reading analysis (graduate level)

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20287 LEARNING BARRIERS: A FRAME- WORK FOR THE EXAMINATION OF STRUCTURAL IMPEDIMENTS TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE REMCO SCHIMMEL AND DENNIS R. MUNTSLAG The body of knowledge on organizational learning is believed to be large and fragmented. Therefore, this knowledge seems to be of limited use to practi- tioners. We, however, present an alternative review of the most important publications on organizational learning that deals explicitly with learning barriers. The structural causes of problems with organizational learning are related to malfunctioning components of the cybernetic learning system of the organization. Thus, it became clear that the body of knowledge on organi- zational learning is less fragmented and does not contain any contradictions.

This resulted in our construction of a framework in which the major contri- butions on organizational learning are integrated. It allows practitioners to use strengths of multiple theories to analyze change management problems.

Keywords: organizational learning, change management, learning barriers Introduction: The Relevance of Organizational Learning T his article discusses the importance of organizational learning for change management by linking organiza- tional change to the concept of organizational learning. To facilitate organizational change, barriers that prevent individuals from learning from their mistakes (that is, problems with single loop learning) and barriers that prevent individuals from adapting organizational practices that are no longer effective (that is, problems with double loop learning) should be eliminated. Since these barriers are responsible for the discrep- ancy between individual learning and organi- zational learning (or even organizational growth), they have special relevance for human resources management. Eliminating these bar- riers may be necessary when there is a need for large-scale organizational changes, such as mergers, enterprise systems implementations, the introduction of supply chain management principles, and the introduction of new man- agement accounting principles. From an academic point of view, however, dealing with these problems is tough. Many overview Correspondence to: Remco Schimmel, Ministry of Defense, P.O. Box 20701, 2500 E.S. The Hague, The Netherlands.

E-mail: [email protected] 400 H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , MAY–JUNE 2009 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm articles (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Dodgson, 1993; Easterby-Smith, 1997; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Huber, 1991; Jones, 1995; Levitt & March, 1988; Mirvis, 1996; Shrivastava, 1983) suggest that the body of knowledge on organizational learning is large yet fragmented.

Argyris and Schön (1996) give a brief but comprehensive overview on the different schools of organizational learning. For prac- titioners, this perceived lack of consistency in the different schools is a major barrier when using a specific organizational learn- ing theory. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate that this body of knowledge does not con- tain contradictions and thus al- lows practitioners to use multiple theories from the field of organi- zational learning to predict change management problems. Research Method This study is a literature review of existing overview articles and separate publications on organi- zational learning that constructs a framework for the detection of learning problems or change management problems. We based our selections on two criteria: (1) the extent to which new causes for organizational learning prob- lems were discussed in the articles concerned, and (2) the extent to which the inclusion of an article led to a more pluralistic view on the causes for organizational learning problems. In contrast to existing overview articles on organizational learning, we pay no specific attention to the origins of different schools of organizational learning or to the differences among the various streams on organizational learning discussed. Instead, we discuss the causes of organizational learning barriers and their re- lations to a cybernetic learning system. By following this approach, practitioners can gain new insights on the degree of fragmen- tation in the body of knowledge on organi- zational learning. Structure We first discuss the idea of change as a collec- tive learning process and the importance of uninterrupted learning cycles. Then we pres- ent a generic model for organizational learning based on Argyris and Schön’s (1996) defini- tions. This model is enriched with functions of a cybernetic control model (based on Bould- ing, 1956, and in’t Veld, 2002). Thus, we apply the principles of systems theory to describe the phenomena of organizational single loop and double loop learning. This enriched model functions as a lens through which we examine problems with organizational learning. Subse- quently, we classify the learning barriers dis- cussed both in terms of their causes and in terms of malfunctioning components of a cy- bernetic control model. We then construct an m*n matrix with seven classes of learning bar- riers and six classes of causes, and we position various contributions in existing literature in this matrix. By presenting learning barriers in a matrix, we show that the various contribu- tions to organizational learning do not contain any contradictions but actually refer to differ- ent elements of a cybernetic learning system.

Moreover, we show that different explanations for learning barriers can coexist because they refer to different causes. After unraveling the perceived contradictions in this body of knowl- edge, we present some conclusions and direc- tions for further research.

A Generic Framework for Collective Learning Barriers Change as a Learning Process Lievers and Lubberding (1996) discuss the problems of organizational change in depth.

They state that organizational change might require not just a change in structures, pro- cedures, or systems, but also a change in be- havior or even a change in the norms and values that guide organizational behavior— norms and values represented by cognitions (schemata: knowledge structures, mental models, cognitive maps, or theories in use) and attitudes toward current organizational practices. Thus, effective change is made by This study is a literature review of existing overview articles and separate publications on organizational learning that constructs a framework for the detection of learning problems or change management problems. L EARNING BARRIERS 401 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm modifying these cognitions and attitudes (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Bateson, 1972). An organizational learning process is a process in which cognitions and attitudes are modi- fied (Argyris & Schön, 1996).

