Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 1

Learning Organizations in 2016

Theory versus Practice

Written by Sanne van Korlaar (10824065)

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Supervised by Dr. Wendelien van Eerde and Renske van Geffen MSc.

July 2016, revised version

For Koen whose love and wisdom supports me in my own learning of who I am and want to be.

For our daughter Fiene who we welcomed into this world just a few weeks ago.

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Sanne van Korlaar (Zweers) who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of

this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than

those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is

responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 1

Foreword

Learning energizes me. In my work and as a person. My fascination of the concept of individuals forming

ever changing organizations and the role of learning within this context, took a hold of me during my

work at Nyenrode Business Universiteit (Nyenrode). This is where I was introduced to concepts such as

learning, development, culture, leadership and change. I experienced the challenges people and

organizations face in dealing with these concepts first hand and became captivated by them. I decided

to take on the Executive Pre-Master program at the Open Universiteit to deepen my knowledge on these

subjects next to my work. I desperately wanted to know more! After finishing the renovations of our first

home, I enrolled in the Executive Program in Management Studies at the Universiteit of Amsterdam

whilst working at ICM Opleidingen & trainingen (ICM).

Influenced by the teachings of prof. dr. André Wierdsma (author of several books including ‘Op weg

naar een lerende organisatie: over het leren en opleiden van organisaties’) one of the concepts

profoundly integrated in the discourse at Nyenrode was the ‘learning organization’. To my surprise I

found ICM also actively referring to itself as being a learning organization. This couldn’t be a

coincidence! My studies gave me the perfect opportunity to take a deep dive into the concept of the

learning organization. Something I, as a self-proclaimed generalist, had never done before. I couldn’t

imagine a better excuse to finally gain in-depth knowledge about a topic that so truly had my interest.

My aim in writing this thesis has not only been to satisfy my own curiosity, but also my desire to contribute

to our business society by research which makes valuable insights more tangible and to evoke positive

energy in organizations and the people who are these organizations. I hope you’ll find this the case

when reading through the thesis laying before you. To me personally studying, researching and writing

has been a great learning safari which I will to continue after graduation.

As I experienced during my work and studies, people learn from and with each other. Not only with their

head, but also with their heart and hands. I found it a delight to study again – especially as I could apply

my new knowledge directly in practice - and make new friends who share my passions. Thank you

Harm, Thais, Aaron, Asha, Maarten, Mustafa and Sebastian for the great time we spent and will spend

together!

If you have any questions or ideas, please feel free to contact me.

Sanne van Korlaar

sanne.vankorlaar@gmail.com

https://nl.linkedin.com/in/sannevankorlaar

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 2

Abstract

The present study seeks answers to WHY people strive to build learning organizations and HOW they

approach this concept within their organizations. Interviews with leaders and major decision makers

were conducted at eight Dutch based organizations all referred to as (by themselves or others) learning

organizations. Conclusions are drawn by comparing existing theories and today’s practice. New topics

in the field of the learning organization are suggested, including customer centricity, the use of existing

methods and its influence on shared language and meaning. Proposed is a framework integrating why

a learning approach is taken and how it is implemented. The framework reflects the way the concept of

the learning organizations is viewed and approached within organizations: as a concept for changing

organizational culture, generating a practice field or realizing the full potential of an organization. It is

concluded that although the concept of a learning organization is too broad to truly validate

academically, it can provide great value for practice.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 3

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 4

Table of contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5

2 A short history of the learning organization .......................................................................... 7

3 Defining ‘The Learning Organization’ ..................................................................................... 9

3.1 The Learning Organization ......................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Zooming in on definitions: learning, organizing and organizational learning ............................ 11

3.3 Link with other definitions: development, change, innovation, learning ................................... 13

3.4 On the oxymoron of organizing and learning ........................................................................... 14

4 About the research ................................................................................................................. 16

4.1 Research approach: in-depth interviews .................................................................................. 16

4.2 Case selection .......................................................................................................................... 17

4.3 The organizations featured in this research ............................................................................. 18

4.4 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................ 20

4.5 Limitations of the research approach ....................................................................................... 22

5 A learning organization is… .................................................................................................. 24

6 WHY learn? Differences in perspective ................................................................................ 27

6.1 Survival of the fittest; need to change or organizational DNA? ................................................ 27

6.2 Quantifiable results: gains of being a learning organization? ................................................... 30

6.3 A note on company history and pride ....................................................................................... 33

7 HOW to be(come) a learning organization ........................................................................... 35

7.1 The quest for the ultimate blueprint .......................................................................................... 35

7.2 The practice of building and shaping learning organizations ................................................... 38

7.2.1 Directing towards a learning organization .......................................................................................... 38

7.2.1.1 Taking the initiative; a top-down commitment .......................................................................................... 38

7.2.1.2 Setting the strategy of execution; differences in approach ....................................................................... 39

7.2.2 Design for learning ............................................................................................................................... 41

7.2.2.1 Empower towards a collective vision ....................................................................................................... 41

7.2.2.2 Establish an attractive and supporting physical working environment ...................................................... 42

7.2.2.3 Interact with the environment .................................................................................................................. 42

7.2.2.4 Search for a fitting remuneration structure .............................................................................................. 44

7.2.2.5 Provide clear scopes on autonomy and freedom ..................................................................................... 44

7.2.2.6 Invest in learning; finance, time and systems .......................................................................................... 45

7.2.3 Establishing a learning culture ............................................................................................................ 46

7.2.3.1 Attract and retain the ‘right’ people .......................................................................................................... 46

7.2.3.2 Be a role model leader ............................................................................................................................ 47

7.2.4 Learning in practice .............................................................................................................................. 50

7.2.4.1 Concrete learning practices .................................................................................................................... 50

7.2.4.2 Generation of ideas and experimentation ................................................................................................ 51

7.2.4.3 Ways of working together; methods to learn and shared language .......................................................... 52

7.2.5 Be inspired! ........................................................................................................................................... 53

7.3 Where theory and practice do not agree (yet) .......................................................................... 53

8 Connecting WHY and HOW; towards an integrated framework ........................................ 55

9 Implications: Theory versus Practice ................................................................................... 57

10 Reflections on my personal learning journey ..................................................................... 60

11 Reference list .......................................................................................................................... 61

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 5

1 Introduction

Wandering through the streets of Utrecht makes one realize how important learning is to organizations.

The bankruptcies of well-known retail chains including Vroom & Dreesman, Scapino, Perry Sport,

Manfield, Dolcis, and Invito the last few weeks make it painfully visible in every Dutch shopping center;

those who cannot adapt will not survive. Even well-established organizations need to continuously

improve themselves and step up to new challenges as they face changes in customer demands and

technology. Those who do are in the epicenter of interest; we hear of the success stories and unforeseen

growth of Action, Zara and Zalando. For decades our world of interdependency and change has inspired

to search for new ways to develop organizations capable of continuous adaptation and improvement

(Goh & Richards, 1997). No wonder the learning organization has captured the imagination of

practitioners and researchers alike.

Also I was grasped by the conceptual framework of the learning organization as sketched by Senge in

his book ‘The Fifth Discipline’ (1990). Where I found his work highly inspirational and almost poetic in

its nature, I was one of many who found it hard to truly apply his ideas in practice (Bui & Baruch, 2010).

I found myself pondering on questions such as: What is gained by being a learning organization for

people and organizations? What does a learning organization do differently than other organizations?

These and similar thoughts are represented by the main research questions of this thesis: WHY do

people strive to build learning organizations and HOW do they do it?

Though much has been written – mostly conceptually - on the learning organization, tangible evidence

and concrete examples of practices are difficult to find. It was virtually impossible for me to discover

concrete answers to my questions in existing literature. Easterby-Smith (1997) and Rebelo and Gomes

(2008) drew similar conclusions, referring to a need for more qualitative field work on (becoming)

learning organizations and organizational factors that promote and facilitate learning in and by each

organization. As the concept of the learning organization is ambiguous (Örtenblad, 2004), suffers from

a lack of clear definition (Garvin, Edmondson & Gino, 2008) that can be tested, probed and contested

(Grieves, 2008), it is bitterly argued by some authors that they ‘don’t know any examples of true learning

organizations, don’t believe they exists, will ever exist, nor should exist’ (Caluwé & Vermaak, 2006, p.

192; Garvin et al. 2008). Jim Grieves (2008) - previous editor of The Learning Organization(!) – goes

much further by proposing to abandon the idea of the learning organization altogether. He calls it a

'metaphor too far'. In short it is argued that the concept of the learning organization is not relevant as it

cannot be validated by the traditional academic research methods. Indeed, the flexibility and adaptability

of these organizations is hard to fixate and measure.

My unwillingness to give up on the concept of the learning organization so easily, came forth out of a

belief that every organization – be it in different degrees, positively or negatively, consciously or

unconsciously – learns (Ruijters, 2006, p. 31). In this sense each organization will have its own individual

version of the learning organization (Senge, 1990). Moreover, I had the vague feeling that its quest

might lie deeper than striving toward the so often mentioned achievement of competitive advantage or

financial performance and that in its essence it might reflect a longing for finding new ways of working

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 6

together, of shared identity. Striving towards the ideal of the learning organization in itself might provide

a focal point for the aspiration and bundling of energies of which people within organizations might profit

greatly. If this is the case, then it is up to science to find new ways of researching such organizations.

Although challenging, gaining an understanding of the reasons for these organizations to learn (the why)

and how they learn, will not only make the concept of the learning organization more understandable

and visible, but also ensures actions can be undertaken to optimize the learning of organizations. Hence,

the objective of this thesis is to support organizations in their quest of being a learning organization by

making the intangible just that bit more tangible.

Inspired by the words of Pascale and Sternin

(2005), with this thesis I strive to learn from

organizations who are perceived to be(come)

learning organizations. Not to validate a concept or

framework or look for an ultimate truth. But, with an

open-minded curiosity and respect for the

continuous change these organizations face, learn

what drives these organizations to strive for such an

ideal. What are their stories, experiences and

insights?

In addition to an extensive review of literature and existing case studies, semi-structured in-depth

interviews in a heterogeneous sample of mature organizations were conducted and analyzed. A

research approach on learning organizations which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been

attempted in a similar fashion before.

To take on this adventure well prepared, the next chapter will start off with an initial exploration on

literature on the learning organization. A brief history is provided from the rise of the concept until today.

Chapter 3 discusses definitions used in academic literature, as well as the distinctions and typologies

to clarify scopes of research. Chapter 4 will discuss the approach taken on the research and analysis of

results. Chapter 6 and 7 elaborate on the two simple questions which the research is based: Why do

people strive to build learning organizations? How do they try to achieve this? In these chapters also

the results of the research are discussed. The thesis concludes by offering an integrated framework

(chapter 8) and a reflection on the implications for research and practice (chapter 9). For those interested

in my personal learning I would like to refer to chapter 10.

‘Where the tyranny of averages

conceals sparkling exceptions to the rule, others

- operating with the same constraints and

resources as everyone else –

prevail against the odds.’

Pascale and Sternin (2005, p. 73)

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 7

2 A short history of the learning organization

The ideal of the learning organization is not a new one. Although the roots of the learning organization

were founded in the 1920s, it flourished in the 1990s stimulated by the publication of influential books

such as The Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1990); Op Weg naar de Lerende Organisatie (Wierdsma &

Swieringa, 1992) and countless other publications, workshops, and websites (Wilson & Beard, 2014).

As organizational life started to feature shorter product cycles, global competition, increased workplace

diversity, and the constant need to 'do more with less', faster learners were believed to have a distinct

advantage: they would find ways to improve work processes and breakthroughs in product and service

development before their slower learning competitors (Goh & Richards, 1997).

The emergence of the idea of the ‘learning organization’ is engrossed with notions such as ‘the learning

society’. Perhaps the defining contribution here was made by Donald Schön who provided a theoretical

framework linking the experience of living in a situation of increasing change with the need for learning.

The loss of the stable state means that our society and all of its institutions are in continuous processes of

transformation. We cannot expect new stable states that will endure for our own lifetimes.

We must learn to understand, guide, influence and manage these transformations. We must make the capacity

for undertaking them integral to ourselves and to our institutions.

We must, in other words, become adept at learning. We must become able not only to transform our institutions,

in response to changing situations and requirements; we must invent and develop institutions which are ‘learning

systems’, that is to say, systems capable of bringing about their own continuing transformation.

Schön, 1973, p. 28

Against this backdrop of change organizations started to revisit their traditional bureaucratic orientation

and embraced a range of new characteristics that promoted proper environmental alignment, improved

competitive fit and long-term-viability. A stark realization developed that the traditional bureaucratic

approach was not suitable to support competitive positioning in a hyper-dynamic environment. Hence,

the past decades have witnessed the ascendancy of alternative paradigms, of which the learning

organization was the most prominent (Jamali, Khoury, & Sahyoun, 2006). Characterized by individual

and collective learning, the learning organization became an ideal ‘towards which organizations have to

evolve in order to be able to respond to the various pressures [they face] (Finger & Brand, 1999, p. 136).

A search came into existence to find templates and forms for realizing this ideal. The ability for creating,

acquiring and transferring knowledge were seen as essential in realizing the compelling vision of the

learning organization. Which in its turn asked for the cultivation of tolerance, fostering of open

discussion, and thinking holistically and systematically (Garvin et al., 2008). All in order to be able to

adapt and act more quickly than the competition.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 8

At the beginning of the new millennium the suspicion arose that organizational learning was merely a

fashion. Some argued that ‘the concept is being oversold as a near-universal remedy for a wide variety

of organizational problems’ (Kuchinke, 1995, p. 4). Although the glamour of the 1990s has vanished by

now, learning is still a main subject in organizational publications and is now a common word in the

discourse of management (Rebelo & Gomes, 2008).

Figure 2 Almost 4.000.000 hits on Google Scholar (2016) for the 'learning organization'

The concept of the learning organization still focuses on learning as a tool, a lever, and a philosophy for

sustainable change in organizations in a fast-changing world (Bui & Baruch, 2010). Research on the

topic generally involves the benefits of learning organizations in terms of their innovativeness, their

flexibility in turbulent environments, their employees’ willingness to entertain new ideas, and on the

challenges faced when making the transition from a traditional organization to a learning organization

(Smith, Barnes, & Harris, 2014). Research has been conducted on the typology, characteristics and

perspectives of the learning organization (including, but not limited to: Örtenblad, 2002; Goh & Richards,

1997; Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Bui & Baruch, 2010), methods for measuring learning climate have

been developed and validated (Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004), (financial) performances of learning

organizations have been measured (Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, & Howton, 2002; Marsick & Watkins, 2003;

Davis & Daley, 2008), and various mediators have been discussed such as the differences in

perspectives between employees and managers (Hasson, Tafvelin, & Thiele Schwarz von, 2013), and

sense making (Colville, Hennestad, & Thoner, 2014).

The existing research provides a foundation that allows for more questions to be asked and resulting

triggers to look further into the concept of the learning organization. What it is (in practice) and how

people within organizations work toward being a learning organization.

In order to gain a better understanding of the concept of the learning organization the next chapter will

explore definitions of i.e. learning and organizing, and will discuss similarities and differences.

