Learning organizations in 2016_Sanne van Korlaar

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 1
Learning Organizations in 2016
Theory versus Practice
Written by Sanne van Korlaar (10824065)
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Supervised by Dr. Wendelien van Eerde and Renske van Geffen MSc.
July 2016, revised version

For Koen whose love and wisdom supports me in my own learning of who I am and want to be.
For our daughter Fiene who we welcomed into this world just a few weeks ago.
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Sanne van Korlaar (Zweers) who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of
this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than
those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is
responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Foreword
Learning energizes me. In my work and as a person. My fascination of the concept of individuals forming
ever changing organizations and the role of learning within this context, took a hold of me during my
work at Nyenrode Business Universiteit (Nyenrode). This is where I was introduced to concepts such as
learning, development, culture, leadership and change. I experienced the challenges people and
organizations face in dealing with these concepts first hand and became captivated by them. I decided
to take on the Executive Pre-Master program at the Open Universiteit to deepen my knowledge on these
subjects next to my work. I desperately wanted to know more! After finishing the renovations of our first
home, I enrolled in the Executive Program in Management Studies at the Universiteit of Amsterdam
whilst working at ICM Opleidingen & trainingen (ICM).
Influenced by the teachings of prof. dr. André Wierdsma (author of several books including ‘Op weg
naar een lerende organisatie: over het leren en opleiden van organisaties’) one of the concepts
profoundly integrated in the discourse at Nyenrode was the ‘learning organization’. To my surprise I
found ICM also actively referring to itself as being a learning organization. This couldn’t be a
coincidence! My studies gave me the perfect opportunity to take a deep dive into the concept of the
learning organization. Something I, as a self-proclaimed generalist, had never done before. I couldn’t
imagine a better excuse to finally gain in-depth knowledge about a topic that so truly had my interest.
My aim in writing this thesis has not only been to satisfy my own curiosity, but also my desire to contribute
to our business society by research which makes valuable insights more tangible and to evoke positive
energy in organizations and the people who are these organizations. I hope you’ll find this the case
when reading through the thesis laying before you. To me personally studying, researching and writing
has been a great learning safari which I will to continue after graduation.
As I experienced during my work and studies, people learn from and with each other. Not only with their
head, but also with their heart and hands. I found it a delight to study again – especially as I could apply
my new knowledge directly in practice - and make new friends who share my passions. Thank you
Harm, Thais, Aaron, Asha, Maarten, Mustafa and Sebastian for the great time we spent and will spend
together!
If you have any questions or ideas, please feel free to contact me.
Sanne van Korlaar
sanne.vankorlaar@gmail.com
https://nl.linkedin.com/in/sannevankorlaar

Abstract
The present study seeks answers to WHY people strive to build learning organizations and HOW they
approach this concept within their organizations. Interviews with leaders and major decision makers
were conducted at eight Dutch based organizations all referred to as (by themselves or others) learning
organizations. Conclusions are drawn by comparing existing theories and today’s practice. New topics
in the field of the learning organization are suggested, including customer centricity, the use of existing
methods and its influence on shared language and meaning. Proposed is a framework integrating why
a learning approach is taken and how it is implemented. The framework reflects the way the concept of
the learning organizations is viewed and approached within organizations: as a concept for changing
organizational culture, generating a practice field or realizing the full potential of an organization. It is
concluded that although the concept of a learning organization is too broad to truly validate
academically, it can provide great value for practice.

Table of contents
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 5
2 A short history of the learning organization.......................................................................... 7
3 Defining ‘The Learning Organization’..................................................................................... 9
3.1 The Learning Organization ......................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Zooming in on definitions: learning, organizing and organizational learning............................ 11
3.3 Link with other definitions: development, change, innovation, learning ................................... 13
3.4 On the oxymoron of organizing and learning ........................................................................... 14
4 About the research................................................................................................................. 16
4.1 Research approach: in-depth interviews .................................................................................. 16
4.2 Case selection .......................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 The organizations featured in this research ............................................................................. 18
4.4 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................ 20
4.5 Limitations of the research approach ....................................................................................... 22
5 A learning organization is… .................................................................................................. 24
6 WHY learn? Differences in perspective................................................................................ 27
6.1 Survival of the fittest; need to change or organizational DNA? ................................................ 27
6.2 Quantifiable results: gains of being a learning organization?................................................... 30
6.3 A note on company history and pride....................................................................................... 33
7 HOW to be(come) a learning organization........................................................................... 35
7.1 The quest for the ultimate blueprint .......................................................................................... 35
7.2 The practice of building and shaping learning organizations ................................................... 38
7.2.1 Directing towards a learning organization .......................................................................................... 38
7.2.1.1 Taking the initiative; a top-down commitment.......................................................................................... 38
7.2.1.2 Setting the strategy of execution; differences in approach....................................................................... 39
7.2.2 Design for learning ............................................................................................................................... 41
7.2.2.1 Empower towards a collective vision....................................................................................................... 41
7.2.2.2 Establish an attractive and supporting physical working environment...................................................... 42
7.2.2.3 Interact with the environment .................................................................................................................. 42
7.2.2.4 Search for a fitting remuneration structure .............................................................................................. 44
7.2.2.5 Provide clear scopes on autonomy and freedom..................................................................................... 44
7.2.2.6 Invest in learning; finance, time and systems .......................................................................................... 45
7.2.3 Establishing a learning culture............................................................................................................ 46
7.2.3.1 Attract and retain the ‘right’ people.......................................................................................................... 46
7.2.3.2 Be a role model leader............................................................................................................................ 47
7.2.4 Learning in practice.............................................................................................................................. 50
7.2.4.1 Concrete learning practices .................................................................................................................... 50
7.2.4.2 Generation of ideas and experimentation................................................................................................ 51
7.2.4.3 Ways of working together; methods to learn and shared language.......................................................... 52
7.2.5 Be inspired!........................................................................................................................................... 53
7.3 Where theory and practice do not agree (yet).......................................................................... 53
8 Connecting WHY and HOW; towards an integrated framework ........................................ 55
9 Implications: Theory versus Practice................................................................................... 57
10 Reflections on my personal learning journey ..................................................................... 60
11 Reference list .......................................................................................................................... 61

1 Introduction
Wandering through the streets of Utrecht makes one realize how important learning is to organizations.
The bankruptcies of well-known retail chains including Vroom & Dreesman, Scapino, Perry Sport,
Manfield, Dolcis, and Invito the last few weeks make it painfully visible in every Dutch shopping center;
those who cannot adapt will not survive. Even well-established organizations need to continuously
improve themselves and step up to new challenges as they face changes in customer demands and
technology. Those who do are in the epicenter of interest; we hear of the success stories and unforeseen
growth of Action, Zara and Zalando. For decades our world of interdependency and change has inspired
to search for new ways to develop organizations capable of continuous adaptation and improvement
(Goh & Richards, 1997). No wonder the learning organization has captured the imagination of
practitioners and researchers alike.
Also I was grasped by the conceptual framework of the learning organization as sketched by Senge in
his book ‘The Fifth Discipline’ (1990). Where I found his work highly inspirational and almost poetic in
its nature, I was one of many who found it hard to truly apply his ideas in practice (Bui & Baruch, 2010).
I found myself pondering on questions such as: What is gained by being a learning organization for
people and organizations? What does a learning organization do differently than other organizations?
These and similar thoughts are represented by the main research questions of this thesis: WHY do
people strive to build learning organizations and HOW do they do it?
Though much has been written – mostly conceptually - on the learning organization, tangible evidence
and concrete examples of practices are difficult to find. It was virtually impossible for me to discover
concrete answers to my questions in existing literature. Easterby-Smith (1997) and Rebelo and Gomes
(2008) drew similar conclusions, referring to a need for more qualitative field work on (becoming)
learning organizations and organizational factors that promote and facilitate learning in and by each
organization. As the concept of the learning organization is ambiguous (Örtenblad, 2004), suffers from
a lack of clear definition (Garvin, Edmondson & Gino, 2008) that can be tested, probed and contested
(Grieves, 2008), it is bitterly argued by some authors that they ‘don’t know any examples of true learning
organizations, don’t believe they exists, will ever exist, nor should exist’ (Caluwé & Vermaak, 2006, p.
192; Garvin et al. 2008). Jim Grieves (2008) - previous editor of The Learning Organization(!) – goes
much further by proposing to abandon the idea of the learning organization altogether. He calls it a
'metaphor too far'. In short it is argued that the concept of the learning organization is not relevant as it
cannot be validated by the traditional academic research methods. Indeed, the flexibility and adaptability
of these organizations is hard to fixate and measure.
My unwillingness to give up on the concept of the learning organization so easily, came forth out of a
belief that every organization – be it in different degrees, positively or negatively, consciously or
unconsciously – learns (Ruijters, 2006, p. 31). In this sense each organization will have its own individual
version of the learning organization (Senge, 1990). Moreover, I had the vague feeling that its quest
might lie deeper than striving toward the so often mentioned achievement of competitive advantage or
financial performance and that in its essence it might reflect a longing for finding new ways of working

