Running Head: THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 1

A Comparative Analysis of Three Unique Theories

of Organizational Learning

Carol C. Leavitt

Author Contact Information:

1131 Mesa Vista Drive

Ivins, UT 84738

Telephone: (435) 773-7337

Email: [email protected]

Publication Date: September 14, 2011

THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 2

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to present three classical theories on organizational learning and

conduct a comparative analysis that highlights their strengths, similarities, and differences. Two

of the theories – experiential learning theory and adaptive & generative learning theory –

represent the thinking of the cognitive perspective, while the third theory – assimilation theory –

coincides with the behavioral school of thought on organizational learning. The three criteria to

be used in the comparative analysis include: 1) the learning process, or how learning occurs in

each theory; 2) the learning target, or who experiences the learning; and 3) the learning context,

or the antecedents and conditions that promote a learning organization. Because theory building

in this discipline has a history of approaches that fragment rather than assimilate new theory

(Lähteenmäki, Toivonen, & Mattila, 2001, p. 113), a new prototype theory will be introduced

that effectively integrates the important themes, principles, and practices of organizational

learning into a more holistic model.

THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 3

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction to Organizational Learning Theory ............................................................................ 4

Definitions of Organizational Learning .............................................................................. 4

The Rationale for Organizational Learning ........................................................................ 5

Three Unique Theories of Organizational Learning ....................................................................... 6

Experiential Learning Theory ............................................................................................. 7

Adaptive and Generative Learning Theory......................................................................... 7

Assimilation Theory............................................................................................................ 8

A Comparative Analysis of the Three Theories of Organizational Learning ................................. 9

The Learning Process – How Learning Occurs ................................................................ 10

The Learning Target – Who Experiences the Learning .................................................... 12

The Learning Context – Conditions that Promote Organizational Learning .................... 13

A New Model for Integrated Organizational Learning................................................................. 15

Key Principles of the New Theory & Model .................................................................... 15

References: .................................................................................................................................... 18
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 4

Introduction to Organizational Learning Theory

There exists a tremendous amount of literature on the subject of organizational learning,

and with each new research article comes a new framework or set of guidelines describing how

organizational learning occurs, how to establish and maintain a learning organization, how to

overcome the barriers to learning, and more. The phenomenon of organizational learning is a

body of work that calls on multiple disciplines in both the natural and social sciences, including

psychology, sociology, and anthropology, to name a few. It is a burgeoning branch of

organization theory that has a direct connection to other major fields, including leading change,

organizational communication, creativity and innovation, individual accountability and

motivation, management and leadership development, systems thinking and mental models,

organizational structure, shared vision and values, and much more. To offer a clear foundation,

this paper begins with definitions that characterize the nature of organizational learning, and

rationales that justify its existence and perpetuation.

Definitions of Organizational Learning

There exists a diversity of focus in organizational learning definitions. Of particular note

are two distinctive schools of thought: 1) the cognitive school, which highlights the “thinking”

element of organizational learning; and 2) the behavioral school, which focuses on its “doing”

dimension. The cognitive school reasons that learning occurs through our mental models,

structures, or schemas, which enable us to understand events and situations and to interpret and

respond to our environments. The behavioral school asserts that we learn by gaining insight and

understanding from experience through experimentation, observation, analysis, and examination

THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 5

of outcomes (Azmi, 2008, p. 61). The former is clearly a thinking-based model, while the latter

is an action-oriented one.

Emphasizing the cognitive approach, one of the key tenets of scholar David Kolb’s

(1984) learning model (to be explored later in this paper) is grasping, which entails

conceptualization and understanding – both mental processes. Corroborating this point, scholars

McGill and Slocum (1994) define organizational learning as responding to new information by

altering the very “programming” by which information is processed and evaluated (p. 27).

By contrast, scholar Peter Senge’s (1990) definition demonstrates a balance of cognitive

and behavioral elements that combine patterns of thinking plus action. He claims that

organizational learning occurs where “new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured,

where collective aspiration is set free, where people continually expand their capacity to create

the results they truly desire, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (p.

3).

Finally, Nevis, DiBella, & Gould (1995) define organizational learning as the capacity or

processes within an organization to maintain or improve performance based on experience (p.

73) – clearly underscoring the behavioral components. Since this paper is a comparative

analysis, no singular definition is identified as the best one to characterize organizational

learning. The previous paragraphs merely offer three different definitions of organizational

learning to illustrate the diversity of thought along the cognitive-to-behavioral-focus spectrum.