When classifying organizational change, Bartunek and Moch (1987) see a dichotomy in which cognitions toward present under- standings play an important role in under- standing organizational change. They distinguish “first-order change” (the tacit reinforcement of present understandings) and “second-order change” (the conscious modification of present schemata in a par- ticular direction). In these definitions the word schemata refers to representations of cause-and-effect relationships of real-life phenomena in individuals’ minds. Argyris and Schön (1996) present a similar dichot- omy but do not stress the cognitive aspects (theories in use). They also mention the at- titude aspects (values) as they describe first- order change as single loop learning (i.e., learning that changes strategies of actions or assumptions underlying strategies in a way that leaves the value of the theory un- changed) and describe second-order change as double loop learning (i.e., learning that results in a change in the values of theory- in-use, as well as in its strategies and as- sumptions). In the first definitions of these two sets, change only touches the surface of an organization; that is, the governing vari- ables of organizational behavior, cognitions, and attitudes in individuals’ minds remain unchanged. Thus, through a strategy of penalties and rewards (Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1985), individuals might be willing to expose the behavior as intended in a change proposal. But this change in behavior may disappear as quickly as the rewards and pen- alties that provoked it disappear (Klein, 1989). Therefore, more permanent change requires a form of learning that modifies attitudes and cognitions toward current practices (that is, double loop learning).

From Learning Cycles to Cybernetics Most learning processes are described as cy- clical processes (Daft & Weick, 1984; Dixon, 1994; Garrat, 1987; Huysman & van der Vlist, 1998; Kim, 1993; Kolb, 1984; March & Olsen, 1976; Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydel, 1996). These learning cycles are usually com- posed of (1) elements of action, (2) elements of reflection on these actions, and (3) ele- ments in which the theories in use with re- gard to these actions are modified. Learning barriers result from interruptions of these cycles. Neither the causes of learning barriers nor the kinds of interruptions are explicitly discussed in the literature. There- fore, we will borrow the original idea of a cybernetic learning sys- tem from Argyris and Schön (1996) and translate learning bar- riers into terms of malfunction- ing components of a cybernetic control model. Cybernetics Applied to Organizational Learning In systems theory (Boulding, 1956; in’t Veld, 2002), a single control loop consists of four elements: a norm, a measuring unit, a comparator (to detect differences between measure- ments and norms), and a correc- tion unit (to correct the process when differences are detected).

An example of a single control loop is a thermostat, which sends a steering signal to a heating device when its sensors regis- ter a deviation from the target temperature.

As an analogy, the following preconditions are required for single loop learning in a social system (see Figure 1):

The availability of a stable norm, The availability of a comparator, The availability of feedback on collective actions, The availability of a correction mechanism, The availability of an evaluation mechanism, and Learning barriers result from interruptions of these [learning] cycles.

Neither the causes of learning barriers nor the kinds of interruptions are explicitly discussed in the literature. 402 H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , MAY–JUNE 2009 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm The availability of a recalibration mechanism.

The Availability of a Stable Norm The norms (cognitions, attitudes) that guide organizational behavior should not change too quickly. The duration of the interval between two subsequent changes should be typically longer than the re- sponse time the organization’s members need to adjust their behavior to a new norm. We label learning barriers that refer to unstable norms as learning barriers due to the speed of change.

The Availability of a Comparator Feedback should be compared with an exist- ing organizational norm to detect errors. If this comparison cannot be made, we label these learning barriers due to poor feedback (for example, when feedback is distorted, deteriorated, manipulated, or not enriched with relevant context information). The Availability of Feedback on Collective Actions Feedback on collective or individual action is required to learn from mistakes. We label learning barriers that refer to lack of feed- back as learning barriers due to the absence of feedback. However, we label learning barriers that refer to feedback that remains unnoticed but is still available to the actors concerned as learning barriers due to ne- glecting feedback.

The Availability of a Correction Mechanism If deviations between organizational norms and actual performance are detected, an orga- nization’s members should have ample oppor- tunity to correct these errors (if these errors are not corrected in time, they may be taken as correct organizational behaviors) (Argyris, 1992). We label learning barriers that refer to the lack of correction mechanisms as learning barriers due to lack of autonomy. Environmental Processes to Be Managed Measurement / Data Collection Comparator Correction Mechanism Organizational ActionEnvironmental Responses Feedback Evaluation Recalibration Corrective Action Organizational Single Loop LearningOrganizational Double Loop Learning Existing Organizational Norms Renewed Organizational Norms FIGURE 1. The Role of Cybernetics in Single Loop and Double Loop Learning L EARNING BARRIERS 403 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm In systems theory, a double control loop system consists of six elements—all the elements of a single control loop control system plus an evaluation mechanism that ex- amines the applicability of norms that guide the single loop control system and a recalibra- tion mechanism that adjusts the norms that guide the single loop mechanism. An example of such a system is adjusting a thermostat’s temperature setting because another tempera- ture may feel more comfortable. Following this analogy, these preconditions are required for double loop learning in a social system.

The availability of an evaluation mecha- nism and The availability of a recalibration mecha- nism.

The Availability of an Evaluation Mechanism The applicability of the norms (cognitions, at- titudes) that guide organizational behavior should be evaluated frequently in order to es- tablish the effectiveness of current organiza- tional practices. This is typically done in an intraorganizational dialogue in which the premises and conclusions in current organiza- tional knowledge systems can be discussed and perhaps falsified. We label learning barriers that refer to the absence of an evaluation mechanism as learning barriers due to the ab- sence of a dialogue between organizational members.

The Availability of a Recalibration Mechanism When the applicability of current organiza- tional norms is no longer considered valid, experiments are needed in order to justify the use of alternative sets of norms. The underly- ing assumption is that an organization’s mem- bers can only experience the usefulness of new cognitions (Kolb, 1984). Thus, attitudes toward new cognitions are primarily rooted in con- crete experience. We label learning barriers that refer to lack of experience related to alter- native knowledge systems as learning barriers due to the absence of experiments.