together, of shared identity. Striving towards the ideal of the learning organization in itself might provide
a focal point for the aspiration and bundling of energies of which people within organizations might profit
greatly. If this is the case, then it is up to science to find new ways of researching such organizations.
Although challenging, gaining an understanding of the reasons for these organizations to learn (the why)
and how they learn, will not only make the concept of the learning organization more understandable
and visible, but also ensures actions can be undertaken to optimize the learning of organizations. Hence,
the objective of this thesis is to support organizations in their quest of being a learning organization by
making the intangible just that bit more tangible.
Inspired by the words of Pascale and Sternin
(2005), with this thesis I strive to learn from
organizations who are perceived to be(come)
learning organizations. Not to validate a concept or
framework or look for an ultimate truth. But, with an
open-minded curiosity and respect for the
continuous change these organizations face, learn
what drives these organizations to strive for such an
ideal. What are their stories, experiences and
insights?
In addition to an extensive review of literature and existing case studies, semi-structured in-depth
interviews in a heterogeneous sample of mature organizations were conducted and analyzed. A
research approach on learning organizations which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been
attempted in a similar fashion before.
To take on this adventure well prepared, the next chapter will start off with an initial exploration on
literature on the learning organization. A brief history is provided from the rise of the concept until today.
Chapter 3 discusses definitions used in academic literature, as well as the distinctions and typologies
to clarify scopes of research. Chapter 4 will discuss the approach taken on the research and analysis of
results. Chapter 6 and 7 elaborate on the two simple questions which the research is based: Why do
people strive to build learning organizations? How do they try to achieve this? In these chapters also
the results of the research are discussed. The thesis concludes by offering an integrated framework
(chapter 8) and a reflection on the implications for research and practice (chapter 9). For those interested
in my personal learning I would like to refer to chapter 10.
‘Where the tyranny of averages
conceals sparkling exceptions to the rule, others
- operating with the same constraints and
resources as everyone else –
prevail against the odds.’
Pascale and Sternin (2005, p. 73)

2 A short history of the learning organization
The ideal of the learning organization is not a new one. Although the roots of the learning organization
were founded in the 1920s, it flourished in the 1990s stimulated by the publication of influential books
such as The Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1990); Op Weg naar de Lerende Organisatie (Wierdsma &
Swieringa, 1992) and countless other publications, workshops, and websites (Wilson & Beard, 2014).
As organizational life started to feature shorter product cycles, global competition, increased workplace
diversity, and the constant need to 'do more with less', faster learners were believed to have a distinct
advantage: they would find ways to improve work processes and breakthroughs in product and service
development before their slower learning competitors (Goh & Richards, 1997).
The emergence of the idea of the ‘learning organization’ is engrossed with notions such as ‘the learning
society’. Perhaps the defining contribution here was made by Donald Schön who provided a theoretical
framework linking the experience of living in a situation of increasing change with the need for learning.
The loss of the stable state means that our society and all of its institutions are in continuous processes of
transformation. We cannot expect new stable states that will endure for our own lifetimes.
We must learn to understand, guide, influence and manage these transformations. We must make the capacity
for undertaking them integral to ourselves and to our institutions.
We must, in other words, become adept at learning. We must become able not only to transform our institutions,
in response to changing situations and requirements; we must invent and develop institutions which are ‘learning
systems’, that is to say, systems capable of bringing about their own continuing transformation.
Schön, 1973, p. 28
Against this backdrop of change organizations started to revisit their traditional bureaucratic orientation
and embraced a range of new characteristics that promoted proper environmental alignment, improved
competitive fit and long-term-viability. A stark realization developed that the traditional bureaucratic
approach was not suitable to support competitive positioning in a hyper-dynamic environment. Hence,
the past decades have witnessed the ascendancy of alternative paradigms, of which the learning
organization was the most prominent (Jamali, Khoury, & Sahyoun, 2006). Characterized by individual
and collective learning, the learning organization became an ideal ‘towards which organizations have to
evolve in order to be able to respond to the various pressures [they face] (Finger & Brand, 1999, p. 136).
A search came into existence to find templates and forms for realizing this ideal. The ability for creating,
acquiring and transferring knowledge were seen as essential in realizing the compelling vision of the
learning organization. Which in its turn asked for the cultivation of tolerance, fostering of open
discussion, and thinking holistically and systematically (Garvin et al., 2008). All in order to be able to
adapt and act more quickly than the competition.

At the beginning of the new millennium the suspicion arose that organizational learning was merely a
fashion. Some argued that ‘the concept is being oversold as a near-universal remedy for a wide variety
of organizational problems’ (Kuchinke, 1995, p. 4). Although the glamour of the 1990s has vanished by
now, learning is still a main subject in organizational publications and is now a common word in the
discourse of management (Rebelo & Gomes, 2008).
Figure 2 Almost 4.000.000 hits on Google Scholar (2016) for the 'learning organization'
The concept of the learning organization still focuses on learning as a tool, a lever, and a philosophy for
sustainable change in organizations in a fast-changing world (Bui & Baruch, 2010). Research on the
topic generally involves the benefits of learning organizations in terms of their innovativeness, their
flexibility in turbulent environments, their employees’ willingness to entertain new ideas, and on the
challenges faced when making the transition from a traditional organization to a learning organization
(Smith, Barnes, & Harris, 2014). Research has been conducted on the typology, characteristics and
perspectives of the learning organization (including, but not limited to: Örtenblad, 2002; Goh & Richards,
1997; Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Bui & Baruch, 2010), methods for measuring learning climate have
been developed and validated (Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004), (financial) performances of learning
organizations have been measured (Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, & Howton, 2002; Marsick & Watkins, 2003;
Davis & Daley, 2008), and various mediators have been discussed such as the differences in
perspectives between employees and managers (Hasson, Tafvelin, & Thiele Schwarz von, 2013), and
sense making (Colville, Hennestad, & Thoner, 2014).
The existing research provides a foundation that allows for more questions to be asked and resulting
triggers to look further into the concept of the learning organization. What it is (in practice) and how
people within organizations work toward being a learning organization.
In order to gain a better understanding of the concept of the learning organization the next chapter will
explore definitions of i.e. learning and organizing, and will discuss similarities and differences.
Figure 1 Google Trends (2016) show a clear decline in interest for subjects 'learning organization' and 'organizational learning'

3 Defining ‘The Learning Organization’
In chapter 2 the history of the concept of the learning organization was discussed. This chapter will
elaborate on the several definitions of learning organizations, their similarities and differences.
In order to gain a better understanding of the concept we will zoom in on the concepts of learning,
organizing and organizational learning.
3.1 The Learning Organization
As we have seen in chapters 1 and 2 ‘the learning organization’ is a concept created in the discourse of
management. Often the term is used as a means for taking a deliberate stand for a vision, for creating
a type of organization one would truly like to work within and which can thrive in a world of increasing
interdependency and change (Kofman & Senge, 1993). For every individual, group or organization being
or striving to become a learning organization the term might therefore mean something different. Many
authors have called for or attempted to articulate a common definition for the learning organization,
justifying its unique qualities and characteristics. Some of the most sited definitions of the learning
organization include:
Learning organizations are organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results
they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set
free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.
Senge, 1990, p. 3
The Learning Company is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought about simply by training individuals;
it can only happen as a result of learning at the whole organization level. A Learning Company is an organization
that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself.
Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell, 1991, p. 1
Learning organizations are characterized by total employee involvement in a process of collaboratively
conducted, collectively accountable change directed towards shared values or principles.
Watkins and Marsick, 2012, p. 118

Much is shared in these definitions. Most authors seem to agree on the assumption that ‘learning is
valuable, continuous, and most effective when shared and that every experience is an opportunity to
learn’ (Smith M. , 2001, 2007). Also any type of organization can be seen as / evolve to become a
learning organization, if they have / strive towards certain features. Typically these include (Kerka,
1995):
 Providing continuous learning opportunities
 Using learning to reach their goals
 Linking individual performance with organizational performance
 Fostering inquiry and dialogue, making it safe for people to share openly and take risks
 Embracing creative tension as a source of energy and renewal
 Continuously being aware of and interact with their environment
However, also contrasts in the definitions of the learning organization can be found. For example, some
authors approach the learning organization as something that is initiated and developed by senior
management – they involve a top-down, managerial imposed vision (Pedler et al., 1991; Hughes & Tight,
1998) - were others view the concept with a more ‘bottom-up’ approach (Watkins & Marsick, 2012).
Another distinction can be made from the use of theories on organizational learning. Where some
approach the learning organization from a technical, outcome based view, others maintain a more social
view (dominating popular literature) focused on processes of learning (Easterby-Smith, Burgoyne, &
Araujo, 1999).
For the purpose of this thesis I choose to refer to the concept of a learning organization as an
organization that learns continuously and transforms itself (Marsick & Watkins, 2003). Learning
organizations in this sense proactively use learning in an integrated way to support and catalyze growth
for individuals, teams, and other groups, entire organizations, and (at times) the institutions and
communities with which they are linked (Marsick & Watkins, 2003).
The term ‘learning organization’ consists of two interesting concepts (learning and organizing). We will
explore these individual concepts in the following sections in order to gain a better understanding of the
definition of the combined concepts of the learning organization as used in academic literature and in
practice.

