Learning Organization-Practical Applications

THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION REVIEW, PRACTICE & APPLICATION by Jean Marrapodi
A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements of OM8999 December 2003 Address: City, State, Zip: Phone: E-mail: Instructor: Mentor: 96 Ravenswood Ave Providence, RI 02908 401-453-5972 rejocier@aol.com Dr. Anthony DiBella Dr. Barbara Salice
Abstract The concept of the learning organization was quite popular in the 1990s. What is the learning organization, and what kind of impact should it have? This paper reviews several theories of the learning organization, including some criticisms of it, and takes a practical application approach to review two organizations using some of the analysis tools created by the theorists.
Table of Contents
Introduction..2 Peter Senge...................................................................................................................................6 Peter Kline...................................................................................................................................9 Chris Argyris/Donald Schon......................................................................................................13 Anthony DiBella........................................................................................................................15 Facilitating Factors.............................................................................................................17 Other perspectives......................................................................................................................19 Critics of the Learning Organization.............................................................................................26 .......................................................................................................................................................29 Practical Applications....................................................................................................................30 The Organizational Learning Profile.........................................................................................30 Providence Assembly of God Organizational Learning Profile........................................31 PHCS Corporate Learning Services Organizational Learning Profile..............................33 PAG: Kline Learning Organization Assessment...............................................................34 PAG LEARNING ORGANIZATION ASSESSMENT MATRIX...................................37 Learning History: Providence Assembly of God...................................................................43 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................50 References......................................................................................................................................51
Learning Organizations Introduction
In the 1990, Peter Senge published a book called The Fifth Discipline that created a flurry of change within management thinking, or at least that is what people say has happened as they avidly quote him. In the September/October 1999 issue of the Journal of Business Strategy, he was named a Strategist of the Century; one of 24 men and women who have had the greatest impact on the way we conduct business today. (Smith 2001) In recent book reviews on amazon.com he is still lauded and his work touches the international business community as evidenced by reviews from UAE and India: (The emphasis within the reviews has been added by the author)
Amazon.com
Peter Senge, founder of the Center for Organizational Learning at MIT's Sloan School of Management, experienced an epiphany while meditating one morning back in the fall of 1987. That was the day he first saw the possibilities of a "learning organization" that used "systems thinking" as the primary tenet of a revolutionary management philosophy. He advanced the concept into this primer, originally released in 1990, written for those interested in integrating his philosophy into their corporate culture. The Fifth Discipline has turned many readers into true believers; it remains the ideal introduction to Senge's carefully integrated corporate framework, which is structured around "personal mastery," "mental models," "shared vision," and "team learning." Using ideas that originate in fields from science to spirituality, Senge explains why the learning organization matters, provides an unvanished summary of his management principals, offers some basic tools for practicing it, and shows what it's like to operate under this system. The book's concepts remain stimulating and relevant as ever. --Howard Rothman
The Book that began a fad, January 26, 2003 Reviewer: ggxl from Bangalore, India
This book was written quite a long time ago (in 1990) and shifted the boundaries of management from concentrating on silos (marketing, HR, finance, production) to looking at organizations as open systems which interact with outside systems and put into motion forces that may not be easily understood using traditional systems to assessment.
Learning Organizations This ability of Systems Thinking Senge called the "Fifth Discipline", the other four being: 1) Building Shared Vision 2) Mental models 3) Team Learning 4) Personal Mastery The field of Systems Thinking was developed in MIT under Prof Jay W. Forrester, but Senge gave it the 'managerial' flavour, cross-fertilising [sic] it with folk beliefs, spirituality and scientific thought from around the world. The belief being, once an organization has mastery of all the five disciplines, the organization can become 'a learning organization'. This book, therefore triggered the craze and fad on part of organizations to become 'learning organizations' and the rise of the 'knowledge economy' was perfect timing for it. Now when the hoopla has settled, it is time again to revisit the true essence of Senge's work and what he REALLY means.
An inspiration..., February 7, 2002 Reviewer: la-layl from Dubai, UAE
The Learning Organization remains one of the most talked-of management concepts in today's business world, and nobody is as capable of explaining exactly what is a Learning Organization or what are the requirements for such an elusive concept than Peter Senge. Senges five disciplines are common concepts in many corporate offices. Often quoted in the management literature, he is considered by many to be the founder of the concept of the learning organization. Thirteen years later, the buzz has died down, and while Senge is still quoted, have the principles of the learning organization been implemented? Are organizations learning? A search of the term learning organization produces 133,000 hits on google.com, so people still embrace the concepts. This paper will endeavor to examine the literature on the learning organization in an attempt to define it and review some of the theories about it. It will also provide examples of the attempt to experiment with the concepts of the learning
Learning Organizations organization in two organizations. The first, an education department of a church undergoing transformation and the second, the training department of a large managed healthcare network provider. What does it take to become a learning organization? Are organizations by nature, learning entities? This paper is an attempt to answer these questions.
Learning Organizations Defining the Learning Organization Learning organization, organizational learning, organizational development, knowledge management these are key terms to differentiate at the beginning of the journey of this discovery process. These are my definitions: Organizational development is a defined methodology of looking at an organization from a holistic perspective with the intention of improving it. Organizational learning is what happens as an organization matures and
improves; in essence, recognizing and changing the widget-making/serving process it is involved with to build a better widget maker/server. The learning organization is an organization that takes a step back to look at the big picture of how it benefits from new ideas and errors with the intention of continuous improvement. It is a deliberate process, and one component of organizational development. Knowledge management is the storage and retrieval of the tacit and implicit information contained within an organization, whether it is procedural or content oriented. Knowledge management makes information that is within individuals available and externalizes it for the availability of the organization. Others define these differently and have written much about them. In the research literature, there does not appear to be a common, well accepted definition of these terms, though they are used frequently. The next section will explore the theories and definitions of others.
Learning Organizations From the Experts Peter Senge
In the opening (page 3) of Senges flagship book, The Fifth Discipline, he defines the learning organization as 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) As mentioned earlier, he defines the core of learning organization work based on five learning disciplines. To expand on them, in Senges words they are Personal Mastery Learning to expand our personal capacity to create the results we most desire, and creating an organizational environment which encourages all its members to develop themselves toward the goals and purposes they choose. Mental Models Reflecting upon, continually clarifying, and improving our internal pictures of the world, and seeing how they shape our actions and decisions. Shared Vision Building a sense of commitment in a group, by developing shared images of the future we seek to create, and the principles and guiding practices by which we hope to get there. Team Learning Transforming conversational and collective thinking skills, so that groups of people can reliably develop intelligence and ability greater than the sum of individual members talents. Systems Thinking A way of thinking about, and a language for describing and understanding, the forces and the interrelationships that shape the behavior of systems. This discipline helps us to see how to change systems more effectively, and to act more in tune with the larger processes of the natural and economic world. (Senge, Roberts et al. 1994)
Learning Organizations Senge believes that the learning organization exists primarily as a vision in our collective
experience and imagination. ( p5, 1994) He also believes that the impact of practices, principles and essences are highly influential. Practices are what you do. Principles are guiding ideas and insights, and essence is the state of being those with high levels of mastery in the discipline. (Senge, 1990, p 373) He looks at leaders as teachers, stewards and designersquite a different metaphor than the traditional business practices of the time. It is the leaders who must pave the way to the creation of the learning organization, and they must also model the process. The authors of the companion work The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (1994) see the learning organization as something that develops within a team, and is part of a deep learning cycle where team members develop new skills and abilities, which in turn create new awareness and sensibilities, which it turn creates new attitudes and beliefs. These new attitudes are the things that can change the deep beliefs and assumptions inherent in an organization and product transformation. Within the learning organization a sense of trust and safety are established and the members are willing to reveal uncertainties and make and acknowledge mistakes. This cycle provides a domain of enduring change within the organization. The architecture of a learning organization is considered a domain of action and consists of guiding ideas, innovations in infrastructure, and theory, methods and tools. The guiding ideas include the vision, values and purpose of the organization. They have philosophical depth and are seen as ongoing. They include the philosophy of the whole, the community nature of the self and the generative power of language. The development of tools and methods test these theories and cause them to be shaped and refined, and bring about the cyclical nature of this domain of action. These changes create infrastructure innovations and
Learning Organizations
enable people to develop capabilities like systems thinking and collaborative inquiry within the context of their jobs. (1994, p34) Senges philosophy has been graphically illustrated using the domain of enduring change as a circle and the domain of action as a triangle (Figure 1). It is the interaction between the two that creates the dynamic of the learning organization.
Attit udes and Be lie fs
Domain of Endur ing Change