Finally, a well-functioning single loop learning control loop is needed to achieve double loop learning (without reliable feed- back, the applicability of current norms can never be evaluated because the process of organizational dialogue lacks reliable input; see Figure 2). An Empty Framework (Matrix) Now that we have identified seven types of learning problems (learning barriers due to the Environmental Processes to Be Managed Measurement/ Data Collection Comparator Correction Mechanism Organizational ActionEnvironmental Responses Feedback Evaluation Recalibration Corrective Action Organizational Single Loop LearningOrganizational Double Loop Learning Existing Organizational Norms Renewed Organizational Norms Learning barriers due to the absence of a dialogue Learning barriers due to the absence of experiments Learning barriers due to neglecting feedback Learning barriers due to the absence of feedback Learning barriers due to poor feedback Learning barriers due to the speed of change Learning barriers due to a lack of autonomy FIGURE 2. Learning Barriers in Single Loop and Double Loop Learning 404 H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , MAY–JUNE 2009 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm TABLE I Common Causes for the Lack of Single Loop Learning and Double Loop Learning Locus of collective learning barrier -> No single loop learning due to absence of feedback No single loop learning due to neglecting feedback No single loop learning due to poor feedback No single loop learning due to lack of autonomy No single loop learning due to change of speed No double loop learning due to absence of dialogue No double loop learning due to absence of experiments Cause of collective learning barrier:

Environmental structures:

1. Market structures (monopolies)X 2. Governance structure (political decision making)XXX Strategy:

3. Audience learning (internal neutralization)X 4. Uncompleted strategic cyclesX 5. Passive strategic orientationX 6. Too narrow de nitions of the task environmentX 7. Nonincremental approach to the implementation of a strategyX 8. Overwhelming amount of content in strategiesX 9. Unbalanced teams of change agentsXXX Organizational culture:

10. Leadership behavior that institutionalizes programmed behaviorX 11. Authoritarian leadership stylesX 12. Leadership behavior that does not promote organizational dialoguesX 13. Rigid socialization mechanismsX 14. Emergence of subcultures due to different technologies, markets, and geographical circumstancesX Organizational structure:

15. Horizontal and vertical division of labor, process standardizationXXXX X X L EARNING BARRIERS 405 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm absence of feedback, neglecting feedback, poor feedback, a lack of autonomy, the speed of change, the absence of a dialogue, and the absence of experiments; see Figure 2), we can construct an empty framework. This frame- work consists of a matrix with columns formed by these seven types of learning problems and with rows formed by a number of classified root causes we identified in our literature re- view (environmental structures, strategy, orga- nizational culture, organizational structure, management and processes, and information systems). Since we found no explicit links in the literature between these types of learning problems and their causes, this classification of root causes should be regarded as our taxon- omy. Thus, the empty framework consists of seven learning barriers and six classes of root causes (see structure formed by rows and col- umns in Table I). In the following section we will plot the position of the most important literature contributions in this framework.

TABLE I Continued. Locus of collective learning barrier -> No single loop learning due to absence of feedback No single loop learning due to neglecting feedback No single loop learning due to poor feedback No single loop learning due to lack of autonomy No single loop learning due to change of speed No double loop learning due to absence of dialogue No double loop learning due to absence of experiments Cause of collective learning barrier:

Management and processes:

16. Nature of processes—long intervals between cause and effect X 17. Using reward systems to promote compliance with existing organizational normsXXX Information systems:

18. Defensive routines in communication processes, lack of psychological safetyXX X 19. Limited distribution outreach of formal information systemsX 20. Limited cognitive capabilities of human decision makersXX 21. Power orientation actors in com- munication processes, pursuit of unilateral controlX 22. Use of poor media in communication processes X (X) 23. Leaving out context information in communication processesX (X) 24. Lines of reasoning not made explicit in communication processesX (X) 25. In uence of socialization processes and organizational structures not made explicit in communication processesX (X) 406 H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , MAY–JUNE 2009 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm The Relevance of Single Loop Learning for Change Management To renew current organizational practices, there must be a certain need to determine their obsolescence objectively. However, it will be difficult to establish this process if there is no reliable feedback on the performances of cur- rent organizational processes. Therefore, we will first discuss learning barriers with regard to single loop learning (see Figure 2).

Learning Barriers Due to the Absence of Feedback Learning barriers in this category usually indicate the presence of separations in or- ganizational structures, information sys- tems, or communication systems that block the free flow of information. They have their roots in the following causes:

Organizational structure (division of labor), Strategy (audience learning), Information systems (communication processes), Information systems (distribution out- reach), and Strategies (uncompleted change manage- ment strategies).

Organizational Structure (Division of Labor) The division of labor by creating hierarchy and specialized staff departments leads to the sepa- ration of decision tasks, policy tasks, and im- plementation tasks. These separations could prevent feedback on poor decisions, poor poli- cies, or badly executed tasks from reaching the proper organizational level (Pedler et al., 1996; Wierdsma & Swieringa, 2002).

Strategy (Audience Learning) The effects of an individual’s acts are neu- tralized by other individuals carrying out an organization’s strategy or policy (audience learning). Thus, the individuals concerned might not receive any feedback on the posi- tive or negative side effects of their acts (March & Olsen, 1976).

