in order to be valid asorganizational learning the knowledge mustbe stored in the memory of the organizationThis consists of routines rules proceduresdocuments and culture (ie shared mentalmodels)

Thus knowledge acquired by theindividuals is transferred to the organizationalmemory The shared mental models preservethat the individuals learn the lsquolsquocorrectrsquorsquoknowledge for the organization Inconclusion the learning entities are both theindividuals and the organization as anindividual and the knowledge exists outsidethe single individuals

Learning organization

In the literature on learning organization theindividuals are the learning entities Furtherthe literature emphasises knowledge storingoutside the individuals to a much lesser extentthan the literature on organizational learningInstead the individuals learn (see egGarratt 1990 Jones and Hendry 1992) andthe knowledge mostly stays in the individualsIn some cases the teams are said to belearning but also in these cases it seems likethe individuals learn Senge comments aboutteam learning

In dialogue a group explores complex difficultissues from many points of view Individualssuspend their assumptions but theycommunicate their assumptions freely Theresult is a free exploration that brings to thesurface the full depth of peoplersquos experience and

thought and yet can move beyond theirindividual views (Senge 1990a p 241 see alsoWatkins and Marsick 1993)

The team learning described by the learningorganization theorists is certainly notcomparable to Cook and Yanowrsquos (1993)collective learning since it is still theindividuals who learn although everyone islsquolsquofreersquorsquo to express their assumptionsAccordingly the knowledge sticks to theindividuals

Since the knowledge acquired by theindividuals is seldom made organizational theknowledge exists to a great extent in theindividuals (ie their bodies and brains) Thetransfer of knowledge in learningorganizations is supposed to go on betweenindividuals (see eg Garvin 1993) notbetween individuals and the memory of thecompany Instead of being a store house (asold organizational learning can be comparedto) the organization is more like an idealschool The organization provides a climatethat facilitates the learning of the individualsand the managers are supposed to be coachesinstead of directors (eg Garratt 1990McGill and Slocum 1993 Pedler et al 1991Senge 1990b) In this way the employeescan satisfy the needs of the customers (see egGarratt 1990)

After all in some cases some of theknowledge is stored outside the individuals ndashalthough authors on learning organizationmostly tend to describe that most knowledgeexists inside the individuals (ie in theirbrains) According to some of the studies onlearning organization the individuals areconnected to the organization by a sharedvision and by a perspective of wholeness(eg Senge 1990a) which we can comparewith the shared mental models that guide theindividuals in the perspective of oldorganizational learning In conclusion theindividuals learn and the knowledge is mainlylocated inside the individuals but alsooutside them

Table II An analysis based on alternative distinctions

Old organizationallearning Learning organization

New organizationallearning

Entities of learning Individuals the

organization

Individuals The collective (humans as

social beings)

Existence of knowledge Outside individuals Inside and outside

individuals

Cannot be stored plusmn

knowing

130

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

New organizational learning

In the 1990s a social approach to learning hasshown up in the organizational learningliterature (eg Brown and Duguid 1991Cook and Yanow 1993) There are two maindifferences between new organizationallearning and old organizational learning (seeeg Gherardi et al 1998 p 274) Firstly theformer perspective rejects both cognitivelearning by individuals and by theorganization as an individual Instead thehumans as social beings within a community ofpractice learn (Brown and Duguid 1991 Laveand Wenger 1991 Richter 1998 Wenger1991) Thus learning means participationnot acquisition of information Neither theindividuals nor the organization as anindividual learn Instead it is more correct tosay that the collective learns

Secondly while knowledge is storable in theperspective of old organizational learning it iscontext dependent in the new perspective oforganizational learning learning is situated(Lave and Wenger 1991) Accordinglyknowledge cannot be stored without changesin another situation the information willcertainly have another meaning

In sum the learning entity in theperspective of new organizational learning isthe collective (ie humans as social beings)Knowledge is a situational process ndash knowingndash and cannot be stored

Recommendations

In order to distinguish between thetraditional lsquolsquooldrsquorsquo perspective oforganizational learning and learningorganization the existing distinctions will dofine Although when we say that learningorganization is an organization form weshould clearly acknowledge that we meanlsquolsquoorganization formrsquorsquo in a traditional wayOtherwise it might be difficult to separateorganizational learning from learningorganization since both can meanlsquolsquoprocessesrsquorsquo Further since any organizationis said to benefit from becoming a learningorganization it must mean an idealorganization form which connects to theother of the two main existing distinctions

