Learning Organization

Introduction

Since 1920 the concept of learning organization was evolving as scholars were studying learning systems (Coulson-Thomas, 1996, cited in Ngozi et al., 2017). Over the period of time corporate culture has been changed drastically to cope up with present globalized science era.  Therefore “change” and “learning” has become most important words for an organization today.  Prominent factor for organizations in today’s business era is change and to achieve the goals and objectives it has to learn and implement those changes (Farrukh and Waheed, 2015).  As a result the concept of learning organization has been developed in corporate cultures to achieve success.  Learning organization concept has been originated to achieve competitiveness (Farrukh and Waheed, 2015). Innovation, flexibility and improvement are assured in learning organization as it is well organized both culturally and structurally (Huysman, 2000).  According to Yadav and Agarwal (2016), employees of learning organization considered to be fully inspired as they work collectively to reach individual and team goals.  Sudharatna and Li (2004) mentioned that for decades concept of learning organization has been closely bound to business environment. They further states that becoming a learning organization will pave the way to gain competitive advantage while keeping ahead of changing business environment.

Definition of Learning Organization

Concept of learning organization was developed by Senge in 1990 and he defined it as “Organization where people continually develop their capacity to achieve results they desire, whereby new patterns of thinking are natured, collective aspirations are freed and people learn to learn together” (Dawoood et al.,2015, p.94). As per Senge, to form a learning organization five disciplines such as "personal mastery, mental models, a shared vision, team learning and systems thinking" are necessary (Ngozi et al., 2017, p.68).  Farrukh and Waheed (2015) defined learning organization as an organization which is continuously changing while assisting its employees to learn.

Advantages of Learning Organization

1. Innovativeness – Odor (2018) states that a culture in a learning organization promotes and encourages innovation.  In addition to that he mentioned that it has granted freedom to try new things to its employees. Risk taking and new idea promotion is another strong pillar of a learning organization (Kontoghiorghes et al., 2005).  Innovation and organizational performance are the strongest links to a learning organization (Huusain, et al.,2013).  According to Crowford and Strohkirch (2002), learning organization encourage innovative development in both employee and organization in three areas such as commercially, technologically and socially.
2. Adapt to rapid change – According to the research done by Kontoghiorghes et al. (2005) it is found out that adaptability to a rapid change is one of the strongest predictors in learning organization.  Learning organization has the capacity to address the rapid changes in both internal and external environments (Crowford and Strohkirch, 2002).  A strong characteristic of a good learning organization is that it has positive relationship with change (Hengfu, 2014).
3. Organizational performance – Strong relationship between learning organization and organizational performance have been confirmed by various researches (Huusain et al., 2013). Mahapatro (2010) states that improved organizational performance can be achieved in learning organization through management and commitment.  The concept of learning organization is important to improve organizational performance (Ratna et al., 2014).
4. To achieve competitive advantage – As learning organizations are outperforming in the market, they can recognize as better options for investments.  Therefore learning organizations have positive connection to competitive advantage (Sachan et al., 2016). Workforce learning capacity and increase adaptability to change creates a higher competitive advantage for an organization (Yadav, 2016).

Disadvantages of Learning Organization

1. The power difference is ignored – The main criticism about the learning organization is that it ignores the power levels in an organization (Whitebeck, 2014).  Beddoe (2009) mentioned that self-imposed controls and peer controls within an organization will be disturbed if power is granted to employees.  According to Fenwick (1998) encouragement of the personal growth and engagement in learning organization will imbalance the traditions of workplace doctrine.
2. The process of implementing will be complicated and take long time - According to Lewis et al. (2001) it is complicated process to change an organizational setting to a learning organization.  Whitebeck (2014) stated that it will be difficult and be time consume to convert a normal organization.  Generally a service organization employees are burden with tasks and deadlines therefore it will not easy to cope up with another set of tasks in the process of converting to a learning organization (Baldwin, 2008).
3. Fear of employees participation in organizational decision making – Higher authorities in organizations will hesitate to encourage employees to involve in decision making process as  they fear that they will unable to control employees (Senge, 1990 cited in Whitebeck, 2014). Austin and Hopkins (2004) mentioned that superiors fear of losing authority by divulging power to their employees will be a drawback of converting an organization to a learning organization.
4. Breaking of existing organizational rules – Another issue that the innovative ideas in the team learning process will interrupt the current organizational rules and regulations (Davidson and McMahon,1999 cited in Whitebeck,2014). 