3.2 Zooming in on definitions: learning, organizing and organizational learning
Figure 3 Definition of 'learning' by Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia, 2016
Learning is a very broad concept which is (often heedlessly) used for describing many different
situations and activities. In the discourse of management learning refers to the ‘implicit or explicit mental
and/or other activities and processes leading to changes in knowledge, skills or attitudes or the ability
to learn of individuals, groups or organizations’ (Simon & Ruijters, 2003, p. 2). Sometimes this learning
is organized (by persons themselves or by outsiders) and sometimes not at all. Then it is ‘just happening
as a side product of working, playing or problem solving’ (Willem, 1987, p. 2). Only afterwards can be
concluded that these learning processes must have taken place from changes we notice. Learning
‘starts in the zone of the unknown, and attempts, via a variety of activities, mental and physical, to
discover comprehension and expertise’ (Claxton, 1999, p. 47) and can lead to changes in work
processes and outcomes. Such learning outcomes can be a change or acquiring of knowledge, skills or
attitudes, but also the ability to learn can be an important result of learning.
Organizations are ‘consciously coordinated social units, composed of two or more people, that function
on a relatively continuous basis to achieve a common goals or set of goals’. (Robbins, 2003, p. 4).
Organizations are therefore by definition a collective of individuals, were organizing involves ‘the
determination of what tasks are to be done, who is to do them, how tasks are to be grouped, who reports
to whom, and where decisions are to be made’ in’ in order to attain objectives (Robbins, 2003, p. 4).
Within an organization individuals and groups, with different perspectives and values, pass information
through their own filters and the (noisy) information channels connecting them (Salomon & Perkins,
1999).
Where some argue that it is not organizations that learn, but only the individuals forming these
organizations (like Marcel Kuhlman of Kessels & Smith during the interview), I support the view of Simon
and Ruijters (2003) in which learning occurs at three levels: the individual-, team- and organization level.
The latter levels do not concern themselves with groups/organizations as static entities, but with an
active process of organizing as a cognitive enterprise (Salomon & Perkins, 1999). Seen from this
perspective many of the fundamentals of individual learning are the same for organization. However,
organizational learning also has distinctive characteristics with refer to ‘what is learned, how it is learned,
and the adjustments called for to enhance learning’ (Salomon & Perkins, 1999, p. 16).

Organizational learning builds on the definitions of learning and organizing. Most researchers agree
with defining organizational learning as a change in the organization’s knowledge that occurs as a
function of experience (Argote, 2011). The knowledge the organization develops can be explicit or it can
be tacit and difficult to articulate (Kogut & Zander, 1992). It can manifest in a variety of ways, including
changes in cognitions, routines and behaviors. Although individual members are the mechanisms
through which organizational learning generally occurs, the knowledge that individuals acquire has to
be embedded in a repository for organizational learning – for example tools, routines, social networks
and trans active memory systems - to occur. That is, the individual’s knowledge has to be embedded in
the organization so that other members could access it, even if the individual left the organization
(Argote, 2011).
In the context of organizations that learn (organizational or collective learning) authors often refer to two
(Argyris & Schön, 1978) or three (Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992) distinct stages of learning: single-
double- and triple loop learning.
Most organizations engage in singe-loop learning. When errors are detected, the correction process
relies on past routines and present policies (Robbins, 2003). It involves changing rules; agreements on
ways of working together, on what can and must be. This is collective learning on the level of
improvement (Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992).
When an error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the modification of the organizations’
objectives, policies, and standard routines, this is called double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978).
This involves not only changing the rules, but also underlying insights, theories and ideas on the ‘why’
of rules, what has to be done and what can be done. It is collective learning on the level of knowing and
understanding, which leads to innovation (Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992).
The most drastic level of collective learning as described by Wierdsma and Swieringa (1992), triple-loop
learning, involves changes in shared principles on which the organization is based; on who we are and
want to be as an organization, how and what do we want to contribute, which values are seen as
important. Collective learning on the level of what we dare, but mostly want to be and are. Ultimately
this leads towards the development of new principles which enter the organization to a next phase (of
transformation).
Level of learning Area of learning Category of learning Result of learning
Single-loop Rules Must/can Improvement
+ + +
Double-loop Insights Know/understand Innovation
+ + +
Triple-loop Principles Want to/Be Development
Figure 4 Collective learning (based on Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992, p. 53)

3.3 Link with other definitions: development, change, innovation, learning
Conducting the interviews for this thesis I noticed that other terms where often associated or blended in
with learning as described in previous paragraphs, such as ‘development’, ‘change’, ‘innovation’, ‘agility’,
or ‘learning’ in the more restricted sense by referring to a focus on changes in skills, knowledge, and
learning abilities.
Simon and Ruijters (2003) offer clear distinctions
between these terms which are useful in clarifying the
scope of this thesis.
They state that when the focus is on long term
learning processes (mostly implicit), this is often
referred to as ‘development’. Development is mostly
seen as a positive direction, often related to (holistic
changes in) personality and competencies. When the
focus is on attitudes or changes in work processes or
outcomes, the term ‘change’ is often used. The term
‘innovation’ is reserved for intended changes of work
processes and products.
A noteworthy buzzword is ‘agility or agile’. It occurs in the newest popular management literature, often
used as a proverb indicating a high degree of flexibility and the possibility to quickly adapt (so often
described characteristics of learning organizations). The recent publications closely relate to the
literature on the learning organization cover topics as ‘strategic agility’ (Lewis, Andriopoulos, & Smith,
2014), ‘learning agility’ (DeRue, Ashford, & Myers, 2012), ‘agile management’ (Hoogveld, 2016) and
‘agile organizations’ (Kerklaan, 2016).
Similar to learning, there can also be group development, -change and -innovation as well as
organizational development, -change, -innovation and -agility. The term learning as used for the purpose
of this thesis therefore encompasses development, change, innovation, agility and learning in a
restricted sense.
Figure 5 The various ways of learning and their
interrelationships (based on Simon & Ruijters, 2003, p. 3)

3.4 On the oxymoron of organizing and learning
As might be observed from studying the definitions in the previous chapter, ‘organizing’ and ‘learning’
are essentially antithetical processes. As Weick & Westley (1996, p. 190) point out: ‘to learn is to
disorganize and increase variety; to organize is to forget and reduce variety’. In other words, to learn is
to create change and to organize is to create order (Colville et al., 2014). Although seemingly at odds,
these processes seek to address the ever present challenge of adapting to and coping with
environmental change and evolution (Smith et al., 2014). Both seek to discover the means for achieving
operational efficiencies and effectiveness. Thus, as Coopey and Burgoyne (2000) conclude: an
important challenge in establishing a learning organization is to maintain a balance between change
and continuity.
A similar distinction can be found in academic literature on ‘learning organization’ and ‘organizational
learning’. Both terms have developed along divergent tracks, resulting in similar, but distinct concepts
(Easterby-Smith et al., 1999). The learning organization on which this thesis is focused is a(n ideal) form
of organization, where organizational learning are activities or processes (of learning) in organizations.
Hence, literature on learning organizations is action orientated, and aimed towards the use of diagnostic
and evaluative methodological tools which help to identify, promote and evaluate the quality of learning
processes inside organizations, whereas literature on organizational learning concentrates on the
collection and analysis of the processes involved in individual and collective learning inside
organizations (Easterby-Smith & Araujo, 1999; Tsang, 1997). As Örtenblad (2001) argues: the learning
organization needs effort while organizational learning exists without any efforts. In this sense
organizational learning is the ‘activity and the process by which organizations eventually reach the ideal
of a learning organization’ (Easterby-Smith et al., 1999, p. 136).