Figure 1 Google Trends (2016) show a clear decline in interest for subjects 'learning organization' and 'organizational learning'

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 9

3 Defining ‘The Learning Organization’

In chapter 2 the history of the concept of the learning organization was discussed. This chapter will

elaborate on the several definitions of learning organizations, their similarities and differences.

In order to gain a better understanding of the concept we will zoom in on the concepts of learning,

organizing and organizational learning.

3.1 The Learning Organization

As we have seen in chapters 1 and 2 ‘the learning organization’ is a concept created in the discourse of

management. Often the term is used as a means for taking a deliberate stand for a vision, for creating

a type of organization one would truly like to work within and which can thrive in a world of increasing

interdependency and change (Kofman & Senge, 1993). For every individual, group or organization being

or striving to become a learning organization the term might therefore mean something different. Many

authors have called for or attempted to articulate a common definition for the learning organization,

justifying its unique qualities and characteristics. Some of the most sited definitions of the learning

organization include:

Learning organizations are organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results

they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set

free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.

Senge, 1990, p. 3

The Learning Company is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought about simply by training individuals;

it can only happen as a result of learning at the whole organization level. A Learning Company is an organization

that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself.

Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell, 1991, p. 1

Learning organizations are characterized by total employee involvement in a process of collaboratively

conducted, collectively accountable change directed towards shared values or principles.

Watkins and Marsick, 2012, p. 118

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 10

Much is shared in these definitions. Most authors seem to agree on the assumption that ‘learning is

valuable, continuous, and most effective when shared and that every experience is an opportunity to

learn’ (Smith M. , 2001, 2007). Also any type of organization can be seen as / evolve to become a

learning organization, if they have / strive towards certain features. Typically these include (Kerka,

1995):

Providing continuous learning opportunities

Using learning to reach their goals

Linking individual performance with organizational performance

Fostering inquiry and dialogue, making it safe for people to share openly and take risks

Embracing creative tension as a source of energy and renewal

Continuously being aware of and interact with their environment

However, also contrasts in the definitions of the learning organization can be found. For example, some

authors approach the learning organization as something that is initiated and developed by senior

management – they involve a top-down, managerial imposed vision (Pedler et al., 1991; Hughes & Tight,

1998) - were others view the concept with a more ‘bottom-up’ approach (Watkins & Marsick, 2012).

Another distinction can be made from the use of theories on organizational learning. Where some

approach the learning organization from a technical, outcome based view, others maintain a more social

view (dominating popular literature) focused on processes of learning (Easterby-Smith, Burgoyne, &

Araujo, 1999).

For the purpose of this thesis I choose to refer to the concept of a learning organization as an

organization that learns continuously and transforms itself (Marsick & Watkins, 2003). Learning

organizations in this sense proactively use learning in an integrated way to support and catalyze growth

for individuals, teams, and other groups, entire organizations, and (at times) the institutions and

communities with which they are linked (Marsick & Watkins, 2003).

The term ‘learning organization’ consists of two interesting concepts (learning and organizing). We will

explore these individual concepts in the following sections in order to gain a better understanding of the

definition of the combined concepts of the learning organization as used in academic literature and in

practice.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 11

3.2 Zooming in on definitions: learning, organizing and organizational learning

Figure 3 Definition of 'learning' by Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia, 2016

Learning is a very broad concept which is (often heedlessly) used for describing many different

situations and activities. In the discourse of management learning refers to the ‘implicit or explicit mental

and/or other activities and processes leading to changes in knowledge, skills or attitudes or the ability

to learn of individuals, groups or organizations’ (Simon & Ruijters, 2003, p. 2). Sometimes this learning

is organized (by persons themselves or by outsiders) and sometimes not at all. Then it is ‘just happening

as a side product of working, playing or problem solving’ (Willem, 1987, p. 2). Only afterwards can be

concluded that these learning processes must have taken place from changes we notice. Learning

‘starts in the zone of the unknown, and attempts, via a variety of activities, mental and physical, to

discover comprehension and expertise’ (Claxton, 1999, p. 47) and can lead to changes in work

processes and outcomes. Such learning outcomes can be a change or acquiring of knowledge, skills or

attitudes, but also the ability to learn can be an important result of learning.

Organizations are ‘consciously coordinated social units, composed of two or more people, that function

on a relatively continuous basis to achieve a common goals or set of goals’. (Robbins, 2003, p. 4).

Organizations are therefore by definition a collective of individuals, were organizing involves ‘the

determination of what tasks are to be done, who is to do them, how tasks are to be grouped, who reports

to whom, and where decisions are to be made’ in’ in order to attain objectives (Robbins, 2003, p. 4).

Within an organization individuals and groups, with different perspectives and values, pass information

through their own filters and the (noisy) information channels connecting them (Salomon & Perkins,

1999).

Where some argue that it is not organizations that learn, but only the individuals forming these

organizations (like Marcel Kuhlman of Kessels & Smith during the interview), I support the view of Simon

and Ruijters (2003) in which learning occurs at three levels: the individual-, team- and organization level.

The latter levels do not concern themselves with groups/organizations as static entities, but with an

active process of organizing as a cognitive enterprise (Salomon & Perkins, 1999). Seen from this

perspective many of the fundamentals of individual learning are the same for organization. However,

organizational learning also has distinctive characteristics with refer to ‘what is learned, how it is learned,

and the adjustments called for to enhance learning’ (Salomon & Perkins, 1999, p. 16).

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 12

Organizational learning builds on the definitions of learning and organizing. Most researchers agree

with defining organizational learning as a change in the organization’s knowledge that occurs as a

function of experience (Argote, 2011). The knowledge the organization develops can be explicit or it can

be tacit and difficult to articulate (Kogut & Zander, 1992). It can manifest in a variety of ways, including

changes in cognitions, routines and behaviors. Although individual members are the mechanisms

through which organizational learning generally occurs, the knowledge that individuals acquire has to

be embedded in a repository for organizational learning – for example tools, routines, social networks

and trans active memory systems - to occur. That is, the individual’s knowledge has to be embedded in

the organization so that other members could access it, even if the individual left the organization

(Argote, 2011).

In the context of organizations that learn (organizational or collective learning) authors often refer to two

(Argyris & Schön, 1978) or three (Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992) distinct stages of learning: single-

double- and triple loop learning.

Most organizations engage in singe-loop learning. When errors are detected, the correction process

relies on past routines and present policies (Robbins, 2003). It involves changing rules; agreements on

ways of working together, on what can and must be. This is collective learning on the level of

improvement (Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992).

When an error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the modification of the organizations’

objectives, policies, and standard routines, this is called double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978).

This involves not only changing the rules, but also underlying insights, theories and ideas on the ‘why’

of rules, what has to be done and what can be done. It is collective learning on the level of knowing and

understanding, which leads to innovation (Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992).

The most drastic level of collective learning as described by Wierdsma and Swieringa (1992), triple-loop

learning, involves changes in shared principles on which the organization is based; on who we are and

want to be as an organization, how and what do we want to contribute, which values are seen as

important. Collective learning on the level of what we dare, but mostly want to be and are. Ultimately

this leads towards the development of new principles which enter the organization to a next phase (of

transformation).

Level of learning Area of learning Category of learning Result of learning

Single-loop Rules Must/can Improvement

+ + +

Double-loop Insights Know/understand Innovation

+ + +

Triple-loop Principles Want to/Be Development

Figure 4 Collective learning (based on Wierdsma & Swieringa, 1992, p. 53)

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 13

3.3 Link with other definitions: development, change, innovation, learning

Conducting the interviews for this thesis I noticed that other terms where often associated or blended in

with learning as described in previous paragraphs, such as ‘development’, ‘change’, ‘innovation’, ‘agility’,

or ‘learning’ in the more restricted sense by referring to a focus on changes in skills, knowledge, and

learning abilities.

Simon and Ruijters (2003) offer clear distinctions

between these terms which are useful in clarifying the

scope of this thesis.

They state that when the focus is on long term

learning processes (mostly implicit), this is often

referred to as ‘development’. Development is mostly

seen as a positive direction, often related to (holistic

changes in) personality and competencies. When the

focus is on attitudes or changes in work processes or

outcomes, the term ‘change’ is often used. The term

‘innovation’ is reserved for intended changes of work

processes and products.

A noteworthy buzzword is ‘agility or agile’. It occurs in the newest popular management literature, often

used as a proverb indicating a high degree of flexibility and the possibility to quickly adapt (so often

described characteristics of learning organizations). The recent publications closely relate to the

literature on the learning organization cover topics as ‘strategic agility’ (Lewis, Andriopoulos, & Smith,

2014), ‘learning agility’ (DeRue, Ashford, & Myers, 2012), ‘agile management’ (Hoogveld, 2016) and

‘agile organizations’ (Kerklaan, 2016).

Similar to learning, there can also be group development, -change and -innovation as well as

organizational development, -change, -innovation and -agility. The term learning as used for the purpose

of this thesis therefore encompasses development, change, innovation, agility and learning in a

restricted sense.

Figure 5 The various ways of learning and their interrelationships (based on Simon & Ruijters, 2003, p. 3)

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 14

3.4 On the oxymoron of organizing and learning

As might be observed from studying the definitions in the previous chapter, ‘organizing’ and ‘learning’

are essentially antithetical processes. As Weick & Westley (1996, p. 190) point out: ‘to learn is to

disorganize and increase variety; to organize is to forget and reduce variety’. In other words, to learn is

to create change and to organize is to create order (Colville et al., 2014). Although seemingly at odds,

these processes seek to address the ever present challenge of adapting to and coping with

environmental change and evolution (Smith et al., 2014). Both seek to discover the means for achieving

operational efficiencies and effectiveness. Thus, as Coopey and Burgoyne (2000) conclude: an

important challenge in establishing a learning organization is to maintain a balance between change

and continuity.

A similar distinction can be found in academic literature on ‘learning organization’ and ‘organizational

learning’. Both terms have developed along divergent tracks, resulting in similar, but distinct concepts

(Easterby-Smith et al., 1999). The learning organization on which this thesis is focused is a(n ideal) form

of organization, where organizational learning are activities or processes (of learning) in organizations.

Hence, literature on learning organizations is action orientated, and aimed towards the use of diagnostic

and evaluative methodological tools which help to identify, promote and evaluate the quality of learning

processes inside organizations, whereas literature on organizational learning concentrates on the

collection and analysis of the processes involved in individual and collective learning inside

organizations (Easterby-Smith & Araujo, 1999; Tsang, 1997). As Örtenblad (2001) argues: the learning

organization needs effort while organizational learning exists without any efforts. In this sense

organizational learning is the ‘activity and the process by which organizations eventually reach the ideal

of a learning organization’ (Easterby-Smith et al., 1999, p. 136).

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 15

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 16

4 About the research

While not many organizations have evolved the processes and disciplines necessary to qualify as

learning organizations, many have adopted characteristics that impact positively on the learning function

and the nurture of learning organizations (Jamali et al., 2006). This thesis takes an appreciative

approach in search of stories, experiences and successes of these positively deviating (learning)

organizations. By learning from organizations actively pursuing to be(come) learning organizations, I

hope to gain better insight in the concept of the learning organization of today. Not to find an ultimate

truth or blueprint, but to contribute to theoretical and practical insights on the subject and to inspire

practitioners in their own quests. In this I take the call of Rebelo and Gomes (2008) at heart who plead

for researchers to investigate thoroughly which factors promote the learning organization (such as, what

organizational structure, what kind of culture, what leadership).

The following sections describe the approach on research taken, a short description of each case

studied and the strategy of analysis. The results are revealed from chapter 6 onwards.

4.1 Research approach: in-depth interviews

In the early writings on the learning organization Kofman and Senge (1990, p. 16) already stated: ‘There

is no such thing as an ultimate solution for a learning organization’. When learning organizations are

seen as individual entities one realizes that a one-size-fits-all questionnaire or instrument is unlikely to

be fully appropriate (Wilson & Beard, 2014). Therefore, the research design needs to be given the

necessary flexibility to develop its own individual version of the learning organization (Senge, 1990).

Based on a thorough literature research and my own curiosity I designed semi-structured interviews. An

open and informal approach to the interviews was taken for main themes to arise inductively instead of

interviewing deliberately on topics already set in literature, ensuring their importance to practice and the

perceived applicability on specifically learning organizations. The interviews of approximately 1 to 1,5

hours per respondent therefore allowed for answers to be compared and analyzed, but also to leave as

much freedom for the respondent as possible to share stories, experiences and (mental) pictures

(Michael, 2005).

The ten main interview questions included:

1. Would you say your organization is a learning organization?

2. Can you tell me something about the history of your organization?

3. How would you define the purpose of your organization?

4. What would you say are essential assumptions and values within your organization?

5. Which of all processes and practices that make your organization unique are most valuable?

6. What role does learning play within your organization?

7. What does your organization achieve by its way of working and organizing which she would not achieve by a

traditional way of organizing?

8. How flexible or agile would you say your organization is?

9. How do you experience working at your organization?

10. Which organizations inspire you in their way of organizing?

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 17

Questions 1 and 2 where included to provide a general picture of the organization, the assumptions of

the interviewee on learning organizations and to reassure the interviewee in providing his / her answers.

Questions 3, 4 and 9 where included to explore to WHY people and organizations could be intrinsically

motivated to be(come) learning organizations, whereas questions 7 and 8 are more outcome oriented

(also see chapter 6). Questions 5, 6, and 10 where included to uncover HOW organizations strive to

(be)come learning organizations (also see chapter 7). Although the ten main questions provided a

structure for the interviews to be conducted, the liberty was taken to acquire further in-depth details on

topics mentioned by the interviewee or change the order of questions when deemed more appropriate.

For practical reasons (time and availability) all interviews where located in The Netherlands. The

interviews where held face-to-face on site of the organization to provide a better context for me as

researcher. In addition to the notes made during the interview I decided to take notes on my personal

experience of the atmosphere at the organization, the layout of the building, and the way I was received.

Where appropriate I made pictures to capture the look and feel at the time of the interview. The

interviews themselves where recorded and transcribed for further analysis (also see chapter 4.4 on data

analysis).

4.2 Case selection

The research followed the approach of purposeful sampling of heterogeneous cases to provide a valid

cross-section of Dutch based learning organizations in 2016. Although the selected organizations differ

strongly in size, age, and sector, all organizations where interviews were held were recommended by

outsiders as being a learning organization and / or define themselves as (striving to become) learning

organizations (formally or informally). This application of snowball sampling allowed for the identification

and access to appropriate organizations / interviewees ensuring their value to stakeholders and enabling

thinking outside the academic mainstream (Suri & Harsh, 2011).

Only established organizations where researched - their survival a proof of their ability to learn - and

organizations with a minimum of >15 employees, as below that number an organization could be

considered a team. Within the organization the leader responsible for setting the long term strategy of

the organization, team or business unit was interviewed, or an employee closely involved with setting

and implementing the strategy of (striving to) being a learning organization.

A deliberate focus was taken on exemplifying contexts perceived notably as a success (instead of

focusing on where things went wrong). As Michael (2005, p. 224) states it:

‘…to appreciate the best of what is,

one has to focus on the moments in the life when things went right,

when goals seemed possible,

when the future looked bright’.

Sarah Michael, 2005, p. 224

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 18

4.3 The organizations featured in this research

Let me introduce each of the organizations visited and researched for the purpose of this thesis. Quick

facts are provided to give a sense of the age, type of industries, locations, and sizes involved. The

names of the organization and the interviewee are linked and refer to the website of the organization

and the public LinkedIn profile of the interviewee for further background information.