70:20:10 Learning Framework

Senge in 1990 stated that learning organization achieves competitive advantage by managing change created both internally and externally and continuously learns through its members (Sudharatna and Li, 2004).  Therefore it is important to have a learning framework in a learning organization. The 70:20:10 concept of learning framework was first developed by Morgan McCall, Robert Eichinger and Michael Lombardo in 1990’s (Becker and Bish, 2016). 

Figure 1: 70:20:10 learning framework

Source: Jennings and Wargnier (2011)

As explained by the above figure, in this 70:20:10 learning framework, 70% of learning is coming from experience, 20% learning comes from others and 10% learning comes from formal learning (Rabin, 2013).  According to Wentworth (2015), survey done by Brandon Hall group found that more than 150 organizations across the global is adhering this 70:20:10 concept.  In 2012, Globalco in Malaysia introduced this concept through their leadership development program to their managers (Nazarudin, 2015).  This concept of learning has been practicing by top organizations such as Microsoft, Coca cola, Bank of America, American Express, HP and Wal-Mart and Google.  Through this model work and learning are amalgamated (Jennings and Wargnier, 2011).

 70% of Experiential Learning

Nature of experiential learning has been well defined in Kolb’s learning cycle which is using in management education as a main theoretical model (Cunningham, 1994 cited in Vince, 1998).  According to Kolb “learning is a process whereby knowledge is created through transformation of experience” (Bergsteiner et al.,2010,p.30).  Kolb’s experiential learning cycle four components are "Concrete Experience, Reflexive Observation, Abstract Conceptualization and Active Experimentation" (Turesky and Wood, 2010,p.3).  Entering of the cycle can be done at any point but sequence has to be followed (Healey and Jenkins, 2000).  Further they stated that a learner has to follow this cycle multiple times until the leaner gets the capability of doing the assigned work.

 Figure 2: Kolb’s Learning Cycle

Source: McLeod (2013)

1. Concrete Experience – This is considered to be the basis of the learning process where the adaptability has been used for lesson learning (Akella, 2010). According to McLeod (2013) concrete experience means confronting of a new experience of a situation and repeating of current experience.
2. Reflective observation – For experiential learning reflective observation is very important. Through this stage a learner can convert from uncertainty to clarity (Moore et al., 2010).
3.  Abstract Conceptualization – Apply theory to the observations or reflections made during earlier stage (Akella, 2010).
4. Active Experimentation – Apply the learned theories practically to perceive results (McLeod, 2013)

20% of Learning and Development through Others

Figure 3: Methods of learning and development through others

Source: Vallejo and Wehn (2016) 

According to the above figure given by Vallejo and Wehn (2016), 360 degree feedback which is receiving from peers, managers and lower staff enhance learning and development as it provides formal and informal feedback and opinion from others, learning from teams, coaching from managers, involve in group discussions.  In this frame work of learning 20% can be considered as social learning where a person learn through coaching , mentoring and interaction with subordinates (Pascale, 2015).  Many large organizations favour for informal learning such as temporary assignments, job rotations, learning through team work, coaching from superiors and 360 degree feedback (Cunningham and Hillier, 2013).  Learning from others with more experience and management skills considered to be most preferred method of informal learning (Becker and Bish, 2016).  

10% of Formal Learning 

Figure 4: Formal learning methods

Source: Vallejo and Wehn, 2016

According to the above figure, formal education providing with a learning objectives such as professional qualification courses, workshops, seminars and e-learning can be taken into 10% category (Vallejo and Wehn, 2016).  Cunningham and Hillier (2013) stated that the formal education involves workshop, seminars, e-learning or a course structured with learning objectives.  10% of this 70:20:10 learning framework focuses mainly on coursework and training (Becker and Bish, 2016).  