Guiding Ideas Skills and capabilities
Aw arenwss and Se nsibilities
Innovations in Infrastructure
Domain of Action
Theory, Methods, and Tools
Figure 1
Adapted from Senge, et al, 1994, p42
It is difficult to assess the results in this type of a system because deeper learning often does not produce tangible evidence for considerable time. (p.45) The core concepts contained in this model are: At its essence, every organization is a product of how its members think and interactLearning in organizations means the continuous testing of experience, and the transformation of that experience into knowledgeaccessible to the whole organization, and relevant to its core purpose. (p 48-49) The creation of this type of learning organization comes from establishing a group that learns new ways to work together: discussing priorities, working through divergent thinking,
Learning Organizations clarification, then convergent thinking to come to conclusions and implementation of the solution. The learning organization discovers how to best work with individual styles, allowing for reflection and other individual needs. It becomes a safe place to take risks, make mistakes,
and learn from the results. The learning organization also works through the five disciplines of 1) building shared vision, 2) creating mental models 3) reinforcing team learning, 4) developing personal mastery and 5) understanding systems thinking. Much of what occurs is the creation of shared vocabulary to produce common understandings. Learning about systems thinking concepts of links, reinforcing and balancing loops helps to define problem issues. Following the publication of The Fifth Discipline, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (Senge, Roberts et al. 1994) and The Dance of Change (Senge, Kleiner et al. 1999) were released with exercises to assist in the organizational development process and support the changes it created. Both contain resources helpful in the implementation process. To summarize, Senges model is based on the interaction and the learning that goes on between individuals in an organization. It is an intangible process, but one that can be enhanced by taking certain measures to foster development.
Peter Kline Peter Klines work on learning organizations, Ten Steps to a Learning Organization (Kline and Saunders 1998) focuses primarily on cultural change. He believes to have a Learning Organization, you must begin by having an organization of learners, then show them how to
Learning Organizations function in such a way that the organization as a whole can learn. (p8) He differentiates how individuals learn versus how organizations learn:
10
The most obvious difference between the way organization and individuals learn is that individuals have memories, which are essential to learning, while organizations dont The main difference between a learning individual and a Learning Organization is in the information storage process. Individuals store their learning primarily in their memories, augmented by libraries, notes and other aids to memory. Organizations store it primarily in their cultures, with a secondary backup in documentation that is useful only if the culture is committed to making use of itIn simple terms, individuals learn through the activation and updating of their memories while organizations learn through change in the culture. (p24) Kline discusses the difficulties of creating change in the organization, realizing that people in general are resistant to change. He defines ten conditions to build a learning organization, allowing people to be able to cope with the ambiguity of the change process. These conditions are: 1) Assess the current learning culture to create a benchmark, Then have: 2) Positive expectation that dilemmas can be resolved. 3) Support for the learning process itself. 4) Willingness to delay closure long enough to arrive at significant Gestalts rather than forced and trivial ones. 5) Communication processes that bring people together to consider in a friendly and noncompetitive atmosphere many different perceptions, templates, habits of thought and possible solutions, from which the most useful may then be chosen. 6) A cultural habit that encourages exploring apparently meaningless ambiguities with the expectation that meaning can be found in themas an expression of both a personal and organizational commitment to learning over the long haul. 7) The establishment of contexts within which meaning for new possibilities can be found as they emerge. 8) A set of modeling skills, strategies and techniques or mechanisms that allows people more easily to construct meaning out of apparent chaos. 9) A cultural understanding which is shared throughout management of the systemic interactions that will inevitably be present as complex Gestalts are formed. 10) An intuitive feeling for how complex interactions will be likely to occur. (p32) Klines third point is one of the key elements of creative thinkinglearning to continue to look for solutions rather than just accepting the first one that fits as best. His fourth point is similar to
11
Senges concept of the team learning to work together in new ways, and incorporates convergent and divergent thinking. Kline presents his change model as The Great Game of Business, with three elements: 1) know the rules, 2) keep score, and 3) have a stake in the action. (p 35) Knowing the rules is working to choose rules that emerge from self-organizing systems to select the ones that lead to the most productive behavior. Keeping score is about measurement, and having a stake in the action is about employee buy-in. He encourages that one of the rules must be the breaking down the cultural barriers between managers and workers. Rules should also include integrative learning, (the restoration of the natural learning of early life), strategic micromanagement tools for decision making, communication and problem solving, generally originating from the people who use them; and expanding the scoring system beyond financial reports. (p 38-39) Kline also acknowledges that the most valued asset of the organization is people, and the development of relationships between them if highly important so they can work together well. In the end of his book, Kline equates business to a theatre metaphor, by getting the show on the road. He speaks of improvisation, ensemble work, and creativity; then continues the metaphor making workers the actors and leaders the directors. He emphasizes the need for continuous improvement and awareness of what everyone is doing while excelling in ones individual role as would occur in a theatrical production. He begins the process with an assessment of the culture from an institutional perspective: to learn what everyone thinks, then from an individual perspective: take responsibility for what you think and what you do. He stresses looking for fear, which can be disabling to an organization.
Learning Organizations Kline has created an assessment to look at the culture of the organization. It is designed to be filled out by the members of the organization, and discussed as a group to explore
12
differences. The assessment may be scored by averaging the rating numbers for each question to provide an overall score of the conditions for creating a learning organization, or the individual scores may be entered in a matrix, which assigns the different questions to one of the ten steps of his later plan. Using the matrix, scores are obtained for each of the ten areas, providing a more specific idea of which areas the organization needs the most work in. In filling out the form within an organization, it is anticipated that different groups within the establishment will have different perceptions of the organization itself. He recommends creating an overall report for the organization and asking the members to voice agreement or disagreement with the results. He also encourages that at this stage, the ideal state of the organization is discussed to determine where it would like to be at the end of the process. A large portion of the learning comes from the discussions and the decisions for direction that follow afterwards. This is a similar pattern to DiBellas model of assessment. After the assessment is completed, the organization is instructed to work through steps two through ten. Kline provides numerous activities that focus on a variety of thinking skills, working to change attitudes and behaviors of individuals. Learning to reframe things in a positive way by looking in two directions at once: at the current reality and the positive outcome that can be developed from it (p 70) is just one of the many ideas given for step two. He deals with learning styles, mind mapping, and teaches people how to listen to one another. He creates safe ways for people to take risks. Unlike some of the more theoretical books on Learning Organizations, Klines book contains practical steps for developing a group to become a Learning Organization. Working
Learning Organizations through the ten steps as a team would do remarkable things within the group as they learn to learn together. Chris Argyris/Donald Schon Argyris is best known for his concepts of single and double-loop learning. In a book written with Donald Schon (1974), they believe that organizations learn through individuals acting as agents. Organization learning is the detection and correction of error. Their key concepts revolve around single- and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning results in the organization continuing in the existing policies while remedying the situation at hand, while
13
double-loop learning examines and modifies norms, policies and objectives as necessary. There are needs for both types of learning. Argyris model is much earlier than most of the other organizational learning literature, and he is revered as a founding father by others and like Senge, often quoted in discussions on the learning organization. As a side note, Argyris was one of Senges influential teachers: Despite having read much of his writing, I was unprepared for what I learned when I first saw Chris Argyris practice his approach in an informal workshop Ostensibly an academic presentation of Argyriss methods, it quickly evolved into a powerful demonstration of what action science practitioners call reflection in action. Within a matter of minutes, I watched the level of alertness and presentness of the entire group rise ten notches thanks not so much to Argyriss personal charisma, but to his skilful practice of drawing out generalizations. As the afternoon moved on, all of us were led to see (sometimes for he first time in our lives) subtle patterns of reasoning which underlay our behaviour; and how those patterns continually got us into trouble. I had never had such a dramatic demonstration of own mental models in action But even more interesting, it became clear that, with proper training, I could become much more aware of my mental models and how they operated. This was exciting. (Senge 1990, p.182-183)
Learning Organizations In the December 2002 issue of Reflections, the Society of Organizational Learning
14
Journal on Knowledge, Learning, and Change, Argyris article on Teaching Smart People How to Learn is reprinted as a classic. In this article, he references single- and double-loop learning, but discusses the need for managers and employees [to] look inward. They need to reflect critically on their own behavior, identify the ways they often inadvertently contribute to the organizations problems, and then change how they act. He makes the observation that the individuals in leadership in an organization are not accustomed to failing, therefore they have never learned to learn from failurethey become defensive, screen out criticism, and put the blame on anyone and everyone but themselves. In short, their ability to learn shuts down precisely at the moment they need it the most. He sees the learning from mistakes something that must become a focus of organization learning and part of the continuous improvement programs within an organization. He discusses how often individuals turn the focus away from their own behavior to that of others [which] brings learning to a grinding halt. This type of behavior creates what he calls the doom loop where people do not follow the theories they espouse, acting inconsistently. He calls what they do as behaviors that apply theories-in-use. This type of behavior without examination creates repetition without reflection, and doesnt promote improvement. His first recommendation is to step back and examine what is occurring, and challenging it beginning with the uppermost strata of the organization. Argyris and Schons model involves governing variables, action strategies, and consequences. The governing values are the individuals theories-in-use, and the action strategies are what keeps their behavior within the boundaries created by the theories-in-use.
15
The resulting actions are the consequences. The interaction between these concepts is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 from (Smith 2001)
When the consequences of the action strategy used are what the person anticipated, the theoryin-use is confirmed because there is a match between intention and outcome. There also may be a mismatch between intention and outcome. Sometimes, however, the consequences may be unintended or not match, or work against the persons governing values. This is where doubleloop learning needs to be applied and processes and concepts revised. When only the action is corrected, Argyris refers to this as single-loop learning. (figure 3)
Figure 3 (from Smith, 2001)
Anthony DiBella DiBella defines organizational learning as the capacity (or processes) within an organization to maintain or improve performance based on experience. This activity involves
16
knowledge acquisition (the development or creation of skills, insights, relationships), knowledge sharing (the dissemination to others of what has been acquired by some), and knowledge utilization (integration of the learning so that it is assimilated, broadly available, and can also be generalized to new situations.) (DiBella, Nevis et al. 1996) DiBellas work in How Organizations Learn (DiBella and Nevis 1998), overviews the Learning Organization literature of that time, and classifies the writing into three categories: the normative, the developmental and the capability perspectives. In the normative perspective, the learning organization presumes that learning as a collective activity only takes place under certain conditions or circumstancesThe role of organizational leaders is to create the conditions essential for learning to take place (DiBella 1995) Senges model fits this category. In the developmental perspective, the learning organization is a stage in the development of a maturing organization or in parallel, the development phase of the organization determines its learning styles and character. The third perspective, capability, identifies that organizations develop and learn as they mature or by strategic choice, and that all organizations have embedded learning processes. Rather than ascribing to perspectives one or two, DiBella and his colleagues believe that all organizations have learning capabilities. These seven areas are labeled learning orientations and each runs on a continuum of opposites. For example, the knowledge source may be internal or external. These seven orientations and their descriptors are:
Seven Learning Orientations