Anyone who uses the descriptive vsnormative distinction should specify whichone of a number of sub-distinctions they refer

to However some of the sub-distinctions areinappropriate since also organizationallearning can be normative in the sense ofpreferable and dependent upon activityThus I suggest the use of the followingmeanings of the descriptive vs normativedistinction necessary vs not necessaryobtainable vs unreachable known vsunknown

Since existing distinctions have made nodifference between old and neworganizational learning those who want todistinguish also between these two conceptscan instead use another pair of distinctionsnamely entities of learning and knowledgelocation The concept of old organizationallearning implies that individuals learn as wellas the organization as an individual Theknowledge is stored outside the individualsLearning organization means primarily thatthe individuals learn while the knowledge islocated both inside and outside theindividuals Finally new organizationallearning where the collective learns andwhere the knowledge is not storable

References

Alvesson M (1993) ` Organizations as rhetoricknowledge-intensive firms and the struggle withambiguityrsquorsquo Journal of Management Studies Vol 30No 6 pp 997-1015

Argyris C (1999) On Organizational LearningBlackwells Oxford

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1978) OrganizationalLearning A Theory of Action PerspectiveAddison-Wesley London

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1996) OrganizationalLearning II Theory Method and PracticeAddison-Wesley Reading MA

Blackler F (1995) ` Knowledge knowlege work andorganizations an overview and interpretationrsquorsquoOrganization Studies Vol 1 No 6 pp 1021-46

Boje DM (1994) ` Organizational storytelling thestrugglers of pre-modern modern and post-modernorganizational learning discoursesrsquorsquo ManagementLearning Vol 25 No 3 pp 433-61

Brown JS and Duguid P (1991) ` Organizationallearning and communities-of-practice toward aunified view of working learning and innovationrsquorsquoOrganization Science Vol 2 No 1 pp 40-57

Burgoyne J (1999) ` Design of the timesrsquorsquo PeopleManagement Vol 5 No 11 pp 38-44

Collins HM (1993) ` The structure of knowledgersquorsquo SocialResearch Vol 60 No 1 pp 95-116

Confessore SJ and Kops WJ (1998) ` Self-directedlearning and the learning organization examiningthe connection between the individual and thelearning environmentrsquorsquo Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly Vol 9 No 4 pp 365-75

131

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

It is no longer sufficient to have one personlearning for the organization a Ford or a Sloanor a Watson Itrsquos just not possible any longer tolsquolsquofigure it outrsquorsquo from the top and have everyoneelse following the orders of the lsquolsquograndstrategistrsquorsquo The organizations that will trulyexcel in the future will be the organizations thatdiscover how to tap peoplersquos commitment andcapacity to learn at all levels in an organization(Senge 1990a p 4)

Others argue that organizations likesuperpersons (Czarniawska-Joerges 1994) areable to learn either as they are ormetaphorically but that we need to understandin what ways organizations are similar toindividuals (Argyris and Schon 1978Hedberg 1981 Jones 1995) Accordingly wehave a distinction between individuals andorganizations as the learning entities

However according to Cook and Yanow(1993) both of these ways to look at learningare cognitive Either the individuals are seen tobe learning in a cognitive way or theorganization learns as if it is an individual theyargue Cook and Yanow suggest another wayto look at organizational learning Theircultural approach implies that the organizationlearns not as an individual or individuals butas a collective Cook and Yanow present this asa cultural approach to organizational learningand not a cognitive one as the two previousperspectives For instance the members of acar factory or a symphony orchestra havelearned together how to build a car or performa symphony No two car factories build a car inthe same way and no two symphonyorchestras perform one and the samesymphony in the same way An organizationmember that is newly recruited from anothersymphony orchestra has to learn from its neworchestra how it plays At the same time theorchestra learns more about its own way ofplaying In conclusion there are three optionsndash either the individuals learn or theorganization learns as an individual or thecollective learns

Knowledge location

The other dimension is based on whereknowledge exists Originally Blackler (1995)used this distinction to classify literature onorganizational learning According toBlackler (see also Collins 1993) knowledgecan be located in five different places Inaddition Blackler suggests a view ofknowledge which he calls lsquolsquoknowingrsquorsquo In thisperspective there is no knowledge to storeknowledge does not exist anywhere since itis a situated process Thus knowledge asknowing is a process and a verb not a nounthat can be stored

