Singularly defining organisational learning (OL) whilst encompassing all its individual facets is a formidable task; indeed, according to Manuti et al. (2015), it is one which is has not yet been achieved. Therefore, the appropriate path to take here may be one whereby OL is given a simplistic and broad definition. As posited by Argote (2011), OL occurs when ideas and responses change due to experiences within the workplace, thereby creating knowledge.
The success of OL is dependent on several factors, a key one being the learning culture of the organisation. This viewpoint is expressed by Rebelo and Duarte Gomes (2011), who state three essential aspects:
1) Leadership support for training programs
2) Promoting the transfer of knowledge company-wide
3) Acquiring workers with high levels of education
In the case of Company X, the first two points are relevant. Within senior management levels, most training is observed as a regulatory necessity, whereas “learning” is seen more ambivalently. Undoubtedly, this level of non-commitment is sure to impact on business. For Company X to progress to a learning organisation, they must adapt to changing times and HRD must find ways to make learning easy, accessible and valuable (CIPD, 2017). The CIPD suggests two methods which can be utilised by HRD practitioners: introducing “just in time” training, i.e., bitesize chunks, and regular communication between superior and subordinate to ensure learning behaviours are assimilated and acted upon. Indeed, Labre and Lauzier (2021) propose to train managers to be cognisant of the importance of exhibiting those desired behaviours themselves.
Wang and Ahmed (2003) go further and propose that being innovative and creative are key aspects of organisational learning that will lead to maintaining a competitive advantage. This can be achieved by HRD practitioners emphasising a systems perspective, and hence triple-loop learning. This promotes deep reflection on OL and the steps taken to change the context of the organisation in general, rather than just individual processes (Clark, 2021). To this end, Company X may implement processes based on the work of Crossan et al. (1999). They propose that there are three levels to learning, namely: individual, group, and organisational. The processes associated herewith are:
1) Intuiting: recognising that individual experiences provide opportunities
2) Interpreting: taking the tacit knowledge gained from intuiting and verbalising it
3) Integrating: sharing knowledge through dialogue and behaviours
4) Institutionalising: taking all individual and group knowledge and enshrining it within organisational processes
Following and executing the steps of this model on a continuous cycle should ensure that learning takes place throughout the organisation, thereby increasing competitive advantage.
A particular barrier evident within Company X is that individuals are not encouraged to take ownership of their own learning and engage with cross-departmental communication as a means of knowledge transfer. Indeed, Billett and Choy (2013) claim that these are essential elements of organisational learning. As supported by Fuller and Unwin (2011) the concept of communities of practice (COPs), whereby work and learning co-exist, could be suggested as a possible solution, and they maintain that COPs are part of an expansive working climate required for cultivating learning practices.
Are the suggested solutions for HRD practitioners are sufficient to overcome the challenges that Company X is facing? As the organisation is privately owned, how can the CEO be persuaded to implement changes they currently do not perceive as necessary?