4 About the research
While not many organizations have evolved the processes and disciplines necessary to qualify as
learning organizations, many have adopted characteristics that impact positively on the learning function
and the nurture of learning organizations (Jamali et al., 2006). This thesis takes an appreciative
approach in search of stories, experiences and successes of these positively deviating (learning)
organizations. By learning from organizations actively pursuing to be(come) learning organizations, I
hope to gain better insight in the concept of the learning organization of today. Not to find an ultimate
truth or blueprint, but to contribute to theoretical and practical insights on the subject and to inspire
practitioners in their own quests. In this I take the call of Rebelo and Gomes (2008) at heart who plead
for researchers to investigate thoroughly which factors promote the learning organization (such as, what
organizational structure, what kind of culture, what leadership).
The following sections describe the approach on research taken, a short description of each case
studied and the strategy of analysis. The results are revealed from chapter 6 onwards.
4.1 Research approach: in-depth interviews
In the early writings on the learning organization Kofman and Senge (1990, p. 16) already stated: ‘There
is no such thing as an ultimate solution for a learning organization’. When learning organizations are
seen as individual entities one realizes that a one-size-fits-all questionnaire or instrument is unlikely to
be fully appropriate (Wilson & Beard, 2014). Therefore, the research design needs to be given the
necessary flexibility to develop its own individual version of the learning organization (Senge, 1990).
Based on a thorough literature research and my own curiosity I designed semi-structured interviews. An
open and informal approach to the interviews was taken for main themes to arise inductively instead of
interviewing deliberately on topics already set in literature, ensuring their importance to practice and the
perceived applicability on specifically learning organizations. The interviews of approximately 1 to 1,5
hours per respondent therefore allowed for answers to be compared and analyzed, but also to leave as
much freedom for the respondent as possible to share stories, experiences and (mental) pictures
(Michael, 2005).
The ten main interview questions included:
1. Would you say your organization is a learning organization?
2. Can you tell me something about the history of your organization?
3. How would you define the purpose of your organization?
4. What would you say are essential assumptions and values within your organization?
5. Which of all processes and practices that make your organization unique are most valuable?
6. What role does learning play within your organization?
7. What does your organization achieve by its way of working and organizing which she would not achieve by a
traditional way of organizing?
8. How flexible or agile would you say your organization is?
9. How do you experience working at your organization?
10. Which organizations inspire you in their way of organizing?

Questions 1 and 2 where included to provide a general picture of the organization, the assumptions of
the interviewee on learning organizations and to reassure the interviewee in providing his / her answers.
Questions 3, 4 and 9 where included to explore to WHY people and organizations could be intrinsically
motivated to be(come) learning organizations, whereas questions 7 and 8 are more outcome oriented
(also see chapter 6). Questions 5, 6, and 10 where included to uncover HOW organizations strive to
(be)come learning organizations (also see chapter 7). Although the ten main questions provided a
structure for the interviews to be conducted, the liberty was taken to acquire further in-depth details on
topics mentioned by the interviewee or change the order of questions when deemed more appropriate.
For practical reasons (time and availability) all interviews where located in The Netherlands. The
interviews where held face-to-face on site of the organization to provide a better context for me as
researcher. In addition to the notes made during the interview I decided to take notes on my personal
experience of the atmosphere at the organization, the layout of the building, and the way I was received.
Where appropriate I made pictures to capture the look and feel at the time of the interview. The
interviews themselves where recorded and transcribed for further analysis (also see chapter 4.4 on data
analysis).
4.2 Case selection
The research followed the approach of purposeful sampling of heterogeneous cases to provide a valid
cross-section of Dutch based learning organizations in 2016. Although the selected organizations differ
strongly in size, age, and sector, all organizations where interviews were held were recommended by
outsiders as being a learning organization and / or define themselves as (striving to become) learning
organizations (formally or informally). This application of snowball sampling allowed for the identification
and access to appropriate organizations / interviewees ensuring their value to stakeholders and enabling
thinking outside the academic mainstream (Suri & Harsh, 2011).
Only established organizations where researched - their survival a proof of their ability to learn - and
organizations with a minimum of >15 employees, as below that number an organization could be
considered a team. Within the organization the leader responsible for setting the long term strategy of
the organization, team or business unit was interviewed, or an employee closely involved with setting
and implementing the strategy of (striving to) being a learning organization.
A deliberate focus was taken on exemplifying contexts perceived notably as a success (instead of
focusing on where things went wrong). As Michael (2005, p. 224) states it:
‘…to appreciate the best of what is,
one has to focus on the moments in the life when things went right,
when goals seemed possible,
when the future looked bright’.
Sarah Michael, 2005, p. 224

4.3 The organizations featured in this research
Let me introduce each of the organizations visited and researched for the purpose of this thesis. Quick
facts are provided to give a sense of the age, type of industries, locations, and sizes involved. The
names of the organization and the interviewee are linked and refer to the website of the organization
and the public LinkedIn profile of the interviewee for further background information.
BAM Infra, interview with: Marinus Schimmel, Director
In text referencing to the interview: BAM
 Established as a subsidiary of the Royal BAM Group (European construction-services business,
founded in 1869)
 Infrastructure solutions; asphalt and roads, traffic engineering, civil engineering, foundation
techniques, ground, asset management, telecom, energy and water, rail, infra consulting
 Dutch based, internationally active
 4000 Employees
Bejo Zaden, interview with: Laurens Kroon, Head of Research
In text referencing to the interview: Bejo
 Established in 1978 from a merger between companies of Cor Beemsterboer and Jacob Jong,
all shares are still within these two families
 Specialist in improvement, production and sales of vegetable seeds
 Active in more than 100 countries
 1400 Employees
Deloitte EMEA, interview with: Alexandre Janssen, Head of Innovation
In text referencing to the interview: Deloitte
 Established as one of the member firms of Part of Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu Limited (audit,
consulting, financial advisory, risk management, tax and related services worldwide)
 Support 15 member firms; collaborating and leveraging innovation strategies, methodologies
and approaches
 EMEA region
Hoogheemraadschap Stichtse Rijnlanden, interview with: Joke Goedhart, Secretary General Director
In text referencing to the interview: HDSR
 Established in 1994 from a merger between waterboards
 Water board; governmentally responsible for the water management in its district
 Based in Houten, The Netherlands
 450 Employees

ICM Opleidingen & trainingen, interview with: Erik Smithuis, Director / Founder
In text referencing to the interview: ICM
 Established in 2003 by Erik Smithuis and Harrie-Peter Roefs
 Education and training; open enrollment, incompany, performance support, online solutions,
consultancy
 Active in The Netherlands
 100 Employees
Kessels & Smith, The Learning Company, interview with: Marcel Kuhlman, Consultant
In text referencing to the interview: K&S
 Established in 1977 by Joseph Kessels and Cora Smith
 Network of independent consultants; learning and development solutions
 Bases in The Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, India and Germany
 50 Professionals
Louwman ICT Services, interview with: Ron Brouwer, General Manager
In text referencing to the interview: Louwman
 Established in 2010 as part of the Louwman Group (established in 1923 by Louwman and
Parqui, still family owned, one of Europe’s largest car distributors, also mobility aids)
 Shared service center; ICT solutions, projects and supply of hardware
 Active in The Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Czech Republic
 40 FTE
Springest, interview with: Debbie van Veen, Smooth Operations Lead
In text referencing to the interview: Springest
 Established in 2008 by Ruben Timmerman
 Website; everything to develop yourself professionally and personally; find and compare
education, training, courses, books, articles, question and answers and tests.
 Active in The Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom
 29 Employees

4.4 Data analysis
Despite the overabundance of books on qualitative research methods and analysis, the process of
transforming ‘messy’ qualitative data remains quite challenging (O'Dwyer, 2004). As O’Dwyer (2004)
explicates the approach of qualitative research demands much of the researcher. For the purpose of
this thesis I was the primary research instrument and personally responsible for gaining access to
organizations and interviewees, collecting / analyzing data and writing in credible ways. The strong craft-
like element requires a significant amount of knowledge as a result of hands on experiences (Baxter &
Chua, 1998), which I did not yet possess. This was even further complicated by the burden of inference
that fell on me as the researcher (as opposed to a statistical methodology which crunches inputs into
outputs) (Ahrens & Dent, 1998).
Prior to undertaking the first interviews I had little idea as to how I was going to analyze the resultant
data. I decided to tape and transcribe the interviews as my prior reading and classes on qualitative
research methods suggested there are specific methods for analyzing qualitative data captured in this
manner. Using the advice from both texts, fellow students and professors I decided to roughly follow the
rigorous process of analysis described by Miles and Huberman (1984). They consider that analysis
consists of three concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and data interpretation.
Where other researchers (like O’Dwyer, 2004) describe their process of analyzing data as a need step-
by-step logical process I found myself applying the activities of analyzing data as an iterative process
going back and forth between studying single cases, connecting multiple cases and across case
analysis. For me this included listening again to recorded interviews; rereading transcripts and notes
over and over; adding to notes; making mind maps (per case, for multiple cases and on the overall
results); and – to get a better grip on my own thoughts – speaking to others about my findings.
I started off by coding each transcript using themes I found in research and (new) themes that intuitively
arose. For each single case I created a matrix to record the codes of themes noted. Each of these
matrixes had a similar layout, showing: general notions on the learning organization, motivations on why
one would strive to be(come) a learning organization, how the interviewee indicated they were building
towards a learning organization, and quotes with highly illustrative examples. From this very general
division multiple themes arose per case. When all transcripts where coded in this manner, I started to
merge the codes and restructure the information using the matrices made for each transcript. A
combined overall matrix evolved from this inductively revealing common themes (core codes) across
cases and enabling overall the analysis of the collected data. For every core code I wrote a description
explaining the results from the interviews and comparing them to existing literature. These descriptions
where then restructured in order to create a logical story outline to the readers of this thesis.