Practical application of this theory to an organization

Dialog Axiata plc.

When considering Sri Lankan context Dialog Axiata plc. is considered to be one of the best learning organizations.  Dialog as a leading telecommunication company gives priority to innovation.  “Over the years, we have used innovation as a platform to bring progress to our nation” (Dialog Sustainability report, 2017. p.34). Further it is mentioned that to promote innovation they have initiated a project called “Dialog JAM”. It is designed to enlarge the learning platform for employees, where all employees can share ideas online and explore new digital work tools among them. 

In 2017 Dialog has transformed their HR strategies to increase functionality.  HR structure was separated in to nine pillars to determine areas of improvement.  Further allowing HR to focus more on individual employee needs, the employees also were divided into clusters. Dialog Company also motivates employees in participation and involvement in benefit for both individuals and for company.  In addition to that convenient environment to communicate of opinions, suggestions and feedback have been created for employees.  According to this report Dialog has further mentioned that its main priority to develop employees to face the competitive digital environment.  As a result company talent management policy was enhanced and job rotation has been encouraged (Dialog Sustainability Report, 2017).

Figure 5: Training hours allocated by Dialog Axiata plc.

Source: Dialog Sustainability Report (2017)

As per the above figure given in the sustainability report of Dialog (2017) explains about the different training programs which is implemented in the company and allocated hours to enhance employee skills.  After these training sessions periodic reviews and strict monitoring on post training targets are being done.  Individual development plan is executed with the assessment results (Dialog Sustainability Report, 2017).

Dialog academy was established to address the skills gaps of its employees. It is consist of four pillars namely, sales service & relationship management, leadership and management, systems operations and process, technical and products.  To motivate employees Dialog has initiated motivational sessions as well.  Customer service training academy was established in order to educate new recruits and exiting staffs about company products, services, systems, policies and procedures.  E-learning platform named “LYNDA” was created to encourage self-learning continuously and sharing knowledge among employees. Some positions of their organization also provided with 360 degree feedback to ensure transparency (Dialog sustainability report, 2017).

Google

In global context Google inc believed to be a learning organization which adhere 70:20:10 learning framework.  According to the article done by Hardy (2011), Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt has mentioned to enhance innovation they have apply the 70:20:10 system.  He further elaborated that 70% of time employees spend on the core job, 20% as part of another team and 10% time on innovation. He further stated that 20% of creative time program allocation which provides the employees to work on the projects which inspired them to create highly profitable products such as Gmail, Google news, AdSense.  Furthermore Google has initiated Googler to Googler program where most of the training sessions are run by employee to employee network (Kuntze and Matulich, 2010).  Through rewards and recognition high innovation has been promoted in Google culture (Thomas and Karodia, 2014).  

Conclusion

In today’s fast moving context the concept of learning organization plays a pivotal role.  Once an organization convert to a learning organization several benefits such as cope up with rapid change, innovativeness, to achieve competitive advantage, to increase of organizational performance and freedom in flow of information throughout the organization can be achieved.  As learning is the main component that binds a learning organization, 70:20:10 learning concept can be used to make innovative changes within an organization.  Organizational learning has been encouraged in the culture of the learning organization (Gilaninia et al., 2013).  In Sri Lankan Context Dialog Axiata plc and in global context Google inc. are the learning organizations that adhere 70:20:10 concept.

Recommendations

• Organizations can encourage innovation through a learning organization philosophy with proper direction as the 70:20:10 rule used by Google
• Moreover; organizations could establish corporate universities to encourage learning for the employees of the firm.

Reference

Akella, D. (2010) Learning together: Kolb’s experiential theory and its application. Journal of Management and Organization, 16, pp.100-112 [Online]. Available at <www.researchgate.net.>. [Accessed on 16^th November 2018].

Austin, M. J and Hopkins, K. M. (2004) Supervision as collaboration in the human services: Building a learning culture. California, Sage.

Baldwin, M. (2008) Promoting and managing innovation: critical reflection, organizational learning and the development of innovative practice in a national children’s voluntary organization. Qualitative Social Work, 7(3), pp. 330-348.

