Organizational Learning

  I've posed the enquiry of organizational learning several times inwards recent months: are at that topographic point forces...

 

I've posed the enquiry of organizational learning several times inwards recent months: are at that topographic point forces that force organizations towards changes leading to improvements inwards performance over time? Is at that topographic point a procedure of organizational development inwards the social world? So where create nosotros stand upward on this question?

There are only 2 full general theories that would atomic number 82 us to conclude affirmatively. One is a alternative theory. According to this approach, organizations undergo random changes over time, as well as the surroundings of activity favors those organizations whose changes are functional with honour to performance. The alternative theory itself has 2 variants, depending on how nosotros recall close the unit of measurement of selection. It mightiness live hypothesized that the work solid itself is the unit of measurement of selection, then firms live on or neglect based on their ain fitness. Over fourth dimension the average flat of performance rises through the extinction of low-performance organizations. Or it mightiness live maintained that the unit of measurement is at a lower flat -- the private alternative arrangements for performing diverse kinds of work, which are evaluated as well as selected on the footing of around metric of performance. On this approach, private innovations are the object of selection. 

The other large machinery of organizational learning is quasi-intentional. We involve that intelligent actors command diverse aspects of the performance of an organization; these actors choose a laid upward of interests that induce their behavior; as well as actors fine-tune the arrangements of the organisation then every bit to serve their interests. This is a procedure I depict every bit quasi-intentional to choose that the organisation itself has no intentionality, but its demeanour as well as arrangements are nether the command of a loosely connected laid upward of actors who are individually intentional as well as purposive. 

In a highly idealized representation of organizations at work, these quasi-intentional processes may indeed force the organisation towards higher functioning. Governance processes -- boards of directors, executives -- choose a marking of influence over the activities of other actors inside as well as following to the organization, as well as they are able to force around subordinate demeanour inwards the direction of higher performance as well as excogitation if they choose an involvement inwards doing so. And sometimes these governance actors create inwards fact choose an involvement inwards higher performance -- to a greater extent than revenue, less environmental harm, greater safety, sex as well as racial equity. Under these circumstances it is reasonable to human face that arrangements volition live modified to meliorate performance, as well as the organisation volition "evolve".

However, 2 forms of counter-intentionality arise. The interests of the governing actors are non perfectly aligned with increasing performance. Substantial opportunities for conflict of involvement be at every level, including the executive flat (e.g. Enron). So the actions of executives are non ever inwards concert with the destination of improving performance. Second, other actors inside the organisation are oftentimes beyond command of executive actors as well as are motivated past times interests that are quite split from the destination of increasing performance. Their actions may oftentimes atomic number 82 to condition quo performance or fifty-fifty degradation of performance. 

So the enquiry of whether a given organisation volition alter inwards the direction of higher performance is highly sensitive to (i) the alignment of mission involvement as well as personal involvement for executive actors, (ii) the reach of command executive actors are able to do over subordinates, as well as (iii) the strength as well as pervasiveness of personal interests alongside subordinates inside the organisation as well as the capacity these subordinates choose to select as well as hold arrangements that favor their interests.

This represents a highly contingent as well as unpredictable province of affairs for the enquiry of organizational learning. We mightiness reckon the enquiry every bit an ongoing contend betwixt local private involvement as well as the embodiment of mission-defined interest. And at that topographic point is no argue at all to believe that this contend is biased inwards the direction of enhancement of performance. Some organizations volition progress, others volition live static, as well as soundless others volition reject over time. There is no procedure of evolution, guided or invisible, that leads inexorably towards improvement of arrangements as well as performance.

So nosotros mightiness formulate this determination inwards a fairly stark way. If organizations meliorate inwards capacity as well as performance over fourth dimension inwards a changing environment, this is exclusively the final result of intelligent actors project to implement innovations that volition atomic number 82 to these outcomes, at a multifariousness of levels of activity inside the organization. There is no hidden procedure that tin forcefulness out live expected to generate an evolutionary vogue towards higher organizational performance. 

(The images higher upward are of NASA headquarters as well as Enron headquarters -- 2 organizations whose histories reverberate the kinds of dysfunctions mentioned here.)