As you might read from the description on the previous page the process of analyzing data was highly
iterative and inductive. Definitely not a step-by-step process. This might be due to my personal abilities
and preferences or, as O’Dwyer (2004) describes, it might be inherent to qualitative research. When I
must make an attempt to make the process more explicit, I would describe it in the following manner:
1) General overview
a) Listen to (separate) tape recordings
b) Read relevant interview notes
c) Add to above notes as necessary
2) Recording initial themes
a) Initial transcript review
b) Record emerging themes on transcripts
i) Develop intuitive ‘open’ coding scheme
c) Constantly review journal/diary notes and reflections
3) Reflection phase
a) Re-read transcripts and interview notes
i) Patterns emerging?
b) Search for extra open codes
i) All relevant portions of transcript coded?
c) Alternative conceptions on the learning organization?
d) Prepare rough initial matrix based on open codes formulated
4) Data display
a) Preparation of mind maps
b) Prepare detailed ‘open’ code matrices
c) Collapse ‘open’ codes into ‘core’ codes
d) Reformulate ‘open’ code matrices according to ‘core’ codes
5) Detailed ‘analysis tools’ review
a) Conduct detailed examination of matrices
b) Identify key patterns in evidence
c) Revisit transcripts
d) Update and review journal / diary notes / mind maps
e) Question if evidence can be organized differently
6) ‘Story’ outline
a) Create ‘big picture’ story outline of interviews in mind map and thematic form
b) Collate ‘outlying’ perspectives
i) Use to challenge the ‘big picture’ story
c) Write description of findings using ‘big picture’ story outline
7) Employing the analytical lens
a) Interpret descriptive evidence using analytical theme of ‘managerial capture’
b) Beware of selectivity and highlight preconceptions / contradictions
In the next chapter more on the limitations of this approach. The results of the data analysis can be
found from chapter 5 onwards.

4.5 Limitations of the research approach
The research approach taken has enabled me to collect and cross analyze stories of people and
organizations. Consistently, Michael (2005) found in using a similar interview approach that her
interviewees were eager to tell their stories; offered dynamic and unrehearsed information; and spoke
more openly compared to regular interview methods. The chosen approach has offered new insights in
(theme’s surrounding) the learning organizations of today that would not have been realized otherwise.
A similar approach on researching the learning organization has, to my best knowledge, not been taken
before.
However, the research approach also has major limitations. The main challenge is caused by the
interpretative approach of the research, which is subjective to issues of validity and reliability (Sandberg,
2005). As Kofman and Senge (1993) already indicated, the learning organization articulates a view that
involves the observers as much as the observed. It cannot be absolutely free of the researcher’s (my
own) views and opinions. The subjectivity of this study is further illustrated in a quotation from Yeung,
Ulrich, Nason and Von Glinow (1999, p. 57): ‘In essence, the learning organization has become a
management Rorschach Test: whatever one wants to see in the learning organization is seen’ (also see
chapter 3 on Defining the learning organization).
Another limitation rises when one realizes existing literature and research on learning organizations
does not include cultural preferences of working and learning together. Where the foundation of research
was set by mostly American authors, current research includes case studies at organizations from
Sweden (Hasson et al., 2013), Norway (Colville et al., 2014), Spain (Jiminéz-Jiminéz & Sanz-Valle,
2011), and Singapore (Retna & Ng, 2016), among others. However, in these publications the impact of
national culture on the interpretation and enrollment of the learning organization is not taken into special
consideration. This means that for the Dutch companies researched for the purpose of this thesis it is
hard to predict which elements are culturally based and which are truly linked to the (desire of) being a
learning organization. For future research on learning organizations it would be wise to take cultural
preferences into considerations. One might hypothesize that learning organizations differ in shape and
approach from one culture to another.
Finally, though a certain saturation was reached interviewing eight interviewees of different
organizations, the practical restrictions of my time and resources as a part-time scholar were another
major limitation in conducting the research limiting the final scalability of the research. Ideally I would
have had years to observe the organizations I visited, follow their moves and motivations, interviewing
both decision makers and employees. What I would do differently in a next research – even considering
the limitations in time and resources - is a pre-selection (intake) prior the interview to set the scope of
the research (and the interview). The current research conducted can be best seen as a first step in
uncovering new themes related to the learning organization, providing insights for both theorists and
practitioners.

5 A learning organization is…
Chapter 3.1 discussed the definition of the learning organization as we know it from literature. Before
zooming in on the WHY and HOW of learning organizations however (see the following chapters 6 and
7), I would like to make a note on the perception of the learning organization as I encountered in practice.
Every person I interviewed during my research viewed the organizations they established or contribute
to in more or lesser degree as a learning organization. This could be due to the excellent research I
conducted prior contacting the interviewees, but it is more likely due to the broad interpretation of the
concept of the learning organization. Not only in literature (see chapter 3.1 on The Learning
Organization), but also in practice the concept is used very broadly and adapted to suit the situation of
the person themselves and the organization. As Marcel Kuhlman of Kessels & Smith rightly pointed out
during the interview:
An organization does not learn. An organization is a construct.
If I ask ‘point out the organization to me’ what should you point at?
It is an idea that exists as long as people who believe in it have that idea.
Marcel Kuhlman, Kessels & Smith
When asked about what they perceived a learning organization to entail, interviewees answered very
differently. Some referred to (processes of) continuous (organizational) development and improvement
(ICM; BAM), others to specific learning processes as training, education and other personal
development opportunities (Bejo). When questioned more thoroughly, topics associated with learning
organizations also dominating literature arose, such as providing and giving feedback, reflection,
experimentation, taking initiative and responsibility.
Some interviewees also described their own challenges mostly in shifting established paradigms (BAM)
and finding the right balance in the dynamics of top-down decision making and bottom-up initiative taking
(Deloitte). Marinus Schimmel of BAM elaborates on the challenges of becoming a learning organization
by providing an illustrative example:
I am a fanatical skier.
When I was for the first time at an indoor ski path I thought it might not be for me.
Very slowly I learned to ski and now I am an excellent skier.
I still practice every week, even if I am already 20 years on that same path, just to improve myself.
Every time I get a little bit better. You cannot explain to someone how to ski. It takes endless practice.
Within organizations we do not take the time to practice to get the hang of a learning process for new behavior.
That is the biggest blockade on learning. Most do not take the time nor the costs of learning into account.
Marinus Schimmel, BAM Infra

Many set of the learning organization against the practices of the in their view ‘traditional organizations’,
often implying bureaucracy, a strong hierarchy (including an overabundance of managers), top-down
approach to initiatives and decision making, and focus on control and risk management. Traditional
organizations from this perspective are seen as unable to reflect, learn or renew themselves. Something
to steer away from.
Though the concept of the learning organization is perceived and applied in very different ways, it does
seem to encourage ways of thinking on how things can be improved and of how we can work and learn
together without steering in the direction of a prefixed solution. The concept as it is perceived by
practitioners seems to allow for sharing vision, creativity and team work, ultimately bringing (new) energy
for doing things differently together as an organization.

6 WHY learn? Differences in perspective
So why would organizations strive to be(come) learning organizations? Is it to survive and conquer, to
strive for competitive advantages, or can other reasons be found? Intuitively learning seems essential
to organizations, but imprecise reasoning leads to arguments that might be less valid than sometimes
claimed. This chapter explores answers to ‘the why’ as provided to us in literature and compares it to
the interview results from today’s practice.
6.1 Survival of the fittest; need to change or organizational DNA?
Most publications on the learning organization refer to the ‘enormously increased speed of business’ in
what progressively becomes a ‘world market’, by which we have to ‘react to changes faster than ever’.
This is not so strange considering the rate of change in technology (think about the changes the last few
years have seen in mobile, social, internet of things, 3-D printing, big data, the cloud, online security),
business models, job roles and the impact of globalization (Sarder, 2016; Deloitte, 2016). In order to
deal successfully with such an ever-changing environment organizations are assumed to needing to be
dynamic and adaptive, context and customer-driven, and continuously restructuring.
When asked why learning is of importance to organizations, interviewees answered in a similar fashion
to traditional literature; more than half of the interviewees referred to the necessity of continuous
development and improvement in order to survive. Reasons given where, among others, the ability to
beat competition (BAM) and do new things (Deloitte). The strong motivation and dedication behind this
externally driven perspective can be illustrated by following quotes from the interviewees:
As long as I am here it will not become peaceful anymore.
At the moment you think you are there, at the moment you scored an order,
you cannot think you can score the next order with the same strategy.
The competitor also learns.
It is a race of who it capable to change the most quickly.
Not about who is the best, but who is able to adapt.
That is the name of the game.
Marinus Schimmel, BAM Infra
Our business models and strategies, may no longer keep us relevant
in the face of a global economy and changing customer preferences.
We can no longer count on a stable malleable workforce,
because today’s workers are quick to change jobs in search of new opportunities.
Technology is changing so rapidly that we almost have to run in place to keep up,
and we must keep up to stay ahead.
Sarder, 2016, p. 3

