Organizational Learning Week 8 Discussion Question in

Organizational Learning Week 8 Discussion Question in working responses Discussion Question choose examples experience find cases Web discuss. Credit references make relevant examples real companies. Analyze journal article, Schilling, J. Week 8 discussion question: Organizational learning article review Organizational learning is deemed to be a critical component of individual learning: without 'organizational' learning, individual learning cannot take place in the workplace -- yet individuals make up the workplace so conversely individual learning is critical for OL to take place.

Although this concept seems somewhat esoteric, Schilling & Kluge note in their literature review of the subject that "because individuals learn as representatives of their organization…all knowledge acquired must be retained appropriately (in the form of documents, routines, processes and structures, for instance) for it to remain available, even if an individual leaves the organization" (Schilling & Kluge 2008: 339). Personal, organizational, and social barriers can exist to the fundamental OL processes of intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing knowledge.

For example, on a personal level, confirmation bias and a lack of relevant knowledge are frequent barriers to 'intuiting;' on a structural level a lack of clear organizational goals can inhibit intuiting; and on a social level, a highly complex and dynamic market environment can act as an inhibition (Schilling & Kluge 2008: 344-343). All three types of barriers must be overcome on every level of OL processes for an organization to run smoothly.

One obvious example of a company which has leveraged OL to great effect is the highly successful Google Corporation. Google has eliminated many personal barriers to OL 'intuiting' by creating a very rigorous hiring process that focuses on getting on the best, most highly-qualified candidates who are internally motivated.

Barriers to interpreting knowledge, in contrast to barriers to intuiting, may include personal barriers such as a lack of motivation and a fear of losing control while organizational barriers can include a 'status' culture which inhibits sharing new knowledge (Schilling & Kluge 2008: 347). For example, the 'old' GM was much-criticized for having a "highly bureaucratic company in which brands, departments and regions operated like self-governing and competing states within a federation," thus preventing the type of OL that took place at organizations like Toyota, which generated innovations like fuel-efficient hybrids (Smerd 2009).

Fearful employees or excessively protective departments alike often wish to stymie rather than promote change and learning. They resist interpreting data in a manner which may cause temporary but necessary instability.

Although social barriers may seem more challenging, organizations can overcome social OL barriers as well as personal and organizational constraints: in addition to being wary of rigid personal beliefs and a lack of organizational turn-over of top management, social barriers to integrating knowledge such as "industrial recipes standing against the innovation" can be overcome by constantly auditing a company's standard operating procedures (Schilling & Kluge 2008: 350). A change culture can be created to fight the forces of inertia by making reevaluation a natural part of the company's business processes.

Similarly, barriers to institutionalizing organizational learning such as low levels of personal trust, a lack of organizational resources, and swift social changes that destabilize the creation of effective standard operating procedures (all of which also characterized pre-bankruptcy GM, which was swept away by a tide of rapid shifts such as increased demand for fuel-efficient vehicles and the rise of competitor companies without substantial pension and unionized benefits).