论文部分内容阅读
Abstract： In the process of global economy， there is a growing demand for organisational learning. This article critically reviews four models of organisational learning and applies them to the work experience of the author.
Key words： organisational learning； action science； organisational learning cycle
In the new global economy， organisational learning has become a central issue. A successful learning organisation is able to cope with the changeability of external environment and is excellent at adapting itself to its own transformation. This article critically examines the four models that facilitate organisational learning. It also combines my work experience with these models.
The first model is the single loop and double loop learning （Smith， 2001）. They are likened to be treatment for symptoms and fundamental causes respectively. The latter one is encouraged to improve organisational learning in an unpredicted environment. Nevertheless， double loop learning still has its weakness because it fails to examine the context of learning. Therefore， the concept of triple loop learning is proposed. This approach highlights a holistic view rather than parts-focused. It also explores the interrelationship between parts. Nonetheless， it still has limitations. A case in point is that unlimited interrelationship may lead to never-ending systemic activities （Flood， 1999）.
It seems that the first two models can be embedded into the models of organisational learning cycle and action inquiry. Organisational learning cycle consists of four stages showed in the following diagram：
Source： Dixon（1999）
Figure 1： The organisational learning cycle.
Though the three models discussed so far play a significant role in organisational learning， it is still difficult to put the theories into practice. Action science， however， seems to narrow or close the gap between theory and practice. This is because action inquiry is “a kind of behaviour that is simultaneously inquiring and productive” （Fisher，Rooke，Torbert， 2003：1）.
In current literature， little or no attention has been paid to small-sized or medium-sized organizations. In the following part， the organisational learning cycle will combine my own work experience in a small-sized company in Dundee.
Scotia Corporation is a leading direct marketing specialist in Dundee. It delivers a Personal Development Programme and mentoring programme， which enables every individual to have the opportunity to progress from a field representative to ownership. The success of the company owes to its excellent learning culture. Figure 4 places the learning process of Scotia in the organisational learning cycle. Figure 2： The organisational learning cycle for Scotia Corporation
The first step， the widespread generation of information， is accomplished by Scotia. Externally， it regularly sends its people to attend national training events. Besides， people gather information in the field. Internally， it provides coaching and mentoring sessions every morning for people to reflect on the collected information. The second step， integrating new/local information into the organisational context， is again realised. During the mentoring session， field representatives share the information and practice the pitch within a team or across team boundaries. The third step， collectively interpreting information， is facilitated by the size， structure and building design of the company. The total number between 30 and 40 people， the flat organisational structure and the simple building design ensure daily progress meetings and accordingly enhance interaction between members. During the progress meeting， individual who has done a good job will be praised. Dixon（2000）claims that identifying a certain person who deserve praise makes knowledge sharing more difficult. Nevertheless， over-emphasis on collective learning may affect individual learning motivation. In this case， the appropriate praise creates competition among individuals and teams， which leads to the whole organization progressing in an increasingly fast speed. The last step， authority to take responsible action on the interpreted meaning， encourages individual to put the collected and analysed data into action， supported by a reward system. The external motivation may undermine intrinsic learning despite the fact that it can promote learning. Nonetheless， the rewarding system is indispensable because human beings have a high level of self-motivation. This is another dilemma that organizations need to face and address.
In conclusion， this article has fully addressed the issue of organisational learning. It can not be denied that the four models are instrumental in enhancing organisational learning. The limitations of them， though， can be that the theory appears to be too utopia and recommendations seem to be very abstract. Apart from this， since learning takes time， the fast speed of modern society may inhibit us from having enough time to conduct reflection. Moreover， the development of technology tends to discourage us to communicate and learn in a face-to-face way. With this in mind， there are some elements that still need further exploration to consummate the current models.
References
[1]Dixon，N.M. Common Knowledge： How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know. Boston： Harvard Business School Press，2000.
[2]Dixon，N.M. The Organizational Learning Cycle： How We Can Learn Collectively. Aldershot：Gower，1999.