BAM Infra, interview with: Marinus Schimmel, Director

In text referencing to the interview: BAM

Established as a subsidiary of the Royal BAM Group (European construction-services business,

founded in 1869)

Infrastructure solutions; asphalt and roads, traffic engineering, civil engineering, foundation

techniques, ground, asset management, telecom, energy and water, rail, infra consulting

Dutch based, internationally active

4000 Employees

Bejo Zaden, interview with: Laurens Kroon, Head of Research

In text referencing to the interview: Bejo

Established in 1978 from a merger between companies of Cor Beemsterboer and Jacob Jong,

all shares are still within these two families

Specialist in improvement, production and sales of vegetable seeds

Active in more than 100 countries

1400 Employees

Deloitte EMEA, interview with: Alexandre Janssen, Head of Innovation

In text referencing to the interview: Deloitte

Established as one of the member firms of Part of Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu Limited (audit,

consulting, financial advisory, risk management, tax and related services worldwide)

Support 15 member firms; collaborating and leveraging innovation strategies, methodologies

and approaches

EMEA region

Hoogheemraadschap Stichtse Rijnlanden, interview with: Joke Goedhart, Secretary General Director

In text referencing to the interview: HDSR

Established in 1994 from a merger between waterboards

Water board; governmentally responsible for the water management in its district

Based in Houten, The Netherlands

450 Employees

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 19

ICM Opleidingen & trainingen, interview with: Erik Smithuis, Director / Founder

In text referencing to the interview: ICM

Established in 2003 by Erik Smithuis and Harrie-Peter Roefs

Education and training; open enrollment, incompany, performance support, online solutions,

consultancy

Active in The Netherlands

100 Employees

Kessels & Smith, The Learning Company, interview with: Marcel Kuhlman, Consultant

In text referencing to the interview: K&S

Established in 1977 by Joseph Kessels and Cora Smith

Network of independent consultants; learning and development solutions

Bases in The Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, India and Germany

50 Professionals

Louwman ICT Services, interview with: Ron Brouwer, General Manager

In text referencing to the interview: Louwman

Established in 2010 as part of the Louwman Group (established in 1923 by Louwman and

Parqui, still family owned, one of Europe’s largest car distributors, also mobility aids)

Shared service center; ICT solutions, projects and supply of hardware

Active in The Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Czech Republic

40 FTE

Springest, interview with: Debbie van Veen, Smooth Operations Lead

In text referencing to the interview: Springest

Established in 2008 by Ruben Timmerman

Website; everything to develop yourself professionally and personally; find and compare

education, training, courses, books, articles, question and answers and tests.

Active in The Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom

29 Employees

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 20

4.4 Data analysis

Despite the overabundance of books on qualitative research methods and analysis, the process of

transforming ‘messy’ qualitative data remains quite challenging (O'Dwyer, 2004). As O’Dwyer (2004)

explicates the approach of qualitative research demands much of the researcher. For the purpose of

this thesis I was the primary research instrument and personally responsible for gaining access to

organizations and interviewees, collecting / analyzing data and writing in credible ways. The strong craft-

like element requires a significant amount of knowledge as a result of hands on experiences (Baxter &

Chua, 1998), which I did not yet possess. This was even further complicated by the burden of inference

that fell on me as the researcher (as opposed to a statistical methodology which crunches inputs into

outputs) (Ahrens & Dent, 1998).

Prior to undertaking the first interviews I had little idea as to how I was going to analyze the resultant

data. I decided to tape and transcribe the interviews as my prior reading and classes on qualitative

research methods suggested there are specific methods for analyzing qualitative data captured in this

manner. Using the advice from both texts, fellow students and professors I decided to roughly follow the

rigorous process of analysis described by Miles and Huberman (1984). They consider that analysis

consists of three concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and data interpretation.

Where other researchers (like O’Dwyer, 2004) describe their process of analyzing data as a need step-

by-step logical process I found myself applying the activities of analyzing data as an iterative process

going back and forth between studying single cases, connecting multiple cases and across case

analysis. For me this included listening again to recorded interviews; rereading transcripts and notes

over and over; adding to notes; making mind maps (per case, for multiple cases and on the overall

results); and – to get a better grip on my own thoughts – speaking to others about my findings.

I started off by coding each transcript using themes I found in research and (new) themes that intuitively

arose. For each single case I created a matrix to record the codes of themes noted. Each of these

matrixes had a similar layout, showing: general notions on the learning organization, motivations on why

one would strive to be(come) a learning organization, how the interviewee indicated they were building

towards a learning organization, and quotes with highly illustrative examples. From this very general

division multiple themes arose per case. When all transcripts where coded in this manner, I started to

merge the codes and restructure the information using the matrices made for each transcript. A

combined overall matrix evolved from this inductively revealing common themes (core codes) across

cases and enabling overall the analysis of the collected data. For every core code I wrote a description

explaining the results from the interviews and comparing them to existing literature. These descriptions

where then restructured in order to create a logical story outline to the readers of this thesis.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 21

As you might read from the description on the previous page the process of analyzing data was highly

iterative and inductive. Definitely not a step-by-step process. This might be due to my personal abilities

and preferences or, as O’Dwyer (2004) describes, it might be inherent to qualitative research. When I

must make an attempt to make the process more explicit, I would describe it in the following manner:

1) General overview

a) Listen to (separate) tape recordings

b) Read relevant interview notes

c) Add to above notes as necessary

2) Recording initial themes

a) Initial transcript review

b) Record emerging themes on transcripts

i) Develop intuitive ‘open’ coding scheme

c) Constantly review journal/diary notes and reflections

3) Reflection phase

a) Re-read transcripts and interview notes

i) Patterns emerging?

b) Search for extra open codes

i) All relevant portions of transcript coded?

c) Alternative conceptions on the learning organization?

d) Prepare rough initial matrix based on open codes formulated

4) Data display

a) Preparation of mind maps

b) Prepare detailed ‘open’ code matrices

c) Collapse ‘open’ codes into ‘core’ codes

d) Reformulate ‘open’ code matrices according to ‘core’ codes

5) Detailed ‘analysis tools’ review

a) Conduct detailed examination of matrices

b) Identify key patterns in evidence

c) Revisit transcripts

d) Update and review journal / diary notes / mind maps

e) Question if evidence can be organized differently

6) ‘Story’ outline

a) Create ‘big picture’ story outline of interviews in mind map and thematic form

b) Collate ‘outlying’ perspectives

i) Use to challenge the ‘big picture’ story

c) Write description of findings using ‘big picture’ story outline

7) Employing the analytical lens

a) Interpret descriptive evidence using analytical theme of ‘managerial capture’

b) Beware of selectivity and highlight preconceptions / contradictions

In the next chapter more on the limitations of this approach. The results of the data analysis can be

found from chapter 5 onwards.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 22

4.5 Limitations of the research approach

The research approach taken has enabled me to collect and cross analyze stories of people and

organizations. Consistently, Michael (2005) found in using a similar interview approach that her

interviewees were eager to tell their stories; offered dynamic and unrehearsed information; and spoke

more openly compared to regular interview methods. The chosen approach has offered new insights in

(theme’s surrounding) the learning organizations of today that would not have been realized otherwise.

A similar approach on researching the learning organization has, to my best knowledge, not been taken

before.

However, the research approach also has major limitations. The main challenge is caused by the

interpretative approach of the research, which is subjective to issues of validity and reliability (Sandberg,

2005). As Kofman and Senge (1993) already indicated, the learning organization articulates a view that

involves the observers as much as the observed. It cannot be absolutely free of the researcher’s (my

own) views and opinions. The subjectivity of this study is further illustrated in a quotation from Yeung,

Ulrich, Nason and Von Glinow (1999, p. 57): ‘In essence, the learning organization has become a

management Rorschach Test: whatever one wants to see in the learning organization is seen’ (also see

chapter 3 on Defining the learning organization).

Another limitation rises when one realizes existing literature and research on learning organizations

does not include cultural preferences of working and learning together. Where the foundation of research

was set by mostly American authors, current research includes case studies at organizations from

Sweden (Hasson et al., 2013), Norway (Colville et al., 2014), Spain (Jiminéz-Jiminéz & Sanz-Valle,

2011), and Singapore (Retna & Ng, 2016), among others. However, in these publications the impact of

national culture on the interpretation and enrollment of the learning organization is not taken into special

consideration. This means that for the Dutch companies researched for the purpose of this thesis it is

hard to predict which elements are culturally based and which are truly linked to the (desire of) being a

learning organization. For future research on learning organizations it would be wise to take cultural

preferences into considerations. One might hypothesize that learning organizations differ in shape and

approach from one culture to another.

Finally, though a certain saturation was reached interviewing eight interviewees of different

organizations, the practical restrictions of my time and resources as a part-time scholar were another

major limitation in conducting the research limiting the final scalability of the research. Ideally I would

have had years to observe the organizations I visited, follow their moves and motivations, interviewing

both decision makers and employees. What I would do differently in a next research – even considering

the limitations in time and resources - is a pre-selection (intake) prior the interview to set the scope of

the research (and the interview). The current research conducted can be best seen as a first step in

uncovering new themes related to the learning organization, providing insights for both theorists and

practitioners.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 23

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 24

5 A learning organization is…

Chapter 3.1 discussed the definition of the learning organization as we know it from literature. Before

zooming in on the WHY and HOW of learning organizations however (see the following chapters 6 and

7), I would like to make a note on the perception of the learning organization as I encountered in practice.

Every person I interviewed during my research viewed the organizations they established or contribute

to in more or lesser degree as a learning organization. This could be due to the excellent research I

conducted prior contacting the interviewees, but it is more likely due to the broad interpretation of the

concept of the learning organization. Not only in literature (see chapter 3.1 on The Learning

Organization), but also in practice the concept is used very broadly and adapted to suit the situation of

the person themselves and the organization. As Marcel Kuhlman of Kessels & Smith rightly pointed out

during the interview:

An organization does not learn. An organization is a construct.

If I ask ‘point out the organization to me’ what should you point at?

It is an idea that exists as long as people who believe in it have that idea.

Marcel Kuhlman, Kessels & Smith

When asked about what they perceived a learning organization to entail, interviewees answered very

differently. Some referred to (processes of) continuous (organizational) development and improvement

(ICM; BAM), others to specific learning processes as training, education and other personal

development opportunities (Bejo). When questioned more thoroughly, topics associated with learning

organizations also dominating literature arose, such as providing and giving feedback, reflection,

experimentation, taking initiative and responsibility.

Some interviewees also described their own challenges mostly in shifting established paradigms (BAM)

and finding the right balance in the dynamics of top-down decision making and bottom-up initiative taking

(Deloitte). Marinus Schimmel of BAM elaborates on the challenges of becoming a learning organization

by providing an illustrative example:

I am a fanatical skier.

When I was for the first time at an indoor ski path I thought it might not be for me.

Very slowly I learned to ski and now I am an excellent skier.

I still practice every week, even if I am already 20 years on that same path, just to improve myself.

Every time I get a little bit better. You cannot explain to someone how to ski. It takes endless practice.

Within organizations we do not take the time to practice to get the hang of a learning process for new behavior.

That is the biggest blockade on learning. Most do not take the time nor the costs of learning into account.

Marinus Schimmel, BAM Infra

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 25

Many set of the learning organization against the practices of the in their view ‘traditional organizations’,

often implying bureaucracy, a strong hierarchy (including an overabundance of managers), top-down

approach to initiatives and decision making, and focus on control and risk management. Traditional

organizations from this perspective are seen as unable to reflect, learn or renew themselves. Something

to steer away from.

Though the concept of the learning organization is perceived and applied in very different ways, it does

seem to encourage ways of thinking on how things can be improved and of how we can work and learn

together without steering in the direction of a prefixed solution. The concept as it is perceived by

practitioners seems to allow for sharing vision, creativity and team work, ultimately bringing (new) energy

for doing things differently together as an organization.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 26

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 27

6 WHY learn? Differences in perspective

So why would organizations strive to be(come) learning organizations? Is it to survive and conquer, to

strive for competitive advantages, or can other reasons be found? Intuitively learning seems essential

to organizations, but imprecise reasoning leads to arguments that might be less valid than sometimes

claimed. This chapter explores answers to ‘the why’ as provided to us in literature and compares it to

the interview results from today’s practice.

6.1 Survival of the fittest; need to change or organizational DNA?

Most publications on the learning organization refer to the ‘enormously increased speed of business’ in

what progressively becomes a ‘world market’, by which we have to ‘react to changes faster than ever’.

This is not so strange considering the rate of change in technology (think about the changes the last few

years have seen in mobile, social, internet of things, 3-D printing, big data, the cloud, online security),

business models, job roles and the impact of globalization (Sarder, 2016; Deloitte, 2016). In order to

deal successfully with such an ever-changing environment organizations are assumed to needing to be

dynamic and adaptive, context and customer-driven, and continuously restructuring.

When asked why learning is of importance to organizations, interviewees answered in a similar fashion

to traditional literature; more than half of the interviewees referred to the necessity of continuous

development and improvement in order to survive. Reasons given where, among others, the ability to

beat competition (BAM) and do new things (Deloitte). The strong motivation and dedication behind this

externally driven perspective can be illustrated by following quotes from the interviewees:

As long as I am here it will not become peaceful anymore.

At the moment you think you are there, at the moment you scored an order,

you cannot think you can score the next order with the same strategy.

The competitor also learns.

It is a race of who it capable to change the most quickly.

Not about who is the best, but who is able to adapt.

That is the name of the game.

Marinus Schimmel, BAM Infra

Our business models and strategies, may no longer keep us relevant

in the face of a global economy and changing customer preferences.

We can no longer count on a stable malleable workforce,

because today’s workers are quick to change jobs in search of new opportunities.

Technology is changing so rapidly that we almost have to run in place to keep up,

and we must keep up to stay ahead.

Sarder, 2016, p. 3

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 28

We cannot survive if we obediently keep doing what we have done the last 50 years.

That means we have to change. And that means learning.

That’s what we do.

But the question is; are we learning fast enough to survive on the long term?

Alexandre Janssen, Deloitte EMEA

However, where traditional academic literature mainly refers to competition and (macro)environmental

changes as reasons for change, 90%(!) of the interviewees explicitly referred to their customers as a

main reason why learning is of importance to their organizations. Interviewees indicated they want to be

able to optimally support their customers in their own quests; the need to stay ahead of current and

future developments in their fields of expertise. Many elaborated on the challenge to predict and respond

to changing customer needs. Sometimes driven by changes in technology or demographic changes.

The latter is nicely illustrated by an example given by (Bejo) on the development of cabbages (the

vegetable) with explicit specifications:

For example, cabbage...

First there where big families, so cabbages needed to be big as well.

If you have many mouths to feed, then you need a substantial cabbage.

Now families are smaller and people think: ‘What should I do with such a huge cabbage?

I only use have of it and the other half is in the fridge starting to smell or I throw it away.’

So you see a development to smaller cabbages for two or three persons.

But now many people start to buy products already chopped or processed.

For the processing industry it’s much easier to work with big cabbages.

So in twenty or thirty years there has been an enormous shift.