Orientation KNOWLEDGE SOURCE CONTENT-PROCESS
FOCUS
Spectrum Internal/External Content/Process
Description Where does the organization get information from? Primarily from the inside or outside world? Which is more important: the content of the information, or the process of doing
17
KNOWLEDGE RESERVE DISSEMINATION MODE
Personal/Public Formal/Informal
LEARNING SCOPE VALUE-CHAIN FOCUS LEARNING FOCUS

Figure 4
Incremental/Transformative Design-Make/Market-Deliver Individual/Group
it? Where is information stored? Is it accessible to all, or in the heads of individuals? How is information given out in the organization? Through informal conversations, or in official meetings or written communication? When learning occurs, are the changes little by little or dramatic ones? Is the focus more on how something is created and made, or promoted to the customer? Is intentional learning geared toward individuals, or groups?
These orientations are facilitated by ten factors called Facilitating Factors. These factors enhance certain orientations, and increase the likelihood of the organization functioning as a learning organization.
Facilitating Factors
Facilitating Factor SCANNING IMPERATIVE PERFORMANCE GAP CONCERN FOR MEASUREMENT ORGANIZATIONAL CURIOSITY CLIMATE OF OPENNESS CONTINUOUS EDUCATION OPERATIONAL VARIETY MULTIPLE ADVOCATES INVOLVED LEADERSHIP SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE Description Gathering of information on best practices and conditions outside of the organization Shared perception in the organization between the current and desired performance Desire to measure key factors and discussion about the statistics Interest in creative ideas and technology, with support for experimentation Sharing of lessons learned, open communication about all areas at all levels Commitment to quality resources for learning Valuing different methods; appreciation of diversity New ideas can be advanced by anyone in the organization; multiple champions for learning exist throughout Management is personally involved in the learning and perpetuation of the learning organization Recognition of interdependence among organizational units and groups; awareness of the time delay between actions and their outcomes
Figure 5, adapted from DiBella
18
In the analysis process utilizing DiBellas methods, the organization determines its current status and desired status using the learning orientations and facilitating factors. There is an interrelationship between the ten facilitating factors and the seven orientations, and focusing on specific factors can help an organization become a better learning organization. In an article written with DiBella, Edwin Nevis calls learning a systems-level phenomenon because it stays within the organization, even if individuals changeOrganizations learn as they produce. Learning is as much a task as the production and delivery of goods and services. (Nevis, DiBella et al. 1995) Nevis et al sees three learning-related factors important to an organizations success: 1. Well developed core competencies that serve as launch points for new products and services 2. An attitude that supports continuous improvement in the businesss valueadded chain. 3. The ability to fundamentally renew or revitalize. They see these factors as some of the qualities of an effective learning organization that diligently pursues a constantly enhanced knowledge base. There is also an assumption made about the learning process following three stages: knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization. There is the belief that all organizations are learning systems, that learning conforms to culture, there are stylistic variations between learning systems and that generic processes facilitate learning. The model supporting all this is comprised of the learning orientations and facilitating factors.
Learning Organizations Other perspectives
19
Consultants online define the learning organization in similar ways. From the UK, David Skyrme (Farago and Skyrme 1995) quotes several other theorists on his website: "The essence of organisational learning is the organization's ability to use the amazing mental capacity of all its members to create the kind of processes that will improve its own" (Nancy Dixon 1994) "A Learning Company is an organization that facilitates the learning of all its members and continually transforms itself" (M. Pedler, J. Burgoyne and Tom Boydell, 1991) "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 learn together" (Peter Senge, 1990)
Fargo and Skyrme use these thoughts to create their own definition: Learning organizations are those that have in place systems, mechanisms and processes, that are used to continually enhance their capabilities and those who work with it or for it, to achieve sustainable objectives - for themselves and the communities in which they participate. They speak of four elements that create learning organizations: learning culture, processes, tools and techniques and skills and motivation. They define these as: Learning Culture - an organizational climate that nurtures learning. There is a strong similarity with those characteristics associated with innovation. Processes - processes that encourage interaction across boundaries. These are infrastructure, development and management processes, as opposed to business operational processes (the typical focus of many BPR initiatives). Tools and Techniques - methods that aid individual and group learning, such as creativity and problem solving techniques. Skills and Motivation - to learn and adapt. They also define things that inhibit learning organizations:

20
operational/fire fighting preoccupation - not creating time to sit back and think strategically too focused on systems and process (e.g. ISO9000) to exclusion of other factors (bureaucratic vs. thinking) reluctance to train (or invest in training), other than for obvious immediate needs too many hidden personal agendas too top-down driven, overtight supervision = lack of real empowerment
Fredrick Simon and Ketsara Rugchart define a learning organization as one that is continually enhancing its ability to get the results it truly wants. (Simon and Rugchart 2003) They see organizational learning as facilitative of knowledge management by first aligning common vision reduces competitivenessallowing for greater demand for the shared knowledge (the information retrieval side of the equation)The greatest learning takes place in failure, when things dont go as expected[sharing] leads to a willingness to be open and to risk vulnerability by sharing the learning from failure (the input side of the equation.) Organizational learning does not replace knowledge management tools, but can provide a substantial accelerator to the KM effort. DaeYeon Cho looks at the connection between self-directed learning and the learning organization. (Cho 2002) He comments in todays climate of rapid change, organizations are more interested in becoming learning organizations in order to meet rapidly emerging challenges. The proponents of the learning organization believe that it enables organization to foresee and respond to toadys globally competitive business environment. He groups the characteristics of the learning organization into two categories: learning strategies, which are the types of learning, such as individual, team and organizational learning; and systems to capture that learning, which focus on the environment, and are created so that learning strategies can be used successfully. He sees the concepts of self-directed learning, normally seen as an avenue for personal growth, as key to the learning organization model. David Cutterback, on the other hand,
Learning Organizations comments that academics and managers tend to see the learning team as the critical link
21
between the learning organization and the learning individual. (Clutterbuck 2002) In his work, he looks at six basic team types (stable, hit, evolutionary, virtual, development alliances and cabin crew teams) and concludes that job demands focus attention primarily on task achievement. The leaner the team, the less opportunity for learning, particularly away from work. Reflective time, which and if its available, is used to solve todays urgent issues, rather than learning for tomorrows. Teams learn to function, but do they really benefit from what they gain in the process? This is the key concept that distinguishes the learning organization from the functional team. A web search on the learning organization brings up numerous papers by university professors, who teach on the concepts in their classes. Michael Chase of Quincy College (Chase 2000) has a particularly comprehensive summary definition: The term learning organization is the label now being used for an integration of a set of ideas that have emerged from organizational research and practice over the past three or four decades on ways of organizing work in such a way that the often-conflicting demands of organizational effectiveness and individual job satisfaction are simultaneously met. The learning organization is, in many ways, a natural evolution of older participatory management themes of the 1970's and more recent emphasis on empowerment and self-managed work-teams. A learning organization is not so much characterized by its altered structure (flatter and less hierarchal) and redesign of work (emphasis on teams), but by the transformation of the relationship of the organization to the individual and increased capacity for adaptation and change. The previous overriding concern for control (e.g. motivate others, organize work for others, set goals for others, etc.) is replaced by a concern for learning by all organizational members on behalf of the organization. Learning about technical things and things about the external environment is greatly valued, as are learning things about itself including its organizational processes. A learning organization expects its members to " . . . act as learning agents for the organization, responding to changes in the internal and external environment of the organization by detecting and correcting errors in organizational theory-in-use, and embedding the results of their inquiry in private images and shared maps of organization" (Argyris & Schon, 1979, p. 29).
Learning Organizations Benyamin Lichtenstein, of Boston College, brings a completely unique perspective, examining whether the growth process of an organization is more like punctuated equilibrium
22
than evolutionary. He speaks of organizational transformationa wholesale replacement of one structure or framework for another which is what the learning organization concept intends to do within an organization. Punctuated equilibrium provides a distinct if controversial image of evolutionary change processes: long periods of minimal change (species in equilibrium) punctuated by short bursts of rapid change, resulting in a new species. (Lichtenstein, no date available) Basing his concepts in biological parallels, he realizes that this model is not ideal, and that the self-organizing framework fits better. In the learning organization, discoveries often merit changes and restructuring. Little makes a similar observation in what the learning organization is, quoting the European Consortium for the Learning Organisation (ECLO). The learning organization can be seen as a model for supporting individual team an organizational learning ...[or] it can be seen as a metaphor for change based on the principles of transformation[According to Kelleher, the general secretary for ECLO] learning organisation is a metaphor for organizational innovation through learningit is a journey, not a destination. It cam be anything the organization wants it to be, providing that learning is at the heart of the organizational changeit focuses on transformation. (Little 2003) The ECLO sees seven core components of learning organizations: 1) individual learning, 2) team learning, 3) organizational learning, 4) new structures, 5) new processes, 6) new values, and 7) new roles. A learning organization is characterized by giving the learners personal control of their leanring. There is also quite a bit of discussion within higher education about universities becoming learning organizations. James Forest makes a great point in his learning organization article about learning not always being intentional. What did you learn today?...Given a
Learning Organizations moment, each of us can respond to this question appropriately, often recognizing that what we learned today had little to do with what we set out intentionally to learn, and much to do with
23
haphazard discovery. (Forest 2002) Certainly this is also valid in organizations. Learning is not always a deliberate activity. The question really must be How is that learning that occurs captured? He comments further, Organizations need a learning plan to encourage and guide learning, with the understanding that learning is likely to occur regardless of any planned course of action. The most effective form of learning plans are aligned with the institutions strategic plan. The strategic plan lays out what you seek to accomplish; the learning plan describes what you hope to learn in the process of achieving that goal[It must include] a dimension of assessment[but] more importantly, a college must seek to instill a culture of intellectual curiosity throughout the organization, such that learning is consistently encouraged and rewarded. This may involve a high tolerance of risk, which allows for an organizations members to experiment and innovate. Regardless of the success of failure of experimentation, an organization must document what was learned in the process While organizational learning is in some sense a strategic activity for advancing the organization, these activities complementrather than duplicatestrategic planning activities, which themselves require considerable attention and assessment. Mu and Gnyawali discuss how the learning organization and team learning concepts are being attempted with students. In a case study (Mu and Gnyawali 2003) they look at groups created on campus to simulate cross-functional teams such as would be found in a learning organization. They look for synergistic knowledge development (SKD) which they define as a process by which a group constructively integrates diverse perspective of individual group members. They look for three elements: task conflict, which is seen as a cognitive element, psychological safety, which is viewed as a psychosocial element, and social interaction, which is looked at as the procedural element. They found time to be a limiting factor, similar to the observations about team learning made by Clutterbuck. Learning is impeded by a strict task focus, as would occur with time limitations. They made several observations about the process:

