Do organisations learn?
Much is made in the literature of the ‘fact’ that it is individuals rather than organisations that learn, and that the ‘learning organisation’ is therefore a misnomer. This view is endorsed by the likes of Argyris, who’s searching and incisive mind is highly reflective of its own preconceptions, and Gregory Bateson, who mind sears with insightful connections.
Yet it seems to me that the seat of learning is not entirely placed in individuals, and somehow this feels like a very important issue.
If we are making wrong assumptions about the nature of learning, then we may also be making wrong assumptions about the nature of innovative and creative thought.
Current interest in the power of networks and their connecting functions, prompt questions regarding the nature of the ‘basic business unit’ and indeed basic units of any sort! In my view, the application of ‘fractal thinking’ to networks – or anything else, undermines the working assumptions of individualists like Satre, and supports social constructivist claims of contextual influence at all levels.
If we see business’s as networks, and networks as social systems, then the ‘unit’ is difficult to define. Where does one social system end, and another begin? If an organisation cannot strictly operate unilaterally because of its links with other organisations in a network, then where are its boundaries? What is a unit?
Similarly, individuals are not strictly autonomous, and ‘no man [sic] is an island’ as the famous saying goes. Learning does not reside exclusively within the individual as such, but also within the relationships in the network (s?) to which that individual is a part. A football team is not just a David Beckham, a happy family is not just a Mother, a learning organisation is not just a Ricardo Semler. But learning is obviously not limited to cognition, and also takes place at deeper and complex levels beyond the apprehension of conscious thought. The work of Bateson deals with this in a slightly more academic manner than Argyris, and talks about levels of learning that are reflections of the maturity of the mind. Learning is not all the same, and some of it requires a higher order of thinking – and comfort with ambiguety – and ability to parralell process, and connect things…..like in a network….
This depth of understanding is regarded as a phenomenon of the individual, but there is evidence that it is also cultural. Comprehension of an idea, might easily be conditional on a pre existing facility that is culturally derived. The notion of social obligation for example, is more embedded in the Eastern mind than the Western mind, and filters the sense that we make of the idea of human rights. If social networks accept foot binding or slavery, then the individual may be unable to ‘see’ another way because the social ‘mind’ is not open to another way. How far then, can we say that the learning that foot binding is acceptable is individual learning and how much can we attribute to context? Where is the boundary of the thought?
In other words, is ‘learning’ a process of change that originates in some ‘other’ node or connection, and if so, how do we define the connection? Whilst the nature of the connection is presumed to denote an interior or/and an exterior source, the destination is presumed to be internal. Is a social system that advocates a particular form of behaviour a collection of individuals that all think the same, or do they all think like that as a result of being a part of that culture? If, at least in part, they think like that as a result of the culture, then the culture must be more than the sum of its parts. We cannot establish the purpose of a door without knowledge of the system from which it comes. An analysis of its components will reveal nothing of its purpose. Yet its true functional value becomes apparent if you see it in context.
Nature draws boundaries between substances, and the physical world is broken down into elemental substances. Some of these are more volatile than others, and their behaviour depends on the context in which they exist. In combination, chemicals are constrained in their behaviour by the previous combinations, or networks to which they have belonged, but nothing is lost and all can ultimately be re-combined. All the
Yes but what of levels of learning?