Information Systems (Communication Processes) Errors are covered up and the existence of these cover-ups is not discussed in order to prevent someone from losing face or to protect one’s own position. To avoid resistance, em- ployees might even act in secret when carrying out their individual plans. Thus, because of these defensive routines, managers might not receive any feedback on the negative side ef- fects of their decisions (Argyris, 1992).

Information Systems (Distribution Outreach) The distribution of information is formally restricted to a limited number of employees.

Thus, information might not reach the orga- nizational level with the highest problem- solving power (Daft & Huber, 1987). Similar effects might manifest themselves if personal experiences are not recorded for later use (Kim, 1993).

Strategies (Uncompleted Change Management Strategies) If a strategic cycle has not been completed (that is, if a strategy is not fully implemented or is never evaluated), these interruptions might inhibit unlearning ineffective organiza- tional behavior since organizations unlearn in the same way they learn—that is, by complet- ing an entire learning cycle (Hedberg, 1991). In unbalanced change management teams (i.e., a team in which either the thinking style or the doing style is dominant), the essential feed- back on actions or reflections might also be missing (Boomers, 1989). Learning Barriers Due to Neglecting Feedback Learning barriers in this category usually refer to some form of programmed behavior L EARNING BARRIERS 407 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm (i.e., always giving the same response to a known stimulus while ignoring differences in the organizational context that might in- dicate the need for another response). They have their roots in the following causes:

Management and processes (nature of processes), Environmental structures (market structures), Organizational structure (division of labor), Organizational culture (institutionaliza- tion by leadership behavior), Strategy (passive orientation of organizations), and Information systems (limited cognitive capabilities in human decision makers).

Management and Processes (Nature of Processes) If there is a long interval between acts (causes) and consequences (effects), feedback on ac- tions might fall behind an individual’s learn- ing horizon. Thus, the side effects of these actions might not be noticed (Senge, 1990).

Environmental Structures (Market Structures) Market monopolies cause arrogance within organizations that leads them to ignore their clients’ feedback (Wierdsma & Swieringa, 2002).

Organizational Structure (Division of Labor) The division of labor leads to the forma- tion of specialized departments within which knowledge monopolies are created (that is, there is no redundancy of organi- zational knowledge). These monopolies generate a lack of countervailing power outside these specialized departments— power that is needed to challenge the ideas of the specialists. Disconcerting data pro- vided by other sources inside or outside the organization (Morgan, 1986) might also be ignored as a result. Organizational Culture (Institutionalization by Leadership Behavior) Programmed behavior in organizational cul- ture can lead to an uncoupling of behavior that was once meant to solve problems and the occurrence of these problems themselves.

In situations of positive problem solving, this leads to repeating successful behavior in more or less similar situations. In situations of negative problem solving, a constant ten- dency to avoid these kinds of situations will emerge. Even if changing environmental conditions might indicate that these re- sponses are inadequate, organizations will persist in these behaviors (Schein, 1984; van Maanen & Barley, 1985). Thus, no attention will be paid to disconcerting data. These forms of programmed behavior are institu- tionalized by leadership behavior and rein- forced by the use of reward and socialization mechanisms (Nyström & Starbuck, 1984; Schein, 1985). Therefore, Schein (1985) argues that leaders should provide their employees with enough disconfirmation to motivate change and enough psychological safety to pay attention to the disconfirming data. If leaders fail to do so, organizations may develop autistic behavior (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984).

Strategy (Passive Orientation of Organizations) If the environment of an organization is considered hostile, hard to manipulate, and hard to analyze, organizations might de- velop a passive orientation when develop- ing a strategy. Consequently, they might not collect all the available feedback from the environment when carrying out a strat- egy (Daft & Weick, 1984).

Information Systems (Limited Cognitive Capabilities in Human Decision Makers) Selective attention could manifest itself if the information-processing capacity of human decision makers is too small in rela- tion to the information load their task envi- ronment causes. Consequently, feedback 408 H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , MAY–JUNE 2009 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm that contains disconcerting data is grossly neglected (Cyert & March, 1963; Simon, 1976).

Learning Barriers Due to Poor Feedback Learning barriers in this category refer to the underestimation of the complexity of social systems when interpreting feedback:

Individuals form their beliefs and modify their actions appro- priately on the basis of environ- mental responses, but the latter responses are erroneously inter- preted as resulting from preced- ing organizational action (March & Olsen, 1976). This might be deliberate or uninten- tional. These learning barriers have their roots in the following causes:

Organizational structure (division of labor), Information systems (communication processes), Strategy (scope), Information systems (limited cognitive capabilities of human decision makers), Information systems (communication processes), Information systems (media), Organizational culture (emergence of subcultures), and Organizational structure (standard operating rules).

Organizational Structure (Division of Labor) In social systems, the division of labor could result in underestimating the effects of non- linear causality (cause and effect are mutually influencing each other) and underestimating the complexity of long cause-and-effect chains because individuals tend deliberately to over- look the feedback generated in departments they cannot control (Senge, 1990) Information Systems (Communication Processes) In attempts to pursue unilateral control or avoid losing face, actors may spread information containing inconsistencies, in- congruities, vagueness, or ambiguities (com- monly called defense routines) (Argyris & Schön, 1978, 1996). To protect one’s view of reality, relevant information might also be lost if some portions in a chain of events are left out while other portions are stipulated (Weick & Westley, 1996). These practices might lead to errors when interpreting feed- back.