We cannot survive if we obediently keep doing what we have done the last 50 years.
That means we have to change. And that means learning.
That’s what we do.
But the question is; are we learning fast enough to survive on the long term?
Alexandre Janssen, Deloitte EMEA
However, where traditional academic literature mainly refers to competition and (macro)environmental
changes as reasons for change, 90%(!) of the interviewees explicitly referred to their customers as a
main reason why learning is of importance to their organizations. Interviewees indicated they want to be
able to optimally support their customers in their own quests; the need to stay ahead of current and
future developments in their fields of expertise. Many elaborated on the challenge to predict and respond
to changing customer needs. Sometimes driven by changes in technology or demographic changes.
The latter is nicely illustrated by an example given by (Bejo) on the development of cabbages (the
vegetable) with explicit specifications:
For example, cabbage...
First there where big families, so cabbages needed to be big as well.
If you have many mouths to feed, then you need a substantial cabbage.
Now families are smaller and people think: ‘What should I do with such a huge cabbage?
I only use have of it and the other half is in the fridge starting to smell or I throw it away.’
So you see a development to smaller cabbages for two or three persons.
But now many people start to buy products already chopped or processed.
For the processing industry it’s much easier to work with big cabbages.
So in twenty or thirty years there has been an enormous shift.
Laurens Kroon, Bejo Zaden
*NOTE: The development of a cabbage with new characteristics might take up 20 to 30 years!
In these - externally driven - cases the concept of the learning organization is applied from a change
management perspective: something to actively work towards to and providing a sense of direction.
Another more internally driven perspective was expressed by a number of interviewees who referred
to continuous improvement as a natural state of their organizational being. Something logically
imbedded in the DNA of their organizational cultures and their own desires (ICM; Springest) (more on
intrinsic motivation in the next section 6.2). One might argue that this truly reflects a learning approach.
The feel of this approach is completely different. Let me illustrate this by the following quotes:

We have experienced continuous development. Not only in size and growth.
It is my mission to ensure ICM has a good combination between its business-like character and humanity.
To create an organization that is balanced.
Not only financially, but also emotionally, in its relationships, physically, with a healthy work- and spiritual
balance. But that is more intuitively.
Erik Smithuis, ICM Opleidingen & trainingen
We work hard to remain agile. And be able to jump into new things.
That’s also the type of people that work here. We all find the status quo something frightening.
If there are new opportunities, we can easily take them.
That’s what we stand for.
Debbie van Veen, Springest
Few authors, like Wierdsma and Emmering (2004) comment on this difference between how
organizations are traditionally (stereotypically) focused on survival ‘making a living’ and how they would
ideally act to increase their potential of survival and their possibilities to influence their own environment
‘making a live’. Burgoyne (1995) adds to this that organizations (should) create their own environments
at least as much as they adapt to it. ‘Higher levels of learning are, after all, more about finding ways of
changing the world and interaction with it to maintain core values than being swept along by adapting
to externally driven change’ (Burgoyne, 1995, p. 23).
Thus, although continuous improvement and the ability to adapt and interact successfully with one’s
environment are seen a necessary for survival, two different perspectives can be found in both (highly
selective) existing theory and practice: the externally driven perspective of the need to change to survive
and the internally driven perspective of experiencing change as a natural aspect of the organization.
One might philosophize on the effects of the consequences of representing either perspective. Such a
difference in world view might influence approaches of change, company policies, the selection and
retention of people, learning possibilities offered etc. In addition, a shift in the role of the customer seems
apparent in the practice of learning organizations and deserves its full attention in future academic
research.

6.2 Quantifiable results: gains of being a learning organization?
Next to being able to adapt to (and create) the changing environment learning organizations are granted
many advantages by both practitioners and theorists. They are assumed to be able to constantly come
up with better products and services, better ways to meet customers’ changing needs and preferences,
and more cost-effective ways to meet goals (Sarder, 2016). Garvin (1993) elaborates on the way these
advantages are obtained by (becoming) learning organizations by distinguishing three overlapping
stages in organizational learning:
1. Cognition: Members of the organization are exposed to new ideas, expand their knowledge,
and begin to think differently.
2. Behavior: Employees begin to internalize new insights and alter their behavior.
3. Performance improvement: Changes in behavior lead to measurable improvements in results:
superior quality, better delivery, increased market share, or other tangible gains.
When asked about the perceived results (or improvements in performance) of their learning approach
>60% of the interviewees included organizational growth in their answers, whether in size or in turnover.
(Improved) Quality in products or services was second best, together with being a good employer to
their employees. Where mentioned, the latter was proudly proven being broadly recognized by awards
won by the organizations for ‘Great Place to Work’ and ‘Best Employer’ awards (Bejo; ICM; Springest).
Other perceived results of the learning approach include: good relationships with employees and
customers, higher productivity and cost efficiency, and an incorporation of values as transparency, trust,
creativity, and authenticity in their organizational cultures. Some of these statements have also found
their way into academic literature with research providing similar evidence.
Research of Davis and Daley (2008) for example affirms the positive and statistically significant
relationship of behaviors associated with the learning organization concept and certain performance
measures (net income per employee; percentage of sales from new products; knowledge performance
and self-reported financial performance). It is suggested that adopting the strategies and behaviors of a
learning organization enhances individual, team, and organizational learning, which in turn, yields
performance gains. While each performance measure may have its particular limitations, they are
considered to be effective indicators of the general success of firms (Davis & Daley, 2008). Other
empirical findings support the positive relationship between organizational learning and performance
(Jiminéz-Jiminéz & Sanz-Valle, 2011). Also, the provision of leadership for learning has been shown to
directly influence companies’ financial performance (Yang et al., 2004).
The study of Jiminéz-Jiminéz and Sanz-Valle (2011) suggests that organizational learning also
facilitates innovation, especially smaller and younger organizations and organizations operating in
highly turbulent environments. Sarder (2016, p. 11) suggests this innovation advantage is an effect of
‘not being locked into rigid hierarchies, stifled by bureaucratic procedures, held back by outdated ways
of thinking’.

Naturally striving to be(come) a learning organization has a significant effect on employees of these
organizations. Both authors and interviewees claim employees to use less defensive routines in work
and more proactivity; greater trust, faster change, more effective communication flows; group self-
awareness, collective learning, greater cohesiveness and creativity (Mason, 2009). Although these
claims are not academically verified, research does show a positive relationship between organizational
learning culture and employee’ job satisfaction and motivation to transfer learning and a negative
relationship with turnover intentions (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004). Other studies suggest that adult
learning in general contributes to positive personal changes that lead to improved health (Aldridge &
Lavender, 2000; Feinstein & Hammond, 2004). Learning organizations are granted a hiring and retention
advantage considering that when given the choice people prefer to work for organizations that give them
the chance to develop and grow (Sarder, 2016). As the study of Deloitte (2016) underlines people today
place a higher premium on flexibility, creativity, and purpose at work. This pushes organizations to think
of talent as ‘volunteers’ and constantly consider how they can make work more meaningful and
rewarding.
As hinted in the last paragraph there is also another, in some ways deeper movement towards the
learning organization. Where work was means to an end, people increasingly seek the intrinsic
benefits of work (Senge, 1990). Learning organizations answer to this by starting with the assumption
that learning is valuable, continuous, and most effective when shared and that every experience is an
opportunity to learn (Kerka, 1995). Shared values are central to this assumption. In their research,
Filstad and Gottschalk (2011) distinguish shared values as typical for learning organizations, being:
equality and empowerment; openness; change; stability; knowledge-orientation; relationship orientation;
informal communication; direct and open communication. Indeed, when asked about why the
interviewees themselves contribute to their organizations, the answers were not; hard organizational
results, or the need for continuous improvement. All interviewees (!) felt a strong sense of purpose in
contributing to their organizations. Being able to apply their knowledge and experience in meaningful
ways. Many indicated they find their work interesting and are able to learn and develop themselves.
Self-efficacy therefore seems to play a major part in their sense of belonging. Erik Smithuis adds to this
by explaining:
Everyone who works at ICM, this I truly believe, came here to learn something.
Whether you stay for half a year, a year or five years, when you leave with more wisdom than you came with
– about yourself, the organization or your profession – then it was a success.
Then life is a journey.
Erik Smithuis, ICM Opleidingen & trainingen

