5.

Organizational learning versus the learning organization:

explanatory potential and development in practice
Diana-Maria Cismaru1
Organizational learning and the learning organization are two
powerful schools of thought in the academic and practice field of
organizational sciences. For framing both perspectives, we need to
trace the orientations which generated them.
Behavioral studies and the post-systemic theory (from recent
representatives are Goldspink, Kay, 2009) are the closest perspectives from the two schools of thought discussed in this paper. The
complexity of the entire living allowed a perspective of the whole
and considered several variables involved in the process of generating reality. Organizations are seen like intelligent living entities, which define continually their balance through interaction
with the environment. Also, social interactionism and constructivist theory (paradigms from general sociology - Mead, 1960) built a
ground for a consistent approach from both schools of thought, the
social approach (will be discussed later).
Not at last, the biological perspective allowed the metaphor of the
organization as a living body (and allowed the connections between
1
Associate Professor, Ph. D., College of Communication and Public
Relations, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration,
Bucharest.

120 | Diana-Maria Cismaru, Cristina Leovaridis (Editors)

individual and group learning). The transformation of an organization during lifetime leads to an age cycle (determined by the biological life of the organization) and to a stage cycle (determined by the
maturity level of organization). The age cycle is usually associated
with terms like development, efficiency, motivation, resources
while the stage cycle is associated with terms like learning, growing, evolution, commitment and social responsibility. The biological perspective studies the problem of adaptation of internal
variables and processes tot the biological age (which is difficult,
because the development of organizations is different from a case to
another, in comparison with biological individuals).

5.1. Theoretical framework

For organizational learning
The most important variable to observe and evaluate organizational learning is the capacity of action. A definition of organizational learning is as a process by which the organizations knowledge and value base changes, leading to improved problem-solving
ability and capacity for action. (Probst and Buchel, 1997, p. 15).
Organizational learning might be explained starting from individual learning, but it is distinct of the sum of the individual learning processes. Even if the individual learning is an important asset,
the group functions as a whole with own capabilities and characteristics. Thus, organizational learning may be more (desirable
situation) but also may be less than the sum of individual learning
processes. For both situations we may compare two examples of
organizational environments. For the former situation, the United
States organizational environment is strongly oriented towards
objectives and based on procedures (the system is stronger than
individual competencies). For the latter situation, Romanian insti-

Innovation and Organizational Learning | 121

tutional environment is characterized of a lack of organizational

objectives and evaluation criteria; the procedures are defensive and
reactive, rather than proactive. The systems malfunctions have as a
consequence a lower level of organizational learning than the sum
of individuals learning (people competency is satisfactory, but is
poorly used by the institutional system).
Back to theory, the origin of the orientation was in the early
60s works of Cyert and March (1963), who considered organizational learning as an adaptive behavior of an organization. The
perspective has been developed later by Argyris and Schon (1978),
through the intermediary concept theories of action. The theories of action are frames of reference which build the continuity of
processes and the qualities necessary for attaining organizational
objectives. The two authors distinguished two types of theories of
action: official (based on vision and mission statement, purpose,
strategies, goals, structure) and unofficial (inter-subjective views of
reality). The second type refers in fact to the cultural level of organization, to the unwritten set of rules and principles that guide the
behavior of individuals.
Organizational learning can be recognized on several levels
(Probst and Buchel, 1997, pp. 23-24): dictionary knowledge (the
what level: definitions and references embraced by the members); directory knowledge (the how level: procedures, shared
practices); recipe knowledge (the should level: shared norms,
instructions and recommendations); axiomatic knowledge (the
why level: about reasons and causes, premises for action). Organizational learning has as effect: an enrichment of the collective
ground of knowledge, increase in the range of possible actions, a
change in the interpretation of reality.
A very important contribution to this school of thought had
Argyris and Schon (1978) by explaining the distinction between