Laurens Kroon, Bejo Zaden

*NOTE: The development of a cabbage with new characteristics might take up 20 to 30 years!

In these - externally driven - cases the concept of the learning organization is applied from a change

management perspective: something to actively work towards to and providing a sense of direction.

Another more internally driven perspective was expressed by a number of interviewees who referred

to continuous improvement as a natural state of their organizational being. Something logically

imbedded in the DNA of their organizational cultures and their own desires (ICM; Springest) (more on

intrinsic motivation in the next section 6.2). One might argue that this truly reflects a learning approach.

The feel of this approach is completely different. Let me illustrate this by the following quotes:

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 29

We have experienced continuous development. Not only in size and growth.

It is my mission to ensure ICM has a good combination between its business-like character and humanity.

To create an organization that is balanced.

Not only financially, but also emotionally, in its relationships, physically, with a healthy work- and spiritual

balance. But that is more intuitively.

Erik Smithuis, ICM Opleidingen & trainingen

We work hard to remain agile. And be able to jump into new things.

That’s also the type of people that work here. We all find the status quo something frightening.

If there are new opportunities, we can easily take them.

That’s what we stand for.

Debbie van Veen, Springest

Few authors, like Wierdsma and Emmering (2004) comment on this difference between how

organizations are traditionally (stereotypically) focused on survival ‘making a living’ and how they would

ideally act to increase their potential of survival and their possibilities to influence their own environment

‘making a live’. Burgoyne (1995) adds to this that organizations (should) create their own environments

at least as much as they adapt to it. ‘Higher levels of learning are, after all, more about finding ways of

changing the world and interaction with it to maintain core values than being swept along by adapting

to externally driven change’ (Burgoyne, 1995, p. 23).

Thus, although continuous improvement and the ability to adapt and interact successfully with one’s

environment are seen a necessary for survival, two different perspectives can be found in both (highly

selective) existing theory and practice: the externally driven perspective of the need to change to survive

and the internally driven perspective of experiencing change as a natural aspect of the organization.

One might philosophize on the effects of the consequences of representing either perspective. Such a

difference in world view might influence approaches of change, company policies, the selection and

retention of people, learning possibilities offered etc. In addition, a shift in the role of the customer seems

apparent in the practice of learning organizations and deserves its full attention in future academic

research.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 30

6.2 Quantifiable results: gains of being a learning organization?

Next to being able to adapt to (and create) the changing environment learning organizations are granted

many advantages by both practitioners and theorists. They are assumed to be able to constantly come

up with better products and services, better ways to meet customers’ changing needs and preferences,

and more cost-effective ways to meet goals (Sarder, 2016). Garvin (1993) elaborates on the way these

advantages are obtained by (becoming) learning organizations by distinguishing three overlapping

stages in organizational learning:

1. Cognition: Members of the organization are exposed to new ideas, expand their knowledge,

and begin to think differently.

2. Behavior: Employees begin to internalize new insights and alter their behavior.

3. Performance improvement: Changes in behavior lead to measurable improvements in results:

superior quality, better delivery, increased market share, or other tangible gains.

When asked about the perceived results (or improvements in performance) of their learning approach

>60% of the interviewees included organizational growth in their answers, whether in size or in turnover.

(Improved) Quality in products or services was second best, together with being a good employer to

their employees. Where mentioned, the latter was proudly proven being broadly recognized by awards

won by the organizations for ‘Great Place to Work’ and ‘Best Employer’ awards (Bejo; ICM; Springest).

Other perceived results of the learning approach include: good relationships with employees and

customers, higher productivity and cost efficiency, and an incorporation of values as transparency, trust,

creativity, and authenticity in their organizational cultures. Some of these statements have also found

their way into academic literature with research providing similar evidence.

Research of Davis and Daley (2008) for example affirms the positive and statistically significant

relationship of behaviors associated with the learning organization concept and certain performance

measures (net income per employee; percentage of sales from new products; knowledge performance

and self-reported financial performance). It is suggested that adopting the strategies and behaviors of a

learning organization enhances individual, team, and organizational learning, which in turn, yields

performance gains. While each performance measure may have its particular limitations, they are

considered to be effective indicators of the general success of firms (Davis & Daley, 2008). Other

empirical findings support the positive relationship between organizational learning and performance

(Jiminéz-Jiminéz & Sanz-Valle, 2011). Also, the provision of leadership for learning has been shown to

directly influence companies’ financial performance (Yang et al., 2004).

The study of Jiminéz-Jiminéz and Sanz-Valle (2011) suggests that organizational learning also

facilitates innovation, especially smaller and younger organizations and organizations operating in

highly turbulent environments. Sarder (2016, p. 11) suggests this innovation advantage is an effect of

‘not being locked into rigid hierarchies, stifled by bureaucratic procedures, held back by outdated ways

of thinking’.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 31

Naturally striving to be(come) a learning organization has a significant effect on employees of these

organizations. Both authors and interviewees claim employees to use less defensive routines in work

and more proactivity; greater trust, faster change, more effective communication flows; group self-

awareness, collective learning, greater cohesiveness and creativity (Mason, 2009). Although these

claims are not academically verified, research does show a positive relationship between organizational

learning culture and employee’ job satisfaction and motivation to transfer learning and a negative

relationship with turnover intentions (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004). Other studies suggest that adult

learning in general contributes to positive personal changes that lead to improved health (Aldridge &

Lavender, 2000; Feinstein & Hammond, 2004). Learning organizations are granted a hiring and retention

advantage considering that when given the choice people prefer to work for organizations that give them

the chance to develop and grow (Sarder, 2016). As the study of Deloitte (2016) underlines people today

place a higher premium on flexibility, creativity, and purpose at work. This pushes organizations to think

of talent as ‘volunteers’ and constantly consider how they can make work more meaningful and

rewarding.

As hinted in the last paragraph there is also another, in some ways deeper movement towards the

learning organization. Where work was means to an end, people increasingly seek the intrinsic

benefits of work (Senge, 1990). Learning organizations answer to this by starting with the assumption

that learning is valuable, continuous, and most effective when shared and that every experience is an

opportunity to learn (Kerka, 1995). Shared values are central to this assumption. In their research,

Filstad and Gottschalk (2011) distinguish shared values as typical for learning organizations, being:

equality and empowerment; openness; change; stability; knowledge-orientation; relationship orientation;

informal communication; direct and open communication. Indeed, when asked about why the

interviewees themselves contribute to their organizations, the answers were not; hard organizational

results, or the need for continuous improvement. All interviewees (!) felt a strong sense of purpose in

contributing to their organizations. Being able to apply their knowledge and experience in meaningful

ways. Many indicated they find their work interesting and are able to learn and develop themselves.

Self-efficacy therefore seems to play a major part in their sense of belonging. Erik Smithuis adds to this

by explaining:

Everyone who works at ICM, this I truly believe, came here to learn something.

Whether you stay for half a year, a year or five years, when you leave with more wisdom than you came with

– about yourself, the organization or your profession – then it was a success.

Then life is a journey.

Erik Smithuis, ICM Opleidingen & trainingen

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 32

Next to self-efficacy, autonomy and freedom were highly valued in how the interviewees approach and

conduct their jobs (more on requirements accompanying autonomy and freedom in chapter 7.2.2.5).

Many said they value working together with colleagues or be in contact with other people and stated to

be proud of their organizations and collective accomplishments. According to Marcel Kuhlman these are

even the sole reason of existence of Kessels & Smith. As he puts it:

We have only one organizing principle: mutual attraction.

Marcel Kuhlman, Kessels & Smith

Also fun and inspiration were mentioned as important motivations to work at their organizations. Other

factors mentioned by single interviewees where: being able to maintain a healthy work-life balance, work

internationally, and the financial freedom provided by working.

Comparing these shared values, most surprisingly they include both change and stability. As Filstad and

Gottschalk (2011) interestingly note change and flux are the natural state of an organization, and

therefore stability is not a natural state within an organization but an accomplishment. Therefore, in

contrast to what one might presume at first, a learning organization is related to a stable rather than an

instable organization. An important lesson especially for those practitioners who are eager to realize

radical change within their organizations.

To sum up, perceived results in practice and evidence provided by academic research are surprisingly

similar. Though the emphasis in literature and conversations often lies on quantifiable results such as

improved performance, facilitation of innovation and a positive effect on employee outcomes, intrinsic

motivations of decision makers and employees play a key role in reasons to striving to be(come) a

learning organization. Contributing to learning organization in this sense is associated with having a

sense of purpose, possibilities for self-efficacy, autonomy over one’s work, but also with having fun and

being inspired. As a sense of purpose and fulfillment at work are increasingly important to people today

(Deloitte, 2016), learning organizations might be great facilitators in providing these values.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 33

6.3 A note on company history and pride

Though not mentioned actively in literature on learning organizations I

would like to share a note on company history and the pride it involves.

More than 60% of the organizations visited, visualize their company’s

history and actively share their (founding) stories. In all of these cases the

founders are still involved with the organization and are said to continue to

inspire current employees. At Bejo Zaden for example, the founding

families are still sole shareholders (many family members work at the

company without receiving privileges in their job functions. Shareholders

can be found driving hoisting equipment or working at the warehouse); Mr.

Louwman aged 75 is still actively involved in the activities of the Louwman

Museum (his nephew followed him as CEO); Springest and ICM

Opleidingen & trainingen broadcast interviews with the founders sharing

their company’s history; and Marcel Kuhlman enthusiastically shares the

story about his first meeting with Joseph Kessels and the ideals behind the

founding of Kessels & Smith.

The founding stories tell about the purpose of the organization and its core values. These stories seem

to provide a certain focus in which activities are conducted, with what reasons and in which manner.

They might be an interesting lever in the founding (DNA or social identity) and becoming of learning

organizations.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 34

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 35

7 HOW to be(come) a learning organization

Where the previous chapter discussed different perspectives on WHY organizations strive to be learning

it is now time to further satisfy our curiosity and explore HOW they try to become learning organizations.

This chapter starts off with a review of literature on establishing learning organizations and continues by

discussing themes that were deemed crucial in this process by interviewed practitioners. Finally theory

and practice are compared highlighting the major areas of interest when building and shaping learning

organizations and drawing conclusions on (new) research concerning learning organizations.

7.1 The quest for the ultimate blueprint

From the first writings on the learning organization authors have been on a quest to find THE blueprint

for building these organizations. Peter Senge was one of the first to give words to the competences of

learning organizations. He stated ‘a learning organization must be grounded in three foundations (1) a

culture based on transcendent human values of love, wonder, humility, and compassion; (2) a set of

practices for generative conversation and coordinated action; and (3) a capacity to see and work with

the flow of life as a system’ (Kofman & Senge, 1993, p. 16). He continued by defining five key principles

or disciplines necessary to build a learning organization, being (Senge, 1990): personal mastery -

continually clarifying and deepening personal vision, of focusing energies, developing patience and

seeing reality objectively; mental models - deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, and even

pictures of images that influence how we understand the world; shared vision - the practice of unearthing

shared pictures of the future that foster genuine commitment and enrollment, thus a collective

experience, the cumulative total of each personal vision; team learning - the capacity of members of a

team to suspend assumptions and enter into genuine thinking together, starting with dialogue; systems

thinking - integration of the other four disciplines, seeing the patterns of interplay that connect the larger

system.

Although the work of Senge is highly inspirational it remains a philosophy which is hard to envision in

practice, and to quantify and evaluate (Bui & Baruch, 2010). In follow up, other authors have attempted

a more practice oriented approach to get to the heart of how to make it happen in organizations. Watkins

et al (2004; 2003; 2013) and Garvin et al. (2008; 1993) identified distinct building blocks of learning

organizations at individual, team and organizational levels. Their work might be the most tangible in the

field of the learning organization. When comparing their approach (also see Table 1) one cannot fail to

notice the similarities and the manner in which they overlap and supplement each other. Both proposed

models integrate two main organizational constituents: people and structure, with a special emphasis

on the role of leadership. These constituents are also viewed as the interactive components of

organizational change and development (Yang et al., 2004). In addition, both developed validated tools

for evaluation of the degree in which organizations qualify for being identified as learning organizations

and measurement of the results these organizations achieve.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 36

Garvin et al. (1993; 2008) Watkins et al. (2003; 2004; 2013)

Supportive learning environment

- Psychological safety

All employees must be comfortable expressing their

thoughts about work at hand.

- Appreciation of differences

Recognizing the value of competing functional outlooks

and alternative worldviews increases energy and

motivation, sparks fresh thinking, and prevents lethargy

and drift.

- Openness to new ideas

Employees should be encouraged to take risks and

explore the untested and unknown.

- Time for reflection

Supportive learning environments allow time for a pause

in the action and encourage thoughtful review of the

organization’s processes.

Continuous learning

- Learning designed into work: people can learn on the job.

- Opportunities for ongoing education and growth.

Inquiry and dialogue

- Productive reasoning skills to express views and the

capacity to listen and inquire into the views of others.

- Questioning, feedback, and experimentation is supported.

Collaboration and team learning

- Work is designed to use groups to access different modes

of thinking.

- Groups are expected to learn together and work together.

- Collaboration is valued and rewarded.

Embedded systems to capture and share learning

- High- and low-technology systems to share learning.

- Access is provided.

- Systems are maintained.

Concrete learning processes and practices

Learning processes involve

- Generation, collection, interpretation, and dissemination

of information.

- Experimentation to develop and test new products and

services.

- Intelligence gathering to keep track of competitive,

customer, and technological trends.

- Disciplined analysis and interpretation to identify and

solve problems.

- Education and training to develop both new and

established employees.

- Knowledge must be shared in systematic and clearly

defined ways. Sharing can take place among individuals,

groups, or whole organizations. Knowledge can move

laterally or vertically within a firm. Concrete processes

ensure that essential information moves quickly and

efficiently into the hands and heads of those who need it.

Empowerment towards a collective vision

- People are involved in setting, owning, and implementing

a joint vision.

- Responsibility is distributed close to decision making so

that people are motivated to learn toward what they are

held accountable to.

System connection

- People are helped to see the effect of their work on the

entire enterprise.

- People scan the environment and use information to

adjust practices.

- The organization is linked to its communities.

Leadership that reinforces learning

- Actively question and listen to employees.

- Signal the importance of spending time on problem

identification, knowledge transfer, and reflective post-

audits.

- Demonstrate through own behavior a willingness to

entertain alternative points of view.

Strategic leadership for learning

- Leaders model, champion, and support learning.

- Leadership uses learning strategically for business results.

Table 1 Building blocks of learning organizations as described by Garvin et al. and Marsick et al.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 37

Interesting to note is that where Senge strongly incorporated the personal vision and intrinsic benefits

of people to want to work together in a certain way, the search for a suitable blueprint that followed is

mostly concerned with building an organization which is able to adapt (quickly) to a changing

environment. In this sense a learning organization is seen as a continuous cycle of individuals’ and

groups’ actions which interact with the environment, engender a response, and which is framed and

interpreted within the organization, resulting in new knowledge (Davis & Daley, 2008). This approach

on building a learning organization has many similarities with the seminal work of well-known

management gurus as William Edwards Deming (Out of crisis, 1982), Tom Peters (In search of

excellence, 1982) and Jim Collins (Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others

don't, 2010) who write on matters of continuous improvement, agility and adaptability of organizations

(on the long term). The main difference offered by the literature on the learning organization then seems

to be the emphasis on learning.