Becker, K.L and Bish, A. (2016) Management development approach: the role of informal learning: 30^th Annual ANZAM Annual Conference, Brisbane 6-9 December 2016. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Available at < https://eprints.qut.edu.au/114035/>. [Accessed on 26^th November 2018].

Beddoe, L. (2009). Creating continuous conversation: Social workers and learning organizations. Social Work Education, 28(7), pp.722-736.

Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G. C and Neumann, R. (2010) Kolb’s experiential learning model: critique form a modeling perspective. Studies in Continuing Education, 32(1), p.30.

Crowford, C.B and Strohkirch, C.S. (2002) Leadership education for knowledge organization: a primer. Journal of Leadership Education, 1(2), pp. 18-33.

Cunningham, J and Hillier, E. (2013) Informal learning in the workplace: key activities and processes. Journal on Education and Training, 55(1), pp. 37-51.

Dawoood, S., Memoona, S., Fahmeeda, and Ahmed A. (2015) Learning organization- conceptual and theoretical overview. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 2(4), p. 94 [Online]. Available at <https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijhsse/v2-i4/12.pdf>. [Accessed on 18^th November 2018].

Dialog (2017) Sustainability Report 2017. Colombo, Dialog Axiata plc.

Farrukh, M and Waheed, A. (2015) Learning organization and competitive advantage- an integrated approach. Journal of Asian Business Strategy, 5(4), pp.73-79 [Online]. Available at <www.aessweb.com/journals/5006.>. [Accessed on 14^th November 2018].

Fenwick, T. J. (1998) Questioning the concept of the learning organization. Learning for life: Canadian readings in adult education, pp. 150-162.

Gilaninia, S., Rankouh, A. A and Gildeh, M.A.P. (2013) Overview on the importance of organizational learning and learning organization. Journal of Research and Development, 1(2), pp. 44-49.

Hardy, Q. (2011) Google’s Innovation and Everyone’s. Forbes [online]. Available at < https://www.forbes.com/sites/quentinhardy/2011/07/16/googles-innovation-and- everyones/#40ad8c943066>. [Accessed on 26^th November 2018].

Healey, M and Jenkins, A. (2000) Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99, pp.185-195 [Online]. Available at <www.researchgate.net/publication/233121264.>. [Accessed on 16^th November 2018].

Hengfu, W. (2014) The nature, characteristics and ten strategies of learning organization. International Journal of Educational Management, 28( 3), pp.289 – 298.

Huusain, N., Mohamed, A., Noordin, F and Ishak, N. A. (2013) Learning Organization and its effect on organizational performance and organizational innovativeness: a proposed framework for Malaysian public institutions of higher education. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 130, pp.299-304 [Online]. Available at <www.sciencedirect.com.>. [Accessed on 13^th November 2018].

Huysman, M. (2000) An organizational learning approach to the learning organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), pp.133-145 [Online]. Available at < www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713684945.>. [Accessed on 15^th November 2018.].

Jennings, C and Wargnier, J. (2011) Effective learning with 70:20:10. [pdf]. Available at < http://www.crossknowledge.net/crossknowledge/whitepapers/effective-learning-with-70_20_10-whitepaper.pdf>. [Accessed on 26^th November 2018].

Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S and Feurig, P. (2005) Examining the Relationship between Learning organization Dimensions and Change Adaptation, Innovation as well as Organizational Performance. [pdf]. Available at <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc3/papers/id155.pdf>. [Accessed on 15^th November 2018].

Kuntze, R and Matulich, E. (2010) Google: searching for value. Journal of Case Research in Business and Economics, pp. 1-10 [Online]. Available at < http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09429.pdf>. [Accessed on 26^th November 2018].

Lewis, J. A., Lewis, M. D., Packard, T and Souflee, F. (2001) Management of human service programs. 3^rd ed. California, Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning.

Mahapatro, B. B. (2010) Human Resource Management. New Delhi, New Age International Ltd.

McLeod, S.A. (2013) Kolb learning styles. [pdf]. Available at < www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html.>. [Accessed on 16^th November 2018].

