This paper traces the evolution of organizational learning theory through three foundational definitions. Beginning with Simon's 1969 framework—which emphasizes individual insight transferred through organizational structures—the paper examines Fiol & Lyles's critique regarding adaptation versus learning, and considers Senge's observation that organizational learning has become an expansive, multi-faceted field. The paper argues that organizational learning should be understood as a process of receiving, processing, and rationally responding to feedback rather than as a measurable outcome, and proposes that feedback loops, while essential, may warrant separate disciplinary treatment from the learning process itself.
Herbert Simon (1969) defined organizational learning as "the growing insights and successful restructurings of organizational problems by individuals reflected in the structural elements and outcomes of the organization itself." This definition conveys two important points about organizational learning. First, organizations as holistic entities cannot learn. Individuals within the organization, working on behalf of the organization, do the learning, and they then pass their newfound knowledge onto the organization. Both the feedback loops through which they learn and the ways in which they pass their learning on flow through the organization in terms of the organization's structures, its culture, its strategies, and its knowledge base.
The mechanisms for this knowledge transfer have become more robust today than when Simon first developed this idea, because of our increased ability to gather, store, and transmit information throughout the organization. This highlights the role of information systems in organizational learning. However, such appreciation should not come at the expense of understanding the role that individuals within the organization play—they remain critical to the learning process.
Fiol and Lyles (1985) challenge Simon's original definition on the basis that they do not believe adaptation and learning to be the same thing. Their short-form explanation contains a logical fallacy, however—specifically, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, wherein they define adaptation in a way that excludes learning-based forms of adaptation by definition. The details of their article provide clearer understanding. They correctly point out that change is not itself evidence of learning. This principle applies the scientific method: the existence of an outcome does not imply a specific input. However, this argument frames the definition of organizational learning incorrectly.
Properly framed, organizational learning should be understood as a process, not as outcomes. Outcomes are not relevant to the definition of organizational learning itself. Outcomes may be objectives of learning, but the degree of success of those outcomes is affected by many factors—organizational learning is just one such factor. This reframing addresses the Fiol and Lyles critique without accepting their definitional exclusion.
This approach makes organizational learning more difficult to understand and certainly more difficult to prove empirically. But organizational learning is not something that you document; it is something that you practice. Organizational learning is the process of receiving feedback from many sources—acquired and understood through myriad methodologies—and then processing that feedback rationally. A reaction based on rational evaluation of feedback constitutes organizational learning.
Different organizations will learn better than others. Those with smarter people, better data-gathering capabilities, and individuals with fewer bounds on their rationality will have stronger learning processes. The quality of organizational learning depends on the quality of information processing within the organization, not on whether specific outcomes occur.
"Field expansion and proposal to separate feedback systems from learning"
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.