Strategy (Scope) Organizations might define the scope of their external environment too narrowly and thus overlook the impact of their behavior on parts of the environment that are not taken into account. This could also lead to interpretation errors with regard to feedback (Maturana & Varela, 1980).

Information Systems (Limited Cognitive Capabilities of Human Decision Makers) Selective memory and selective perception can manifest themselves if the human decision makers’ information-processing capacity is too small in relation to the information load caused by their task environment. This might lead to funda- mental attribution errors (i.e., judgment errors, success falsely attributed to personal actions and failure falsely attributed to circumstantial influences) (Cyert & March, 1963; Simon, 1976).

The learning barriers described in the preceding paragraph all refer to some form of impoverishment of feedback. Feed- back may also be unusable if it is not enriched with relevant background infor- mation. These learning barriers might indicate deficiencies in the communica- tion of change management strategies, but they usually have deeper roots con- cerning: In social systems, the division of labor could result in underestimating the effects of nonlinear causality (cause and effect are mutually influencing each other. L EARNING BARRIERS 409 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm Information systems (communication processes), Information systems (media), Organizational culture (emergence of subcultures), and Organizational structure (standard operating rules).

Information Systems (Communication Processes) When a single, objective explanation of an outcome or its causes is missing, different individuals interpret situations and processes differently because of excessive problem complexity, selective perception, and differ- ent cognitive styles and maps (March & Olsen, 1976). Thus, learning barriers might emerge if feedback is not enriched by exclud- ing relevant context information or if indi- viduals do not make their lines of reasoning explicit (Klein, 1989; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Information Systems (Media) Using poor media (only forms of structured or written communication) to solve non- routine problems might lead to interpreta- tion errors. In contrast to using rich media (that is, only oral communication), there is no responsibility for personally verifying messages received, while opportunities for requesting more feedback (when a message is unclear) or opportunities for detecting inconsistencies between verbal and nonver- bal behavior cannot be utilized (Daft & Huber, 1987).

Organizational Culture (Emergence of Subcultures) Because of different technologies, markets, or geographical circumstances, groups within an organization will encounter dif- ferent problems and form their own subcultures, including their own mental models and language. These subcultures may impair valid communication between those groups when solving problems that concern the organization as a whole (Schein, 1993). Thus, learning barriers might emerge if these different mental models are not made explicit or if the meaning of these different languages is not explored.

Organizational Structure (Standard Operating Rules) Organizational structures and standard operat- ing rules are usually residues of past learning experiences (Nyström & Starbuck, 1984). These human constructs were originally designed to to facilitate the processing of large quantities of information. However, they also condition human behavior (Simon, 1991; Walsh & Ungson, 1991) and may result in competency traps (i.e., “being trapped” by organiza- tional competencies that were successful in the past but have nowadays become ineffective) (Cyert & March, 1963). Learning barriers may emerge if the influ- ences of these structures on current organizational behavior are not made explicit. Learning Barriers Due to a Lack of Autonomy Learning barriers that fall into this category refer to constraining role definitions and standard operating procedures that prevent individuals in organizations from changing their behaviors in response to new knowledge (March & Olsen, 1976).

They have their roots in the following causes:

Organizational structure (division of labor), Organizational culture (leadership behavior), and Strategy (change management strategies). Learning barriers may emerge if the influences of these structures on current organizational behavior are not made explicit. 410 H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , MAY–JUNE 2009 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm Organizational Structure (Division of Labor) The division of labor leads to narrow job descriptions, which prevent individuals from correcting errors once they detect them (Ashby, 1952; Beer, 1972; Emery & Trist, 1965). However, it might also prevent middle management from acting as knowl- edge engineers who translate abstract ideas of top management into practical instruc- tions for the workforce and translate concrete problems of the workforce into more abstract terms for top man- agement. Thus, role constraints on middle management behav- ior lead to problems when cor- recting organizational errors (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Organizational Culture (Leadership Behavior) Authoritarian leadership (i.e., providing clarity by giving very detailed instructions to subordi- nates) might prevent employees from seeking more feedback than their superiors have al- ready provided. This deprives individuals of possibilities to de- tect and correct organizational errors. Thus, a less explicit and more liberal management style may lead to a search process in which subordinates explore the more ambiguous aspects of their tasks (which might result in a dialectical process in which hidden aspects of a familiar real- ity can be revealed) (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Strategy (Change Management Strategies) When an organization has a carry on regard- less approach to strategy (described by Pedler et al., 1996), the lack of incremen- talism (step-by-step implementation with evaluation moments) prevents errors from being detected and corrected in the early stages of an implementation. However, if strategies and decisions are implemented on an incremental basis (Daft & Weick, 1984), there are opportunities to correct er- rors before they become major problems (Sitkin, 1992). Thus, rigid adherence to an established strategy can be seen as a form of disempowering the whole organization. Learning Barriers Due to the Speed of Change Learning barriers that fall into this category refer to the impossibility of adjusting actual behavior to newly designed norms because the latter change too quickly. They are ex- clusively related to change management strategies. To our knowledge, only one ex- ample of this learning barrier has been iden- tified. Weick and Westley (1996) claim that “the likelihood of learning drops quickly (1) when invention and barrier overwhelm ca- pacities for retention and identity, or (2) when systems, routines, and order over- whelm capacities for unjustified variation.” Their argument is that change strategies that pursue changes of revolutionary size or depth will overload an organization’s inter- pretation system.

Weick and Westley also emphasize the necessity of providing psychological safety when implementing changes. Moreover, they suggest taking advantage of the scarce moments that can be characterized by the coexistence of order and chaos when the threats of existing order dominate the threat of chaos that accompanies changes.