24
The greater the task conflict among group members, the lower the development of synergistic knowledge. The greater the team psychological safety among group members, the higher the development of synergistic knowledge Team psychological safety moderates the relationship between task conflict and synergistic knowledge development. When task conflict is high, high psychological safety can lead to higher synergistic knowledge than can low psychological safety. The greater the social interaction among group members, the higher the development of synergistic knowledge. The greater the development of synergistic knowledge, the better the students perception of their groupsperformance.
While this work was with students, there are numerous parallels to the learning organization concepts, where safety is a key factor in growth of learning, enabling risk taking and information sharing. In the corporate sector, authors also speak of the alignment of strategic objectives and learning goals. To build a lasting learning environment, organization must begin early by clearly defining what it means to be a learning organizationA learning organization is capable of aligning tits strategic objectives and vision with the capabilities, competencies and ideas of its employees. Managers within a learning organization seek to create an environment where their employees realize their maximum potentialAs this learning culture is supported and fostered by management, employees seek out and solve problems, become more entrepreneurial, and more willing to take risks. (Kirkwood and Pangarkar 2003) These comments reinforce Chos ideas about self-directed learning. It is particularly attractive to see the alignment of the employees ideas in the vision of the company. Benefits cited in this article include a reduction in errors and mistakes, improved quality and innovations, a better understanding of the business and empowered employees. When the culture of the learning organization involves everyone, the company benefits the most.
Learning Organizations In the healthcare industry, the learning organization concepts have also begun to take hold. Pressing economic times and the need to keep healthcare costs manageable make the learning organization concept very valuable. Karlene Kerfoot looks at the role of learning: In
25
real learning organizations, one cannot distinguish between the learner and the teacher, because everyone throughout the organization is expected to teach each other and learn from each otherTeaching occurs everywhere in the organizationvertically, horizontally, and diagonally. Hierarchies are eliminated, and the authority gradient that implies that one person has more intellectual ability over another one is eliminated. It is replaced by the belief that we are all peers in the learning and teaching and we can teach and learn from each other no matter where we are positioned in the organizational chart. (Kerfoot 2003) This type of interaction leverages the best in all staff members, hopefully providing the best care possible in the most economic fashion.
26
Critics of the Learning Organization
Within the literature there are some criticisms of the learning organization concepts. In CIO Magazine, June 1, 1996, Megan Santosus writes about the difficulties in creating a learning organization. Trying to achieve learning organization status takes a lot of hard work on the parts of managers and employees and is not for those seeking instant gratification. People have to fundamentally change the way they think and interact with others in the organization. Fostering sustained change in an individual's belief system is a tall order; trying to do it on a widespread basis is beyond the capabilities of many organizations. Learning initiatives often require sweeping changes throughout the organization. Yet there's a danger that any learning programsimply because it requires a lot of hard work to implementcan become marginalized to small pockets of the company. Learning efforts must permeate the entire enterprise in order to be effective and long-lasting. Otherwise, serious fissures can appear between nonbelievers and faithful followers. That almost inevitably creates an "us versus them" atmosphere that rarely promotes anything productive Successful learning is also a function of the systems, structures and processes within the organization. As a result, organizations have to change everything that reinforces old behaviors and patterns of thinking. (Santosus 1996) Santosus makes a good point. It is a lot of work to change the entire culture of an organization to create a climate where risk taking is tolerated and errors are evaluated for the learning that can be discovered from them. However, not doing this perpetuates the single-loop learning cycle Argyris postulates. Matthias Finger and Silvia Brgin Brand as quoted by (Smith 2001) describe some of the shortcomings of the learning organization concept. They conclude that it is not possible to transform a bureaucratic organization by learning initiatives alone. They believe that by referring to the notion of the learning organization it was possible to make change less threatening and more acceptable to participants. However, individual and collective learning which has undoubtedly taken place has not really been connected to organizational change and transformation. Part of the issue,
Learning Organizations they suggest, has to do with the concept of the learning organization itself. They argue the following points. The concept of the learning organization:
Focuses
27
mainly on the cultural dimension, and does not adequately take into account the other dimensions of an organization. To transform an organization it is necessary to attend to structures and the organization of work as well as the culture and processes. Focussing exclusively on training activities in order to foster learning favours this purely cultural bias. individual and collective learning processes at all levels of the organization, but does not connect them properly to the organizations strategic objectives. Popular models of organizational learning (such as Dixon 1994) assume such a link. It is, therefore, imperative, that the link between individual and collective learning and the organizations strategic objectives is made. This shortcoming, Finger and Brand argue, makes a case for some form of measurement of organizational learning so that it is possible to assess the extent to which such learning contributes or not towards strategic objectives. rather vague. The exact functions of organizational learning need to be more clearly defined.
Favours
Remains
In our view, organizational learning is just a means in order to achieve strategic objectives. But creating a learning organization is also a goal, since the ability permanently and collectively to learn is a necessary precondition for thriving in the new context. Therefore, the capacity of an organization to learn, that is, to function like a learning organization, needs to be made more concrete and institutionalized, so that the management of such learning can be made more effective. These are particularly useful criticisms. The concept of the learning organization is not the beall-end-all silver bullet solution to organizational problems. In a complex system, something like this could never be. It may foster praxis, but requires the commitment that Santosus questions ever possible. Mojab and Gorman (2003) bring another valid point into play when they discuss who the learning organizational concepts actually touch within an organization. Referencing Keep and Rainbirds research from the UK in 2000, they comment that Only certain segments of the workforce benefit from learning opportunities[There are] four groups who generally are excluded from any type of training: those who are in a lower status occupation; those on
Learning Organizations atypical contracts such as flexible workers, particularly part timers [who] have consistently
28
lower chances of being offered training of any sort by their employer; older workers and those who are less well qualified. They also accuse the concepts saying, The failure of many organizations to offer to more than a small fraction of their workforce broader opportunities for upskilling and reskilling renders the rhetoric about the learning organization concept empty of meaning and purpose Continuing, they remark about the learning organization theories being birthed from the logic of the human capital theory where the more you have learned (or the more capacity you have for learning), the more of an asset you will be for your organization. In a human capital formulation, workers are compensated for the use of their critical thinking through higher wages and a higher position. Critics of human capital theory point out that if the life experiences and learning of marginalized workers were recognized, they could attain equality with the higher paid managerial employees. Coming from a Marxist/feminist viewpoint, while severe in their language, they do make a strong point about the concepts of the learning organization potentially never filtering down to the lower levels of the organization and remaining an academic discussion among management. Idealistically, the learning organization culture would infiltrate the entire organization, but in reality, does it ever touch everyone? Theoretically, it should. rtenblad brings a radical perspective to the reviews. Almost every writer describes organizational learning or the learning organization in quite positive terms. They almost seem to be bewitched. (Ortenblad 2002) He divides the literature on learning organizations into a functionalistic perspective and an interpretive paradigm and also looks at the criticism of it. In order for some of the changes inherent in the learning organization to occur, he sees a need for
Learning Organizations major societal changes first, but he sees potential for major changes to occur as the power is
29
disseminated to the employees, and looks at the possibilities of overthrowing the existing system. In a similar vein, Owenby discusses the dark side of the learning organization, (Owenby 2002) looking at the power issues involved. He looks at four types of learning networks: Verticalstaff direct and linearly plan the learning activities of employees Horizontalan egalitaritan, problem focused community of learners attempting to solve problems Externalpractices are directed by professional organizations outside the organization Liberalemployees direct their own learning
He believes that the learning organization really only can function in the horizontal setting. He brings out several issues around control, mentioning that power issues and interests influence the learning agenda in any organization. Present-day corporations routinely sacrifice the interests of their employees to further corporate goals of profitability and competitive advantage He sees corporate universities as instruments of corporate control. He looks at the language of power shaping the learning agendas, and sees organizational learning as a technology of power as unwilling employees are compelled to attend continuous learning programs. Owenby sees contradictions in what is espoused and what is practiced, and makes recommendations that organizations must be careful not to miss the point of the learning organizations intent.
30
Practical Applications
I chose to experiment with three of the assessment tools for learning organizations found in the literature. The first, the Organizational Learning Profile (DiBella 2001) was used in two settings. The second tool, the Learning History (Roth and Kleiner 1995) was only prepared for one organization because of its extensive detailing. The third, taken from Don Clarks training website (and apparently from an ASTD publication) was also only done for one organization. Each of these experiences will be discussed.
The Organizational Learning Profile The first attempt to use the Organizational Learning Profile (OLP) was done by the author as part of a needs assessment for the Christian Education program at Providence Assembly of God. This provided familiarity with the concepts that were measured and allowed initial experience prior to using the tool with a group. The second experience was conducted with the training department of a large, managed healthcare network, and involved all of the members of the team scoring an assessment individually, the compilation of the results and the discussion of the results and desired ideal. According to DiBella, the learning actually occurs during this discussion phase of gap analysis of where the organization perceives itself, and where it would like to be, then developing a plan to achieve the desired levels. The OLP tool examines seven sources of where information originates within the organization and how it is utilized. Each dimension is given opposite points on a continuum and the rater determines where on the spectrum each area falls within the organization. The
31
secondary examination looks at factors that enhance learning, looking for the degree of evidence that the particular factor is functional within the organization. Figure 6
Providence Assembly of God Organizational Learning Profile