Let us now get back to the five places whereknowledge according to Blackler (1995) canexist First knowledge exists in individuals ndasheither in their bodies or in their brains Thusknowledge is lsquolsquoembodiedrsquorsquo or lsquolsquoembrainedrsquorsquoFurthermore knowledge can exist betweenpeople or as Blackler also puts it indialogues knowledge is lsquolsquoenculturedrsquorsquoAnother location for knowledge is in routinesknowledge is lsquolsquoembeddedrsquorsquo Finally accordingto Blackler knowledge can exist in symbolsas for instance words in various kinds ofdocuments In this approach knowledge islsquolsquoencodedrsquorsquo

In conclusion knowledge can either exist inthe individuals or outside them ie in theorganization in itself or not be stored atall lsquolsquoknowingrsquorsquo In the first case knowledgeexists in the brains or the bodies of theindividuals When located outsideindividuals knowledge exists in the culturein routines or in symbols

Analyses of the concepts

Let us now use the alternative distinctionsand analyse the concepts of old organizationallearning learning organization and neworganizational learning (Table II)

Figure 1 Alternative distinctions

129

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

Old organizational learning

Most traditional researchers on organizationallearning or lsquolsquooldrsquorsquo organizational learning seemto agree upon what organizational learning is(eg Argyris and Schon 1978 Dixon 1994Hedberg 1981 Huber 1991 Kim 1993Levitt and March 1988 March 1991Simon 1991) A quite common view oforganizational learning implies that theindividuals learn as agents for theorganization However in order to be valid asorganizational learning the knowledge mustbe stored in the memory of the organizationThis consists of routines rules proceduresdocuments and culture (ie shared mentalmodels)

Thus knowledge acquired by theindividuals is transferred to the organizationalmemory The shared mental models preservethat the individuals learn the lsquolsquocorrectrsquorsquoknowledge for the organization Inconclusion the learning entities are both theindividuals and the organization as anindividual and the knowledge exists outsidethe single individuals

Learning organization

In the literature on learning organization theindividuals are the learning entities Furtherthe literature emphasises knowledge storingoutside the individuals to a much lesser extentthan the literature on organizational learningInstead the individuals learn (see egGarratt 1990 Jones and Hendry 1992) andthe knowledge mostly stays in the individualsIn some cases the teams are said to belearning but also in these cases it seems likethe individuals learn Senge comments aboutteam learning

In dialogue a group explores complex difficultissues from many points of view Individualssuspend their assumptions but theycommunicate their assumptions freely Theresult is a free exploration that brings to thesurface the full depth of peoplersquos experience and

thought and yet can move beyond theirindividual views (Senge 1990a p 241 see alsoWatkins and Marsick 1993)

The team learning described by the learningorganization theorists is certainly notcomparable to Cook and Yanowrsquos (1993)collective learning since it is still theindividuals who learn although everyone islsquolsquofreersquorsquo to express their assumptionsAccordingly the knowledge sticks to theindividuals

Since the knowledge acquired by theindividuals is seldom made organizational theknowledge exists to a great extent in theindividuals (ie their bodies and brains) Thetransfer of knowledge in learningorganizations is supposed to go on betweenindividuals (see eg Garvin 1993) notbetween individuals and the memory of thecompany Instead of being a store house (asold organizational learning can be comparedto) the organization is more like an idealschool The organization provides a climatethat facilitates the learning of the individualsand the managers are supposed to be coachesinstead of directors (eg Garratt 1990McGill and Slocum 1993 Pedler et al 1991Senge 1990b) In this way the employeescan satisfy the needs of the customers (see egGarratt 1990)

After all in some cases some of theknowledge is stored outside the individuals ndashalthough authors on learning organizationmostly tend to describe that most knowledgeexists inside the individuals (ie in theirbrains) According to some of the studies onlearning organization the individuals areconnected to the organization by a sharedvision and by a perspective of wholeness(eg Senge 1990a) which we can comparewith the shared mental models that guide theindividuals in the perspective of oldorganizational learning In conclusion theindividuals learn and the knowledge is mainlylocated inside the individuals but alsooutside them

Table II An analysis based on alternative distinctions

Old organizationallearning Learning organization

New organizationallearning

Entities of learning Individuals the

organization

Individuals The collective (humans as

social beings)

Existence of knowledge Outside individuals Inside and outside

individuals

Cannot be stored plusmn

knowing

130

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

New organizational learning

In the 1990s a social approach to learning hasshown up in the organizational learningliterature (eg Brown and Duguid 1991Cook and Yanow 1993) There are two maindifferences between new organizationallearning and old organizational learning (seeeg Gherardi et al 1998 p 274) Firstly theformer perspective rejects both cognitivelearning by individuals and by theorganization as an individual Instead thehumans as social beings within a community ofpractice learn (Brown and Duguid 1991 Laveand Wenger 1991 Richter 1998 Wenger1991) Thus learning means participationnot acquisition of information Neither theindividuals nor the organization as anindividual learn Instead it is more correct tosay that the collective learns