Some unique learning opportunities could be created, for example, in this instance: A near-miss between two aircraft flying on the same course mixes the order of a safe sepa- ration with the barrier of a nonfatal loss of this separation. Literally, a learning mo- ment is created when the air traffic system can see what it has forgotten. But the mo- ment is fleeting. The opportunity opens and closes swiftly as those involved get their ac- counts in order. Thus, the design of a change management strategy should pro- vide individuals with enough psychological safety to be able to detect errors and enough opportunities to recognize the need for change. Learning barriers that fall into this category [speed of change] refer to the impossibility of adjusting actual behavior to newly designed norms because the latter change too quickly. L EARNING BARRIERS 411 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm Multiple Learning Barriers Learning barriers that fall into this category cannot be found in our framework because they are combinations of unique learning barriers that manifest themselves simulta- neously. One example concerns “garbage can” decision making, a situation in which actors do not learn from feedback on their actions. Instead, they later attach meanings to outcomes that do not have any causal relationship to their actions (March & Olsen, 1976). In this example, there seems to be a combination of at least three learning barri- ers: learning barriers due to a lack of au- tonomy (due to limited decision power), learning barriers due to the absence of feed- back (audience learning due to limited ex- pertise), and learning barriers due to poor feedback (as people pursue different goals, they interpret situations and processes dif- ferently). The combination of limited exper- tise, limited decision power, and different objectives might indicate either the pres- ence of a governance structure character- ized by organizational or external politics (March & Olsen, 1976) or the presence of a machine bureaucracy (Pedler et al., 1996; Wierdsma & Swieringa, 2002).

The Relevance of Double Loop Learning for Change Management When reliable feedback is available on the performance of existing organizational processes, the need for organizational change can be assessed. Therefore, the ex- isting organizational store of knowledge needs to be enriched with cognitions con- cerning the effectiveness of alternatives for current organizational practices (that is, double loop learning). As new knowl- edge can only be created through reason- ing or experimenting, there are only two preconditions for organizational double loop learning: A dialogue 1 is needed to explore the dialectical aspects 2 of the dif- ferent viewpoints on the need for organiza- tional change (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Furthermore, an experiment is needed to test the validity of new knowledge created in the process of intraorganizational dia- logue (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Senge, 1990).

Subsequently, apart from a lack of reliable input due to problems with single loop learning, there are only two classes of learning barriers with regard to double loop learning: They are caused by either the absence of a dialogue or the absence of experiments. Learning Barriers Due to Absence of Dialogue The absence of dialogue is mostly seen as the first cause of the lack of double loop learning. An intraorganizational dialogue offers an organization’s members the col- lective opportunity to falsify premises and conclusions in existing knowledge struc- tures (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Senge, 1990).

Thus, the absence of a dialogue might lead to problems with organizational double loop learning. The following causes of these learning barriers have been found:

Information systems (communication processes), and Organizational culture (leadership behavior).

Information Systems (Communication Processes) Lack of attention with regard to the dialectical aspects of ambiguous informa- tion (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) and lack of psychological safety (Argyris & Schön, 1978) will block the free flow of thoughts through a group that allows its members to gain insights they could not have gained individually (Senge, 1990).

Organizational Culture (Leadership Behavior) There will be less likelihood of individuals’ engaging in intraorganizational dialogue if 412 H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , MAY–JUNE 2009 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm top management is not willing to exercise the skills of dialogue themselves or is not willing to facilitate the dialogue among the various subcultures within an organization. Thus, learning barriers due to absence of a dialogue may emerge if leaders underestimate their role in setting examples (Schein, 1993).

In addition to organizational culture, and in communication processes, these learning barriers have roots in organiza- tional structures, reward systems, and change management strategies (see the section Learning Barriers Due to Lack of Experimentation for more details). In our opinion, the quality of a dialogue will also de- crease substantially if feedback is not enriched (see the section Learn- ing Barriers Due to Poor Feedback).

We found no proof in the literature that explicitly supports this point of view, but by definition the en- richment of feedback is essential for the emergence of a dialectical process. Here the boundaries be- tween single loop learning and double loop learning become vague.

Learning Barriers Due to Lack of Experimentation The lack of experimentation is generally seen as the second cause for the lack of double loop learning. Learning barriers due to ab- sence of dialogue and learning barriers due to lack of experimentation are believed to have the same causes:

Organizational structure (division of labor), Management and processes (reward structures), and Strategy (change management strate- gies).

Organizational Structure (Division of Labor) Morgan (1986), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Senge (1990), and Wierdsma and Swieringa (2002) mention causes that are consistent with the division of labor (i.e., in a machine bureaucracy, it is neither desirable to experi- ment since stability is the governing value, nor desirable to engage in an organizational dialogue since policy departments perform all the thinking tasks). Morgan (1986) also mentions the high utilization rates of resources in a machine bureaucracy (so there is not much time available for reflection, self- appraisal, or experiment).

Management and Processes (Reward Structures) Dixon (1994) argues there is less likelihood of its members’ conducting experiments or en- gaging in intraorganizational dialogue if an organization rewards compliance with exist- ing organizational norms. Thus, a certain tolerance toward criticism of organizational policies and a certain tolerance toward mak- ing unavoidable errors are preconditions for double loop learning.