Learning Orientations
MOSTLY MORE EVEN MORE MOSTLY External Process
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Knowledge Source Content-Process Focus Knowledge Reserve Dissemination mode Learning Scope Value-chain focus Learning Focus
Internal Content Personal Formal Incremental Design-Make Individual
x x x x x x x
Public Informal Transformative Market-Deliver Group
Little evidence to support this factor Some Evidence to support this factor Extensive evidence to support this factor 6 7
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Scanning Imperative Performance Gap Concern for Measurement Organizational Curiosity Climate of openness Continuous Education Operational Variety Multiple Advocates Involved leadership Systems Perspective x x
3 x
x
x x x x x x
In looking at the learning orientations of the church Christian Education program, information is heavily content based, originating from internal sources. There is a balanced knowledge reserve, with the primary information being focused on the individual, with transformative results. As a church, it would be expected that faith would be personal and life changing. The dissemination of the information comes from preaching and teaching with some degree of personal study during the week.
Learning Organizations As to the facilitating factors, the church is totally unaware of the performance gap between where they are and where they could be. The pastor and the author are two of the few who realize the need for biblical education and literacy programs. The reading skills of the children and many of the adults is quite poor, and the needs assessment the OLA was part of
32
clearly demonstrated that. The church has been highly self-sufficient. Until recently, there has been little involvement with other churches in the area or the denomination and para-church organizations providing conferences and additional resources. However, there is a very high level of leadership involvement and openness to new ideas within the congregation. As a church, we will not change our central focus on Christ, but we are willing to look at the ways we do things and are interested in continuing improvement. In a survey given to the congregation, members wanted to grow in their faith and consider themselves fairly knowledgeable about the bible. The second use of the tool was at the authors company, Private Healthcare Systems, in the Corporate Learning Services department. As mentioned above, the administration and discussion was with the entire training department. Initially, when the individual results began coming in for tabulation, the author was surprised by how wildly divergent they were. This played out in the discussion of what was perceived by the different individuals in the group. Some of the differences were in interpretation of the information, but others were perceptions of what occurs within the department. The team had mixed reactions to the exercise. Many saw it as a useless discussion of theory. The authors initial perception that the team really does not function as a learning organization was confirmed by these conversations. Direction is set by the director, and unquestioning compliance is expected, even though the verbalization of the ideals is quite different. The ideal and the team aggregate results are displayed below, in Figure 7.
Learning Organizations Figure 7
33
PHCS Corporate Learning Services Organizational Learning Profile

Key: A-groups current assessment (numerically indicated by score J-authors assessment I-groups ideal placement
Avg Score
1 MOSTLY 2 MORE 3 EVEN 4 MORE 5 MOSTLY
Learning Orientations
ORIENTATION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Knowledge Source Content-Process Focus Knowledge Reserve Dissemination mode Learning Scope Value-chain focus Learning Focus
3 2.8 3.18 2.73 3.18 2.73 2.72
Internal Content Personal Formal Incremental Design-Make Individual
AJ AI J J A A
AI I A AIJ IJ I
J I J
External Process Public Informal Transformative Market-Deliver Group
FACTOR AVG SCORE
Little evidence to support this factor Some Evidence to support this factor Extensive evidence to support this factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Scanning Imperative Performance Gap Concern for Measurement Organizational Curiosity Climate of openness Continuous Education Operational Variety Multiple Advocates Involved leadership Systems Perspective
4.0 4.36 4.64 5.0 5.73 5.0 5.0 5.82 6.36 4.18
1 J
J
2
J
3
J J
4 A A A
5 I
A A A A A
6
I I
7
I
I I I I A
J J J J J A
I I
From a learning perspective, it was startling to see how differently the authors perceptions were than those of the group. The initial rankings were quite spread out, but the author tended to be the outlier. Could that be from more exposure to the learning organization concepts, or a distorted perspective? As mentioned before the director sets the tone and direction and individuals are unlikely to challenge her perspective. These results may be an indication of that. Overall, the team found the discussion interesting, and will be creating an action plan to
Learning Organizations incorporate some of the facilitating factors into the 2004 agendas to further develop the organizational learning capability of the team. Kline Learning Organization Assessment
34
The Kline Learning Organization assessment tool evaluates individual perceptions of the conditions in the organization that would promote a Learning Organization. This assessment and its accompanying matrix was completed for the church. Using a straight average to compute the initial score, the rating was 4.67, indicating a high degree of conditions in place promoting a Learning Organization.
PAG: Kline Learning Organization Assessment

Using the response options below, write in the blank before each statement the number which best describes your answer.
Response Options: I = Not at all 2 = To a slight extent 3 = To a moderate extent 4 = To a great extent 5 = To a very great extent
Average score: 4.67 High degree of Learning Organization characteristics
The current reality in my organization is that:

5 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 1. People feel free to speak their minds about what they have learned. There is no fear, threat or repercussion for disagreeing or dissenting. 2. Mistakes made by individuals or departments are turned into constructive learning experiences. 3. There is a general feeling that its always possible to find a better way to do something. 4. Multiple viewpoints and open productive debates are encouraged and cultivated. 5. Experimentation is endorsed and championed, and is a way of doing business. 6. Mistakes are clearly viewed as positive growth opportunities through out the system. 7. There is willingness to break old patterns in order to experiment with different ways of organizing and managing daily work. 8. Management practices are innovative, creative, and periodically risk taking. 9. The quality of work life in our organization is improving. 10. There are formal and informal structures designed to encourage people to share what they learn with their peers and the rest of the organization. 11. The organization is perceived as designed for problem-solving and learning. 12. Learning is expected and encouraged across all levels of the organization: management, employees, supervision, union, stockholders, customers.
13. People have an overview of the organization beyond their specialty and function, and adapt their working patterns to it. 14. Lessons learned sessions are conducted so as to produce clear, specific and permanent structural and organizational changes. 15. Management practices, operations, policies and procedures that become obsolete by hindering the continued growth of people and the organization are removed and replaced with workable systems and structures. 16. Continuous improvement is expected and treated receptively. 17. There are clear and specific expectations of each employee to receive a specified number of hours of training and education annually. 18. Workers at all levels are specifically directed towards relevant and valuable training and learning opportunities inside and outside the organization. 19. Cross-functional learning opportunities are expected and organized on a regular basis, so that people understand the functions of others whose jobs are different, but of related importance. 20. Middle managers are seen as having the primary role in keeping the learning process running smoothly throughout the organization. 21. The unexpected is viewed as an opportunity for learning. 22. People look forward to improving their own competencies as well as those of the whole organization. 23. The systems, structures, policies and procedures of the organization are designed to be adaptive, flexible, and responsive to internal and external stimuli. 24. Presently, even if the environment of the organization is complicated, chaotic, and active, nevertheless it is not on overload. 25. There is a healthy, manageable level of stress that assists in promoting learning. 26. Continuous improvement is practiced as well as preached. 27. The difference between training/education and learning is clearly understood. (Training and education can be so conducted that no learning takes place.) 28. People are encouraged and provided the resources to become self- directed learners. 29. There is a formal, on-going education program to prepare middle managers in their new roles as teachers, coaches and leaders. 30. Recognition of your own learning style and those of co-workers is used to improve communication and over-all organizational learning. 31. Management is sensitive to learning and development differences in their employees, realizing that people learn and improve their situations in many different ways. 32. There is sufficient time scheduled into peoples professional calendars to step back from day-today operations and reflect on what is happening in the organization. 33. There is direction and resource allocation planned to bring about meaningful and lasting learning. 34. Teams are recognized and rewarded for their innovative and paradigm breaking solutions to problems. 35. Managers have considerable skills for gathering information and developing their abilities to cope with demanding and changing management situations. 36. Managers enable their staffs to become self-developers, and learn how to improve their performance.
35
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 4 5 5 5
EVALUATING THE RESULTS The results of this Assessment can be compiled, analyzed, and used in several ways. The quickest is a simple results average, dividing the sum of all the ratings by 36, the number of statements. This average indicates on a scale of 1-5, the degree to which the respondent believes his of her organization possesses the characteristics of a Learning Organization. Average score: 4.67= high degree of Learning Organization characteristics
36
Klines assessment also includes a matrix to break down the ratings into specific category averages. For PAG, the high score was Mapping the Vision, and the low score was Get the Show on the Road. All of the scores except the low score of 4.43 were above 4.50. The averages are as follows, with the complete matrix following: Assessment Promote positive Safe thinking Risk taking People as resources 4.50 4.55 4.67 4.62 4.79 Learning power 4.79 Map the vision Model the Vision 5.78 Systems thinking 4.67 Get show on the Road 4.43 5.00
37
PAG LEARNING ORGANIZATION ASSESSMENT MATRIX