Next to self-efficacy, autonomy and freedom were highly valued in how the interviewees approach and
conduct their jobs (more on requirements accompanying autonomy and freedom in chapter 7.2.2.5).
Many said they value working together with colleagues or be in contact with other people and stated to
be proud of their organizations and collective accomplishments. According to Marcel Kuhlman these are
even the sole reason of existence of Kessels & Smith. As he puts it:
We have only one organizing principle: mutual attraction.
Also fun and inspiration were mentioned as important motivations to work at their organizations. Other
factors mentioned by single interviewees where: being able to maintain a healthy work-life balance, work
internationally, and the financial freedom provided by working.
Comparing these shared values, most surprisingly they include both change and stability. As Filstad and
Gottschalk (2011) interestingly note change and flux are the natural state of an organization, and
therefore stability is not a natural state within an organization but an accomplishment. Therefore, in
contrast to what one might presume at first, a learning organization is related to a stable rather than an
instable organization. An important lesson especially for those practitioners who are eager to realize
radical change within their organizations.
To sum up, perceived results in practice and evidence provided by academic research are surprisingly
similar. Though the emphasis in literature and conversations often lies on quantifiable results such as
improved performance, facilitation of innovation and a positive effect on employee outcomes, intrinsic
motivations of decision makers and employees play a key role in reasons to striving to be(come) a
learning organization. Contributing to learning organization in this sense is associated with having a
sense of purpose, possibilities for self-efficacy, autonomy over one’s work, but also with having fun and
being inspired. As a sense of purpose and fulfillment at work are increasingly important to people today
(Deloitte, 2016), learning organizations might be great facilitators in providing these values.

6.3 A note on company history and pride
Though not mentioned actively in literature on learning organizations I
would like to share a note on company history and the pride it involves.
More than 60% of the organizations visited, visualize their company’s
history and actively share their (founding) stories. In all of these cases the
founders are still involved with the organization and are said to continue to
inspire current employees. At Bejo Zaden for example, the founding
families are still sole shareholders (many family members work at the
company without receiving privileges in their job functions. Shareholders
can be found driving hoisting equipment or working at the warehouse); Mr.
Louwman aged 75 is still actively involved in the activities of the Louwman
Museum (his nephew followed him as CEO); Springest and ICM
Opleidingen & trainingen broadcast interviews with the founders sharing
their company’s history; and Marcel Kuhlman enthusiastically shares the
story about his first meeting with Joseph Kessels and the ideals behind the
founding of Kessels & Smith.
The founding stories tell about the purpose of the organization and its core values. These stories seem
to provide a certain focus in which activities are conducted, with what reasons and in which manner.
They might be an interesting lever in the founding (DNA or social identity) and becoming of learning
organizations.

7 HOW to be(come) a learning organization
Where the previous chapter discussed different perspectives on WHY organizations strive to be learning
it is now time to further satisfy our curiosity and explore HOW they try to become learning organizations.
This chapter starts off with a review of literature on establishing learning organizations and continues by
discussing themes that were deemed crucial in this process by interviewed practitioners. Finally theory
and practice are compared highlighting the major areas of interest when building and shaping learning
organizations and drawing conclusions on (new) research concerning learning organizations.
7.1 The quest for the ultimate blueprint
From the first writings on the learning organization authors have been on a quest to find THE blueprint
for building these organizations. Peter Senge was one of the first to give words to the competences of
learning organizations. He stated ‘a learning organization must be grounded in three foundations (1) a
culture based on transcendent human values of love, wonder, humility, and compassion; (2) a set of
practices for generative conversation and coordinated action; and (3) a capacity to see and work with
the flow of life as a system’ (Kofman & Senge, 1993, p. 16). He continued by defining five key principles
or disciplines necessary to build a learning organization, being (Senge, 1990): personal mastery -
continually clarifying and deepening personal vision, of focusing energies, developing patience and
seeing reality objectively; mental models - deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, and even
pictures of images that influence how we understand the world; shared vision - the practice of unearthing
shared pictures of the future that foster genuine commitment and enrollment, thus a collective
experience, the cumulative total of each personal vision; team learning - the capacity of members of a
team to suspend assumptions and enter into genuine thinking together, starting with dialogue; systems
thinking - integration of the other four disciplines, seeing the patterns of interplay that connect the larger
system.
Although the work of Senge is highly inspirational it remains a philosophy which is hard to envision in
practice, and to quantify and evaluate (Bui & Baruch, 2010). In follow up, other authors have attempted
a more practice oriented approach to get to the heart of how to make it happen in organizations. Watkins
et al (2004; 2003; 2013) and Garvin et al. (2008; 1993) identified distinct building blocks of learning
organizations at individual, team and organizational levels. Their work might be the most tangible in the
field of the learning organization. When comparing their approach (also see Table 1) one cannot fail to
notice the similarities and the manner in which they overlap and supplement each other. Both proposed
models integrate two main organizational constituents: people and structure, with a special emphasis
on the role of leadership. These constituents are also viewed as the interactive components of
organizational change and development (Yang et al., 2004). In addition, both developed validated tools
for evaluation of the degree in which organizations qualify for being identified as learning organizations
and measurement of the results these organizations achieve.

Garvin et al. (1993; 2008) Watkins et al. (2003; 2004; 2013)
Supportive learning environment
- Psychological safety
All employees must be comfortable expressing their
thoughts about work at hand.
- Appreciation of differences
Recognizing the value of competing functional outlooks
and alternative worldviews increases energy and
motivation, sparks fresh thinking, and prevents lethargy
and drift.
- Openness to new ideas
Employees should be encouraged to take risks and
explore the untested and unknown.
- Time for reflection
Supportive learning environments allow time for a pause
in the action and encourage thoughtful review of the
organization’s processes.
Continuous learning
- Learning designed into work: people can learn on the job.
- Opportunities for ongoing education and growth.
Inquiry and dialogue
- Productive reasoning skills to express views and the
capacity to listen and inquire into the views of others.
- Questioning, feedback, and experimentation is supported.
Collaboration and team learning
- Work is designed to use groups to access different modes
of thinking.
- Groups are expected to learn together and work together.
- Collaboration is valued and rewarded.
Embedded systems to capture and share learning
- High- and low-technology systems to share learning.
- Access is provided.
- Systems are maintained.
Concrete learning processes and practices
Learning processes involve
- Generation, collection, interpretation, and dissemination
of information.
- Experimentation to develop and test new products and
services.
- Intelligence gathering to keep track of competitive,
customer, and technological trends.
- Disciplined analysis and interpretation to identify and
solve problems.
- Education and training to develop both new and
established employees.
- Knowledge must be shared in systematic and clearly
defined ways. Sharing can take place among individuals,
groups, or whole organizations. Knowledge can move
laterally or vertically within a firm. Concrete processes
ensure that essential information moves quickly and
efficiently into the hands and heads of those who need it.
Empowerment towards a collective vision
- People are involved in setting, owning, and implementing
a joint vision.
- Responsibility is distributed close to decision making so
that people are motivated to learn toward what they are
held accountable to.
System connection
- People are helped to see the effect of their work on the
entire enterprise.
- People scan the environment and use information to
adjust practices.
- The organization is linked to its communities.
Leadership that reinforces learning
- Actively question and listen to employees.
- Signal the importance of spending time on problem
identification, knowledge transfer, and reflective post-
audits.
- Demonstrate through own behavior a willingness to
entertain alternative points of view.
Strategic leadership for learning
- Leaders model, champion, and support learning.
- Leadership uses learning strategically for business results.
Table 1 Building blocks of learning organizations as described by Garvin et al. and Marsick et al.

Interesting to note is that where Senge strongly incorporated the personal vision and intrinsic benefits
of people to want to work together in a certain way, the search for a suitable blueprint that followed is
mostly concerned with building an organization which is able to adapt (quickly) to a changing
environment. In this sense a learning organization is seen as a continuous cycle of individuals’ and
groups’ actions which interact with the environment, engender a response, and which is framed and
interpreted within the organization, resulting in new knowledge (Davis & Daley, 2008). This approach
on building a learning organization has many similarities with the seminal work of well-known
management gurus as William Edwards Deming (Out of crisis, 1982), Tom Peters (In search of
excellence, 1982) and Jim Collins (Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others
don't, 2010) who write on matters of continuous improvement, agility and adaptability of organizations
(on the long term). The main difference offered by the literature on the learning organization then seems
to be the emphasis on learning.
The question arises: how do proclaimed learning organizations of today view themselves? What do their
practices look like? During the interviews conducted for the purpose of this thesis surprisingly similar
themes arose as stated in literature and uncovered by Garvin et. al and Marsick et. al. In the next
sections we will discuss these results theme by theme from a practice point of view.