Strategy (Change Management Strategies) Boomers (1989) refers to Kolbs’s (1984) learn- ing styles when he describes the roles of change agents in teams. If the composition of learning styles in a team is not properly bal- anced, he argues that double learning should not occur because it would be unlikely for a team full of thinkers to engage in an experi- ment, just as it would be unlikely for a team full of doers to engage in a dialogue. A Framework of Collective Learning Barriers Once the causes of learning barriers have been distributed over the seven classes of learning barriers, they can be juxtaposed (see Table I). This table summarizes the causes of collective learning barriers into six main cat- egories with 25 underlying causes. The explo- ration of learning barriers and their causes leads to some interesting observations.

A first observation is that learning barri- ers do have multiple causes (see the columns in Table I). A second observation is that many Thus, a certain tolerance toward criticism of organizational policies and a certain tolerance toward making unavoidable errors are preconditions for double loop learning. L EARNING BARRIERS 413 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm learning barriers share a common cause (see the rows in Table I). In fact, these common causes constitute multiple learning barriers. A third interesting observation is that problems with organizational single loop learning and problems with organizational double loop learning always share the same causes (there are no unique causes for the problems with double loop learning in Table I). The only exception concerns cause 12 (leadership be- havior that does not promote the organiza- tional dialogues), but a strong degree of correlation can be expected among cause 12, cause 10 (leadership behavior that institu- tionalizes programmed behavior), and cause 11 (authoritarian leadership styles). The cells marked with an X should only be seen as a visualization of our argument that learning barriers due to poor feedback and learning barri- ers to the absence of dialogue may have the same cause (i.e., when feedback is not en- riched, poor feedback may lead to the absence of dialogue). This argument can be seen as an example of our third observation.

A fourth observation is that learning barriers with similar causes do have different labels.

These causes are mutually consistent and form congruent combinations (for instance, causes 7 and 8; causes 10, 11, and 12; and causes 22, 23, 24, and 25). Finally, it becomes clear that only a few learning barriers do have unique causes (see the rows in Table I in which only one cell is marked with an X).

We think these observations explain why the debate on organizational learning is char- acterized by so much perceived fragmenta- tion. Table I, however, shows us that different explanations for learning barriers can coexist because they refer to different elements of an organizational learning cycle. Through the absence of contradictory explanations, the framework can now be used in an empirical context. In addition, the framework can be used to develop a change management strat- egy that effectively addresses the causes of learning barriers since the relationships be- tween learning barriers and their causes have been made explicit. For this purpose the framework should be a powerful tool because it makes use of the strong points of various theories. Furthermore, the framework shows us the limitations in change agents’ roles.

Change agents might be able to repair defi- ciencies in strategy implementations (see the second row in Table I). And they might also be able to repair deficiencies in collective in- formation systems (see the last row in Table I). But they cannot directly influence the causes of learning barriers that refer to envi- ronmental structures, organiza- tional culture, and organizational structures. In these cases, their role is limited to creating aware- ness of the influence of these learning barriers on an organiza- tion’s change management poten- tial. By doing so, they may initiate a learning process at the stake- holder level that has the power to eliminate these barriers. Conclusions and Discussion Conclusions We started this article with a dis- cussion of the depth of change and argued that more durable change required not only a change of structures, systems, or procedures, but also a change in behavior and the attitudes and cognitions that guide organiza- tional behavior. Thus, by linking organizational change to a change in cognitions and atti- tudes, we demonstrated that or- ganizational change requires some form of double loop learning. Subse- quently, we discussed the problems with the phenomenon of organizational learning. By constructing a framework in which the most important learning barriers described in literature are made explicit (i.e., trans- lated into cybernetic terms) and linked to their causes, we demonstrated that the dif- ferent contributions in literature do not in fact contain any contradictions. Thus, the combined strength of multiple contribu- tions from the organizational learning field can now be used to predict learning and change management problems. This allows We started this article with a discussion of the depth of change and argued that more durable change required not only a change of structures, systems, or procedures, but also a change in behavior and the attitudes and cognitions that guide organizational behavior. 414 H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , MAY–JUNE 2009 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm human resources management practitioners to develop more realistic policies because they can more accurately analyze the gap between individual learning and organiza- tional learning (or organizational growth).

Discussion The weak points of organizational learning theories are that they neglect the aspects of being allowed to learn, being able to learn, and being willing to learn (Morgan, 1986)—the three preconditions for an effective organiza- tional learning process. The framework pays ample attention to the first aspect (see the section Learning Barriers Due to a Lack of Autonomy and the section Multiple Learning Barriers). However, the framework does not explicitly cover the second aspect (being able to learn, which refers to individuals’ insuffi- cient knowledge or skills). The framework mentions human decision makers’ limited cognitive capabilities (see cause 20 in Table I) but is not meant to predict these kinds of learning problems. Thus, practitioners may have to pay extra attention to these aspects when formulating a change management strat- egy based on this framework. Moreover, the framework does not discuss the last aspect (willingness to learn, which refers to individu- als’ intrinsic motivation to engage in an orga- nizational learning process). People might not attach any meaning to the outcomes of an or- ganizational learning process if individual needs and organizational needs cannot be matched in the change process (Wierdsma, 1999). Therefore, the outcomes of an analysis based on the framework might not be relevant if a practitioner does not address 3 the absence of such a match in his or her change manage- ment strategy. Finally, the whole framework is vulnerable to the same learning barriers it describes: The authors might have missed, deliberately ignored, or misinterpreted a con- tribution that does not fit in this integration approach. Suggestions for Further Research To make effective use of the framework, more research on the relations between the preconditions of an organizational learning process (i.e., solving issues of changing power distributions and enabling individu- als to engage in an organizational learning process) and the outcomes of such a learn- ing process itself is needed. In our opinion, existing studies on change management do not make clear whether initiatives aimed at enhancing organizational learning failed because of ignorance of these preconditions or because of flaws in the design of the or- ganizational learning program itself. Addi- tional research may also be needed to de- scribe the correlation among the causes mentioned in the framework. Moreover, the framework needs to be refined. The validity of our conclusions is limited by the param- eter settings of the framework variables.