The question arises: how do proclaimed learning organizations of today view themselves? What do their

practices look like? During the interviews conducted for the purpose of this thesis surprisingly similar

themes arose as stated in literature and uncovered by Garvin et. al and Marsick et. al. In the next

sections we will discuss these results theme by theme from a practice point of view.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 38

7.2 The practice of building and shaping learning organizations

Zooming in on the mentioned building blocks of learning organizations described by Garvin et al. (1993;

2008) and Watkins et al. (2003; 2004; 2013) (see page 36) and the topics which inductively arose during

the interviews it is found that these are surprisingly similar. Almost all topics covered by the authors

were also spontaneously brought up by the interviewees when speaking about the practice of (their)

learning organizations. The next sections discuss themes deemed important by practitioners for

enabling learning organizations, starting off by describing how the direction towards becoming a learning

organization is set by describing who takes the initiative and distinguishing different approaches in

strategy execution (see section 7.2.1). Then vital elements of the organizational design of learning

organizations is discussed (see section 7.2.2), followed by the elements crucial to establishing a learning

culture (see section 7.2.3). Learning practices of the organizations where interviews were held are set

out in section 7.2.4. The chapter finished with inspiration for practitioners (see section 7.2.5) and

conclusions on comparisons between the theory and practice of how learning organizations are being

build and refined.

7.2.1 Directing towards a learning organization

7.2.1.1 Taking the initiative; a top-down commitment

As to HOW people establish learning organizations, a first interesting annotation is that the initiative for

taking a learning approach in practice always lies with the top executive(s) / founder(s) of the

organization. Despite the idealistic world view of working and learning together without boundaries,

social or hierarchal differences sometimes associated with the concept of the learning organization, all

interviewees (!) indicate the initiative for taking a learning approach was taken top-down. In most cases

the learning approach was part of the (current) change strategy for improvement of the organizational

culture (from the perspective of the directors / top-management). In a few cases, a learning approach

was clearly part of the founding of the organization and imbedded in the DNA of the organization. Still,

in all cases the initiative for this approach was taken by the executive decision maker(s) or founder(s).

Interestingly, the top-down approach always included the desire for bottom-up initiative taking and often

less hierarchy and empowerment of employees. Similarly, Retna and Ng (2016) describe it as a

leadership challenge to find an effective balance in the organizational culture between driving change

through a top-down approach and empowerment through a bottom-up approach. Next to the interesting

dynamic it indicates an important role for (the) leader(s). As Yeo states (2007, p. 525) leaders must

‘have a vision of how learning should be institutionalized through the intervention of systems, structure

and strategy’. By sharing their vision, leaders promote participation of staff (Retna & Ng, 2016). This

consequently allows for more opportunities to overcome hierarchical inadequacies and leads to

collective efforts at learning and change (Sheenan, 2004). Their role and involvement is therefore crucial

in building a learning organization and facilitating necessary break-troughs in the structure and culture

of the organization. In fact, leadership is crucial to facilitate learning ‘even when there are no immediate

answers to complex issues during change’ (Yeo, Change intervations to organizational learning: Bravo

to leaders as unifying agents, 2007, p. 548) (more on the role of leaders in chapter 7.2.3.2).

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 39

7.2.1.2 Setting the strategy of execution; differences in approach

Learning organization literature generally assumes that organizations need to embed characteristics

associated with learning organizations throughout their organization in order to be successful. Indeed,

this holds true with perceptions of most interviewees. As these efforts focus on significantly reshaping

the organization, transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations by using methods intended to re-

direct the use of resources, business process, budget allocations, or other modes of operation

(International Organizational Change Management Institute, 2016) I call this the change management

approach on the learning organization. Approaches described by interviewees of embedding the

concept of the learning organization from this perspective throughout the entire organization were very

diverse and strongly dependent on the context and culture of the organization and the personal style of

the executive in charge of realizing change. However, also similarities between approaches of the

organizations visited could be found. A view of continuous, step-by-step change with a long-term vision

characterized most approaches. Sounding surprisingly ‘soft’ for the hard decisions the interviewees

often had to make during the change process, all interviewees also state the importance of ‘getting

energy within the organization’. In doing so they all involved and focused their intentions on employees

who were enthusiastic towards the envisioned change (in the case of BAM specifically defined as

‘change-agents’) and made (short-term) wins visible to employees (and customers). As Joke Goedhart

(2016) states in the interview:

It all starts with creating a fundament of trust.

Joke Goedhart, HDSR

However, other organizations have a somewhat different approach to the learning organization.

Approximately one-third of the organizations I have visited decided to establish a separate business unit

where the ‘rules’ of the learning organization apply and where the emphasis is on experimentation and

(product)innovation (BAM; Deloitte; ICM). The main reason given for taking this approach is the focus

and support such a clear division provides, which cannot always be provided in the regular ‘machine

organization’ where operational excellence is the main driver. Often there is direct contact with decision

makers to ensure hierarchy is not an issue. When success of the improvement or innovation is proven

it might be rolled out throughout the whole organization (BAM) or established as a separate profit center

(Deloitte). Similar to notions of Senge (1990, p. 300) I call this the practice field approach of a learning

organization.

Other organizations took a learning approach right from its founding. They seem to have naturally

implemented learning practices they found fitting to their envisioned culture. Their focus is more on

continuously feeding and shaping their culture rather than processes. As Marcel Kuhlman (2015)

explains by the following anecdote:

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 40

Imagine you come home to your partner and say ‘darling we love each other right?’.

‘The quality of our relationship is in how much we love one another’.

Your partner says ‘yes I fully agree’.

Then you put a program on the fridge ‘well then we will maximize our love’.

‘We will do an assessment here and some coaching sessions there’.

That is the best way to get thrown out.

That’s not something you do.

Love is something that grows and evolves.

That comes into existence and not something you make a blueprint for.

Marcel Kuhlman, Kessels & Smith

Interviewees of these organizations mention they do things the way they do as an organization in words

as ‘because of who we are’ (Springest). I find it hard to call this an approach, as it feels more as a natural

state of being. Wherever decisions need to be made or a direction chosen, implicitly or explicitly, the

DNA of these organization play an essential role. In lack of better words, I therefore call this the social

identity approach of a learning organization.

Some of the interviewees referred to specific change practices (they) applied within their organizations

in order to stimulate a learning approach. These could be applied in all of the three approaches

described above, and they might provide inspiration:

Provide personalized messages on the changes to come fitting with the individual employees’

needs / profile (Deloitte).

Establish teams of change-agents to learn from each other over the borders of the organization

and surpassing the hierarchal structure (BAM).

On the agenda every week: explicitly identify and formulate behavior for improvement within

teams and discuss the results together (BAM).

Reduce processes wherever possible; work on what is truly useful (HDSR).

Ensure a good working relationship with the employees’ council (HDSR).

Start with projects that are relatively easy to realize and provide direct results to customers, in

order to establish credit within the organization by increasing customer satisfaction and

employee satisfaction (Louwman).

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 41

7.2.2 Design for learning

A learning organization is not cultivated effortlessly. Garvin et al. (2008) argue a learning organization

arises from a series of concrete steps and widely distributed activities, not unlike the workings of

business processes such as logistics, billing, order fulfillment, and product development. According to

them learning processes involve the generation, collection, interpretation, and dissemination of

information, including: experimentation to develop and test new products and services; intelligence

gathering to keep track of competitive, customer, and technological trends; disciplined analysis and

interpretation to identify and solve problems; and education and training to develop both new and

established employees. Much has been written on these different subjects, within, but also outside the

scope of learning organization literature. Which are important themes and requirements identified by

practitioners? The following sections highlight the themes that arose during the interviews and their links

to existing literature, if available.

7.2.2.1 Empower towards a collective vision

Empowerment is one of those topics that occur in almost every publication on learning organizations.

Practitioners seem to agree with the importance of the subject: 90%(!) of the interviewees indicated it is

important to place decision making as low in the organizational hierarchy as possible. In other words, to

empower people to make decisions and take responsibilities. Ideally the entire organization is expected

to own and implement a shared vision of the organization’s future (Yang et al., 2004; Watkins & Marsick,

1999), hence people should be empowered to be able to work towards a collective vision. From this

perspective most interviewees saw ‘hierarchy’ and ‘management’ as something to be reduced as much

as possible. Almost as something ‘wrong’ and from days past. As Marcel Kuhlman of Kessels & Smith

stated:

When you are engaged in working and learning then it has to be visible

in how you create, arrange, structure, and make the rules of the game as a companionship.

That is in the – for others – small things.

In such a companionship for example, you do not speak about junior and senior positions.

That creates a difference that does not contribute to learning.

Marcel Kuhlman, Kessels & Smith

Although put in other words, this is similar to notions of Yang et al. (2004) who argue that responsibility

should be distributed close to decision making so that people are motivated to learn about that for which

they are held accountable and by this manner connect the organization closely to its environment. The

manner in which organizations put this notion into practice is however very diverse. Kessels & Smith

has no managers at all, viewing their roles unneeded and limiting to working together and learning from

each other. HDSR reduced its number of managers to a minimum, but at the same time improved the

support (HRM, Finance) for the remaining managers. Springest has taken a very methodological and

detailed approach to allow for clear accountabilities. In their organization all roles and tasks of every

employee are clearly written down. When taking up new tasks, wanting to exchange or remove tasks

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 42

this is discussed in general meetings. Everyone is held accountable for the execution of the tasks

belonging to their roles, leaving the manner to which tasks are executed to the individual, distributing

accountability throughout the entire organization. From this we can conclude that empowerment, taking

responsibility and being held accountable are strongly related themes that are seen as essential to a

learning organization. The way empowerment is organized however differs strongly among

organizations.

7.2.2.2 Establish an attractive and supporting physical working environment

Existing literature is surprisingly silent when it comes to the physical working environment. Though

Garvin et al. (2008) stress the importance of a supporting environment they refer to psychological

support systems. In practice however, all organizations visited paid special attention to matching the

physical working environment with the (intended) organizational culture. Many made recent changes,

aimed at creating more openness (literally more transparency with much use of glass walls and light

colors), and support flexibility in different ways of working. Also, important values could be revealed by

watching the physical environment, for example at Deloitte a sports club is integrated in the office

building; at Springest a tennis table is a prominent center piece; and at Kessels & Smith the lunch and

meeting room is a cozy bar where anyone would feel at home. Often, products were proudly displayed

or company history made visible. At Louwman for example an elaborate collection of new and historic

cars is displayed when entering the building; and at Bejo Zaden explanations of the different parts of the

process and development of seeds is displayed throughout the hallways to enable employees to explain

it clearly to visitors. It would be interesting to research the effect and impact of the physical working

environment on concepts related to the learning organization as openness to new ideas, feelings of

empowerment, and efforts made on working and learning together.

7.2.2.3 Interact with the environment

Though much of the literature on learning organizations is focused on shaping the internal organization

(to ensure flexibility and adaptability), Watkins et. al (2003, p. 139) describe the dimension of ‘connecting

the organization to its environment’, meaning people are helped to see the effect of their work on the

entire enterprise and actively scan the environment they and their organization are in. Garvin et al.

(2008) provide concrete examples of knowledge sharing which is externally oriented, including regularly

scheduled forums with customers or subject-matter experts to gain their perspectives on the company’s

activities or challenges. In contrast to the last section, connecting and interacting with the environment

is something stressed in literature as of major importance, but seemingly not a major focus in practice:

only few of the interviewees spontaneously mentioned interaction with the environment of their

organizations as something important to a learning approach. The interviewees that did mention the

importance of connecting with their environment had either a long tradition of sharing information and

learning together with its customers (Bejo), or elaborated on the importance of an open attitude to its

direct environment (HDRS). One can only wonder about the cause between this difference in theory and

practice. Interviewees do refer to the important role of their customers (also see section 6.1), but true

interaction and connection with the customer and other stakeholders seems neglected or – in the

contrary – is it seen as self-evident? An interesting topic for further research.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 43

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 44

7.2.2.4 Search for a fitting remuneration structure

Few authors refer to the importance of manners of reward and recognition in association with a learning

organization. Campbell and Cairns for example argue (1994, p. 12) that a learning organization should

tend to reward learning through a flexible compensation system which recognizes the individual talents

of employees rather than treating people as a homogeneous group.

Though not questioned on specific solutions many interviewees indicated their organizations established

or should pay attention to a special remuneration structure aimed at stimulating teamwork. Traditional

structures where employees are held accountable for the exact time spent on each customer are seen

as counterproductive to learning and innovation initiatives (Deloitte). A noteworthy example in this regard

can be found at Springest, where all employees with permanent positions are shareholders of the

company. This is found to further strengthen the social identity of the organization, where all employees

feel ownership for the organization they work at. Other examples mentioned included variable

remuneration depending on team or company success, and special KPIs for innovation initiatives.

The assumed effect of a fitting remuneration structure (as in facilitating or paralyzing desired

characteristics of a learning organization) and the different approaches on this structure are definitely

worth future research. Practitioners should carefully consider the suitability and influence of their

remuneration structures on the desired behaviors of employees and the social identity of their

organizations.

7.2.2.5 Provide clear scopes on autonomy and freedom

All interviewees personally value autonomy and freedom in how they conduct their jobs. Literature on

the learning organization supports these shared values (also see chapter 6.2 on intrinsic benefits), but

is very limited on ways of concrete advice. Many interviewees refer to the necessity of clear scopes of

work and accountability, to – seemingly contradictory – achieve autonomy and freedom in work. In their

views the collective organization provides the scope, organizational support and guidelines of conduct,

but how results are achieved or how the job is approached is left open for the individual to decide. At

Springest for example ‘rules’ are set such as: an empty mailbox, control over your work, timely reviews,

specific meeting structures, and defined ways of providing feedback to each other, but how and when

employees perform their tasks is up to them. It would be interesting to find and compare more of these

practices and explore their effect on the perceived autonomy and freedom of employees when it comes

to their work.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 45

7.2.2.6 Invest in learning; finance, time and systems

Learning organization literature and measurement tools hardly elaborate on the necessary investments

needed to establish a learning organization. Interviewees however stress the importance of financial

investment in learning (time and budget) (BAM; HDSR). In first instance these investments were

associated with formal education and training (for example a Talent Development Program for all

employees at HDSR), however, also the availability of time to learn was seen as a major contributing

factor. Reasoning that it takes up more time to do something for the first time, experiment, reflect on

actions and outcomes, and learn from and with others. Garvin et al. (2008) elaborate on this by

explaining that ‘when people are too busy or overstressed by deadlines and scheduling pressures, their

ability to think analytically and creatively is compromised. They become less able to diagnose problems

and learn from their experiences. Supportive learning environments allow time for a pause in the action

and encourage thoughtful review of the organization’s processes.’ In practice this often comes with clear

agreements on time, budget and employees’ responsibilities. Another investment deemed crucial is the

investment in an embedded and up-to-date system which supports the sharing of knowledge and

insights (more on embedded systems in chapter 7.2.4.1).

