The Learning Organization

Self Test Questions

What does it mean to say we are in a ‘knowledge economy’?

Why is it important for companies to be good at ‘knowledge management?

What things stop companies from being good at knowledge management?

What is a ‘learning organization’?

What is meant by a ‘defensive routine’? Give two examples of defensive routines based on personal experience?

The term ‘learning organization’ is no more than managerial rhetoric. Discuss.

Organizations cannot learn, only people can. Therefore any talk of a ‘learning organization’ is meaningless. Discuss.

Can any organization really ‘facilitate the learning of all its members’?

Employee involvement (EI) refers to a wide range of management owned initiatives which range in scope from: (1) providing basic information to employees (e.g. via a corporate newspaper), to (2) other more involved forms of communication (e.g. regular briefings), through the use of (3) consultation processes where employees have a level of input into decision-making, to (4) initiatives which offer co-determination (e.g. via up-ward problem solving) and ultimately, (5) even control (e.g. self-managing teams). These five stages represent what Marchington and Wilkinson (1999: 343) have called the ‘ladder’ or ‘escalator’ of participation. What each stage has in common with the others is that it represents a departure from a traditional Taylorist view that division of labour is the key to organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Instead of workers merely being ‘machine minders’ carrying out repetitive and fragmented jobs, under EI, they are actively encouraged to provide solutions, or at the very least kept aware of changes which may affect them (Wilkinson 1998). This difference is enough to suggest that although there have been different forms and patterns of worker participation in the past, EI represents a novel form of participation.

This change in the context of contemporary industrial relations can be couched in the rhetoric of a new knowledge economy, with firms now having to make use of intellectual capital, in the form of their workers, in order to remain competitive. Accordingly, EI schemes complement the idea that people represent the only source of sustainable competitive advantage. Hyman and Mason write that, "EI [employee involvement] is an essential component of any move towards HRM (1995: 60)." Setting aside for a moment this rather upbeat and encouraging message, it is important to be aware that increased participation (or the claim that workers have a greater degree of participation) does not by itself guarantee greater autonomy, self-management or genuine power. This may be particularly true where EI is explicitly intended to ‘replace’ a trade union. EI schemes are management owned and their primary concern is to realise organizational goals, unlike unions which offer a basis for negotiation, consultation and bargaining on behalf of their members. Even if we are talking of the top of the participation ladder, some writers have criticised the ‘tyranny of teams’ (Sinclair 1992), suggesting these represent a stronger, more insidious form of control (Barker 1993) than the traditional methods under a system of division of labour.

Another consideration to keep in mind is that much of what determines the success or failure of a scheme depends on one’s perspective and also on the particular context. To this extent it is perhaps meaningless to talk of EI, or a form of EI being a good or bad thing. We would first have to ask, for whom? A comprehensive answer to this would go beyond a simplistic worker – manager dichotomy, but consider different levels of the organization and different departments and functions as well as other stakeholders, such as shareholders. Secondly we would need to assess an EI initiative in terms of an organization’s industrial and historical contexts. Ultimately, a sophisticated assessment of the nature of EI as a form of participation is likely to rely on understanding the nature of the employment relationship, which is "…built upon both conflict and co-operation (Marchington and Wilkinson 1999: 359)."

Further Reading:
Barker J. (1993) ‘Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437
Hyman J. and Mason B. (1995) Managing Employee Involvement and Participation, Sage, London
Marchington M., Goodman J., Wilkinson A. and Ackers P. (1992) New Developments in Employee Involvement, Employment Department Report, UMIST, Manchester
Marchington M. and Wilkinson A. (1999) ‘Direct Participation’ in S. Bach and K. Sisson (Eds.), Personnel Management: 340-364
Sinclair A. (1992) ‘The Tyranny of a Team Ideology’, Organization Studies, 13(4) 611-626