122 | Diana-Maria Cismaru, Cristina Leovaridis (Editors)

single-loop and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning involves try-error trials, without changing the major set of variables;
double-loop learning means the change of the major variables. The
distinction was spread rapidly to theorists and managers, because
figured maps of change for organization. Single-loop learning was
associated with short-term and limited change (organization tries
out a new method and expects feed-back from environment, being
prepared for adaptation and adjustment) while double-loop learning refers to radical changes in strategies and mission (EasterbySmith et al., 1999, p. 3).
Two kinds of situations triggers learning in organizations (Argyris and Schon, 1978, apud Probst and Buchel, 1997, pp. 44-46):
crises and turbulences, or misalignment of resources. In first category are included internal and external events that affect the normal functioning of organization (disturbances as conflicts, competitive pressure, development crisis, stress or uncertainty). The
best example for turbulence is the uncertain period at the end of
this year (2011) at international level, and the concerns about a
new financial crisis. The second category refers to the gap between
necessary and available resources. Structural redundancy and loose
coupling are two frequent phenomena associated with this category (since the lack of resources is tied also to their use and to the best
functioning of a system). This is a situation often met in Romanian
organizations: restructuring in order to adapt to institutional contexts lead to innovation and creativity (though not always in the
best direction). Also, in the same category is the situation of surplus of resources, which allows repetition, simulation and testing of
new structures (also stimulating the learning process).
The most important distinction between authors in the field
of organizational learning is the emphasis of technical or of social
process. The technical view assumes that organizational learning is

Innovation and Organizational Learning | 123

the effective processing, interpretation of and response to information, both inside and outside the organization (Easterby-Smith
et al., 1999, 3). This view was the first to develop inside the organizational learning perspective, and was known in previous decades
as knowledge management orientation. This direction raised
questions among scholars about the processes and mechanisms
used to create knowledge. Thus, Huber (1991, p. 2) identified five
components in the process of knowledge management: (1) drawing on knowledge available at the organization's birth, (2) learning
from experience, (3) learning by observing other organizations, (4)
grafting on to itself components that possess knowledge needed
but not possessed by the organization, and (5) noticing or searching for information about the organization's environment and
performance. Later, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) made an important distinction between explicit (enabled by technology) and
tacit knowledge (based on managerial vision and organizational
culture). Also, Nonaka, van Krogh and Voelpel (2006, p. 1182) observed that knowledge expands in organizations in four conversion
phases: Socialization aims at sharing tacit knowledge among individuals. Externalization aims at articulating tacit knowledge into
explicit concepts. Combination aims at combining different entities
of explicit knowledge. Internalization aims at embodying explicit
knowledge into tacit knowledge.
In the same direction, many studies centered on the conditions
that favor the knowledge creation, retention and transfer. Thus,
Zrraga and Bonache (2005) developed a framework that linked
team climate to knowledge transfer and creation. Using survey on
over 300 respondents who worked in self-managed teams, they
found out that high-care relationships favor both the transfer and
creation of knowledge. Also, Argote and Miron-Spektor (2011, pp.
1128-1130) reviewed the factors considered as facilitators, up to a

124 | Diana-Maria Cismaru, Cristina Leovaridis (Editors)

level, knowledge creation: experience, routines and practices, motivation, emotions, social networks - research showing non-linear
relationship between each factor and creativity/innovation. On the
other hand, knowledge retention studies focused on factors that
stimulate memory or forgetting in organizations: for example, how
disasters affect the functionality of memory systems in organizations (Majchrzak, A., S. L. Jarvenpaa, A. B. Hollingshead. 2007).
The last topic that determined several studies referred to knowledge
transfer. As interpreted by Vera and Crossan (2004, pp. 224-225),
the 4I framework of organizational learning (intuiting, interpreting, integrating, institutionalizing) allow the transfer of organizational learning from individual to group and collective level. Yet, an
important area for future research should study not only the conditions of success in creating knowledge, but also the conditions
of failure, which should be studied along the temporal dimension
where imbalances can emerge (Probst and Raisch, 2005).
The social view, developed later, is centered on the way people
interpret and use their work experiences (experiences that may
derive from explicit sources or from tacit sources, like the sixth
sense of a skilled expert.) This second view focuses on interaction
and on social construction process: data have significance only by
peoples interpretation. Also, the constructivist view keeps in mind
also the political dimension as inherent feature of any social process (Coopey, 1995): if the interpretation of reality is constructed
by individuals, the particular interpretation will suit the interests
of some and harm the interests of other. And finally, an important
aspect of the social view is learning as a cultural product: learning
takes place not in peoples minds, but in interaction between people
(Easterby-Smith et al., 1999, p. 6).
In their book, Easterby-Smith et al. analyze the most commonly
expressed criticisms toward organizational learning perspective