The Rationale for Organizational Learning

Why is it important to establish and maintain a learning organization? One of the

primary drivers of organizational learning becoming an imperative for today’s businesses is the
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 6

need for enhanced learning processes as organizations move from relatively stable to relatively

unstable environmental conditions in our globalized marketplace. As trends in market

conditions, competition, customer demands, technology, and other environmental areas evolve,

companies, too, must rejuvenate and reinvent themselves for long-term survival and success.

Indeed, Azmi (2008) claims that nurturing learning is a top priority in today's business world

because it contributes to competitive advantage through enhancing organizational performance

and effectiveness (p. 58). Essentially, if organizational members share their tacit knowledge

with others in the organization, this becomes one powerful resource that competitors cannot

replicate. Senge (1990) substantiates this idea, noting that the ability to learn is expected to

create the major source of competitive advantage for organizations in the future, and stressing

that learning itself is seen as a prerequisite for the survival of today's organizations (p. 4).

At the individual level, scholar William Isaacs (1993) stresses the importance of humans

everywhere developing their capacity to think and act collaboratively. He asserts that, if people

can come together and be encouraged to become conscious of the thought processes they use to

form assumptions and beliefs, they can then develop a common strength and capability for

working and creating things together. He concurs that the realities of today’s business

environment make organizational learning an imperative, claiming that the level of complexity in

business today requires intelligence beyond the capacity of any individual, which demands that

we tap the collective intelligence of groups of knowledgeable people.

Three Unique Theories of Organizational Learning

Now that we have an appreciation for the diversity of thought in defining and justifying

organizational learning, it makes sense to explore its principles and practices. Three classical
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 7

theories are presented by which to compare and contrast organizational learning models and

methods: 1) experiential learning theory from the "cognitive" school; 2) adaptive & generative

learning theory, also from the "cognitive" school; and 3) assimilation theory from the

“behavioral” school.

Experiential Learning Theory

Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory (ELT) is based in psychology, philosophy, and

physiology (p. 7), and has significantly influenced leadership and organization development and

contributed to principles of the learning organization since its introduction. Its basic premise is

that learning occurs through the combination of grasping and transforming experience. ELT

constitutes of a four-stage learning cycle: concrete experience (CE) and abstract

conceptualization (AC) comprise the grasping component, while reflective observation (RO),

and active experimentation (AE) make up the transforming experience component.

This learning process is characterized as a cycle in which the learner proceeds through

the sequence of experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting in a repeating progression that is

unique to each learning circumstance. Specifically, concrete experiences (experiencing) spark

observation and reflection (reflecting), which is internalized and integrated into abstract concepts

(thinking) that spark new behavioral experimentation (acting)(Yeganeh & Kolb, 2009, p. 15).

This learning cycle can be entered at any point, but the stages are always followed in sequence.

Adaptive and Generative Learning Theory

Kolb’s ELT model influenced scholar Peter Senge, who evolved another cognitive theory

of organizational learning that prominently identified mental models – deeply ingrained

assumptions, generalizations, or pictures and images that influence how we understand the world
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 8

and how we take action (1990, p. 8) – as a crucial component. The other four of the five

disciplines required for acquiring skills and competencies (learning) at the individual, team, and

organization level, as introduced in Senge’s theory, are personal mastery, building shared vision,

team learning, and systems thinking (p. 7).

One of the important principles of Senge's work is the differentiation between adaptive

and generative learning. He characterizes adaptive learning as focusing on the foundation of

existing knowledge, and amending that with new thinking, to accomplish an objective. This kind

of learning is particularly salient to organizations seeking continuous improvement. For

example, understanding the gaps between one's own firm’s productivity, quality, costs, or market

agility, and that of the competition, enables the generation of additional ideas by which to close

those gaps.

By contrast, when new strategies, product lines, resources, or other assets are urgently

needed, a different kind of learning is required to produce radical new ideas and discontinuous

change – which is the nature of generative learning (Harrison, 2000). This is validated soon after

by scholar James March (1991), who expanded on this theory to identify two modes of

organizational learning: 1) exploitation, or the use of existing knowledge and resources to gain

value from what is already known; and 2) exploration, or thinking in previously unused or

unforeseen ways (i.e., seeking new options, experimenting, and conducting research) (p. 72).

Assimilation Theory

Different from the cognitive theories, behavioral approaches to organizational learning

emphasize the action-based changes that take place as individuals learn through performance.