Secondly while knowledge is storable in theperspective of old organizational learning it iscontext dependent in the new perspective oforganizational learning learning is situated(Lave and Wenger 1991) Accordinglyknowledge cannot be stored without changesin another situation the information willcertainly have another meaning

In sum the learning entity in theperspective of new organizational learning isthe collective (ie humans as social beings)Knowledge is a situational process ndash knowingndash and cannot be stored

Recommendations

In order to distinguish between thetraditional lsquolsquooldrsquorsquo perspective oforganizational learning and learningorganization the existing distinctions will dofine Although when we say that learningorganization is an organization form weshould clearly acknowledge that we meanlsquolsquoorganization formrsquorsquo in a traditional wayOtherwise it might be difficult to separateorganizational learning from learningorganization since both can meanlsquolsquoprocessesrsquorsquo Further since any organizationis said to benefit from becoming a learningorganization it must mean an idealorganization form which connects to theother of the two main existing distinctions

Anyone who uses the descriptive vsnormative distinction should specify whichone of a number of sub-distinctions they refer

to However some of the sub-distinctions areinappropriate since also organizationallearning can be normative in the sense ofpreferable and dependent upon activityThus I suggest the use of the followingmeanings of the descriptive vs normativedistinction necessary vs not necessaryobtainable vs unreachable known vsunknown

Since existing distinctions have made nodifference between old and neworganizational learning those who want todistinguish also between these two conceptscan instead use another pair of distinctionsnamely entities of learning and knowledgelocation The concept of old organizationallearning implies that individuals learn as wellas the organization as an individual Theknowledge is stored outside the individualsLearning organization means primarily thatthe individuals learn while the knowledge islocated both inside and outside theindividuals Finally new organizationallearning where the collective learns andwhere the knowledge is not storable

References

Alvesson M (1993) ` Organizations as rhetoricknowledge-intensive firms and the struggle withambiguityrsquorsquo Journal of Management Studies Vol 30No 6 pp 997-1015

Argyris C (1999) On Organizational LearningBlackwells Oxford

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1978) OrganizationalLearning A Theory of Action PerspectiveAddison-Wesley London

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1996) OrganizationalLearning II Theory Method and PracticeAddison-Wesley Reading MA

Blackler F (1995) ` Knowledge knowlege work andorganizations an overview and interpretationrsquorsquoOrganization Studies Vol 1 No 6 pp 1021-46

Boje DM (1994) ` Organizational storytelling thestrugglers of pre-modern modern and post-modernorganizational learning discoursesrsquorsquo ManagementLearning Vol 25 No 3 pp 433-61

Brown JS and Duguid P (1991) ` Organizationallearning and communities-of-practice toward aunified view of working learning and innovationrsquorsquoOrganization Science Vol 2 No 1 pp 40-57

Burgoyne J (1999) ` Design of the timesrsquorsquo PeopleManagement Vol 5 No 11 pp 38-44

Collins HM (1993) ` The structure of knowledgersquorsquo SocialResearch Vol 60 No 1 pp 95-116

Confessore SJ and Kops WJ (1998) ` Self-directedlearning and the learning organization examiningthe connection between the individual and thelearning environmentrsquorsquo Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly Vol 9 No 4 pp 365-75

131

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

Old organizational learning

Most traditional researchers on organizationallearning or lsquolsquooldrsquorsquo organizational learning seemto agree upon what organizational learning is(eg Argyris and Schon 1978 Dixon 1994Hedberg 1981 Huber 1991 Kim 1993Levitt and March 1988 March 1991Simon 1991) A quite common view oforganizational learning implies that theindividuals learn as agents for theorganization However in order to be valid asorganizational learning the knowledge mustbe stored in the memory of the organizationThis consists of routines rules proceduresdocuments and culture (ie shared mentalmodels)

Thus knowledge acquired by theindividuals is transferred to the organizationalmemory The shared mental models preservethat the individuals learn the lsquolsquocorrectrsquorsquoknowledge for the organization Inconclusion the learning entities are both theindividuals and the organization as anindividual and the knowledge exists outsidethe single individuals

