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
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.