7.2 The practice of building and shaping learning organizations
Zooming in on the mentioned building blocks of learning organizations described by Garvin et al. (1993;
2008) and Watkins et al. (2003; 2004; 2013) (see page 36) and the topics which inductively arose during
the interviews it is found that these are surprisingly similar. Almost all topics covered by the authors
were also spontaneously brought up by the interviewees when speaking about the practice of (their)
learning organizations. The next sections discuss themes deemed important by practitioners for
enabling learning organizations, starting off by describing how the direction towards becoming a learning
organization is set by describing who takes the initiative and distinguishing different approaches in
strategy execution (see section 7.2.1). Then vital elements of the organizational design of learning
organizations is discussed (see section 7.2.2), followed by the elements crucial to establishing a learning
culture (see section 7.2.3). Learning practices of the organizations where interviews were held are set
out in section 7.2.4. The chapter finished with inspiration for practitioners (see section 7.2.5) and
conclusions on comparisons between the theory and practice of how learning organizations are being
build and refined.
7.2.1 Directing towards a learning organization
7.2.1.1 Taking the initiative; a top-down commitment
As to HOW people establish learning organizations, a first interesting annotation is that the initiative for
taking a learning approach in practice always lies with the top executive(s) / founder(s) of the
organization. Despite the idealistic world view of working and learning together without boundaries,
social or hierarchal differences sometimes associated with the concept of the learning organization, all
interviewees (!) indicate the initiative for taking a learning approach was taken top-down. In most cases
the learning approach was part of the (current) change strategy for improvement of the organizational
culture (from the perspective of the directors / top-management). In a few cases, a learning approach
was clearly part of the founding of the organization and imbedded in the DNA of the organization. Still,
in all cases the initiative for this approach was taken by the executive decision maker(s) or founder(s).
Interestingly, the top-down approach always included the desire for bottom-up initiative taking and often
less hierarchy and empowerment of employees. Similarly, Retna and Ng (2016) describe it as a
leadership challenge to find an effective balance in the organizational culture between driving change
through a top-down approach and empowerment through a bottom-up approach. Next to the interesting
dynamic it indicates an important role for (the) leader(s). As Yeo states (2007, p. 525) leaders must
‘have a vision of how learning should be institutionalized through the intervention of systems, structure
and strategy’. By sharing their vision, leaders promote participation of staff (Retna & Ng, 2016). This
consequently allows for more opportunities to overcome hierarchical inadequacies and leads to
collective efforts at learning and change (Sheenan, 2004). Their role and involvement is therefore crucial
in building a learning organization and facilitating necessary break-troughs in the structure and culture
of the organization. In fact, leadership is crucial to facilitate learning ‘even when there are no immediate
answers to complex issues during change’ (Yeo, Change intervations to organizational learning: Bravo
to leaders as unifying agents, 2007, p. 548) (more on the role of leaders in chapter 7.2.3.2).

7.2.1.2 Setting the strategy of execution; differences in approach
Learning organization literature generally assumes that organizations need to embed characteristics
associated with learning organizations throughout their organization in order to be successful. Indeed,
this holds true with perceptions of most interviewees. As these efforts focus on significantly reshaping
the organization, transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations by using methods intended to re-
direct the use of resources, business process, budget allocations, or other modes of operation
(International Organizational Change Management Institute, 2016) I call this the change management
approach on the learning organization. Approaches described by interviewees of embedding the
concept of the learning organization from this perspective throughout the entire organization were very
diverse and strongly dependent on the context and culture of the organization and the personal style of
the executive in charge of realizing change. However, also similarities between approaches of the
organizations visited could be found. A view of continuous, step-by-step change with a long-term vision
characterized most approaches. Sounding surprisingly ‘soft’ for the hard decisions the interviewees
often had to make during the change process, all interviewees also state the importance of ‘getting
energy within the organization’. In doing so they all involved and focused their intentions on employees
who were enthusiastic towards the envisioned change (in the case of BAM specifically defined as
‘change-agents’) and made (short-term) wins visible to employees (and customers). As Joke Goedhart
(2016) states in the interview:
It all starts with creating a fundament of trust.
Joke Goedhart, HDSR
However, other organizations have a somewhat different approach to the learning organization.
Approximately one-third of the organizations I have visited decided to establish a separate business unit
where the ‘rules’ of the learning organization apply and where the emphasis is on experimentation and
(product)innovation (BAM; Deloitte; ICM). The main reason given for taking this approach is the focus
and support such a clear division provides, which cannot always be provided in the regular ‘machine
organization’ where operational excellence is the main driver. Often there is direct contact with decision
makers to ensure hierarchy is not an issue. When success of the improvement or innovation is proven
it might be rolled out throughout the whole organization (BAM) or established as a separate profit center
(Deloitte). Similar to notions of Senge (1990, p. 300) I call this the practice field approach of a learning
organization.
Other organizations took a learning approach right from its founding. They seem to have naturally
implemented learning practices they found fitting to their envisioned culture. Their focus is more on
continuously feeding and shaping their culture rather than processes. As Marcel Kuhlman (2015)
explains by the following anecdote:

Imagine you come home to your partner and say ‘darling we love each other right?’.
‘The quality of our relationship is in how much we love one another’.
Your partner says ‘yes I fully agree’.
Then you put a program on the fridge ‘well then we will maximize our love’.
‘We will do an assessment here and some coaching sessions there’.
That is the best way to get thrown out.
That’s not something you do.
Love is something that grows and evolves.
That comes into existence and not something you make a blueprint for.
Interviewees of these organizations mention they do things the way they do as an organization in words
as ‘because of who we are’ (Springest). I find it hard to call this an approach, as it feels more as a natural
state of being. Wherever decisions need to be made or a direction chosen, implicitly or explicitly, the
DNA of these organization play an essential role. In lack of better words, I therefore call this the social
identity approach of a learning organization.
Some of the interviewees referred to specific change practices (they) applied within their organizations
in order to stimulate a learning approach. These could be applied in all of the three approaches
described above, and they might provide inspiration:
 Provide personalized messages on the changes to come fitting with the individual employees’
needs / profile (Deloitte).
 Establish teams of change-agents to learn from each other over the borders of the organization
and surpassing the hierarchal structure (BAM).
 On the agenda every week: explicitly identify and formulate behavior for improvement within
teams and discuss the results together (BAM).
 Reduce processes wherever possible; work on what is truly useful (HDSR).
 Ensure a good working relationship with the employees’ council (HDSR).
 Start with projects that are relatively easy to realize and provide direct results to customers, in
order to establish credit within the organization by increasing customer satisfaction and
employee satisfaction (Louwman).

7.2.2 Design for learning
A learning organization is not cultivated effortlessly. Garvin et al. (2008) argue a learning organization
arises from a series of concrete steps and widely distributed activities, not unlike the workings of
business processes such as logistics, billing, order fulfillment, and product development. According to
them learning processes involve the generation, collection, interpretation, and dissemination of
information, including: experimentation to develop and test new products and services; intelligence
gathering to keep track of competitive, customer, and technological trends; disciplined analysis and
interpretation to identify and solve problems; and education and training to develop both new and
established employees. Much has been written on these different subjects, within, but also outside the
scope of learning organization literature. Which are important themes and requirements identified by
practitioners? The following sections highlight the themes that arose during the interviews and their links
to existing literature, if available.
7.2.2.1 Empower towards a collective vision
Empowerment is one of those topics that occur in almost every publication on learning organizations.
Practitioners seem to agree with the importance of the subject: 90%(!) of the interviewees indicated it is
important to place decision making as low in the organizational hierarchy as possible. In other words, to
empower people to make decisions and take responsibilities. Ideally the entire organization is expected
to own and implement a shared vision of the organization’s future (Yang et al., 2004; Watkins & Marsick,
1999), hence people should be empowered to be able to work towards a collective vision. From this
perspective most interviewees saw ‘hierarchy’ and ‘management’ as something to be reduced as much
as possible. Almost as something ‘wrong’ and from days past. As Marcel Kuhlman of Kessels & Smith
stated:
When you are engaged in working and learning then it has to be visible
in how you create, arrange, structure, and make the rules of the game as a companionship.
That is in the – for others – small things.
In such a companionship for example, you do not speak about junior and senior positions.
That creates a difference that does not contribute to learning.
Although put in other words, this is similar to notions of Yang et al. (2004) who argue that responsibility
should be distributed close to decision making so that people are motivated to learn about that for which
they are held accountable and by this manner connect the organization closely to its environment. The
manner in which organizations put this notion into practice is however very diverse. Kessels & Smith
has no managers at all, viewing their roles unneeded and limiting to working together and learning from
each other. HDSR reduced its number of managers to a minimum, but at the same time improved the
support (HRM, Finance) for the remaining managers. Springest has taken a very methodological and
detailed approach to allow for clear accountabilities. In their organization all roles and tasks of every
employee are clearly written down. When taking up new tasks, wanting to exchange or remove tasks

Learning organizations in 2016_Sanne van Korlaar

Learning organizations in 2016_Sanne van Korlaar

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Learning organizations in 2016_Sanne van Korlaar

Similaire à Learning organizations in 2016_Sanne van Korlaar (16)

Dernier

Dernier (17)

Learning organizations in 2016_Sanne van Korlaar