Learning organization

In the literature on learning organization theindividuals are the learning entities Furtherthe literature emphasises knowledge storingoutside the individuals to a much lesser extentthan the literature on organizational learningInstead the individuals learn (see egGarratt 1990 Jones and Hendry 1992) andthe knowledge mostly stays in the individualsIn some cases the teams are said to belearning but also in these cases it seems likethe individuals learn Senge comments aboutteam learning

In dialogue a group explores complex difficultissues from many points of view Individualssuspend their assumptions but theycommunicate their assumptions freely Theresult is a free exploration that brings to thesurface the full depth of peoplersquos experience and

thought and yet can move beyond theirindividual views (Senge 1990a p 241 see alsoWatkins and Marsick 1993)

The team learning described by the learningorganization theorists is certainly notcomparable to Cook and Yanowrsquos (1993)collective learning since it is still theindividuals who learn although everyone islsquolsquofreersquorsquo to express their assumptionsAccordingly the knowledge sticks to theindividuals

Since the knowledge acquired by theindividuals is seldom made organizational theknowledge exists to a great extent in theindividuals (ie their bodies and brains) Thetransfer of knowledge in learningorganizations is supposed to go on betweenindividuals (see eg Garvin 1993) notbetween individuals and the memory of thecompany Instead of being a store house (asold organizational learning can be comparedto) the organization is more like an idealschool The organization provides a climatethat facilitates the learning of the individualsand the managers are supposed to be coachesinstead of directors (eg Garratt 1990McGill and Slocum 1993 Pedler et al 1991Senge 1990b) In this way the employeescan satisfy the needs of the customers (see egGarratt 1990)

After all in some cases some of theknowledge is stored outside the individuals ndashalthough authors on learning organizationmostly tend to describe that most knowledgeexists inside the individuals (ie in theirbrains) According to some of the studies onlearning organization the individuals areconnected to the organization by a sharedvision and by a perspective of wholeness(eg Senge 1990a) which we can comparewith the shared mental models that guide theindividuals in the perspective of oldorganizational learning In conclusion theindividuals learn and the knowledge is mainlylocated inside the individuals but alsooutside them

Table II An analysis based on alternative distinctions

Old organizationallearning Learning organization

New organizationallearning

Entities of learning Individuals the

organization

Individuals The collective (humans as

social beings)

Existence of knowledge Outside individuals Inside and outside

individuals

Cannot be stored plusmn

knowing

130

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

New organizational learning

In the 1990s a social approach to learning hasshown up in the organizational learningliterature (eg Brown and Duguid 1991Cook and Yanow 1993) There are two maindifferences between new organizationallearning and old organizational learning (seeeg Gherardi et al 1998 p 274) Firstly theformer perspective rejects both cognitivelearning by individuals and by theorganization as an individual Instead thehumans as social beings within a community ofpractice learn (Brown and Duguid 1991 Laveand Wenger 1991 Richter 1998 Wenger1991) Thus learning means participationnot acquisition of information Neither theindividuals nor the organization as anindividual learn Instead it is more correct tosay that the collective learns

Secondly while knowledge is storable in theperspective of old organizational learning it iscontext dependent in the new perspective oforganizational learning learning is situated(Lave and Wenger 1991) Accordinglyknowledge cannot be stored without changesin another situation the information willcertainly have another meaning

In sum the learning entity in theperspective of new organizational learning isthe collective (ie humans as social beings)Knowledge is a situational process ndash knowingndash and cannot be stored

Recommendations

In order to distinguish between thetraditional lsquolsquooldrsquorsquo perspective oforganizational learning and learningorganization the existing distinctions will dofine Although when we say that learningorganization is an organization form weshould clearly acknowledge that we meanlsquolsquoorganization formrsquorsquo in a traditional wayOtherwise it might be difficult to separateorganizational learning from learningorganization since both can meanlsquolsquoprocessesrsquorsquo Further since any organizationis said to benefit from becoming a learningorganization it must mean an idealorganization form which connects to theother of the two main existing distinctions

Anyone who uses the descriptive vsnormative distinction should specify whichone of a number of sub-distinctions they refer

to However some of the sub-distinctions areinappropriate since also organizationallearning can be normative in the sense ofpreferable and dependent upon activityThus I suggest the use of the followingmeanings of the descriptive vs normativedistinction necessary vs not necessaryobtainable vs unreachable known vsunknown

Since existing distinctions have made nodifference between old and neworganizational learning those who want todistinguish also between these two conceptscan instead use another pair of distinctionsnamely entities of learning and knowledgelocation The concept of old organizationallearning implies that individuals learn as wellas the organization as an individual Theknowledge is stored outside the individualsLearning organization means primarily thatthe individuals learn while the knowledge islocated both inside and outside theindividuals Finally new organizationallearning where the collective learns andwhere the knowledge is not storable