Innovation and Organizational Learning | 125

(idem, pp. 39-40): it lacks theoretical integration and research is

non-cumulative (but this could be also as a sign of theoretical fertility, in opinion of the authors), does not provide accessible knowledge
for practitioners, and the notion of organizational learning is used
in a metaphorical sense. Tied to the most common critiques are also
other limits, as the wrong opinion that learning leads for sure to
improvement (but in fact, too frequent changes produce chaos and
instability): it is more important a strategic aim than the obsession
to attain a higher and higher state (March and Sproul, 1990).
Further, the premise that organizations must align to their environment in order to remain competitive and innovative is also
a limit of the perspective (idem, pp. 66-68). The premise tends to
make organizations dependent upon the external forces operating
from the social space. The possibility to construct its own environment is ignored. (As a local example, Romanian organizations constantly generate their own environment in the last decades, because
the pressure of the external environment is too high and would ask
a too great effort for adaptation).
Finally, many models (especially models for practitioners) assume that learning is planned and, when managers put guidelines
in practice, organizations will become effective learning centers.
The critiques of this premise say that these could attract defensive
behavior or conservative attitude, or internal and external unexpected events may take place (idem, pp. 68-70).

For learning organization

The concept of learning organization is based on the previously developed concepts in the field: the intelligent organization
(Pinchot, 1985; Quinn, 1992) and the evolving approach (Aldrich,
1999).The search of a concept which defines an advanced model of
organization began few decades ago. The intelligent organization/

126 | Diana-Maria Cismaru, Cristina Leovaridis (Editors)

intelligent enterprise, and lately, the learning organization/the learning community, were the main theories with an impact in time in
the field. From the beginning, the intelligent organization concept
(Pinchot, 1985) was founded on a critique of hierarchical structure
in organizations, speaking of the necessity of using peoples talents
by the intrapreneurship attitude. The other concept, intelligent enterprise (Quinn, 1992) had a stronger impact in the scientific field,
because focused more on the qualities needed for an effective management, emphasizing the rational distribution of resources and
the use of core competences. Both concepts had a common limit,
they defined learning as being only the capacity to enroll, select and
manage information, for supporting the functions.
In the view of Senge, the learning organization was defined as
an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create the future. For such an organization, it is not enough merely
to survive () adaptive learning must be joined with generative
learning, learning that enhances the capacity to create (Senge,
1990, p. 14). Senge proposes five disciplines for building a learning organization (Senge, 1990, pp. 6-11): renounce to the old way
of thinking (mental models), become committed to lifelong learning (personal mastery), gain the connection to the whole (systems
thinking), share a common vision with all the team (shared vision),
and work together for the achievement of the vision (team learning). The five elements were not new, but the model in which they
were integrated was powerful enough to create a management orientation in North American area.
The initial theory was developed by other contributions. Lichtenstein (2000) proposed the term generative knowledge and insisted that all decision makers must move beyond a rational model of
understanding to a transactional, open-minded and social model.
Ratner (1997, pp. 1-34) defined the learning organization as one

Innovation and Organizational Learning | 127

in which people at all levels are increasing their capacity to produce

results they really care about. Levine (2001) described the learning organization profile as being characterized by remembrance
and learning, and using collective recording in work processes and
decision-making, since learning is applied to produce or change
strategies and procedures. Digenti (1998) explored the notion of
learning community as a ground for building the learning organization, through: promoting socially responsible behaviors; visions
and values; building cognitive skills inside the community. Thus,
the organization could integrate the whole self of individuals in
the organization. The concept of learning community was a step
forward in defining larger social collective profiles; in some books
appeared the concept learning society(as, for example, Raven
and Stevenson, 2001). In comparison with the learning organization, the learning community is a superior stage, because supposes
a strong sense of identity and a high level of cohesion and trust.
Returning to the general level, two approaches could be identified, in the same direction as for the complimentary one: the technical and the social approach. The technical approach is directed
towards measurement, as for example Learning Organization Audit (Pace, 2002) composed from three instruments: the Learning
Organization Profile, to assess to what degree collective learning
takes place; the Learning Organizations Questionnaire, to identify, if present, the characteristics of a learning organization; the
third instrument, not named, in order to find if the organizational
outcomes are affected by the collective learning. The social approach has its roots in organizational development practice (one
of the main inspirations for learning organization model. Thus,
MIT Center for Organizational Learning (whose purpose is to explore means and models to implement the learning organization
model) proposed the concept of dialogue, for improving the quality