The Learning Organization Assessment Matrix can be filled in after the Learning Organization Assessment has been completed. Enter in the white boxes to the left of each of the 36 items the rating for that item (as scored by an individual, a sub-group, or the organization as a whole). The same score is to be entered in each white box to the left of that Item. For instance, if the response was 3 on the first item, a 3 would be entered in the columns under Steps 3 and 4. The respondents assessment of the organizations overall rating for each of the Ten Steps is found by totaling the sum of the numbers in each vertical column and dividing it by the number of white boxes in that column. Get show on the Road 10 ASSESSMENT ITEMS 1. People speak their minds 2. Learn from mistakes 3. People see better ways 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4. Different views encouraged 5. Experimentation encouraged 6. Mistakes are opportunities 5 7. Willing to try new ways 3 8. Management takes risks 9. Work life improving 10. Learn from each other 11. Structured for learning 5 12. Learn across all levels 13. Awareness beyond specialty 14. Lessons learned sessions 15. Obsolete practices replaced 16. Improvement expected People as resources Model the Vision 8 Systems thinking 9 Promote positive Learning power 6 5 Map the vision 7
Safe thinking 3 5 5
Assessment
Risk taking 4 5 5 4
Enter Assessment Rating for Each Item
4 5 4 5
38
Get show on the Road
People as resources
Model the Vision
Systems thinking
Promote positive
Learning power
Map the vision
Safe thinking
Assessment
Risk taking
continued
5 5 5
6 5 5 5 5
10 17. Employees training expected 18. All get relevant training
19. Cross-functional learning 20. Middle managers key role 21. Learn from unexpected 5 22. Eagerness to improve 5 23. Systems are flexible 3 24. Not overloading 25. Stress is manageable
5 5 5 3 4 5 3
5 5 5 5 5 5
4 5 5
5 26. Improvement not just talk 27. Training may not = learning 28. Learners salt-directed 29. Middle managers prepared
5 3 5 3 5 5 5
45 10 4.5 0 50 11 4.55
5 5
5 5 3 5 5 3 5 4 3 5 3 4 5 5 5
30. Learning styles recognized 31. Learning differences respected 32. Time for reflection 33. Resource for learning 34. Teams rewarded 35. Managers cope with change 36. Staff enabled to improve Total Overall Score Divide Score by These Numbers Results Average
3 5 5
70 15 4.67
5 5
60 13 4.62
5 5 5
67 14 4.79 91 19 4.7 9 30 6 5.00 43 9 4.78 42 9 4.67 31 7 4.43
Learning Organizations ASTD Learning Organization Profile This tool was taken from Don Clarks website. (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/learnorg.htm) Clark is a practical resource known throughout the training industry, and this particular tool is noted as being taken from ASTDs
39
resources. The only reference to anything similar on the ASTD website is listed within 16 Steps to Becoming a Learning Organization, by Michael Marquardt, which is one of the Info-line series published by the association, so the source is unverifiable beyond Clarks website. Unlike the other two tools, this included technology resources, and touched on more knowledge management aspects. The assessment was used for the church program, so many of the questions were not particularly applicable. However, it is one more reinforcement for the need to upgrade the computer systems of the organization, since that will help in the management of information. The scoring of this tool rated the CE program at 66, in the 61-80 point category which states Keep on moving! Your organization has a solid learning foundation. It was the technology related questions that were scored poorly, bringing down the overall score. It did bring out some education needs to work with the staff on learning to learn and understanding a systems perspective.
ASTD Learning Organization Profile

Instructions Below is a list of statements. Read each one carefully, then decide the extent to which it actually applies to your organization, using the scale below: 4 = applies fully 3 = applies to a great extent 2 = applies to a moderate extent 1 = applies to little or no extent
Learning Organizations Learning Dynamics: Individual, Group or Team, and Organization

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
40
__4___ We are encouraged and expected to manage our own learning and development. __4____ People avoid distorting information and blocking communication channels, using such skills as active listening and effective feedback. __1____ Individuals are trained and coached in learning how to learn. __3____ Teams and individuals use the action learning process. (that is, they learn from careful reflection on problem situations, and then apply their new knowledge to future actions.) __2____ People are able to think and act with a comprehensive, systems approach.
Organization Transformation: Vision, Culture, Strategy, and Structure

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. __4____ Top-level managers support the vision of a learning organization. __4____ There is a climate that supports and recognizes the importance of learning. __4____ We learn from failures as well as successes. __4____ Learning opportunities are incorporated into operations and programs. __4____ The organization is streamlined--with few management levels--to maximize communication and learning across all levels.
People Empowerment: Employee, Manager, Customer, and Community

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. __4____ We strive to develop an empowered workforce able to learn and perform. __4____ Authority is decentralized and delegated. __4____ Managers take on the roles of coaching, mentoring, and facilitating learning. __3____ We actively share information with our customers to obtain their ideas to learn and improve services and products. __3____ We participate in joint learning events with supplies, community groups, professional associations, and academic institutions.
Knowledge Management: Acquisition, Creation, Storage and Retrieval, and Transfer and Use
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. __2____ People monitor trends outside our organization by looking at what others do--for example, by benchmarking best practices, attending conferences, and examining published research. __1____ People are trained in the skills of creative thinking and experimentation. __2____ We often create demonstration projects to test new ways of developing a product or delivering a service. __1____ Systems and structures exist to ensure that important knowledge is coded, stored, and made available to those who need and can use it. __3____ We continue to develop new strategies and mechanisms for sharing learning throughout the organization.
Technology Application: Information Systems, Technology-Based Learning, and EPSS (Electronic Performance Support Systems)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. __1____ Effective and efficient computer-based information systems help our organizational learning. __1____ People have ready access to the information superhighway--for example, through local area networks, the Internet, ASTD Online, and so on. __1____ Learning facilities such as training and conference rooms incorporate electronic multimedia support. __1____ We support just-in-time learning with a system that integrates high-technology learning systems, coaching, and actual work into a seamless process. __1____ Electronic Performance Support Systems (EPSS) enable us to learn and do our work better.
41
__66____ Grand Total for Five Subsystems (Maximum Score 100)

81 - 100: 61 - 80: 40 - 60: Below 40: Congratulations! You are well on your way to becoming a learning organization! Keep on moving! Your organization has a solid learning foundation. A good beginning. Your organization has gathered some important building blocks to become a learning organization. Watch out! Time to make drastic changes if you want to survive in a rapidly changing world.
Notes Created by ASTD (American Society For Training and Development) - The material on this page is not covered by copyright and may be reproduced at will. Please note that since this was created by others, I [Don Clark] have no information on its reliability of validity. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/learnorg.html 12/21/2003
Learning Organizations Learning History The concept of the learning history comes from George Roth, who sees this as a safer alternative to the assessment process. (Roth and Kleiner 1995) It looks at assumptions and
42
experiences within an organization in an attempt to inspire others. It reviews what has occurred as part of a transformational learning process. Roths process includes seven steps, only four of which have been completed for this application. The seven steps are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Planning Stage Retrospective, reflective conversational interviews Distillation of the material into coherent themes Creation of a document using the themes Key managers and the participants in the interviews hold a validation workshop Documentation becomes the basis for company-wide dissemination workshops Review of the learning history effort (Roth 1996) The learning history process was quite an interesting experience. The history for PAG was written for the church Christian Education program as a part of the needs assessment process. The author began to document some of the insights gathered in research papers over the last several years and began to see some trends and additional needs arise not previously revealed in other tools. It was also fascinating how aware the author became of learning related discussions occurring among the staff. The learning history is designed to span a considerable period, and it will be interesting to watch this evolve over time as the growth process is documented.
43
Learning History: Providence Assembly of God