To illustrate the investments involved in establishing and maintaining learning organizations Sarder

(2016, p. 39) explicates the ongoing direct and indirect investments involved to support learning within

an organization. As he explains direct costs include those associated with designing, purchasing,

administering, monitoring, and assessing courses; hiring consultants and instructors; travel, equipment,

space, and materials; and the technology for delivering and managing learning operations. Other direct

costs might include a (contracted) manager of L&D to manage and oversee the planning and

implementation of learning initiatives; costs for reconfiguring physical space and reimbursing

employees’ tuition. Indirect resources mostly involve employees’ time: time away from work to take

courses and participate in learning activities; extra time when first applying new concepts and techniques

to work; time to travel to the site of a learning program; and time for a group of people to collaborate. In

addition managers need to spend time working with employees to identify learning needs, help them

develop learning plans, and support their learning efforts. The effects of such major investments in

learning activities (formal and informal) would be interesting to analyze in the context of learning

organization as this could contribute to the effective use of resources in practice.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 46

7.2.3 Establishing a learning culture

7.2.3.1 Attract and retain the ‘right’ people

All interviewees view people forming organizations as the heart and soul of a learning culture. They refer

to specific characteristics people (should) have working within their (emerging) learning organization.

Mentioned characteristics thought to enable a learning attitude and therefore stimulate a learning culture

include; openness, valuing cooperation with other people, curiosity, and eagerness to learn and develop.

Also self-awareness and –reflection and drive for continuous improvement where cited as important

characteristics of employees enabling a learning culture. As Hess (2014, p. 36) explains: ‘A learning

organization needs employees who have the right motivation for and approach to learning – a learning

mindset… (They) hire and develop people who like to learn and who proactively seek to learn.’

Though these characteristics suggest a specific profile suitable for forming learning organizations and

fitting organizational culture, it indicates more of a learning attitude. The majority of interviewees referred

actively to the value of diversity in background and experience in working together with people within

and outside the organization. Reasoning that diversity contributes to (better) ideas, (higher) quality, and

innovation. Garvin et al. (2008) add to this by arguing that learning occurs when people become aware

of opposing ideas. In their view, recognizing the value of competing functional outlooks and alternative

worldviews increases energy and motivation, sparks fresh thinking, and prevents lethargy and drift.

Deloitte for example is actively pursuing candidates with a STEM-profile (Scientific Technology

Engineering Mathematics) to bring crucial diversification into their workforce and a number of

interviewees indicated they could contribute more to their organizations as they had no prior knowledge

about the field they are in and brought in new views and perspectives. Recruitment and selection are

therefore seen as essential tools for attracting people with the ‘right’ profile. Sarder (2016, p. 36) further

explains: ‘Instead of focusing only on people whose qualifications perfectly match the job, they look for

active learners, who are always looking for ways to do a better job, and who seek opportunities to learn

something new. People with those characteristics are more open to new ideas and more willing to share

information with others. Change doesn’t frighten them. They welcome challenges and see mistakes,

difficult tasks, and problems as learning opportunities. Those are the people who will be good at

collaboration and who care that what they are doing matters.’ A noteworthy example of attracting new

employees can be found at Kessels & Smith. Their organizing principle of mutual attraction also applies

on establishing new work relations. The selection procedure literally requires current companions to

stand up for the new recruit and commit themselves to their success. By doing so they show their trust

in the abilities and added value of the new companion to their organization.

In attracting people who take ownership of their own development and are eager to learn, most

interviewees view (high) employee turnover as a natural consequence and suitable to this day and

age. Bejo Zaden is the exception in companies visited where many employees start and end their

careers at the same organization. As Laurens Kroon (Bejo) explains the main reasons for the low

turnover are the development time of new products (which might take up to 30 years), the family culture,

and ample development opportunities. Interviewees like Alexandre Janssen (Deloitte) speak about the

challenges of retaining employees, providing them with suitable growth / promotion opportunities. In a

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 47

world where promotion opportunities where mostly reserved for management positions attracting

employees with a STEM-profile (see prior section) faces Deloitte with the challenge of providing these

true specialists with growth and promotion opportunities in their own fields.

To conclude, the true power of learning organizations comes from the people forming these

organizations. They share characteristics which lead to a positive learning attitude. Diversity in

backgrounds and experience strengthens the capabilities of these people when they work together.

Consequently, recruitment, selection and retention policies play an essential role in establishing ‘the

right’ pool of people. Interestingly not many practitioners and theorists elaborate on fitting recruitment

and selection procedures for learning organizations. One might wonder whether current approaches of

recruitment and selection are truly up to the task of selecting on motivation and attitude instead of ‘hard

evidence’ such as prior experience and education.

7.2.3.2 Be a role model leader

Much has been written on the role of leaders in establishing learning organization. Leadership in this

context is defined as ‘making it possible for others to follow by thinking strategically and focusing on the

right directions, removing obstacles, developing ownership in the business objectives and taking self-

directed actions’ (Davis & Daley, 2008, p. 64). Though the emphasis was on different topics, many of

the interviewees (>60%) also spoke of the exemplary role of the leader (often themselves) in

establishing or maintaining a learning culture. The underlying message seemed to be ‘practice what you

preach’. Being conscious of your exemplary role as a leader, especially communication, shown behavior

and personal style where central themes discussed during the interviews. Authors fully agree with the

views of the interviewed practitioners by arguing that leaders must learn to become chief learners (Retna

& Ng, 2016) and demonstrate their own willingness to learn (Dervitsiotis, 1998). By modeling desired

behaviors such as open-minded questioning, thoughtful listening, consideration of multiple options, and

acceptance of opposing points of view, leaders foster greater learning (Garvin et al., 2008). By doing

so, they encourage others to actively utilize knowledge and continuously support organizational learning

(Yeo, 2007).

He walks on wooden shoes, in a leather vest with a cowboy hat on.

You would think: he works in the test fields, but he is the CEO.

Laurens Kroon, Bejo Zaden

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 48

Arguments why it is not possible, I know them.

I can think of 100 more.

If I think a bit longer I can think of 1000 arguments why something is not possible.

But that is not why I asked you.

I am looking for why it IS possible.

Marinus Schimmel, BAM Infro

Concrete evidence of the importance of the exemplary role of leaders is provided by Noe and Wilk

(1993) who found that employee perceptions of their supervisor’s support for development activity

influenced employee engagement in learning activities. Similarly, the meta-analytic study of Colquitt,

LePine and Noe (2000) showed that employees’ motivation to learn was related to their leader’s

supportive behaviors.

Tips from interviewees to (other) leaders of (future) learning organizations included:

Be a servant leader; speak of what you see; share your vision; aim at the long term1

Have a learning attitude; take time for reflection; follow courses

Ask questions; stay open-minded

Appeal to shared responsibilities; accept the responsibilities of other people

Let departments and employees set their own goals2

Communicate directly; provide direct (individual) feedback3

Coach and protect people showing learning behavior; show that mistakes can be made4

Dare to break traditions

There is an extensive amount of research available on the subjects highlighted in the above tips. Some

conceptual in nature, some providing clear (counter)evidence. I highlight some of them below.

1. In leading and managing learning organizations, leaders become stewards of learning when they act

as unifying enablers to create a sense of meaning and direction (Yeo, 2007). As Senge (1990) already

argued they provide the overarching explanation of why they do what they do, how their organization

needs to evolve, and how that evolution is part of something larger.

2. Findings of Bezuijen, Dam, Berg and Thierry (2010) indicate that setting learning goals that are difficult

and specific enhance the extent to which employees engage in learning activities.

3. Like goal setting, feedback can help employees to learn and enhance their work performance

(Goodman, Wood, & Hendrickx, 2004). Feedback interventions that direct attention to appropriate task

behavior have been found to lead to more rapid learning, decreased errors during training, and

improved performance (Goodman et al., 2004). This type of feedback provides recipients with

information about their work behavior and performance, and suggests how they can make

improvements. Feedback may further affect learning by enhancing the relative exposure of recipients

to instances of good versus bad performance, thus increasing the number of learning opportunities

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 49

(Goodman et al., 2004). However, findings of Bezuijen et al. (2010) indicate the relationship between

feedback and engagement in learning activities is negative, suggesting that employees engage less

frequently in learning activities upon receiving their leader’s feedback. Such negative effects of

feedback are not uncommon. A meta-analytic study by Kluger and DeNisi (1996) revealed that

feedback had a negative outcome in 38% of the studies. As Kluger and DeNisi note, feedback might

hamper subsequent behavior when it has a negative impact on the receiver’s self-efficacy.

4. To learn, employees cannot fear being belittled or marginalized when they disagree with peers or

authority figures, ask naive questions, own up to mistakes, or present a minority viewpoint. Instead,

they must be comfortable expressing their thoughts about the work at hand (Garvin et al., 2008). Also

there is clear evidence that support from the leader enhances participation in learning activities

(Colquitt et al., 2000). To be effective such support might even exist of simply having regular contact

and showing interest (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Interestingly to note is that overall leaders invest

more in employees whom they value and trust. By setting difficult and specific learning goals and

providing feedback, in turn these employees are more receptive to their leader’s goal setting and

feedback, and show more learning activities (Bezuijen et al., 2010). The same authors suggest that

leaders should become aware of this tendency, and try to stimulate all employees (not just the happy

few) to engage in learning activities.

Thus, the role of the leader is viewed by both theorists and practitioners as crucial. Being aware of the

exemplary role leaders fulfill and consciously demonstrating desired behavior are first steps in facilitating

such a culture.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 50

7.2.4 Learning in practice

7.2.4.1 Concrete learning practices

Generally speaking, the interviewees view personal development as the responsibility of every

individual. Many spoke of the assumption that everyone wants to develop him or herself further. The

organization in this sense is seen as facilitating to the development of individuals. The challenge is then

to optimize this individual learning and to somehow share and collect this learning so it can be used

throughout the organization (or in other words so that also other people can benefit from the learnings

of one or several individuals). This is neatly supported in literature by Kerka (1995, p. 3). explaining:

…‘organizations’ do not learn, the people in them do, and individual learning may go on all the time.

What is different about a learning organization is that it promotes a culture of learning, a community of

learners, and it ensures that individual learning enriches and enhances the organization as a whole.

There can be no organizational learning without individual learning, but individual learning must be

shared and used by the organization.’

There are many different ways for employees to engage in learning activities. Most prominently this

learning is facilitated within organizations by formal learning practices including individual- or team

training, education and / or coaching. Some organizations offer these to specific predefined steps in

one’s career (Deloitte), others stretch the importance of individual choice (Springest; ICM) or offer

compulsory development programs for every employee throughout the organization (HDSR). Many of

the visited organizations have a special department (‘Corporate Academy’) to facilitate in this formal

learning. Official performance and assessment interviews on set times per year between employees

and their managers / coaches were also seen as moments of learning (from feedback).

Also the sharing of knowledge and information is often mentioned by interviewees as an important

learning practice. Garvin et al. (2008) underline this by arguing that for maximum impact, knowledge

must be shared in systematic and clearly defined ways. Such sharing might take place among

individuals, groups, or whole organizations. In practice we see that the sharing of information can be

formally and routinely organized in specific sessions or meetings. Such sessions might be directly

related to work, or aimed at inspiring each other. In the latter, stakeholders other than employees may

also be invited to share ideas and insights, for example customers, freelancers, and suppliers. Some

organizations even use specific methodologies for purposefully sharing information (also see chapter

7.2.4.3 on the use of specific methods) or have developed imbedded systems for sharing and collecting

knowledge (often obligatory to employees). These ‘high-tech’ and ‘low-tech’ systems are established

and integrated throughout the organization and enable learning to be shared (Yang et al., 2004; Watkins

& Marsick, 1999). At BAM for example the embedded system involves the recording of learning

experiences and establishing ‘golden rules’ for new projects and at Louwman employees work with

‘knowledge cards’ to record and share knowledge with each other.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 51

Whereas in the past organizations focused on formal training programs, they now recognize that

valuable learning takes place within the daily work situation (Poell, Dam, & Berg, 2004). Much learning

is believed to occur through assignments that go beyond usual job responsibilities such as new and

challenging tasks, job transitions, task-force assignments, temporary attachments to other work units,

and project work (Maurer, Pierce, & Shore, 2002). Instead of viewing learning as an occasional training

need, learning is viewed as a continuous process that may also focus on future assignments and career

development (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). Interviewees mention learning on the job from senior

colleagues or peers (even outside the own organization) as possibly the most important way to learn

effectively. In this sense learning might even occur at the coffee machine or bar.

That learning is fun and does not always have to be work related is proven at Kessels & Smith and

Springest. There, people often organize ways of learning from each other on topics they are interested

in. This might be; debates on philosophy, the basics of programming, or sharing of the latest books. The

effect that having fun and learning has on employees (individual, group and organizational) surprisingly

is not mentioned in learning organization literature. A definite topic fitting todays learning organizations

in need of further exploration!

7.2.4.2 Generation of ideas and experimentation

All interviewees spoke about the generation of new ideas and experimentation. Many spoke of finding

ways to stimulate it, others as a necessity or something that occurs as a result of a learning culture.

Some organizations choose to assign people specifically to innovation (Deloitte; ICM) to ensure ready

time and focus (also see section 7.2.1.2 on Differences in Strategy), but most try to design idea

generation and experimentation into daily business.

Often interviewees referred to specific requirements to enable idea generation and experimentation.

Most mentioned were; the availability of time (to think; work out new ideas; share ideas; reflect;

experiment), ability to focus (not being disturbed or taken up by daily business) and being allowed to

make mistakes. In case of the latter interviewees often referred to the role of the leader in specifically

expressing mistakes can be made, acting accordingly when mistakes are made and stimulating the

expression of ideas. As De Meuse et al. (2010) point out, learning from experience generally requires

one to be wrong sometimes. Or in words of Erik Smithuis (ICM):

It’s not winning or losing.

It’s winning or learning.

Erik Smithuis, ICM Opleidingen & trainingen

Garvin et al. (2008) explain that learning is not simply about correcting mistakes and solving problems

– it is also about crafting novel approaches. They argue employees should be encouraged to take risks

and explore the untested and unknown. A concrete example to stimulate people to experiment was

provided by (Janssen, 2016). He suggests the use of ‘Fuck-Up Cards’ to visibly recognize the possibility

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 52

of making a mistake when experimenting and enable open discussion when mistakes are made. At

Springest ideas are brought to reality at ‘Do It Live Fridays’ and ‘Hackdays’, where the whole company

works together to share ideas, to experiment and to build solutions.

Who dares to get lost, finds new ways.

Joke Goedhart, HDSR (quoted from Erasmus)

7.2.4.3 Ways of working together; methods to learn and shared language

In their publications, Watkins et al. (1999; 2004) argue that in order to create continuous learning

opportunities, organizational systems and structures need to be established so that learning is designed

into work; people can learn on the job and opportunities are provided for ongoing education and growth.