References

Alvesson M (1993) ` Organizations as rhetoricknowledge-intensive firms and the struggle withambiguityrsquorsquo Journal of Management Studies Vol 30No 6 pp 997-1015

Argyris C (1999) On Organizational LearningBlackwells Oxford

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1978) OrganizationalLearning A Theory of Action PerspectiveAddison-Wesley London

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1996) OrganizationalLearning II Theory Method and PracticeAddison-Wesley Reading MA

Blackler F (1995) ` Knowledge knowlege work andorganizations an overview and interpretationrsquorsquoOrganization Studies Vol 1 No 6 pp 1021-46

Boje DM (1994) ` Organizational storytelling thestrugglers of pre-modern modern and post-modernorganizational learning discoursesrsquorsquo ManagementLearning Vol 25 No 3 pp 433-61

Brown JS and Duguid P (1991) ` Organizationallearning and communities-of-practice toward aunified view of working learning and innovationrsquorsquoOrganization Science Vol 2 No 1 pp 40-57

Burgoyne J (1999) ` Design of the timesrsquorsquo PeopleManagement Vol 5 No 11 pp 38-44

Collins HM (1993) ` The structure of knowledgersquorsquo SocialResearch Vol 60 No 1 pp 95-116

Confessore SJ and Kops WJ (1998) ` Self-directedlearning and the learning organization examiningthe connection between the individual and thelearning environmentrsquorsquo Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly Vol 9 No 4 pp 365-75

131

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

New organizational learning

In the 1990s a social approach to learning hasshown up in the organizational learningliterature (eg Brown and Duguid 1991Cook and Yanow 1993) There are two maindifferences between new organizationallearning and old organizational learning (seeeg Gherardi et al 1998 p 274) Firstly theformer perspective rejects both cognitivelearning by individuals and by theorganization as an individual Instead thehumans as social beings within a community ofpractice learn (Brown and Duguid 1991 Laveand Wenger 1991 Richter 1998 Wenger1991) Thus learning means participationnot acquisition of information Neither theindividuals nor the organization as anindividual learn Instead it is more correct tosay that the collective learns

Secondly while knowledge is storable in theperspective of old organizational learning it iscontext dependent in the new perspective oforganizational learning learning is situated(Lave and Wenger 1991) Accordinglyknowledge cannot be stored without changesin another situation the information willcertainly have another meaning

In sum the learning entity in theperspective of new organizational learning isthe collective (ie humans as social beings)Knowledge is a situational process ndash knowingndash and cannot be stored

Recommendations

In order to distinguish between thetraditional lsquolsquooldrsquorsquo perspective oforganizational learning and learningorganization the existing distinctions will dofine Although when we say that learningorganization is an organization form weshould clearly acknowledge that we meanlsquolsquoorganization formrsquorsquo in a traditional wayOtherwise it might be difficult to separateorganizational learning from learningorganization since both can meanlsquolsquoprocessesrsquorsquo Further since any organizationis said to benefit from becoming a learningorganization it must mean an idealorganization form which connects to theother of the two main existing distinctions

Anyone who uses the descriptive vsnormative distinction should specify whichone of a number of sub-distinctions they refer

to However some of the sub-distinctions areinappropriate since also organizationallearning can be normative in the sense ofpreferable and dependent upon activityThus I suggest the use of the followingmeanings of the descriptive vs normativedistinction necessary vs not necessaryobtainable vs unreachable known vsunknown

Since existing distinctions have made nodifference between old and neworganizational learning those who want todistinguish also between these two conceptscan instead use another pair of distinctionsnamely entities of learning and knowledgelocation The concept of old organizationallearning implies that individuals learn as wellas the organization as an individual Theknowledge is stored outside the individualsLearning organization means primarily thatthe individuals learn while the knowledge islocated both inside and outside theindividuals Finally new organizationallearning where the collective learns andwhere the knowledge is not storable

References

Alvesson M (1993) ` Organizations as rhetoricknowledge-intensive firms and the struggle withambiguityrsquorsquo Journal of Management Studies Vol 30No 6 pp 997-1015

Argyris C (1999) On Organizational LearningBlackwells Oxford

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1978) OrganizationalLearning A Theory of Action PerspectiveAddison-Wesley London

Argyris C and SchoEgrave n DA (1996) OrganizationalLearning II Theory Method and PracticeAddison-Wesley Reading MA

