The individual|collective dialectic in the learning organization

Emerald - Tập 14 Số 2 - Trang 92-107 - 2007
Yew‐JinLee1, Wolff‐MichaelRoth2
1National Institute of Education, Natural Science and Science Education Academic Group, Singapore
2University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

Tóm tắt

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to answer two interrelated questions: “Who learns and how in the learning organization?”. By implication, many theories of the learning organization are adressed that are based on a static and erroneous separation of individual and collective. Design/methodology/approach – Four episodes from a larger case study exemplify the theoretical arguments. These were based on a longitudinal ethnographic study of a salmon hatchery and the public‐sector organization to which the former was accountable. Conceptual framework is strongly dialectical: in their actions individuals concretely reproduce the organization and, when actions vary, realize it in novel forms; organizations therefore presuppose individuals that concretely produce them. However, without an organization, there would be no aim or orientation to individual actions to speak of in the first instance. Findings – The paper finds that individuals learn, through the production of socio‐material resources, notions of organizations which are not abstract. These resources increase action possibilities for the collective, whether realized concretely or not. Expansive learning in individuals is co‐constitutive of learning in organizations and decreasing interest in individual learning constitutes decreased levels of action possibilities for the collective. Research limitations/implications – The paper shows that using this framework, it becomes problematic to separate individual and collective learning. Originality/value – The paper shows that access to participation by all members is a key component as are affordances given by the organization for the development of individuals.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Alderdice, D.F., Wood, F.E.A. and Narver, D.W. (1984), Salmonid Enhancement Program – Preliminary Notes on New Information in Salmonid Hatchery Propagation, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Nanaimo.

Berends, H., Boersma, K. and Weggeman, M. (2003), “The structuration of organizational learning”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 9, pp. 1035‐56.

Blackler, F., Crump, N. and McDonald, S. (2000), “Organizing processes in complex activity networks”, Organization, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 277‐300.

Child, J. and Heavens, S.J. (2001), “The social constitution of organizations and its implications for organizational learning”, in Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 308‐27.

Collins, R. (2004), Interaction Ritual Chains, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Coy, M. (1989), “Being what we pretend to be: the usefulness of apprenticeship as a field method”, in Coy, M.W. (Ed.), Apprenticeship: From Theory to Method and Back Again, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 115‐35.

Curado, C. (2006), “Organisational learning and organisational design”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 25‐48.

Drinkuth, A., Riegler, C.H. and Wolff, R. (2001), “Labor unions as learning organizations and learning facilitators”, in Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 446‐61.

Elkjaer, B. (2003), “Social learning theory: Learning as participation in social processes”, in Easterby‐Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 38‐53.

Engeström, Y. (2001), “Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 133‐56.

Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), “Organizational learning”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 803‐13.

Friedman, V.J. (2001), “The individual as agent of organizational learning”, in Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 398‐414.

Garratt, B. (2000), The Learning Organization: Developing Democracy at Work, HarperCollins Publishers, London.

George, A.L. and Bennett, A. (2005), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Gherardi, S. (1999), “Learning as problem‐driven or learning in the face of mystery?”, Organization Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 101‐24.

Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Introduction of the Theory of Structuration, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Glavin, T. (2000), “Ottawa's meddling endangers salmon: when researchers submitted a plan to conserve wild salmon, they weren't ready for federal ‘revisions’”, The Vancouver Sun, 2 June, The Vancouver Sun, Vancouver, p. A15.

Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1989), Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hargadon, A. and Fanelli, A. (2002), “Action and possibility: reconciling dual perspectives of knowledge in organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 290‐302.

Hilborn, R. and Winton, J. (1993), “Learning to enhance salmon production: lessons from the salmonid enhancement program”, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 50, pp. 2043‐56.

Holzkamp, K. (1983), Grundlegung der Psychologie (Foundations of Psychology), Campus, Frankfurt.

Hume, M. (1996), “DFO the decline of a federal empire: department of fisheries and oceans at war with stakeholder groups”, The Vancouver Sun, 21 December, The Vancouver Sun, Vancouver, p. 21.

Huysman, M. (1999), “Balancing bias: a critical review of the literature on organizational learning”, in Easterby‐Smith, M., Araujo, L. and Burgoyne, J. (Eds), Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice, Sage, London, pp. 59‐74.

Ikehara, H.T. (1999), “Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organization”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 63‐9.

Il'enkov, E. (1977), Dialectical Logic: Essays in its History and Theory, Progress, Moscow.

Kadera, J. (1979), “Agency to test Canadian fish hatchery techniques”, The Sunday Oregonian, 16 September, p. A25.

Kim, D.H. (1993), “The link between individual and organisational learning”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 37‐50.

Lave, J. (1993), “The practice of learning”, in Chaiklin, S. and Lave, J. (Eds), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3‐34.

LeCompte, M.D. and Preissle, J. (1993), Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Lee, Y.‐J. (2005), Working Out Work: Learning, Identity, and History from the Perspective of Cultural‐historical Activity Theory, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria.

Matlay, H. (2000), “Organisational learning in small learning organisations: an empirical overview”, Education+Training, Vol. 42 Nos 4/5, pp. 202‐10.

Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. (2003), “The knowledge‐creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 2‐10.

Orr, J.E. (1996), Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.

Richter, I. (1998), “Individual and organizational learning at the executive level”, Management Learning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 299‐316.

Romme, G. and Dillen, R. (1997), “Mapping the landscape of organisational learning”, European Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 68‐78.

Roth, W.‐M. (2003), “From environmental determination to cultural‐historical mediation: toward biological plausible social theories”, Cybernetics and Human Knowing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 8‐28.

Roth, W.‐M., Hwang, S.‐W., Lee, Y.J. and Goulart, M.I.M. (2005), Participation, Learning, and Identity: Dialectical Perspectives, Lehmanns Media, Berlin.

Sewell, W.H. Jr (1992), “A theory of structure: duality, agency and transformation”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 1‐29.

Simon, H.A. (1991), “Bounded rationality and organizational learning”, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 125‐31.

Stacey, R. (2003), “Learning as an activity of interdependent people”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 325‐31.

Sun, P.Y.T. and Scott, J.L. (2003), “Exploring the divide – organizational learning and learning organization”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 202‐15.

Thorne, S. (1997), “DFO Orwellian, staffers charge: federal fisheries officials behave like ‘thought police’”, Daily News, 21 August, Daily News, Halifax, p. 4.

Tobin, K., Elmesky, R. and Seiler, G. (2005), Improving Urban Science Education: New Roles for Teachers, Students, and Researchers, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD.

Tolman, C. (1991), “Critical psychology: an overview”, in Tolman, C.W. and Maiers, W. (Eds), Critical Psychology: Contributions to an Historical Science of the Subject, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 1‐22.

Turner, J.H. (2002), Face to Face: Toward a Sociological Theory of Interpersonal Behavior, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Virkkunen, J. and Kuutti, K. (2000), “Understanding organizational learning by focusing on ‘activity systems’”, Accounting Management and Information Technologies, Vol. 10, pp. 291‐319.

Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2003), “Organizational learning: a critical review”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 8‐17.

Yeo, R. (2005), “Revisiting the roots of learning organization: a synthesis of the learning organization literature”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 368‐82.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Emerald

Tập 14 Số 2

92-107

Thông tin tác giả