Prepared by Jean Marrapodi, Director of Christian Education, 11/2003 Introduction In taking over the Christian Education (CE) programs of the church, I have noticed gaps in several areas. As a teacher, I noticed severe deficits in the reading comprehension of my students. As an observer, I have noticed the lack of retention of information in the children from year to year. This is an attempt to document some perceived observations with documentation.
Reviewers comments
The childrens reading and writing abilities seemed to be well below the norms of elementary students.
Anecdotal Event
Fall 1999 I ran Childrens Church for the 6-10 year olds from September-December. When I gave them a half sheet to fill in their name, phone number and address, very few could do this task I perceived to be very simple. It wasnt that there were all six year olds, either. The class tended to lean more toward the 8-10 year olds. Shouldnt third and fourth graders be able to do this? I was stunned that only 2 of them were familiar with the books of the Bible, and some common bible stories. Completing a basic worksheet was nearly impossible for most. There were the usual discipline issues, but many centered in frustration about completing work I perceived to be very easy for them. October 1999 I taught the children the story of Daniel in the Lions Den, and for our activity, gave them pipe cleaners and told them they could make whatever they wanted to show the story, or a part of the story. They did not know where to begin, and were very unhappy with me that they didnt have specific directions and needed to use their creativity. Fall 2002 In teaching my newly assigned adult Sunday School class, I would often have people read passages then wed discuss them and answer questions about them. I wasnt terribly surprised to see that some of my students were slow readers; many were dealing with English as a second language. What really baffled me was that they could not answer literal questions from the text. There was only one student who was generally able to answer questions and she would often give me a look of this is so easy. I dont want to answer everything!
I expected this to be creative fun for the children.
Reading comprehension was challenging for many of my students. They could read orally, but were unable to answer questions.
44
At this point, I had already begun to realize the intense need to adapt the materials.
December 2002 (from my paper on Learning Styles of Low Literacy Learners) In my work in the inner city with my adult Sunday School class, I have come to realize that there is great disparity in the learning levels and abilities of my students. I interact with a diverse population, ranging from a 19 year old special needs learner to a Brown University graduate student. In between, my class includes recent immigrants from Liberia and several islands in the Caribbean, for whom English is a second language; a non-reader, a school teacher, an elderly couple with a great deal of content knowledge in the subject matter being addressed but low reading levels and several bluecollar workers. In my role as a teacher, what is the most effective methodology to present material that will touch the lives of each of my students? A traditional lecture format may work, but is that going to effectively reach the students? I am limited in the reading material that I present because of the low reading levels of many of the students, so I must be careful to not make reading a requirement, lest I shut out some who have been shut out from so much already in their lives. This is the need that began my quest to find suitable materials for teaching my students. As is typical in the inner city, I have a different set of students every week, so I must create lessons that are self contained in the hour. I also want to make the material compelling to engage the learners and encourage them to return in the following week. I have seen my average attendance increase from 4 to 15 as I have begun implementing materials that involve the learners more, but I still am not sure I have been meeting the needs of all of my students On a practical level, I need to be sure to involve my learners with the material, rather than just presenting it to them. Continuing to allow them to work in groups with stronger learners, and building on existing information and skill sets will allow them to incorporate and assimilate the new materials into their learning. Awareness of some of the sensitivity to reading requires me to be cautious, but in order to meet the needs of all students, I cannot exclude it. I cannot base my curriculum on a completely text based idiom. I must incorporate variety to meet the needs of all learners, remembering that the diversity of styles is a strength in the learning of the entire group March 2003 (from my paper on multiculturalism) Yet they come, week after week, like absorbent sponges, listening, and I hope, learning, so I guess Im doing something right. I wonder sometimes,
I was baffled but this group, and wanted to find what would help them learn better.
when I feel like Im pulling teeth to get discussion going, or asking for answers to literal questions in the text and am greeted with blank stares. The goal of this paper is to explore crosscultural communication, looking for principles I can adapt to this classroom setting. I have done a significant amount of research on brain-based learning, multiple intelligence and learning styles, yet all of the accelerated learning principles that work so well in the corporate world and the elementary classroom dont seem to make connections as I would expect them to in this setting. It isnt that there is tension, or an appearance of dissatisfaction among the students. Their vote of confidence comes in showing up week after week an hour before the church service for the lesson. It just doesnt feel right as a teacher. I dont seem to be connecting with them, and that is puzzling to me. As a trainer, if we did a level one evaluation, I wouldnt expect high marks. Looking from the angle of the individual learner has not produced an answer, so my goal in this paper is to look from a systemic, sociological perspective to determine if there is something else that could be examined. I intend to focus primarily on the African students since the connection is most imperceptible here and the cultural gap seems the widest.
45
It was this event that was the turning point for me to realize that I had a much bigger problem in my Sunday School class than I thought.
Spring 2003 In doing an exercise to create a timeline of your life and Gods influence in it, I gave my adult class markers and a long sheet of 12 newsprint. I wanted them to start with the year of their birth, and end with the present, drawing symbols to represent different periods in their life with significant events. We were then going to identify the influence of God. The concept completely baffled the African students. Apparently time is not viewed in a linear fashion here. Elizabeth pulled out her ID card and tried to make me understand that all of her information was on that. She did not know what year she was born in. Using magic markers was new to some students. Papa and Mama Tamba had never written with them, and Papa appeared to have no writing skills whatsoever as he attempted to copy the symbols on my sample. I knew that Howard couldnt read, and we generally worked around things like this. This issue now made
the explanation of why many of the African students were non-participatory. It wasnt a language issue; it was one of literacy. June 2003 (From my paper Collaboration in the Inner City) One of the most formidable tasks a teacher must accomplish is the communication of the content in a way so that each and every student comprehends it. I am one of the two Adult Sunday School teachers for Providence Assembly of God, an inner city congregation composed of a heterogeneous mix of people from all walks of life, social stratifications, and life experiences. I have recent immigrants from Africa speaking English as a second language, nonreading Americans, working people, college graduates, and some retired individuals. Many of my students have been involved in churches for many years, and have a good understanding of the Bible and some are new to the faith. Realizing that there was a severely limited big picture concept of the Bible in the students, I decided to embark on an overview of the Bible to assist the students in placing familiar stories in a broad context of the timeline from creation through the development of the early church. (p2) Uniqueness of My Setting Providence Assembly of God is a multiethnic congregation, meeting on the West Side of Providence. As an inner city congregation, the members are diversified on many planes: socially, there are lower and middle class attendees; racially, there are black, white, Hispanic, and Asians; nationally, there are native born Americans and immigrants from West Africa, the Caribbean Islands, the Philippines; educationally, there are attendees who are graduate students at Brown University, attendees who do not read at all, some with high school diplomas, others with GEDs, college graduates, and some who have only finished some grade school. My class is composed of adults who self-select coming to church an hour before service to participate. The Sunday School program at our church provides Christian Education classes for infants through adults, and is staffed by volunteer Sunday School teachers. My average attendance is about 12, though I have had as many as 20 and as few as 4. I have a core of about 5 who attend nearly every week, and the balance of other attendees changes week to week. While the literature supports the value of heterogeneous groupings, I run into some unique issues. Because of the mixed population and varied skill levels, it makes it difficult to come up with activities that everyone is able to participate in. In most academic settings, it is assumed that everyone
46
I had begun to explore the problem in more depth in the course of my graduate studies.
can read and write. This is not necessarily a valid assumption in my class. I have older students who recently immigrated from Liberia, and never learned to read or write, and function with English as a second language who wind up being grouped with graduate students from an Ivy League school. Certainly they can learn from one another, but the trick is coming up with tasks that are not all verbal. I work to find activities that are largely verbal, using discussion without requiring reading or writing but cannot always succeed in this. I have found that art activities can work, but the conceptual framework of the mixed cultures often has clashing backgrounds. In one of the lessons I did before this project, I gave the students a task of creating a comic strip timeline to represent their lives, then we were going to look for the hand of God working throughout their lives. My African students do not think of time in a linear fashion, and were unable to work from beginning to end on the project, nor able to represent the ideas using markers, never having had to perform any writing or drawing tasks before this. This lesson was actually a turning point for me, helping me realize that I needed to provide more variety to ensure that everyone was participating and understanding the content. These students would come and listen every week, but I discovered that the barrier was not English as a second language or shyness to participate, but from the lack of the skills a literate culture expects. A huge advantage I have in my setting is the flexibility to use my own curriculum and methodology. In writing my own materials, I save the church the expense of purchasing books, but I can also customize my class to meet the needs of the students in attendance. This made collaboration an ideal experiment for involving all the students and testing some of the theories presented in the literature about it. (p12-13)
47
Tina is a teaching assistant who has been working with the toddlers and preschoolers for six months. This was to be her first week presenting the lesson. It is clear she has no clear objective. Sadly, the story was David and Goliath, a very familiar story. Tina has no church background and this story was new to her.
11/16/2003 Jean: So whats your lesson about this morning? Tina: I dunno. Jean: What do you mean you dont know? Did you read through the manual? Tina: I looked it over last night. Jean: So what are you teaching the kids about? Tina: I dunno.
48
Jessica begins to use the new NirV bibles. Note that the reading comprehension is limited in being able to answer literal questions after reading something three times.
Teacher enthusiasm about a potential new curriculum for childrens Church. There is an interesting note about limitations of the inner city at the end. How realistic is this? How much might this fill of the Pygmalion theory?
11/18/2003 e-mail from Jessica, a 6-10 year old Childrens Church teacher I put the kids in groups of 2 and 3, the older with younger, and then gave each group a passage to read from genesis. They had to read the passage 3 times then come back to the circle. I then split the groups into 2 teams and asked questions. The team who answered the question, got a point. We didn't get very far into the questions, because we ran out of time. They weren't able to answer the questions at first, but they tried looking back, when I told them what verse it was. I think that was great, because they were trying to find it. It is probably going to take some time to teach them how to understand the bible, but I thought this was a great start. 11/17/2003 e-mail communication regarding a potential new curriculum -----Original Message----From: Marrapodi, Jean Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 11:41 PM To: Mwmwynn@aol.com; ladyjs197@aol.com Subject: new curriculum Hi. I forgot to mention that the A/G missions curriculum came in this week full of activities from around the world. I know you haven't been excited with the current curriculum, so this might be a good supplement. it was a freebie, and looks pretty good. I took a quick flip through and it's connected with Buddy Barrel, and has some countries I've never even heard of! Could be a great way to put a missions emphasis and geography lesson in there. In a lot of ways we are compensating for things the kids can't get in school. I want our programs to be known as ones of excellence, remembering who we're really serving in the process. -----Original Message----From: LadyJS197@aol.com [mailto:LadyJS197@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 8:20 PM
To: Marrapodi, Jean Subject: Re: new curriculum Wow, the curriulum sounds really good. Geograpy is an area that is often left out of schools, yet children have tremendous interest in it. It would be a great way to get and keep the interest of the children, and a great way to teach the bibe. So many of our children will most likely not go beyond their community.
49
It appears that the literacy issues extend to more than the people in my original adult Sunday School class.
12/4/2003 conversation with Michele Berkley, teaching a new video based adult class for women Jean: How are things going with your class? Michele: Just fine. Weve needed to adapt the format though. Were doing the video one week, and discussing the lesson the next. Jean: Thats fine. Is it a timing issue? Michele: Yes and no. Its more than that. They really need to discuss what they are learning. A lot of the time Im teaching basic Bible here. They know a lot less than I would have expected. Jean: Really? Even Robyn? Michele: Yes. Answering those questions that you and Crystal and I found to be a no brainer is a real struggle for them. Jean: Really? Do you think its a literacy issue or a bible knowledge issue? Michele: Some of both. Im really surprised by this. Ive spoken about it with the pastor [her husband] and it didnt seem to surprise him at all. I was really hoping we could go deeper with this topic, but there are too many obstacles right now to get to that level of discussion. Were filling in the blanks in the workbooks. Its also good that they have two weeks to get through the five days of homework. They seem to really need that.
50
Conclusions It has been a fascinating journey to explore the concept of the learning organization. A key element of the concept is the organizations willingness to look beyond face value of the events that occur, and examine things from a more holistic perspective. The key ingredient appears to be looking for the learning potential rather than assuming that the lessons learned will be consciously recognized. There is also a commonality of examining mistakes for lessons that can come from them, rather than the typical shame and cover up that occurs with failure. In order for this to occur, the organization must allow for safe discussions where the messenger of bad news is not afraid of being shot by sharing the news. In the examination of the learning culture of the office versus the church, the latter has a much stronger learning organization potential. Perhaps this lies in the flattened organizational structure; perhaps in the safety of being a self-selecting community of practice. It feels safer in the church. Perhaps the learning environment contributes to this. It has been intriguing to look at things from a systemic perspective. As an instructional designer, it is all too easy to focus only on the problem at hand, missing the forest for the trees. Understanding the concepts of the learning organization and organizational learning allows for a purposeful quest for the learning behind the events, and creates a desire to further the learning in organizations there is potential to impact. The journey begins now with the application of the lessons learned.
51
References Chase, M. L. (2000). The learning organization. Quincy, IL, Quincy University. 2003. Cho, D. Y. (2002). "The connection between self-directed learning and the learning organization." Human Resource Development Quarterly 13(1): 467-470. Clutterbuck, D. (2002). "How teams learn." T+D 56(3): 67, 3p. DiBella, A. J. (1995). Developing learning organizations: A matter of perspective. Organizational Development and Change, Academy of Management Proceedings. DiBella, A. J. (2001). Learning practices: assessment and action for organizational improvement. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall. DiBella, A. J. and E. C. Nevis (1998). How organizations learn: An integrated strategy for building learning capabiliy. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. DiBella, A. J., E. C. Nevis, et al. (1996). "Understanding organizational learning capability." Journal of Management Studies 33(3): 361, 19p. Farago, J. and D. J. Skyrme (1995). The learning organization. Management Insights. D. J. Skyrme. Highclere, Newbury, England, David Skyrme Associates. 2003: Forest, J. J. F. (2002). "Learning organizations: Higher education institutions can work smarter too." Connection: 31-33. Kerfoot, K. (2003). "Learning organizations new teachers: The leader's challenge." Nursing Economic$ 21(3): 148-151. Kirkwood, T. and A. Pangarkar (2003). "Workplace learning - beyond the classroom." CMA Management 77(3): 10-12. Kline, P. and B. Saunders (1998). Ten Steps to a Learning Organization. Atlanta, Great Ocean Publishers. Lichtenstein, B. M. Evolution or transformation: A critique and alternative to punctuated equilibirum. Organization Studies. Chestnut Hill, MA, Boston College: 4. Little, B. (2003). "Building a learning organisation." e-learning age: 16-17. Mojab, S. and R. Gorman (2003). "Women and consciousness in the "learning organization": Emancipation or exploitation." Adult Education Quarterly 53(4): 228-241.
Learning Organizations Mu, S. and D. R. Gnyawali (2003). "Developing synergistic knowledge in student groups." Journal of Higher Education 74(6): 689-711. Nevis, E. C., A. J. DiBella, et al. (1995). "Understanding organizations as learning systems." Sloan Management Review 36(2): 73-85. Ortenblad, A. (2002). "Organizational learning: a radical perspective." International Journal of Managment Reviews 4(1): 87-100. Owenby, P. H. (2002). "Organization learning communities and the dark side of the learning organization." New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 95: 51-60. Roth, G. L. (1996). Learning histories: Using documentation to assess and facilitate organizational learning. Cambridge, MA: 38.
52
Roth, G. L. and A. Kleiner (1995). Learning about organizational learning - Creating a learning history. Cambridge, MA: 13. Santosus, M. (1996). Five Uneasy Pieces, Part Two: The Learning Organization. CIO Magazine. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning organization. New York, Currency. Senge, P. M., A. Kleiner, et al. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York, Doubleday. Senge, P. M., C. Roberts, et al. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, Doubleday. Simon, F. and K. Rugchart (2003). "Lessons learning from creating a learning organization." Reflections: The SOL Journal 4(3): 14-21. Smith, M. K. (2001). Chris Argyris: theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Infed.org. 2003:. Smith, M. K. (2001). The learning organization. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Infed.org. 2003: Smith, M. K. (2001). Peter Senge and the learning organization. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Infed.org. 2003:.