Retna and Ng (2016) add to this that within an organization, a good structure provides the platform for

work to be done efficiently and for learning to take place at different levels by individuals and teams. In

order to do so some authors argue that more explicit, targeted interventions are required (Garvin et al.,

2008). In coherence to these statements, a personal – maybe naive - revelation to me was the use of

existing methodologies to enable team or organization wide learning. Over a third of the organizations

visited implemented specific (project)management methodologies, including ITIL (Louwman),

Kaizen, Holacracy, Getting Things Done (Springest), Lean and Six Sigma (BAM) to support them in their

ways of working and learning together. Other organizations make use of methods to discuss personal

drives and goals. HDSR for example developed a Talent Development Program (obligatory!) for all its

employees and Deloitte actively works with Management Drives on all levels. In addition to providing

specific guidelines on for example codes of conduct, ways of working together, providing feedback and

moments of reflection, these methods provided employees with a shared language to express

themselves, discuss findings and ideas. Even at cases where during the interviews no specific

methodologies were mentioned, a shared language or discourse came into existence: Kessels & Smith

clearly created its own discourse with words specifically chosen to reflect its values (they for example

speak about a ‘companionship’ instead of an ‘organization’) and employees of ICM have even written a

dictionary to explain all the different words and expressions used. I expect shared language to directly

reflect the shared values within an organization and might be directly related to establishing a learning

culture. To my knowledge these are areas not actively researched in the context of the learning

organization. Future research might throw a new light on the use of language and stimulating a culture

where learning and sharing ideas are stimulated. A language to help understand each other and share

meaning might be fundamental for learning from and with each other.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 53

7.2.5 Be inspired!

Where does the inspiration come from to contribute to building a learning organization? When asked

about inspiration in the context of learning and organizing, the first reaction of most interviewees was

that they followed their own ‘gut feeling’ and do what feels natural to them. Many where very select in

the use of best practices of other organizations. When seeking inspiration outside the own organization,

interviewees looked at: (direct) competitors, start-ups, management gurus / philosophers (mentioned

were Jan Rotmans, Thijs Homan, Hans Vermaak, Chris Agyris, Ricardo Semler) and value driven

entrepreneurs and leaders. The credo: get inspired by practices of others, but be highly select in

applying them to your own organizations. Create your own path.

7.3 Where theory and practice do not agree (yet)

As stated in the introduction of this chapter, themes that arose during the interviews deemed as

important to learning organizations were surprisingly similar to the main themes of existing literature.

However, also differences can be found.

Not discussed in any of the interviews were ‘disciplined analysis and interpretation to identify and solve

problems’ (Garvin et al., 1993; 2008) and ‘work is designed to use groups to access different modes of

thinking’ (Watkins et al., 2003; 2004; 2013) (also see page 36). It’s too early to draw any conclusions

from this. One explanation might be that the interviews were only 1 – 1,5 hours each and both of these

topics are rather detailed elaborations on the main themes.

The interviews did bring up new topics which could advance the existing theories on the learning

organization. Watkins et al. (2003; 2004; 2013) indicate the importance of ‘linking the organization to its

communities’ (such a notion is missing in the building blocks of Garvin et al.). The interviewees make

this far more explicit by centralizing their efforts around their customers’ (future and possibly yet

unknown) needs. When reviewing existing literature an active role for the customer within learning

organizations is absent or neglected (I could only find notions of analyzing customer data in existing

literature, not active involvement). A central role for the customer and actively working together and

learning with customers corresponds with current day trending literature, think only about the so often

quoted examples of Steve Jobs and his product introductions (‘You‘ve got to start with the customer

experience and work backwards to the technology’ (Jobs, 1997)), the Golden Circles of Simon Sinek

(Sinek, 2009), and the Value Proposition Canvas of Alex Osterwalder (Osterwalder, Pigneur, Bernarda,

& Smith, 2014). On this topic the learning organization literature might require a necessary update.

Also – to my knowledge - lacking in academic literature on the learning organization are the use of

existing methods to learn. How do they contribute to building a learning organization? What are the

effects of implementing existing methods on learning culture? And especially: how does it contribute in

creating a shared language? The latter might provide even more insights when researching how shared

language contributes to shared meaning and (individual, group and organizational) learning.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 54

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 55

8 Connecting WHY and HOW; towards an integrated framework

Current academic literature on learning organizations often takes for granted WHY one would want to

be(come) a learning organization. The changing environment is mostly stated as an immediate reason

for wanting to be a learning organization (also see chapter 6.1 on ‘Survival of the Fittest’). As we have

seen in chapter 6.2 sometimes other reasons can be found, such as quantifiable results or intrinsic

motivations. The same academic literature searches for HOW to build a learning organization by

exploring sets of organizational competencies to form the perfect learning organization (also see chapter

7). When fulfilling all these required competencies or building blocks organizations are then thought of

as learning organizations. However, analyzing the data gathered I realized that depending on WHY an

organization strives to be(come) a learning organization different approaches (HOW) can be

distinguished. Surprisingly existing research does not heed this connection between the WHY and

HOW.

WHY (see chapter 6) HOW (chapter 7.2) Characteristics

Traditional view: we need to adapt

and continuously improve in order to

survive (externally driven)

Change management approach Efforts aimed at changing organizational

culture: planned interventions; assigned

change agents; restructuring of the (hierarchal)

organization

Outcome based view: working

towards specific outcomes as

innovation and sustainability (might be

externally or internally driven)

Practice field approach Efforts aimed at generating a practice field:

establishment of a new business unit or project

team assigned with a specific task and treated

differently than the rest of the organization

(specific KPI’s, under direct supervision of

decision makers, other work conditions)

Identity view: who we are and want to

be as individuals and as an

organization (internally driven)

Social identity approach Efforts aimed at realizing one’s full potential (as

an individual and organization): strong

organizational culture, decisions are made

based on shared values and perceived

corporate identity, self-efficacy is highly valued

Analyzing the interview results and comparing the stories behind the organizations visited I found three

different combinations of WHY and HOW. They reflect the way the concept of the learning organizations

is viewed and approached within these organizations:

1. Changing organizational culture. At BAM, HDSR and Louwman the concept of the learning

organization was referred to as a means for changing organizational culture, ultimately aimed

at changing / influencing the behavior of employees (terms used were proactivity, accountability,

flexibility, initiating new ideas, making change happen). This follows the traditional WHY of

learning organization theory, namely organizations need to adapt to the changing environment,

hence the need to learn and develop. Fitting to this perspective is the use of change

management techniques for establishing desired characteristics (HOW), hence the use of

change agents (BAM) and development programs (HDSR). Change is initiated top-down, but

approached from an organic (continuous) perspective.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 56

2. Generating a practice field. The concept of the learning organization is also used to create

best practices to be enrolled (at a later stage) throughout the organization. At Deloitte for

example the approach of the learning organization is used to reach a specific goal, namely

product innovation. When best practices are discovered or innovations prove to be successful

these are implemented throughout the organization. A similar approach was taken in the case

study of Wilson and Beard (2014) in which Marks and Spencer applied the concept of the

learning organization to establish an exemplary sustainable retail store from which the learnings

would be applied to all other stores. This approach allows for experimentations, calculated risk

taking, focus, but also lots of creativity to be unleashed and learned from.

3. Realizing the full potential. Organizations like Bejo Zaden, ICM Opleidingen & trainingen,

Kessels & Smith and Springest applied the concept of the learning organization right from their

founding. It’s in their DNA and the people who form the organization. It stands for an intrinsic

belief in ways of working together. Within these organizations, the HOW naturally follows the

WHY question. Although specific choices for methods of working can be made (think of

Springest and its choice for Holacracy, Kaizen, Getting Things Done, etc.), such choices are

mainly based on a ‘gut feeling of what is right’ instead of wanting to implement specific changes

in behavior or organizational results.

Realizing these different combinations exist (more might be still uncovered), makes me wonder why

academic literature on learning organizations is not mentioning differences in perspective and approach.

It might have different reasons: the cases explored in this study might not truly be called learning

organizations, while they are viewed by others / do view themselves in that manner (so not very likely);

learning organizations know different degrees (similar to Wierdsma see chapter 3.2); the learning

organization concept is not suitable for every organization (for example large, established organizations

as BAM, Deloitte, HDSR, Louwman); or we need to redefine our thinking on learning organizations, and

especially pay more attention to WHY an organization strive to be(come) a learning organization and

HOW they can approach this. I strongly recommend future research to make specific statements on

which approach is being researched. It might be helpful to first conduct an ‘intake’ for the specific case

(conversation, desk research, survey), then define the WHY level, and then conduct the

interviews/research.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 57

9 Implications: Theory versus Practice

The aim of this thesis was to gain a better understanding of the reasons for people to strive to establish

learning organizations (the WHY) and HOW these organizations learn. Where authors search for the

ultimate definition and blueprint for THE learning organization, in practice the concept is perceived and

applied in very different ways. There it seems to encourage ways of thinking on how things can be

improved, and of how we can work and learn together without steering in the direction of a prefixed

solution. In this, the concept as it is perceived by practitioners seems to allow for sharing vision, creativity

and team work. Ultimately bringing (new) energy for doing things differently together as an organization.

Theorists and practitioners agree that continuous improvement and the ability to adapt and interact with

one’s environment are crucial for the success of organizations. When exploring WHY people strive to

establish learning organizations however, two different perspectives on this presumable given fact can

be distinguished: an externally driven perspective of the need to change to survive and an internally

driven perspective of experiencing change as a natural aspect of the organization. Though seemingly a

minor difference one might philosophize on the effects of the consequences of representing either

perspective. Such a difference in world view might influence approaches of change, company policies,

the selection and retention of people, learning possibilities offered etc.

Perceived results of learning organizations also contribute to the WHY question. In this, both the

researched practice and evidence provided by academic research are surprisingly similar. The

emphasis mostly lies on quantifiable results such as improved performance, facilitation of innovation

and a positive effect on employee outcomes. However, we have seen that intrinsic motivations of

decision makers and employees play a key role in reasons to striving to be(come) a learning

organization. Contributing to learning organization in this sense is associated with having a sense of

purpose, possibilities for self-efficacy, autonomy over one’s work, but also with having fun and being

inspired. As sense of purpose and fulfillment at work are increasingly important to people today (Deloitte,

2016) and learning organizations might be great facilitators in providing these values.

As to HOW people establish learning organizations, a first interesting observation is that the initiative

for taking a learning approach in practice always lies with the top executive(s) / founder(s) of the

organization. Their role and involvement is therefore crucial in building a learning organization and

facilitating necessary break-troughs in the structure and culture of the organization. Three approaches

could be distinguished in setting such strategy of execution: a change management approach, practice

field approach, and social identity approach.

Theory and practice proved to be rather similar when zooming in on the building blocks of learning

organizations. Almost all topics covered by the authors as Garvin et al. (1993; 2008) and Watkins et al.

(2003; 2004; 2013) (see page 36) were also spontaneously brought up by the interviewees when

speaking about the practice of (their) learning organizations. Discussed in this thesis were themes

deemed important by practitioners for enabling learning organizations. First of all, design for learning,

including empowering towards a collective vision; establishing an attractive and supportive physical

working environment; ensuring appropriate interaction with the environment; considering suitable

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 58

remuneration structures; providing clear scopes on autonomy and freedom; investing in learning.

Secondly, elements crucial to establishing a learning culture were discussed, including attracting and

retaining the ‘right people’ and the importance of being a role model (leader). Thirdly, different learning

practices were discussed, including personal development; formal learning practices; the sharing of

knowledge and information; learning on the job. A special note was taken on the generation of ideas

and experimentation and considering existing (project)management methodologies for defining suitable

ways of working together.

Not discussed in any of the interviews were ‘disciplined analysis and interpretation to identify and solve

problems’ (Garvin et al., 1993; 2008) and ‘work is designed to use groups to access different modes of

thinking’ (Watkins et al., 2003; 2004; 2013). The interviews did however bring up new topics which could

advance the existing theories on the learning organization (see section 7.3), including partnering with

customers, the use of existing methods to learn, and the role of shared language in establishing a

learning culture. Next to these topics, future research might consider questions that arose during the

process of writing this thesis, including:

In what manners does national culture affect (the precipitance of) the concept of the learning

organization?

In what manners can founding stories be exploited to contribute to the becoming of learning

organizations?

What is the effect of the physical working environment on concepts related to the learning

organization, such as openness to new ideas, feelings of empowerment, and efforts made on

working and learning together?

What best practices can be distinguished for learning together in true interaction and connection

with customers and other stakeholders?

What are the effects of different remuneration structures in learning and working together (as in

facilitating or paralyzing desired characteristics of a learning organization)?

What are the effects of investments in learning activities (formal and informal)?

What is the effect of having fun on employees and (individual, group and organizational)

learning?

How does shared language influence a (learning) culture?

The thesis concludes offering a framework connecting the questions of WHY and HOW together in three

different combinations, each with its own aims and approaches on the concept of the learning

organization: changing organizational culture, creating a practice field and realizing the full potential of

the organization. Where existing literature is often neglects to formulate the approach taken on the

concept of the learning organization this division makes it possible to clarify the reasoning behind the

application of the learning organization. Providing more depth and insights into future research and

enabling correct comparisons between different research on the learning organization. It is therefore

recommended to future researchers to make specific statements on which approach of the learning

organization is being researched.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 59

A final note to be made: Learning organization literature brings together so many areas of expertise in

one construct that it seems impossible to draw a clear academic scope. Though sub disciplines can be

researched, bringing them together in one concept as the learning organization seems too broad to truly

validate academically (also see chapter 4.5 on the limitations of the research approach). The learning

organization is therefore a term of practice, where it can add value by making it possible to discuss the

culture, ways of working (together) and individual differences and preferences in an energetic and

positive manner; everyone can visualize working within a learning organization in his or her manner. In

this sense, the learning organization is a concept that is used mainly in practice to implement necessary

changes (initiated top-down), to bring energy and flexibility within an organization. The question is if true

learning organizations ‘need’ such a concept to discuss their ways of working, or if such communication

is self-evident to them.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 60

10 Reflections on my personal learning journey

My journey of writing this thesis started from a personal curiosity in the topic of the learning organization.

I was determined to be open minded about the subject, to have an adventure in visiting different

organizations and to collect insights that are valuable to both academics and practitioners. I deliberately

kept my research questions as broad as possible to enable myself to wander through existing theories,

thoughts and to be truly surprised by arising answers. Although this has contributed greatly to my

personal learning experience, it has also made the journey more confusing, difficult and it took longer

than I anticipated. The results and final ‘product’ are of a totally different sort than I visualized prior the

start of my research and my personal view on the learning organization changed in ways I couldn’t have

imagined. Realizing I might write a Master thesis only once in my life I have tried to learn as much as

possible. Hence I also made the choice to visit many different organizations and take time for

conversations and reflection. I must also admit that this was not the most efficient approach I could have

taken and it was frustrating at times. Gathering and analyzing data was more challenging and time-

consuming than I expected, as well as writing, re-writing again and again. Still, I feel it is a privilege and

a luxury to have taken this approach. I would recommend every Master student to embrace the

opportunity to conduct a thesis to the fullest. Use the resources given to you. Take advantage of your

student status to contact people and organizations you are interested in. You’ll be surprised by the doors

opened to you.

Would I have done things differently now I look back on my journey? Of course! I wouldn’t have written

and rewritten again and again on existing literature prior conducting the interviews. I would start with

conducting the interviews as soon as possible, asking more direct questions during the interviews and

structure them even less. In other words, I would not let my own uncertainty about my knowledge and

capabilities take the better of me. I would also consider asking the interviewees to conduct a

questionnaire prior the interview specifically on the learning organization (for example the

questionnaires designed by Garvin et al. (2008; 1993), or Warsick et al. (2004; 2003; 2013) in order to

have a better insight in their priorities and practices as learning organizations. But most of all, I would

have more trust in my own instincts as a researcher, writer, and idealistic human being instead of

following academic status quo.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 61

11 Reference list

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams,

organizations and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, pp. 451-474.