128 | Diana-Maria Cismaru, Cristina Leovaridis (Editors)

of communication between people (Easterby Smith et al., 1999,

p. 9). The practice of dialogue supposed that people allowed each
other space in team meetings to express, avoiding evaluation of
comments of each other. The social approach of generating learning organizations followed also the Argyris notion of single- and
double loop learning. The first notion conducted researchers to a
linear model of hierarchical stages for attaining the final stage of
learning organization. Cyclical models, by contrary, think that the
enhancement of organizational learning is a continuous process
which will be helped by passing through a series of stages (Easterby
Smith et al., 1999, p. 10).
The evaluation of this school of thought need also a critical
attitude. Even if the aim for learning organization studies is the
practice, there still is a major shortage of empirical research (and
especially critical) on learning organization; after several years of
development, only 10% of the studies were based of new empirical
data collected by the authors. From these studies, a significant part
privilege outcomes as indicators of learning process efectiveness,
rather then the process itself (Easterby Smith et al., 1999, p. 12).
Second, early critiques of the learning organization theory
(Coopey, 1995) underlined that political attitudes in organizations
are inherent because of the individual interests and the political
processes should be explicit and incorporated in the model. Hiding, denying or accusing organizational politics as the main barrier for establishing a learning organization is only an ineffective
spending of energy.
Further, Glasmeier et al. (1998) revealed some weak points of
the learning organization model: (1) the lack of a universally accepted definition of firm learning conducted to misuse of terms; (2)
the theory lacks understanding of the rote nature of learning in organizations; (3) it is known little about how companies determine

Innovation and Organizational Learning | 129

their need to acquire new information and respond to the new acquired knowledge; (4) a firms ability to absorb new information
is a function of the previous experiences; (5) learning is history
dependent. The remarks of the authors focused on the definition
and nature of learning, and on the way information is transformed
in knowledge.
The critiques could be continued, in my opinion, with several
assumptions about the missing connections in the socio-emotional
continuum of the organization. (a) Learning is not only cognition,
is also emotional growth and change for individuals. The way individuals transform information in knowledge cannot be determined
and transformed in a model, in individual or team activity. (b)
Organizational identity is a dynamic concept, tied with the growing experiences, and should play a major model in generating the
learning organization. (c) The theory speaks very little of the aim
of organizational learning: organizations learn not only for their
business objectives, but for their missions fulfillment. The mission
includes also playing a social role in the entire living that integrates the organization. (d) There were several attempts to compose
recipes for building a learning organization; but in the authentic
meaning a learning organization could only grow naturally. Items
like trust, commitment and cohesion become important as possible generative factors, as frames for interpreting the reality.

5.2. Comparative analysis of the two perspectives

In the general field of learning in organizations, confusion is
maintained and even intensified by several aspects. The two perspectives are often confused, because of the symmetry of terms.
Second, organizational learning is used in many situations with
the old technical meaning (reception and storage of information),

130 | Diana-Maria Cismaru, Cristina Leovaridis (Editors)

Innovation and Organizational Learning | 131

which confuses more the receptors of studies. Third, the expression

learning organization determined, for a segment of researchers,
the idea that only educational organizations could be the subject of
this orientation (assimilating in a wrong way the concept of learning organization with schools, universities or research centers).
From the two definitions cited before we can see that the
spheres of the two concepts have something in common, but are
not the same. Still, the two concepts and the scientific orientations
need to be characterized after their main features.
The frame of comparison considered a range of basic criteria:
goals for theory, agents to produce theory, type of methodological
approach, subcategories, fields as roots, age of the theory, fertility
in research, and empirical application. The table shows the result of
comparison (some of the features have already been underlined in
the previous pages).
Table 1. Comparison of Organizational Learning (OL)
and Learning Organization (LO)
OL

LO

1. Goals

Criteria

Detached analysis

Action oriented

2. Agents of theory

Academic researchers

Consultants

3. Methodological approach Descriptive

Prescriptive

4. Subcategories

Social and technical

Social and technical

5. Level of analysis
6. Fields as roots

Macro or whole organization

Theory of organizations, cultural
anthropology,social psychology,
constructivism, interactionism,
post-systemic theory