Moore, C., Boyd, B.L and Dooley, K.M. (2010) The effects of experiential learning with an emphasis on reflective writing on deep level processing of leadership students. Journal of Leadership Education, 9(1), pp.36-52 [Online]. Available at <www.researchgate.net.>. [Accessed on 16^th November 2018].

Nazarudin, M. (2015) How 70:20:10 enhances workplace learning: the practitioner perspective. International Coaching Psychological Review, pp.1-17 [Online]. Available at < http://www.academia.edu/18960205/dissertation_How_70_20_10_enhances_workplace_learning>. [Accessed on 21^st November 2018].

Ngozi, N., Oluseye, O.O., Faith, A and Ogunbowale, B. (2017) Learning organization in business research: a review on literature. An Open Access Journal Available Online, 1(2), pp.68-77 [Online]. Available at <journals.covenantuniversity.edu.ng>. [Accessed on 19^th November 2018].

Odor, H. O. (2018) A literature review on organizational learning and learning organizations. International Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 7(1), pp.1-6 [Online]. Available at< https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-literature-review-on-organizational-learning-and-learning-organizations-2162-6359-1000494.pdf>. [Accessed on 15^th November 2018].

Pascale, C. (2015) 70:20:10 Guide providing structure to the 70%. [pdf]. Available at < www.vadoinc.net>. [Accessed on 26^th November 2018].

Rabin, R. (2013) Blended learning for leadership: The CCL approach. [pdf]. Available at <http://insights.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04BlendedLearningLeadership.pdf>. [Accessed on 7^th November 2018].

Ratna, R., Khanna, K., Jogishwar, N., Khattar, R and Agarwal, R. (2014) Impact of learning organization on organizational performance in consulting history. International Journal on Global Business Management and Research, 2(2), [Online]. Available at < http://www.rajalakshmi.org/ijgbmr/downloads/IJGBMRMar14-Paper6.PDF>. [Accessed on 14^th November 2018].

Sachan, S., Aroura, S and Pandey, S. (2016) Concept of learning organization: facilitators and flow of learning. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 6(2), pp. 42-47.

Sudharatna, Y and Li, L. (2004) Learning Organization characteristics contributed to its readiness to change: a study of Thai mobile phone service industry. Managing Global Transitions, 2(2), pp.163-178.

Thomas, S and Karodia, A. M. (2014) Human resources practices at Google in term of some management perspectives: exploring the entrepreneurial spirit. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 2(3), pp. 15-27 [Online]. Available at < https://www.arabianjbmr.com/pdfs/NG_VOL_2_3/3.pdf>. [Accessed on 27^th November 2018].

Turesky, E. F and Wood, D. R.(2010) Kolb’s experiential learning as a critical frame for reflective practice. Academic Leadership Online Journal, 8(3), pp. 1-24 [Online]. Available at <www.researchgate.net/publication/ 288376815.>. [Accessed on 16^th November 2018].

Vallejo, B and Wehn, U. (2016) Capacity development evaluation: the challenge of the results agenda and measuring return on investment in global south. World Development, 79, pp. 1-13 [Online]. Available at < http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.044>. [Accessed on 26^th November 2018].

Vince, R. (1998) Behind and beyond kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22(3), pp.304-319 [Online]. Available at < www.researchgate.net/publication/249669256_Behind_and_Beyond_Kolb's_Learning_Cycle/download>. [Accessed on 16^th November 2018].

Wentworth, D. (2015) The 70:20:10 framework: Formalizing the informal. [pdf]. Available at < http://www.brandonhall.com/blogs/brandon-hall-group-research-published-march-9-13/>. [Accessed on 12^th November 2018].

Whitebeck, B. A. (2014) Strengths in action: Implementing a learning organization model in a human service setting. Ph.D. Thesis, Portland State University.

Yadav, S and Agarwal, V. (2016) Benefits and barriers of learning organization and its five diciplines. Journal of Business and Management, 18(12), pp.18-24 [Online]. Available at < www.iosrjournals.org.>. [Accessed on 14^th November 2018].