Ahrens, T., & Dent, J. (1998). Accounting and organizations: realizing the richness of field research.

Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 1-39.

Aldridge, F., & Lavender, P. (2000). The impact of learning on health. UK: National Institute of Adult

Continuing Education.

Antonacopoulou, E., Jarvis, P., Andersen, V., Elkjaer, B., & Hoyrup, S. (2006). Learning, working and

living. Mapping the terrain of working life learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Management Learning,

42(4), 439-446.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass:

Addison Wesley.

Arthur, M., & Rousseau, D. (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new

organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.

Arthur, W. J., Bennett, W. J., Edens, P., & Bell, S. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations. A

meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 234-

245.

Bass, B. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 7(3), 18-40.

Baxter, J., & Chua, W. (1998). Doing field research: practice and meta-theory in counterpoint. Journal

of Management Accounting Research, 10, 69-87.

Bezuijen, X., Dam, K., Berg, v. d., & Thierry, H. (2010). How leaders stimulate employee learning: a

leader-member exchange approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

83, 673-693.

Brown, J. S., & Daguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified

view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Bui, H., & Baruch, Y. (2010). Creating learning organizations: a systems perspective. The Learning

Organization, 17(3), 208-227.

Burgoyne, J. (1995). Feeding minds to grow the business. People Management, 1(19), 22-25.

Caluwé, L., & Vermaak, H. (2006). Leren veranderen. Een handboek voor de veranderkundige (2nd

ed.). Deventer: Kluwer.

Campbell, T., & Cairns, H. (1994). Developing and measuring the learning organization. Industrial and

Commercial Training, 26(7), 10-15.

Chan, P., Cooper, R., & Tzortzopoulos, P. (2005). Organizational learning: conceptual challenges from

a project perspective. Construction Management and Economics, 23(7), 747-756.

Claxton, G. (1999). Wise up: the challenge of lifelong learning. London: Bloomsbury USA.

Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Rhodes, C. (2005). Learning/becoming/organizing. 12(2), 147-167.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 62

Collins, J. (2010). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others don't. New York:

Harper Business.

Colquitt, J., LePine, J., & Noe, R. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a meta-

analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, pp. 678-707.

Colville, I., Hennestad, B., & Thoner, K. (2014). Organizing, changing and learning: a sensemaking

perspective on an ongoing 'soap story'. Management Learning, 45(2), 216-234.

Coopey, J., & Burgoyne, J. (2000). Politics and organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies,

37(6), 869-885.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria.

Qualitative sociology, 13`(1), 3-21.

Davis, D., & Daley, B. (2008). The learning organization and its dimensions as key factors in firms'

performance. Human Resource Development International, 11(1), 51-66.

Day, D., Harrison, M., & Halphin, S. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting

adult development, identity and expertise. New York: Psychology Press.

De Meuse, K., Guangrong, D., & Hallenbeck, G. (2010). Learning agility: a construct whose time has

come. Consulting Psychology Journal, 62, 119-130.

Deloitte. (2016). Global Human Capital Trends 2016. The new organization: different by design. Deloite

University Press. Retrieved from http://dupress.com/periodical/human-capital-trends/

Deming, W. (1982). Out of crisis. MIT Press Ltd.

DeRue, D. S., Ashford, S. J., & Myers, C. G. (2012). Learning agility: In search of conceptual clarity and

theoretical grounding. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 258-279.

DeRue, D., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of developmental

challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,

859-857.

Dervitsiotis, K. (1998). The challenge of managing orgnaizational change: Exploring the relationship of

re-engineering, developing learning organizations and total quality management. Total Quality

Management, 9(1), 109-122.

Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J., & Araujo, L. (1999). Organizational learning and the learning

organization: Developments in theory and practice. London: Sage.

Egan, T., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and job

satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 15, pp. 279-301.

Eichinger, R., & Lombardo, M. (2004). Learning agility as a prime indicator of potential. Human Resource

Planning, 27, 12-16.

Feinstein, L., & Hammond, C. (2004). The contribution of adult learning to health and social capital.

Oxford Review of Education, 30, 199-221.

Filstad, C., & Gottschalk, P. (2011). Becoming a learning organization: The espoused values of police

managers from two Norwegian districts. The Learning Organization, 18(2), 486-500.

Finger, M., & Brand, S. (1999). The concept of the 'learning organization' applied to the transfromation

of the public sector. In M. Easerby-Smith, L. Araujo, & J. Burgoyne, Organizational Learning

and the Learning Organization. London: Sage.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 63

Fiol, C., & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803-813.

Gardiner, P., & Whiting, P. (1997). Succes factors in learning organization: an empirical study. Industrial

and commercial training, 29(2), 41-8.

Garvin, D. (1993, July-August). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 78-91.

Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008, March). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard

Business Review. Retrieved June 17, 2015, from https://hbr.org/archive-

toc/BR0803?cm_sp=Article-_-Links-_-Magazine%20Issue

Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2000). To transfer is to transform: the circulation of safety knowledge.

Organization, 7, 329-348.

Goh, S., & Richards, G. (1997). Benchmarking the learning capability of learning organizations.

European Management Journal, 15(5), 575-583.

Goodman, J., Wood, R., & Hendrickx, M. (2004). Feedback specificity, exploration, and learning. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 89, pp. 248-262.

Google Scholar. (2016, February 24). Learning organization. Opgehaald van

https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=nl&q=learning+organization&btnG=&lr=

Google Trends. (2016, February 24). Opgehaald van

https://www.google.nl/trends/explore#cmpt=q&q=learning+organization,+organizational+learni

ng&cat=0-12

Griego, O., Geroy, G., & Wright, P. (2000). Predictors of learning organizations: the human resource

development practitioner's perspective. The Learning Organization, 7(1), 5-12.

Grieves, J. (2008). Why we should abandon the idea of the learning organization. The Learning

Organization, 15(6), 463-473.

Hasson, H., Tafvelin, S., & Thiele Schwarz von, U. (2013). Comparing employees and managers'

perceptions of organizational learning, health and work performance. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 15(2), 163-176.

Hess, E. D. (2014). Learn or Die: Using science to build a leading-edge learning organization. In R.

Sarder, Building an innovative learning organization (p. 36). New York: Colombia University

Press.

Hoogveld, M. (2016). Agile managen, Snel en wendbaar werken aan continue verbetering in

organisaties (1st ed.). Van Duuren Management.

Hughes, R., & Tight, M. (1998). The myth of the learning society'. In S. Ranson, Inside the learning

society. London: Cassell.

Huysman, M. (2000). An organizational learning approach to the learning organization. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 133-145.

International Organizational Change Management Institute. (2016, April 22). Home. Opgeroepen op

April 22, 2016, van International Organizational Change Management Institute:

http://www.iocmi.org/

Jamali, D., Khoury, H., & Sahyoun, H. (2006). From bureaucratic organizations to learning organizations.

The Learning Organization, 13(4), 337-352.

Jansen, J., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic learderschp for exploration and exploitation: the

moderating role of environmental dynamism. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 5-18.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 64

Jiminéz-Jiminéz, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance.

Journal of Business Research, 64, 408-417.

Jobs, S. (1997, May). Q&A with Steve Jobs. World Wide Developers Conference. Retrieved from

http://everystevejobsvideo.com/qa-with-steve-jobs-wwdc-1997/

Kerka, S. (1995). The learning organization. Myths and realities. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse

on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Kerklaan, T. (2016). De wendbare organisatie (1st ed.). Vakmedianet.

Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). Effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a

meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, pp.

254-284.

Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: the heart of learning organizations.

Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 5-23.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of

technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.

Kuchinke, K. (1995). Managing Learning for Performance. In S. Kerka, The learning organization. Myths

and realities (p. 4). Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational

Education.

Kululanga, G., Edum-Fotwe, F., & McCaffer, R. (2001). Measuring construction contractors'

organizational learning. Building Research Information, 29(1), 21-29.

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

and proposals for its measurement. British Journal of Management, 12(2), 113-129.

Lewis, M., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W. (2014). Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility.

California Management Review, 56(3), 58-77.

Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Friedham, V. (2002). A multifacet model of organizational learning. The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38(1), 78-98.

Marshall, M. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice(13), 522-525.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003, May). Demonstrating the value of an organizationa's learning

culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in developing

human resources, 5(2), 132-151.

Maslyn, J., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort

and other's effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 27, pp. 1031-1056.

Mason, M. (2009, April 6). The Learning Organization. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from MKM Research:

http://www.moyak.com/papers/learning-organization-presentation.pdf

Maurer, T., Pierce, H., & Shore, I. (2002). Perceived benificiary of employee development activity: A

three-dimensional social exchange model. Academy of Management Review, 27, 432-444.

Mayo, A., & Lank, E. (1994). The power of learning; a guide to gaining competitive advantage. London:

IPD House.

McCauley, C., & Hezlett, S. (2001). Individual development in the workplace. In N. Anderson, D. Ones,

H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran, Industrial work and organizational psychology (1 ed., pp. 313-

335). Thousand Oaks, CA/London: Sage.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 65

Messick, S. (1975). The standard problem: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation.

American Psychologist, 30, 955-966.

Michael, S. (2005). The Promise of Appreciative Inquiry as an Interview Tool for Field Research.

Development in Practice, 15(2), 222-230.

Mikkelsen, A., Saksvik, P., Eriksen, H., & Ursin, H. (1999). The impact of learning opportunities and

decision authoriy on occupational health. Work Stress, 13, 20-31.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Towards a shared craft.

Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20-30.

Moilanen, R. (2005). Diagnosing and measuring learning organizations. The Learning Organization,

12(1), 71-89.

Noe, R., & Wilk, S. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees' participation in

development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, pp. 291-302.

O'Dwyer, B. (2004). Qualitative Data Analysis: Illuminating a Process for Transforming a 'Messy' but

'Attractice' 'Nuisance'. In The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research: A Behind-the-Scenes

View of Using Qualitative Research Methods. Elsevier.

Örtenblad, A. (2001). On differences between organizational learning and learning organization. The

Learning Organization, 8(3), 125-133.

Örtenblad, A. (2004). The learning organization: towards an integrated model. The Learning

Organization, 11(2), 129-144.

Örtenblad, A. (2011). Making sense of the learning organization: What is it and who needs it? Malaysia:

Yayasan Ilmuwan.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2014). Value Proposition Design, How to create

products and services customers want. John Wiley & Sons.

Pascale, R. T., & Sternin, J. (2005, May). Your Company's Secret Change Agents. Harvard Business

Review, 73-81.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearn, M., Roderick, C., & Mulrooney, C. (1995). Learning organizations in practice. Maidenhead:

McGraw-Hill.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1991). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable

development. London: McGraw-Hill.

Peters, T., & Waterman Jr, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row.

Poell, R., Dam, v. K., & Berg, v. d. (2004). Organising learning in work contexts. Applied Psychology.

An International Review, 53, 529-540.

Rebelo, M. T., & Gomes, A. D. (2008). Organizational learning and the learning organization. The

Learning Organization, 15(4), 294-308.

Redding, J., & Catalanello, R. (1994). Strategic readiness. The making of the learning organization. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Retna, K., & Ng, T. P. (2016). The application of learning organization to enhance learning in Singapore

schools. Management in Education, 1-9.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 66

Robbins, S. (2003). Organizational behaviour (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson

Education.

Ruijters, M. (2006). Liefde voor leren. Over diversiteit van leren en ontwikkelen in en van organisaties.

Deventer: Vakmedianet.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1999). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in

Education, 23, 1-24.

Sandberg, J. (2005). How do we justify knowledge produced within interpretative approaches?

Organizational Research Methods, 8(1), 41-68.

Sarder, R. (2016). Building an innovative learning organization. A framework to build a smarter

workforce, adapt to change, and drive growth. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Schön, D. (1973). Beyond the stable state. Public and private learning in a changing society.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the Learning organization.

Doubledag/Currency.

Sexton, M., & Lu, S.-L. (2009). The challenges of creating actionable knowledge: an action research

perspective. Construction Management and Economics, 27(7), 683-694.

Sheenan, M. (2004). Learning as a consturction of a new reality. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(3),

179-196.

Simon, P., & Ruijters, M. (2003). Professionals’ conceptions of learning, development, change and

innovation. Universiteit Utrecht. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from

file:///C:/Users/szweers/Downloads/5685%20(1).pdf

Sinek, S. (2009, September). How great leaders inspire action. TED. Opgehaald van

http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action?language=en

Smith, G. E., Barnes, K. J., & Harris, C. (2014). A learning approach to the ethical organization. The

Learning Organization, 21(2), 113-125.

Smith, M. (2001, 2007). The learning organization. Opgeroepen op 02 01, 2016, van The encyclopedia

of informal education: http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-organization.htm.

Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Ohly, S. (2004). Learning at work: Training and development.

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 249-289.

Suri, & Harsh. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative research

journal, 11(2), 63-75.

Tannenbaum, S. (1997). Enhancing continuous learning: diagnostic findings from multiple companies.

Human Resource Management, 36(4), 437-452.

Thomsen, H., & Hoest, V. (2001). Employees' perception of the learning organization. Management

Learning, 32(4), 469-491.

Tsang, E. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organizatin: a dichotomy between descriptive

and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1), 57-70.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change.

Organizational Science, 13, 576-582.

Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (1992). Building the learning organization: a new role for human resource

developers. Studies in Continuing Education, 12(2), 115-129.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 67

Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science

of systematic change. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (1999). Dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (2012). Dimensions of the learning organisation questionnaire. Retrieved 11

13, 2015, from www.partnersforlearning.com/instructions.html

Watkins, K., & O'Neil, J. (2013). The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire (the DLOQ):

A nontechnical manual. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(2), 133-147.

Weick, K., & Westley, F. (1996). Organizational learning: affirming an oxymoron. In S. R. Clegg, C.

Hardy, & W. R. Nord, Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 440-458). London: Sage.

Wheatley, M. J., & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996). The irrestible future of organizing. Retrieved July 5, 2015,

from www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/irresistiblefuture.html

Wierdsma, A., & Emmering, M. (2004). Een cybernetische ingang naar organisationeel leren. M&O(3),

29-48.

Wierdsma, A., & Swieringa, J. (1992). Op weg naar een lerende organisatie: over het leren en opleiden

van organisaties. Noordhoff Uitgevers.

Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. (2016, February 24). Learning. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning

Willem, J. (1987). Studietaken als instructiemiddel. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmgen.

Wilson, J. (2005). The learning organisation questionnaire. Opgeroepen op 11 13, 2015, van

www.conted.ox.ac.uk/courses/professional/lnat/is_yours_a_learning_organization.php

Wilson, J. P., & Beard, C. (2014). Constructing a sustainable learning organization. The Learning

Organization, 21(2), 98-112.

Yang, B., Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions,

measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 31-55.

Yeo, R. (2007). Change intervations to organizational learing: Bravo to leaders as unifying agents. The

Learning Organization, 14(6), 524-552.

Yeung, A., Ulrich, P., Nason, S., & Von Glinow, M. (1999). Organizational learning capability; Generating

and generalizing ideas with impact. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Learning Organizations in 2016: Theory versus Practice 68

Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing.