Organisationales learning is on the one hand the sociological group of topics over the so-called learning organization, which action pattern, conditions and investigations both on more theoretical and on practical level treated and try to clarify the questions, how an organization must be constituted, in order to be able to learn, and how in the long run this learning goes and to be evaluated is.

On the other hand Organisationales learning can designate also the pure learning process on organisationaler level, with which one assumes the individual members do not only learn for the purpose of the efficiency increase, but that "learns the entire organization". The manipulation of the knowledge base and the appropriation of different authority by individual members of the organization is here the relevant part of organisationalen learning.

Organisationales learning after Chris Argyris and Donald A.

Argyris and beautiful were occupied from several points of view with the Organisationalen learning and united according to own statement the practical for the first time with the theoretical view. Thus Argyris and beautiful offer not only a theoretical model, but also practical realizations and action suggestions.

Theories of action

First they set up a causality-based basic model for theories of action: There are situations (s), action strategies (A), results/goals (E) and conductance (L). Theories of action affect the selection of the action strategy A over in a situation S at the result E to arrive. The conductance L explains in this connection the result E as desirable, and/or to aiming at SAM.

Two kinds are differentiated from theories of action. The represented theory (English espoused theory) (in the following: represented theory of action) and the action-leading theory (English theory in use). The represented theory of action is that theory of action those the action gives to use. It is explicitly given by statements or documents. The action-leading theory is the theory of action the action-leading theory actually used by the action is implicit.

The authors found out that often differences between the theories of action exist. The represented theory of action and the action-leading theory of the same individual or the same organization often exhibit differences, which remain mostly unidentified. A cause for these differences is after Argyris and beautiful in the combination of experienced defensive and unproductive grinding in learning ("single loop learning", in the literature also sometimes "single loop learning"), which the used action strategies affects, not however on the conductance. This learning, also "instrumental learning" mentioned, is not necessarily "badly", therefore also the stress on "unproductive grinding in learning": The grinding in learning, which Argyris and beautiful mean here, arises after the made experiences from defensive behavior, which for avoidance and evasion is used by situations, which are noticed as embarrassing or threateningly. For example debt confessions or the fear of the fact that someone could discover that one erred with its conductance.

Models of action-leading theories

Model I

The model of the action-leading theories, which describes the defensive behavior and grinding in learning, is called of Argyris and beautiful "model I of action-leading theories". This model is highly simplifies the model "face of the protection". Despite positive intentions, as e.g. "show no negative feelings", herein mainly censorship and cover-up one operates, whereby own acting is manipulated, but (perhaps wrong) the conductance not to be examined.

An organization, in the models I prevails, by Argyris and O-I training system is designated beautifully.

Model I contains mechanisms, the double loop learning effectively to obstruct. Distinctive between the primary obstacle loop, which describes strengthening model integral action sample, on individual level the double loop learning is obstructed, and the secondary obstacle loop, which describes this behavior on over-individual level.

Model II

A second model, which would know "model II of action-leading theories", as the model of openness and self reflection is designated. In this model the investigation and possible correction are located of conductance in the foreground. Here it can concern both the own conductance, which are openly communicated, in order to be examinable through third, and around the conductance of others, when their investigation one helps itself. This model is an idealized model, that to be never perfectly reached can and is therefore more an example. A reaching of "model II" - behavior within certain ranges is not persistent also. The action must, in order to remain if possible, stehts be endeavored near model II to reach this.

By model II it is possible to establish the so-called double loop learning. This learning form contains a reflection and a manipulation of the conductance. Thus it is possible not to identify consequences, which appeared first as desirable, as nevertheless so desirably. Thus completely different selection of action strategies can take place, which can lead in the long run to a better productivity, than this is possible with grinding in learning.

At organizations, in which model II is observed, Argyris and beautiful speak of O-II training systems . An organization, which is a O-II training system, is called of Argyris and beautiful learning organization.

Grinding in and double loop learning

Pattern

+--->> conductance -----+---->> action strategies ------>> consequences ---------+ | (main program) ^ | | | | | | grinding in learning | | +<<----------------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | double loop learning | +<<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 

The double loop learning contains both feedback loops; both the loop to the strategies and to the conductance. The grinding in learning covers only the loop to the strategies.

Illustration

This illustration is to light up the sphere of activity of grinding in and double loop learning somewhat, just as the far understandable applicability of the concepts.

I drive each day with the bicycle to the university. After some days I hear a screeching noise when driving. After the university I regard the bicycle exactly and examine myself the origin of the screeching noise. I discover a loose screw. If I tighten this screw, is the noise away. Action strategy "screw tighten" has consequence "noise is away" pulled to get, under which consideration of the conductance that a short term, unaufwendige solution is in demand, in order the noise away. After some days it quietscht again. Since I now learned, how I repair, I tighten the screw again. (Grind in-learn)

If I would extend and would demand mine conductance, that a lasting solution is demanded, then the goal "noise does not meet is away" any longer the requirement. A new goal "noise is durably away" appears now as the erstrebsame goal. I cannot achieve this goal however with the past action strategy. I must see and in this case cause research thus more exact operate. Then I would have already learned with a double loop. Next again an individual loop follows, i.e. with which I learns that I can use for example a toothed washer for the screw locking.

From model I according to model II

Argyris and beautiful show by some examples, how model I and grinding in learning led to wrong decisions in organizations. On the basis the case study those the book knowledge in action is the basis, clarifies Argyris, as model II and double loop learning improves potenziell results to supply to be able.

A gradual guidance, how an organization from O-I arrives to O-II, thus on organisationaler level learning does not learn Argyris and give beautiful, only references to be able (organisationales equivalent to Gregory Batesons Deutero learning). On the one hand model II can be never achieved perfectly, therefore the Transition from O-I is to O-II a continual process. On the other hand it is to be guaranteed not possible the readiness of all involved ones. Examples of instruments to become an organization thereby helping a learning organization are to be found in the literature.

Related links

• "Back on the school bench! Conditions organisationalen learning "

Literature

• Chris Argyris, Donald A. The learning organization, 2. Edition, Klett Cotta 2002, ISBN 3-608-91890-6
• Original text: Chris Argyris, Donald A. Organizational Learning II, Addison-Wesley, 1996, ISBN 0-201-62983-6
• Chris Argyris: Knowledge in action. A case study for learning organization., Klett Cotta 1997, ISBN 3-608-91838-8
• Original text: Chris Argyris: Knowledge for Action. A Guide ton of Overcoming Barriers ton of Organizational CHANGE, Jossey bass Wiley, 1993, ISBN 1-55542-519-4
• : Organization, Poeschel, 5. Edition

Articles in category "Organisationales learning"

We found here 8 articles.

Related Websites

We found here 3 related websites.

• BP 47 - Interim ORGLEARN
  to what companies really do when they declare themselves as


• Briefing Paper 45
  The term


• Organisational Learning in the Chemical Industry and Impact on ...
  This project has aimed to identify ways of organisational learning in European ... R