Blackler F (1995) ` Knowledge knowlege work andorganizations an overview and interpretationrsquorsquoOrganization Studies Vol 1 No 6 pp 1021-46

Boje DM (1994) ` Organizational storytelling thestrugglers of pre-modern modern and post-modernorganizational learning discoursesrsquorsquo ManagementLearning Vol 25 No 3 pp 433-61

Brown JS and Duguid P (1991) ` Organizationallearning and communities-of-practice toward aunified view of working learning and innovationrsquorsquoOrganization Science Vol 2 No 1 pp 40-57

Burgoyne J (1999) ` Design of the timesrsquorsquo PeopleManagement Vol 5 No 11 pp 38-44

Collins HM (1993) ` The structure of knowledgersquorsquo SocialResearch Vol 60 No 1 pp 95-116

Confessore SJ and Kops WJ (1998) ` Self-directedlearning and the learning organization examiningthe connection between the individual and thelearning environmentrsquorsquo Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly Vol 9 No 4 pp 365-75

131

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

Cook SDN and Yanow D (1993) ` Culture andorganizational learningrsquorsquo Journal of ManagementInquiry Vol 2 No 4 pp 373-90

Czarniawska-Joerges B (1994) ` Narratives of individualand organizational identitiesrsquorsquo in Deetz SA (Ed)Communication Yearbook Vol 17 Sage Londonpp 193-221

Czarniawska-Joerges B (1996) ` Organizing process ofrsquorsquoin Warner M (Ed) International Encyclopedia ofBusiness and Management Vol 4 RoutledgeLondon pp 3966-81

DiBella AJ (1995) ` Developing learning organizations amatter of perspectiversquorsquo Academy of ManagementBest Papers Proceedings pp 287-90

Dixon N (1994) The Organizational Learning Cycle HowWe Can Learn Collectively McGraw-HillMaidenhead

Dodgson M (1993) ` Organizational learning a review ofsome literaturesrsquorsquo Organization Studies Vol 14No 3 pp 375-94

Easterby-Smith M (1997) ` Disciplines of organizationallearning contributions and critiquesrsquorsquo HumanRelations Vol 50 No 9 pp 1085-113

Easterby-Smith M and Araujo L (1999) ` Organizationallearning current debates and opportunitiesrsquorsquo inEasterby-Smith M Burgoyne J and Araujo L (Eds)Organizational Learning and the LearningOrganization Developments in Theory and PracticeSage London pp 1-21

Easterby-Smith M Snell R and Gherardi S (1998)` Organizational learning diverging communities ofpracticersquorsquo Management Learning Vol 29 No 3pp 259-72

Edmondson A and Moingeon B (1998) ` Fromorganizational learning to the learningorganizationrsquorsquo Management Learning Vol 29No 1 pp 5-20

Elkjaer B (1999) ` In search of a social learning theoryrsquorsquoin Easterby-Smith M Burgoyne J and Araujo L(Eds) Organizational Learning and the LearningOrganization Developments in Theory and PracticeSage London pp 75-91

Finger M and BuEgrave rgin Brand S (1999) ` The concept ofthe learning organization applied to thetransformation of the public sector conceptualcontributions for theory developmentrsquorsquo in Easterby-Smith M Burgoyne J and Araujo L (Eds)Organizational Learning and the LearningOrganization Developments in Theory and PracticeSage London pp 130-56

Fulmer RM Gibbs P and Keys JB (1998) ` The secondgeneration learning organizations new tools forsustaining competitive advantagersquorsquo OrganizationalDynamics Vol 27 No 2 pp 6-20

Garratt B (1990) Creating a Learning Organisation AGuide to Leadership Learning and Development Director Books Cambridge

Garvin DA (1993) ` Building a learning organizationrsquorsquoHarvard Business Review Vol 71 No 4 pp 78-91

Gherardi S (1999) ` Learning as problem-driven orlearning in the face of mysteryrsquorsquo OrganizationStudies Vol 20 No 1 pp 101-24

Gherardi S Nicolini D and Odella F (1998) ` Toward asocial understanding of how people learn inorganizations the notion of situated curriculumrsquorsquoManagement Learning Vol 29 No 3 pp 273-97

Hawkins P (1994) ` Organizational learning taking stockand facing the challengersquorsquo Management LearningVol 25 No 3 pp 433-61

Hedberg B (1981) ` How organizations learn andunlearnrsquorsquo in Nystrom PC and Starbuck WH (Eds)Handbook of Organizational Design OxfordUniversity Press Oxford pp 3-27