These approaches characterize learning as observable, rational, and quantifiable.

THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 9

Scholars Nevis, DiBella, & Goulds’ (1995) theory presents a learning process featuring

three unique stages: 1) knowledge acquisition, consisting of the development or creation of

skills, insights, and relationships; 2) knowledge sharing, characterized by the dissemination of

what has been learned; and 3) knowledge utilization, comprised of the integration of learning to

make it broadly available and generalized to new situations (p. 74). All three of these stages are

strongly behavior-linked and focused on practical application more than cognition.

To flesh out these three stages, the researchers propose seven “learning orientations” that

further define the mindset and methods by which learning occurs: 1) knowledge source: is

knowledge developed internally or acquired externally; 2) product-process focus: focus on what

the organization produces versus how it develops and delivers its products/services; 3)

documentation mode: individual possession of knowledge versus its public availability; 4)

dissemination mode: sharing learning through formal, organization-wide methods versus

informal methods; 5) learning focus: incremental versus transformative learning; 6) value-chain

focus: investing in "design and make" functions versus "market and deliver" functions; 7) skill

development focus: development of individuals’ versus teams’ skills (p. 77). The final

component to the scholars’ model is 10 “facilitating factors,” which are the structures and

processes that facilitate learning and its effectiveness (p. 76). These are covered in more detail in

the section titled “The Learning Context.”

A Comparative Analysis of the Three Theories of Organizational Learning

In the extant literature, organizational learning theory has generally been presented from

three key and differing perspectives, which will serve as the primary criteria by which these

organizational learning theories will be evaluated and contrasted: 1) the learning process, or how
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 10

learning actually occurs within an organizational; 2) the learning target, or who experiences the

learning – individuals, groups, and/or organizations; and 3) learning context, or the antecedents

and conditions that promote organizational learning. Interestingly, however, new organizational

learning theory typically focuses exclusively on one, rarely two, of these elements, and has never

incorporated all three in an integrated theory and model (Lähteenmäki, et al., 2001).

The Learning Process – How Learning Occurs

The idea of organizational learning as a process is obvious in all three of the theories

introduced. Senge (1990) introduces a four-step process called the "wheel of learning" – doing,

reflecting, connecting, and deciding – that is remarkably similar to Kolb’s (1984) ELT process of

experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting. Nevis et al.’s (1995) three-step process of

knowledge acquisition, sharing, and utilization suggests a chronology or progression of activity

in learning.

Perhaps the most interesting insight about all three theories is that they are exclusively

categorized within either the “cognitive” or “behavioral” school of thought on organizational

learning, but all three contain cognitive and behavioral elements. ELT’s components of

conceptualization and reflection are both thinking processes, yet the components of concrete

experience and active experimentation are behavioral processes. Senge's (1990) elements of

mental models and systems thinking are cognitive-related, while personal mastery, building

shared vision, and team learning are behavior-related. Additionally, Nevis et al.’s (1995)

knowledge acquisition stage assumes cognition is necessary for the intake and processing of new

data and information, while the stages of knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization are

purely behavioral.
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 11

One of the criticisms of cognitivism is its simplification of the learning process. For

example, Kolb’s (1984) ELT, which has proven to be quite useful, describes learning in four

basic steps that are said to neglect the role of social, historical, and cultural aspects of human

action (pp. 116-117). Rather than oversimplification, one of the challenges of learning from

experience in the behavioral approach is that of complexity. Experiential learning naturally

incorporates personal inferences from information obtained, while also engaging memory, past

experience, beliefs, and assumptions about each unique situation (Levinthal & March, 1993).

Not only are there limitations associated with individual inference and memory, but there are

also limitations to learning at the organizational level that include memory, conflict, geographic

disbursement, turnover, and more. These issues make it difficult to glean learnings from

individuals’ experiences and retain them enterprise-wide.

One final strength of these theories is noteworthy in the context of the learning process.

Nevis et al. (1995), similar to Senge (1990), see the need for a more bold and aggressive learning

process – generative learning – when transformational change is required, typically necessary in

today's fast-moving, often chaotic organizational environments. Both sets of scholars assert that

this by no means contradicts the value of more measured, modest learning – incremental learning

– which can serve the purpose of performing everyday "fixes," as needed. However, too much

exploration of new knowledge (generative learning) leaves the organization wishing for returns

on its investments, while too much exploitation of existing knowledge (incremental learning)

may result in its becoming outdated and useless. The challenge here is to create the appropriate

balance – even though it may be a moving target – between the need to develop new knowledge

versus leverage existing knowledge.

THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 12

The Learning Target – Who Experiences the Learning

The second criterion for evaluating these three theories is the learning target, or the

recipient of the learning. Almost all theories on organizational learning are concerned with

knowledge acquisition and transfer, which occurs exclusively at the individual level. Indeed,

Argyris (1991) emphasizes the importance of managers and employees looking inward in order

to learn and reason about their own behavior in new and more effective ways (p. 100). This is

corroborated by scholar Hodgkinson (1998), who underscores the need for individuals to reflect

on their actions and be lifelong learners. Too, Kolb’s (1984) work reflects a learning process

that is exclusive to the individual, and Senge (1994) focuses on individual learning, emphasizing

how individuals’mental models are created and perpetuated through unique processes inside

one’s own head that include the ladder of inference, the left-hand column, and others (pp. 237-

252).

Less has been written about the assimilation process – the step by which knowledge

becomes institutionally available, frequently referred to as "organizational memory" (Nevis, et

al., 1995, p. 74). Yet, in determining whether this is truly organizational learning, as opposed to

learning at the individual level, the challenge arises when we consider that knowledge is more

than information, as was mentioned earlier in this paper – it includes the meaning or

interpretation of the information, combined with unique context that is tacitly held by the

communicator (such as history, experience, assumptions, and the like).

Some scholars have adopted a broader view and argue that organizations learn at the

systemic level, stressing that organizational learning is not merely the aggregate of the learning

accumulated by each of its members. Learning "systems" are embedded in an organization's

THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 13

culture, norms, and history, and are communicated through – and influence – all of its members.

Researchers Cummings and Worley ([1997], as cited in Lähteenmäki, et al., 2001, p. 116) claim

that individual members can learn while the organization doesn't, exemplified by a member

learning to serve a customer better without sharing that knowledge with anyone else. Further,

they assert that it is possible for the organization to learn without individual members learning,

as demonstrated by improvements in work processes or materials designed that do not reflect

participation in learning by all individual members involved (p. 116). Distinctive from the other

two theories, Nevis et al.’s (1995) assimilation theory incorporates very specific practices by

which learning is disseminated organization-wide.

The Learning Context – Conditions that Promote Organizational Learning

The final criterion for analysis – the learning context – identifies the antecedents and

conditions that promote a learning organization. First, Senge (2004) introduces a new set of five

operating principles that serve as requisite mindsets and practices, for learning organizations,

which reflect a more dynamic and ambiguous business world (pp. 4-5). These include: 1) the

learning organization embodies new capabilities; 2) learning organizations are built by servant

leaders; 3) learning arises through performance and practice; 4) process and content are

inseparable; and 5) learning is dangerous. While most of these are classic elements that are

reflected in much of the contemporary literature, the last item is uniquely bold and progressive.

Second, Nevis et al. (1995) defined 10 “facilitating factors” that are the structures and

processes which affect how easy or hard it is for learning to occur (pp. 76-83). These include:

1) scanning imperative; 2) performance gap; 3) concern for measurement; 4) experimental

mindset; 5) climate of openness; 6) continuous education; 7) operational variety; 8) multiple

THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 14

advocates; 9) involved leadership; and 10) systems perspective. A few of these align with

Senge's five disciplines for learning organizations: a systems perspective is identical to systems

thinking; continuous education relates to both personal mastery and team learning; and multiple

advocates can be linked to building shared vision.

Finally, it is valuable here to summarize the more common themes from the extant

literature regarding antecedents and conditions that promote organizational learning, and

highlight where those themes have occurred in the three theories analyzed herein. As is true in

the above examples, most of the research is prescriptive in nature and proposes how

organizations should be designed and managed in order to create favorable conditions and

promote effective organizational learning. Common themes include establishing a learning

climate and culture that offer learning opportunities for all (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Nevis, et

al., 1995; Peter Senge, 1990); facilitating members’ experimentation and learning from

experience, and giving appropriate feedback and guidance (Isaacs, 1993; Nevis, et al., 1995;

Peter Senge, 1994; Yeganeh & Kolb, 2009); people being encouraged to take responsibility for

their own professional development, as encouraged by the leader (Argyris, 1991; Nevis, et al.,

1995; Peter Senge, 1990); and the role of the leader, the guiding force behind the learning

process, who has to adopt different, effective roles depending on the particular situation (Argyris,

1991; Nevis, et al., 1995; Peter Senge, 1996b). A final common theme is that learning

organizations are built by empowering employees in the development of their working context

and getting them committed to continuous personal development (Isaacs, 1993; Peter Senge,

1990; Peter Senge, 1996a, 2004).

THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 15

While these themes are fairly pervasive in the literature, in general, theory-building in

this discipline has a history of approaches that fragment rather than assimilate new theory

(Lähteenmäki, et al., 2001, p. 113). As a result, a new prototype theory is introduced in the next

section that effectively integrates the important themes, principles, and practices of

organizational learning into a more holistic model.

A New Model for Integrated Organizational Learning

Key Principles of the New Theory & Model

This new model and theory integrates the three criteria from the analysis and evaluation

section, depicting the requisite antecedents and/or conditions that promote organizational
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 16

learning (far left), its “players” or beneficiaries (middle), and the key processes recommended

for each of the targets (far right). First, conditions required to create and sustain learning

organizations that were key themes among the three theories explored herein are included, as are

those additional and complementary antecedents that were repeatedly mentioned in the extant

literature. Second, while most of the literature focused exclusively on learning at the individual

level, this new model demonstrates equal emphasis on learning occurring at the team and

organization levels, themes that were mostly present in Senge (1990) and Nevis et al.’s (1995)

work. Third, it is made clear in this new model that the learning process features unique steps

and foci at each level.

One important principle of the new theory and model demonstrates a commitment to

measures related to organizational learning at the individual, group, and organization levels,

which serves to underscore the importance of this body of work and put "teeth" behind its use

and reinforcement. For example, cognition, as a thoughtful and purposeful process, is still

included as a vital part of the individual learning process, and the behavior change that emanates

from it is a strong metric for performance evaluation.

Another key factor is the establishment of learning processes and systems enterprise-wide

that support the collection, storing, and disseminating of information and knowledge. This type

of technological infrastructure is required in order to make it easy and "natural" for members at

all levels to engage in knowledge sharing. Additionally, technology can be instrumental in

facilitating access to peers – especially when they are geographically dispersed – through virtual,

albeit face-to-face means, which also supports and reinforces the sharing of tacit knowledge.
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 17

The learning theories introduced by Kolb (1984), Senge (1990), and Nevis et al. (1995),

and analyzed herein, each provides a unique perspective regarding how learning takes place

within the context of organizations. Research has continued to add considerably to these

foundations, with new ideas and concepts being developed even today. The value of

organizational learning is unmistakable as we see its ability to create competitive advantage in

today's complex, dynamic, ambiguous, competitive marketplace. It serves as a method for

rejuvenation and reinvention, both for organizations as well as individuals. Yet, the task of

implementing and sustaining organizational learning is a daunting and complex task that

involves significant culture change, attitude change, behavioral change, systems change, process

change, and more. Moving forward in organizational learning research, the crucial goal for

scholars in this field is to strive for integration, rather than fragmentation, so that new advances

can be of maximum usefulness to practitioners who are forwarding this important work as a key

priority within their own firms.

THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 18

References:

Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99-

109.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory in action perspective.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Azmi, F. T. (2008). Organizational learning: Crafting a strategic framework. ICFAI Journal of

Business Strategy, 5(2), 58-70.

Harrison, R. (2000). Learning, knowledge productivity and strategic progress. International

Journal of Training & Development, 4(4), 244.

Hodgkinson, M. (1998). The ‘learning organization’ and emergent strategies. Strategic Change,

7(7), 421-433.

Isaacs, W. N. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning.

Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24-39.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Lähteenmäki, S., Toivonen, J., & Mattila, M. (2001). Critical aspects of organizational learning

research and proposals for its measurement. British Journal of Management, 12(2), 113.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management

Journal, 14, 95-112.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organized learning. Organization Science, 2,

71-87.
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 19

McGill, M. E., & Slocum, J. W. (1994). The smarter organization: How to build a business that

learns and adapts to marketplace. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning

systems. MIT Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 73-73.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New

York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.

Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning

organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.

Senge, P. (1996a). The ecology of leadership. Leader to Leader(2), 18-23.

Senge, P. (1996b). Leading learning organizations. Training & Development, 50(12), 36.

Senge, P. (2004). Creating communities. Executive Excellence, 21(9), 4-5.

Yeganeh, B., & Kolb, D. (2009). Mindfulness and experiential learning. OD Practitioner, 41(3),

13-18.