Rethinking organizational learning: analyzing learning processes of information system designers

Abstract

This paper introduces an alternative perspective on organizational learning that counters various assumptions within most of the writings on organizational learning. By posing who, how, when and why questions while reviewing the literature, four biases within the literature on organizational learning are identified. These biases concern respectively an individual learning bias, an active agency bias, a purposeful learning bias and an improvement bias. These hidden assumptions ensure that most literature tends to lean unnecessarily in certain directions, while overlooking others. The paper proposes several ways to counter these biases. A case story concerning the learning of old and new routines used by information systems designers is presented to illustrate the proposed alternative approaches to analyze organizational learning.

The Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Organizational Commitments of Organizational Members Influences the Effects of Organizational Learning

“…(4) Why do they learn? [20] B. The characters of organizational learning Micaela reported that organizational learning contain four constructs, which are information acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation , and information memory [21].…”

Gregory Bateson on deutero‐learning and double bind: A brief conceptual history

“…Defined very briefly as, respectively, "learning to learn" and "pathological deutero-learning," the concepts have become influential in the work of the so-called Palo Alto and Milan schools in psychiatry and psychotherapy (Abeles, 1976;Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland, 1956;Burbatti & Formenti, 1988;Burbatti, Castoldi, & Maggi, 1993;Haley, 1963;Koopmans, 2001;Ruesch & Bateson, 1951;Sluzki & Veron, 1971;Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967). In more recent years, the concepts have gained prominence in the fields of organization and policy science as an integral part of "organizational learning" (Argyris & Schön, 1978Dopson & Neumann, 1998;French & Bazalgette, 1996;Hennestad, 1990;Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1980;Huysman, 2000;Schön, 1975;Sinkula, 1994;Wijnhoven, 2001).As often occurs when concepts are transferred to other fields than their original ones, their meaning changes and becomes more diverse. This is especially true for the fields of organization and policy science where theoretical diversification and "paradigmatic" proliferation seem to be the rule rather than the exception.…”

Indicadores de aprendizaje organizacional en grupos de investigación universitaria

“…Edmonson (1999) agrega que un grupo aprende cuando realiza cambios dirigidos a su adaptación al entorno. Por su parte, lo característico del aprendizaje organizacional es la institucionalización del conocimiento (Castañeda & Fernández, 2007;Crossan, et al, 1999), la cual facilita el acceso de conocimiento a los trabajadores (Leme & Oliveira, 2002) y su uso para diferentes propósi-tos, por ejemplo, para crear productos y servicios innovadores (Huysman, 2000). Este proceso es posible a partir de individuos que aprenden y de ambientes organizacionales que promueven el diálogo, la discusión, la observación, la imitación, la práctica y la experimentación (Senge, 1992).…”