[3]Fisher，D.， Rooke， D.
Key words： organisational learning； action science； organisational learning cycle
In the new global economy， organisational learning has become a central issue. A successful learning organisation is able to cope with the changeability of external environment and is excellent at adapting itself to its own transformation. This article critically examines the four models that facilitate organisational learning. It also combines my work experience with these models.
The first model is the single loop and double loop learning （Smith， 2001）. They are likened to be treatment for symptoms and fundamental causes respectively. The latter one is encouraged to improve organisational learning in an unpredicted environment. Nevertheless， double loop learning still has its weakness because it fails to examine the context of learning. Therefore， the concept of triple loop learning is proposed. This approach highlights a holistic view rather than parts-focused. It also explores the interrelationship between parts. Nonetheless， it still has limitations. A case in point is that unlimited interrelationship may lead to never-ending systemic activities （Flood， 1999）.
It seems that the first two models can be embedded into the models of organisational learning cycle and action inquiry. Organisational learning cycle consists of four stages showed in the following diagram：
Source： Dixon（1999）
Figure 1： The organisational learning cycle.
Though the three models discussed so far play a significant role in organisational learning， it is still difficult to put the theories into practice. Action science， however， seems to narrow or close the gap between theory and practice. This is because action inquiry is “a kind of behaviour that is simultaneously inquiring and productive” （Fisher，Rooke，Torbert， 2003：1）.
In current literature， little or no attention has been paid to small-sized or medium-sized organizations. In the following part， the organisational learning cycle will combine my own work experience in a small-sized company in Dundee.
Scotia Corporation is a leading direct marketing specialist in Dundee. It delivers a Personal Development Programme and mentoring programme， which enables every individual to have the opportunity to progress from a field representative to ownership. The success of the company owes to its excellent learning culture. Figure 4 places the learning process of Scotia in the organisational learning cycle. Figure 2： The organisational learning cycle for Scotia Corporation
The first step， the widespread generation of information， is accomplished by Scotia. Externally， it regularly sends its people to attend national training events. Besides， people gather information in the field. Internally， it provides coaching and mentoring sessions every morning for people to reflect on the collected information. The second step， integrating new/local information into the organisational context， is again realised. During the mentoring session， field representatives share the information and practice the pitch within a team or across team boundaries. The third step， collectively interpreting information， is facilitated by the size， structure and building design of the company. The total number between 30 and 40 people， the flat organisational structure and the simple building design ensure daily progress meetings and accordingly enhance interaction between members. During the progress meeting， individual who has done a good job will be praised. Dixon（2000）claims that identifying a certain person who deserve praise makes knowledge sharing more difficult. Nevertheless， over-emphasis on collective learning may affect individual learning motivation. In this case， the appropriate praise creates competition among individuals and teams， which leads to the whole organization progressing in an increasingly fast speed. The last step， authority to take responsible action on the interpreted meaning， encourages individual to put the collected and analysed data into action， supported by a reward system. The external motivation may undermine intrinsic learning despite the fact that it can promote learning. Nonetheless， the rewarding system is indispensable because human beings have a high level of self-motivation. This is another dilemma that organizations need to face and address.
In conclusion， this article has fully addressed the issue of organisational learning. It can not be denied that the four models are instrumental in enhancing organisational learning. The limitations of them， though， can be that the theory appears to be too utopia and recommendations seem to be very abstract. Apart from this， since learning takes time， the fast speed of modern society may inhibit us from having enough time to conduct reflection. Moreover， the development of technology tends to discourage us to communicate and learn in a face-to-face way. With this in mind， there are some elements that still need further exploration to consummate the current models.
References
[1]Dixon，N.M. Common Knowledge： How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know. Boston： Harvard Business School Press，2000.
[2]Dixon，N.M. The Organizational Learning Cycle： How We Can Learn Collectively. Aldershot：Gower，1999.
[3]Fisher，D.， Rooke， D.