Organisational Learning In A Cultural Perspective

By Author: Mor L
Total Articles: 1
Comment this article

According to American social psychologist Karl E. Weick, organisational learning is an oxymoron. An oxymoron is defined by the juxtaposition of two seemingly contradictory concepts.

According to American social psychologist Karl E. Weick, organisational learning is an oxymoron. An oxymoron is defined by the juxtaposition of two seemingly contradictory concepts. Learning increases variation and encourages "chaos" whereas organisation (to organise) reduces variation and encourages order and structure. Thus, at first it could be argued that the two phenomena cannot coexist but rather cancel each other out. Nevertheless, Weick believes that a balance between the two phenomena, order and chaos, is exactly what facilitates organisational learning.

In this context, Weick stresses how this tension between organisation and learning is often considered a structural choice because bureaucratic organisations primarily organise whereas self-configuring organisations and adhocracies learn. He adds, however, that it is more complicated than that, as both types of organisations learn; bureaucracies by exploiting self-configuring ...
... organisations by exploring. An additional point of view is that optimum conditions for organisational learning are obtained when an organisation balances between exploiting routines and exploring a constantly changing context. Therefore, the situation does not require a choice between, on one hand, bureaucratic structure and, on the other hand, an unstructured organisation. It is not a choice between a type of organisation based on structure and order or one that requires chaos and ad-hoc organisation without any control. Rather, it is a question of balancing learning and organising to ensure the two sides' continuous, close interconnection.

In his quest for an approach to organisational learning that balances between exploiting routines and exploring, Weick turns to cultural theory. Existing theories of organisational learning are criticised for being narrow-minded in their focus on the individual – in other words cognitive - learning dimension. In this context, he shows how theorists such as Chris Argyris, Donald Schön, James March, and others avoid discussing or relating to the oxymoron, by relating to individual learning in an organisational context and thus define learning quite narrowly as a cognitive process. Weick on the other hand points to how an organisation when considered a culture provides us with a language to discuss learning. He shows how the cultural perspective contains specific, identifiable phenomena related to social systems, more specifically the three cultural subsystems; language, artefacts and action routines in which learning is stored and materialised in the organisation, rather than in the individual. By applying a cultural perspective, focus is on what happens in practice groups (interpersonally), rather than on what happens cognitively (intrapersonally).

One of Weick's important points is that he distances himself from a narrow focus on organisational learning as a cognitive process and instead draws on cultural theory. By examining the three cultural systems, it is possible to obtain a better understanding of learning and of the tension between learning and organisation. Weick claims that a smooth coexistence between the three subsystems results in exploitative learning - exploitation of existing routines. In contrast, tension between the three sub-systems results in more explorative learning - exploration of new opportunities. (Possibly connecting to single-loop and douple-loop but stressing that it is cognitive). The following sections introduce the three cultural subsystems and their connection to organisational learning.

Language

Weick gives language a central role in relation to any kind of social practice and argues that learning or comprehension implies the use language; to communicate. He claims that all learning is realised through social interaction, and that language, in this context, serves as both a learning tool and as a storage space for knowledge and learning. Beacuse learning is stored in language, learning becomes a social phenomenon. This is Weick's way of saying that learning does not live in an individual or in an organisation, rather it is connected to relations, both intrapersonally, as a kind of internal reflection, between individuals, and between the organisation and its surrounding environment. Although Weick opposes the cognitive approach to learning, in which learning is realised exclusively in the individual, he acknowledges, that learning is processed in the individual.

In addition to its function as a media for learning and acknowledgment, language also reduces chaos. When we recognise something with our language, we simultaneously exclude a possible focus on other elements. A paradox appears; while conceptualisation and expression increase attention on one aspect, it also helps to decrease attention on others.
Resource: http://probanabusinessschool.brandyourself.com/