Macro and micro

Management, organizational development

6. Age of theory

40 years

21 years

7. Fertility of theory

Interdisciplinary studies
Change management, Risk
management

Only related concepts

Only 10% empirical data
studies

8. Empirical application

The theoretical ground for OL is larger, providing more possibilities of development in the future). The evolution of theories
in social sciences shows that an interdisciplinary ground is more
nurturing for further development, compared to narrow and specialized paths. By the opposite, LO capacity to bring novelty of
theory is limited to propose only related concepts (as the examples
given above, learning community or evolving organization). The age
of OL perspective is double than the age of LO, which proves also
a greater capacity to survive and develop for the former perspective. And, if someone would evaluate the circulation between the
two perspectives, would identify a flow of ideas from OL to LO, but
little traffic in the reverse direction.
Finally, the empirical field is not so generous in case of LO as intended by Peter Senge and his followers. On one hand, the percentage of studies in this school using original empirical data is under
50%. On the other hand, the application of the concept in the real
organizational environment proved to be limited (questions were
raised if learning organizations really exist or could be created in
reality, following the various paths proposed by LO studies).

5.3. Potential developments in research and practice

For organizational learning
Because the background for organizational learning school is
rich, the potential of development is also complex, including interdisciplinary studies (there will be only examples for the empirical
field of Romania). A research theme could explore the management of change (for example, in what circumstances the singleloop learning should stop and be transformed in double-loop
learning) or the effect of turbulences on the continuous learning in
organizations (for example, if an organization could sustain turbu-

132 | Diana-Maria Cismaru, Cristina Leovaridis (Editors)

lence for an unlimited period of time). Being an integrative school

of thought, organizational learning allows many directions to be
developed in research and all types of research design.
Other possible axis of research is risk management and the integration of risk management in organizational learning, and what
are the benefits or negative consequences of accepting risks. In the
same area, another question refers to the influence of national cultures on risk taking and of knowledge integration. Or, at last, to
the construction of reality in terms of risks taking (and the field
of East-European countries, and specificly Romania, is suited with
this research theme).
A particular case of organizational learning is that of virtual organizations (since the virtual workgroups are tied with other kind
of relationship than the real space workgroups). The questions here
are how to generate organizational learning, which are the methods
to create vehicles for theories of action, and how are visible the effects of organizational learning in a delocalized work environment.
Moving to the next level of analysis (the macroscopic one) the
ecological perspective allows an investigation of the methods and
contribution of organizational learning to sustainable development.
For example, organizational learning always has as effect a more effective use of energy sources (or the innovation in energy supply).
Not at last, the present social space is dominated by crises and
issues. Also, the impact of crises on middle and long term, and impact of crises at multiple levels in the present conditions (while the
information and its sources cannot be controlled) are two of the
pressing issues for managers and communication practitioners.

For learning organization

As said before, the learning organization orientation, though
seducing at first sight, is more limited in development because

Innovation and Organizational Learning | 133

of the narrow theoretical ground. Still, the limits identified from

the analysis of the central concept (learning organization) enable
the exploration of another concept, the evolving organization. The
evolving organization as the next stage from the learning community means a complex living entity, whose inner identity is at least
as important as the functions. The distinctive feature of evolving
organizations is the unconditioned orientation through growing,
for the missions fulfillment. The profile of the evolving organization would include interactive features: learning also by failure and
mistake, not only by success; finding creative answers to crises; not
starting or engaging in conflicts; playing a role of peace keeper;
interaction to outside groups is seen as an opportunity to learn;
integration of outside events by deepening the sense of identity;
not oriented in actions only to own prosperity but to the interest of
the whole society.
The profile of evolving organization would involve also value
features: efficient with resources (friendly to the environment);
respect for individuals and publics; employees are not only the main
resource, but an aim in itself; is responsible towards local community; ethical behaviors appear naturally, without being forced.
A research project in this direction should have as objectives: to
define the evolving organization as the upper level of the learning community, and to determine its profile; to identify the inner
generative patterns which stimulate the evolution; to explain the
role of organizational identity in the evolving process; to explore
the link between the evolution and the environmental changes,
considered as tests and lessons which stimulate growing. Not at
last, a research theme who would continue the model could explore
the methods to build a learning society (since the learning society
is a responsible and evolved society, which solved most of the social
problems from nowadays).