Learning Organization-Practical Applications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning Organization-Practical Applications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION REVIEW, PRACTICE & APPLICATION by Jean Marrapodi

Learning Organizations Introduction

Learning Organizations From the Experts Peter Senge

Domain of Endur ing Change

Aw arenwss and Se nsibilities

Figure 2 from (Smith 2001)

Figure 3 (from Smith, 2001)

Seven Learning Orientations

Spectrum Internal/External Content/Process

KNOWLEDGE RESERVE DISSEMINATION MODE

LEARNING SCOPE VALUE-CHAIN FOCUS LEARNING FOCUS

Incremental/Transformative Design-Make/Market-Deliver Individual/Group

Learning Organizations Other perspectives

Critics of the Learning Organization

Providence Assembly of God Organizational Learning Profile

Internal Content Personal Formal Incremental Design-Make Individual

Public Informal Transformative Market-Deliver Group

Learning Organizations Figure 7

PHCS Corporate Learning Services Organizational Learning Profile

3 2.8 3.18 2.73 3.18 2.73 2.72

Internal Content Personal Formal Incremental Design-Make Individual

External Process Public Informal Transformative Market-Deliver Group

PAG: Kline Learning Organization Assessment

Average score: 4.67 High degree of Learning Organization characteristics

The current reality in my organization is that:

PAG LEARNING ORGANIZATION ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Enter Assessment Rating for Each Item

Get show on the Road

Model the Vision

Map the vision

10 17. Employees training expected 18. All get relevant training

ASTD Learning Organization Profile

Learning Organizations Learning Dynamics: Individual, Group or Team, and Organization

Organization Transformation: Vision, Culture, Strategy, and Structure

People Empowerment: Employee, Manager, Customer, and Community

__66____ Grand Total for Five Subsystems (Maximum Score 100)

Learning History: Providence Assembly of God

I expected this to be creative fun for the children.

You might also like

66__ Grand Total for Five Subsystems (Maximum Score 100)