Complexity and Organizational Learning, Part 2

The theory of organizational learning has developed through phases over the course of the last century, from functional improvement within specific problems, to organizational adaptation within complex environments, to the development of specific processes and tools for implementing a learning organization (Nair, 2001). As one key development, Argyris and Schön (1978) conceptualized single-loop versus double-loop learning within the OD context. Double-loop learning closely examines underlying assumptions, norms, and values impacting organization development (Putnam, 2014) (see figure 1). While functional problem correction only requires single-loop learning, adaptation to complex challenges within a dynamic systems requires double-loop learning (Patton, 2011). Another key OD contribution, Senge (1990) operationalized organizational learning into five disciplines: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning. Senge’s book, The Fifth Discipline, popularized double-loop organizational learning and brought systems thinking into mainstream OD practice (Nair, 2001).

Despite these theoretical efforts to articulate organizational learning, Tschakert and Dietrich (2010) noted that “the methodological toolbox is sparsely equipped to facilitate and sustain adaptive and anticipatory learning in the face of complex risks and uncertainties” (p. 12). Nonetheless, organizational learning tools focused on generating adaptations to complexity are emerging. For example, Patton (2011) outlined a framework for developmental evaluation: an ongoing process of experimentation that adapts to the realities of complex non-linear dynamics, keenly aware of unintended consequences and opportunities. Marshak and Bushe developed dialogic OD, investigating how conversations, processes, images, and leaders socially construct organizational reality and generate adaptive solutions (Marshak & Bushe, 2018). Witherspoon (2014) introduced a model of double-loop coaching, which is “designed to foster deep learning...helping leaders reflect critically on their own behavior—especially the way they think about or frame key situations” (p. 262). Meanwhile, Worley, Williams, and Lawler (2014) presented evidence that companies with superior financial performance utilize “agile” practices: perceiving, testing, learning, and implementing. In short, the work of developing theory, processes, and tools for organizational learning continues apace. However, the question remains: How applicable are these cerebral theoretical constructs in the realm of visceral practice?

--

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Marshak, R. and Bushe, G. (2018). Planned and generative change in organization development. OD Practitioner, 40(4), 9-15.

Patton, M. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, New York: The Guilford Press.

Putnam, R. (2014). Double-loop learning. In Couglin, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.) (2014). The Sage Encyclopedia of Action Research. [online]. Retrieved from  https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406.n118.

Tschakert, P., and K. A. Dietrich. (2010). Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecology and Society 15(2), [online]. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art11/.

Witherspoon, R. (2014). Double-loop coaching for leadership development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,50(3), 261–283.

Worley, C., Williams, T., & Lawler, E. (2014). The agility factor: Building adaptable organizations for superior performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.