134 | Diana-Maria Cismaru, Cristina Leovaridis (Editors)

References
Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving, Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications
Argyris, C., coord. (1999). On Organizational Learning, Massachusetts: Blackwell
Argyris, C.; Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: a Theory of
Action Perspective, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley
Argote, L.; Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational Learning:
From Experience to Knowledge
Organization Science 22 (5), pp. 11231137.
Coopey, J. (1995). The Learning Organization, Power, Politics and
Ideology Construction, Management Learning, vol. 26 (2), pp. 193213.
Cyert, R.; March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Digenti, D. (1998). Toward an Understanding of the Learning
Community, Organizational Development Journal, 16 (2), pp. 91-96.
Easterby-Smith, M.; Burgoyne J.; Araujo, L. (1999). Organizational
Learning and the Learning Organization: Development in Theory and
Practice, London: Sage Publications
Glasmeier, A. K.; Fuelihart K.; Feller, I.; Mark, M.M. (1998). The
Relevance of Firm-Learning Theories to the Design and Evaluation
of Manufacturing Modernization Programs. Economic Development
Quarterly 12 (2), pp. 107-124.
Goldspink, C.; Kay, R. (2009). Autopoiesis and organizations: A
biological view of organizational change and methods for its study,
in Magalhaes, R., Sanchez, R. (eds.), Autopoiesis in Organizations
and Information Systems, Elsevier Science (Advanced Series in Management)
Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and literature, Organization Science, 2 (1), pp. 88 115.
Levine, L. (2001). Integrating Knowledge and Process in a Learning Organization, Information Systems Management 18 (1), pp. 21-33.
Lichtenstein, B. M. B. (2000). Generative knowledge and self-organized learning, Journal of Management Inquiry, 9 (1), pp. 47-54.

Innovation and Organizational Learning | 135

March, J. G.; Sproull, L. S. (1990). Technology, management, and

competitive advantage. Technology and organizations, in Sproull
P.S., Sproull L.S., (eds.), Technology and organizations. The JosseyBass management series, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Goodman, pp.
144-173.
Majchrzak, A., S. L. Jarvenpaa, A. B. Hollingshead (2007). Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters.
Organizational Science, 18 (1), pp. 147161.
Nonaka, I.; van Krogh, G.; Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational
Knowledge Creation Theory: Evolutionary Paths and Future Advances, Organization Studies, 27, pp. 1179 1220.
Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company.
New York: Oxford University Press
Quinn, J.B. (1992), The Intelligent Enterprise, New York: The Free
Press
Pace, R. W. (2002). The Organizational Learning Audit, Management Communication Quarterly 15(3), pp. 458-465.
Pinchot, G.; Pinchot, E. (1985). The Intelligent Organization Engaging the Talent and Initiative of Everyone in the Workplace, Berrett
Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 1996.
Probst, G.; Buchel, B. (1997). Organizational Learning: The competitive advantage of the future, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Probst, G.; Raisch, S. (2005). Organizational crisis: the logic of failure. Academy of Management Executive 19/1, pp. 90105.
Ratner, S. (1997). Emerging Issues in Learning Communities, St. Albans, Vermont: Yellow Wood Associates
Raven, J.; Stephenson, J. (2001). Competence in the learning society,
Peter Lang Publications, New York.
Senge, P.M. (1992), The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the
Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York.
Senge, P.; Kleiner A. et al. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Field Book:
Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, Doubleday,
New York.
Vera, D.; Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning, Academy of Management Review, 29 (2), pp. 222240.

Zrraga C.; Bonache J (2005). The impact of team atmosphere on

knowledge outcomes in self-managed teams. Organization Studies 26
(5), pp. 661681.

6. A new frontier from organizational learning

to community learning
Dumitru Iacob1
The topic of learning is quite probably one of the most frequently invoked and most intensely investigated scientific themes over
the past five decades. At the end of the 60s and the beginning of the
70s of the last century, extremely interesting processes occurred.
The world was relatively stabilized, even if that happened under the
spirit of the Cold War. The post-war reconstruction decades came
to an end. A new generation entered the social life, with a new horizon and new directions of spiritual quest.
Interesting facts occur down, at grass root, in firms, enterprises, in productive and commercial units. Beyond the pressure
of the war and reconstruction, firms in a more visible connection with the academic circles rewind the good practices of the
pre-war decades regarding the intervention in organizations and
shaping organizations in order to generate and use flexible and rational structures, as well as new cohesive, cultural relations among
the people within the organizations. However, something new is
happening. The extra-organizational environment is less and less
stable. Organizations are prone to ever more intense turmoil and
1
Professor, Ph. D., College of Communication and Public Relations,
National University of Political Studies and Public Administration