Therefore, more research is needed to ex- tend the number of organizational design parameters and parameter settings in the framework. Interesting research areas could include the impact of budgeting systems, the impact of the type of personnel system, and the impact of other change manage- ment strategies (for instance, the impact of a professional bureaucracy or an open per- sonnel system). We will report on these is- sues and on the first empirical tests of the framework at a later date. Notes 1. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a dialogue as an interchange and discussion of ideas, especially when open and frank, as in seeking mu- tual understanding and harmony.

2. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines dialectic as the art or practice of examining opinions or ideas logically, often by the method of question and answer, in order to determine their validity.

3. Wierdsma (1999) suggests setting up multidisci- plinary change management teams in order not to exclude important stakeholders in an organizational dialogue. He describes an organizational dialogue as a process of collective sense-making (cocreation).

According to Wierdsma (1999), a change proposal created in such a dialogue can be successfully implemented because all stakeholders have attached the same meaning and the same value to it. L EARNING BARRIERS 415 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm Remco Schimmel recently wrote a dissertation on the relevance of organizational learning concepts for Enterprise Systems implementations. His principal interest concerns the study of change management problems that are caused by the gaps between organization learn- ing needs and organizational learning capabilities. He has served as a civilian for 16 years at the Dutch Ministry of Defense as a policy of cer, project manager, and operational auditor.

Dennis R. Muntslag is a full professor in Organizational Change Management at Twente University, The Netherlands. His principal interests concern the human and change man- agement aspects of large transformations in organizations. He is currently involved in a major change and reorganization program of the Dutch Ministry of Defense. References Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational learning. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Business.

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

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain. New York:

John Wiley.

Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organi- zation development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), 483–500.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler.

Beer, S. (1972). The brain of the rm. New York: Herder & Herder.

Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (1985). The planning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Boomers, G. B. J. M. (1989). The learning organization.

Opening address for the 1989–1990 academic year, Nyenrode University, Breukelen, The Netherlands (in Dutch).

Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science, 2, 197–208.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the rm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Daft, R. L., & Huber, G. P. (1987). How organizations learn: A communication framework. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, 1–36.Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Towards a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.

Dixon, N. (1994). The organizational learning cycle:

How we can learn collectively. London:

McGraw-Hill.

Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literature studies. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375–394.

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21–32.

Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organiza- tional learning: Contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50(9), 1085–1113.

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813.

Garrat, R. (1987). The learning organization. London:

Fontana.

Hedberg, B. L. (1991). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. C. Nyström & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (pp. 1–27). New York: Oxford University Press.

Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: The contrib- uting processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88–115.

Huysman, M., & van der Vlist, R. (1998). Naar een“Organizational Learning” Benadering van de lerende organisatie. Gedrag en Organisatie (in Dutch), 11(5), 219–235.

Jones, M. (1995). Organizational learning: Collective mind or cognitivist metaphor? Accounting, Man- agement & Information Technology, 5(1), 61–77.

Kets de Vries, M., & Miller, D. (1984). The Neurotic Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 416 H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , MAY–JUNE 2009 Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35, 37–50.

Klein, J. I. (1989). Parenthetic learning in organiza- tions: Towards the unlearning of the unlearning model. Journal of Management Studies 26(3), 291–308.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

Lievers, B., & Lubberding, J. B. (1996). Change management. Groningen, The Netherlands:

Wolters Noordhof.

Maanen, J. van, & Barley, S. R. (1985). Cultural or- ganization: Fragments of a theory. In P. Frost, L. F Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, and J.

Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway:

Universitetsforlaget.

Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. London:

Reidl.

Mirvis, P. H. (1996). Historical foundations of organiza- tional learning. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(1), 13–31.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. London:

Sage.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creat- ing company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nyström, P., & Starbuck, W. H. (1984). To avoid organi- zational crises, unlearn. Organizational Dynamics, 12(4), 53–65.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydel, T. (1996).

The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development (2nd ed.). London:

McGraw Hill.Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 3–16.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture and organi- zational learning. Organization Dynamics, 22(2), 40–51.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York:

Doubleday.

Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 7–28.

Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.).

New York: Macmillan.

Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organiza- tional learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.

Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strat- egy of small losses. In B. Straw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 231–366). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Veld, J. in’t (2002). Analyse van organisatieproble- men: Een toepassing van denken in systemen en processen. Groningen, The Netherlands:

Stenfert Kroesse.

Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.

Weick, K. E., & Westley, F. (1996). Organizational learning: Af rming an oxymoron. In S. R. Clegg, C.

Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organiza- tion studies. London: Sage.

Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1999). Co-creatie van verandering.

Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon.

Wierdsma, A. F. M., & Swieringa, J. (2002). Lerend organiseren: Als meer van hetzelfde niet meer helpt. Groningen, The Netherlands: Stenfert Kroese (in Dutch).