Huber GP (1991) ` Organizational learning thecontributing processes and the literaturesrsquorsquoOrganization Science Vol 2 No 1 pp 88-115

Huysman M (1996) ` Dynamics of organizationallearningrsquorsquo unpublished doctoral dissertationUniversity of Vrije Amsterdam

Jones M (1995) ` Organisational learning collectivemind or cognitivist metaphorrsquorsquo AccountingManagement amp Information Technology Vol 5No 1 pp 61-77

Jones AM and Hendry C (1992) The LearningOrganization A Review of Literature and PracticeCentre for Corporate Strategy and ChangeUniversity of Warwick Coventry

Jones AM and Hendry C (1994) ` The learningorganization adult learning and organizationaltransformationrsquorsquo British Journal of ManagementVol 5 June pp 153-62

Kim DH (1993) ` The link between individual andorganizational learningrsquorsquo Sloan ManagementReview Fall pp 37-50

Klimecki R and Lassleben H (1998) ` Modes oforganizational learning indications from anempirical studyrsquorsquo Management Learning Vol 29No 4 pp 405-30

Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated LearningLegitimate Peripheral Participation CambridgeUniversity Press Cambridge

Leitch C Harrison R Burgoyne J and Blantern C(1996) ` Learning organizations the measurementof company performancersquorsquo Journal of EuropeanIndustrial Training Vol 20 No 1 pp 31-44

Levitt B and March JG (1988) ` Organizationallearningrsquorsquo Annual Review of Sociology Vol 14pp 319-40

Leymann H (1989) ` Towards a new paradigm oflearning in organizationsrsquorsquo in Leymann H andKornbluh H (Eds) Socialization and Learning atWork A New Approach to the Learning Process inthe Workplace and Society Avebury Aldershotpp 281-99

Lundberg CC (1995) ` Learning in and by organizationsthree conceptual issuesrsquorsquo The International Journalof Organizational Analysis Vol 3 No 1 pp 10-23

March JG (1991) ` Exploration and exploitation inorganizational learningrsquorsquo Organization ScienceVol 2 No 1 pp 71-87

McGill ME and Slocum Jr JW (1993) ` Unlearning theorganizationrsquorsquo Organizational Dynamics Vol 22No 2 pp 52-66

Mintzberg H (1983) Structure in Fives DesigningEffective Organizations Prentice-Hall EnglewoodCliffs NJ

Nevis EC DiBella AJ and Gould JM (1995)` Understanding organizations as learning systemsrsquorsquoSloan Management Review Winter pp 73-85

Pedler M Burgoyne J and Boydell T (1991) TheLearning Company A Strategy for SustainableDevelopment McGraw-Hill London

132

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133

Preskill H and Torres RT (1999) ` The role of evaluativeenquiry in creating learning organizationsrsquorsquo inEasterby-Smith M Burgoyne J and Araujo L (Eds)Organizational Learning and the LearningOrganization Developments in Theory and PracticeSage London pp 92-114

Richter I (1998) ` Individual and organizational learning at the executive level towards a researchagendarsquorsquo Management Learning Vol 29 No 3pp 299-316

Senge PM (1990a) The Fifth Discipline The Art andPractice of the Learning Organization CenturyBusiness London

Senge PM (1990b) ` The leaderrsquos new work buildinglearning organizationsrsquorsquo Sloan ManagementReview Fall pp 7-23

Simon H A (1991) ` Bounded rationality andorganizational learningrsquorsquo Organization ScienceVol 2 No 1 pp 125-34

Swieringa J and Wierdsma A (1992) Becoming a

Learning Organization Beyond the Learning Curve

Addison-Wesley WokinghamTsang EWK (1997) ` Organizational learning and the

learning organization a dichotomy between

descriptive and prescriptive researchrsquorsquo Human

Relations Vol 50 No 1 pp 73-89Watkins KE and Golembiewski RT (1995) ` Rethinking

organization development for the learning

organizationrsquorsquo The International Journal

of Organizational Analysis Vol 3 No 1

pp 86-101Watkins KE and Marsick VJ (1993) Sculpting the

Learning Organization Lessons in the Art and

Science of Systemic Change Jossey-Bass

San Francisco CAWenger E (1991) ` Communities of practice where

learning happensrsquorsquo Benchmark Fall pp 6-8

133

Organizational learning and learning organization

Anders OEgrave rtenblad

The Learning Organization

Volume 8 Number 3 2001 125plusmn133