Wk 2 Diss Progressive

“There are two types of lear\nning . . . informat\nive learning allows people to learn more about the things that fit thei\nr mental models, wh\nile transformative learning is the p\nrocess of changing mental models.” What do Organizations Need to Learn to Become a Learning Organization? \by Alla Heorhiadi, Kelly La Venture, and John P. Conbere We have \bound that m\6any people talk abo\6ut learning organizat\6ions without realizing the underlying ass\6umptions that are required to develo\6p a learning organ\6iza - tion. Once we \bacilitated\6 a group training \6 and did a blitz su\6rvey about how many\6 people believed th\6ey work in a learni\6ng organization. All \6but two out o\b 18 p\6eople believed they worke\6d \bor a learning or\6ga - nization. They ass\6ociated the concep\6t o\b learning organizat\6ion with the learn\6ing opportunities thei\6r organizations o\b\b\6ered to employees. By the end o\b the tr\6aining, in which we explored \6the concept o\b lear\6ning organizations, we \6asked the same ques - tion again and onl\6y two out o\b 16 sai\6d they worked \bor a learnin\6g organization. Wh\6y?

They realized that\6 there is much more\6 to the concept o\b o\6rganizational learning than the amount o\b train\6ing people can take.

Two Types of Learning To explore this con\6cept, we will begi\6n with the word “learning\6.” There are two t\6ypes o\b learning—in\bormat\6ive and trans\borma - tive (Kegan, 2000). Simplistically speak - ing, in\bormative le\6arning allows peop\6le to learn more about the thin\6gs that fit their mental models\6, while trans\bormat\6ive learning is the pr\6ocess o\b changing m\6ental models. To be consistent, w\6e will use the term mental model ac\6ross the article t\6o describe a set o\b b\6elie\bs that generat\6es people’s assumption\6s and values and in\borms their motiva\6tions. The terms mental model and be\6lie\b system will be\6 used interchangeably. A simplistic metap\6hor \bor the two kinds o\b learning ma\6y help. Imagine you\6 made a swimming hole\6 in the backyard:

you dug a hole, ad\6ded water, and had a place to swim. You could embellish \6it by adding a diving bo\6ard perhaps, or a \6rope swing, but in esse\6nce, it is a swimmi\6ng hole. In this metap\6hor, the additions an\6d changes are in\borma\6tive learning — taking in only the new in\6\bormation which fits\6 with one’s preconc\6eived mental model \6o\b a swimming hole. But what i\b you saw \6that some people grew fis\6h in their ponds, \6and the idea comes that\6 you could expand \6the swimming hole to make\6 it a fish \barm too.\6 You could reject th\6is idea right away\6; you could understand that di\b\berent people have di\b\berent needs but\6 you choose not to\6 have fish; or you could \6become a fish \barm \ba\6n.

Converting your swi\6mming hole into a fi\6sh \barm/swimming hole i\6s trans\bormative learning, at least\6 in this simplistic\6 meta - phor. Your mental model ch\6anged. Trans\bormative learn\6ing happens in stages, which w\6e will illustrate \6with an example o\b inter\6cultural interacti\6on, because individual\6s \brom di\b\berent cul\6tures have absolutely di\6\b\berent mental model\6s o\b li\be. In the first s\6tage, rejectio\f , the person rejects, (or ignor\6es, denies, dismiss\6es— pick a word) any ne\6w in\bormation that \6 does not fit in the\6 current mental mod\6el.

O\bten, during this s\6tage, the carrier \6o\b the other mental model \6is viewed as being\6, at best ridiculous, o\6r wrong, or at wor\6st evil.

The readers perhap\6s can relate to th\6eir own experience whe\6n they \baced a cult\6ure that was extremely \6di\b\berent \brom their\6 own, and thus can \6recreate the pleth\6ora o\b 5 What do Organi\fations Need to \nLearn to \become a Learning Organi\fation? assumptions (o\bten inaccurate), \be\6elings, and emotions that c\6ame with this. In the second stag\6e, u\fdersta\fdi\fg , the person gets us\6ed to the idea tha\6t there are other ideas, a\6ssumptions, or valu\6es, which have the rig\6ht to exist, and t\6his is fine, as long as th\6e person does not \6have to use or accept them.\6 The readers perha\6ps have o\bten heard a phrase\6, “we agree to disagree.” This re\6flects that the par\6ties understand that th\6e other has a di\b\be\6rent opinion but are ad\6amant about their o\6wn positions and relu\6ctant to even try \6some - thing di\b\berent. Us\6ing the intercultu\6ral example, this would\6 be a situation wh\6en one has to live in\6 a di\b\berent cultur\6e \bor a short time, perha\6ps during travel. \6The person very much st\6icks to her own ment\6al model, eats only \bo\6ods she is used to\6, does only things she is\6 used to, and does\6 not venture o\b\b the bea\6ten track. The pers\6on may find the other m\6ental model amusing\6, but does not have \6to fight it, and do\6es not certainly accept i\6t \bor hersel\b. In the third stage\6, usi\fg , the person tries out new beha\6viors \brom a di\b\bere\6nt mental model, eithe\6r by choice, or be\6cause this is the only w\6ay to adapt to a n\6ew envi - ronment. In our int\6ercultural example,\6 that would be a person \6who has to live in\6 a di\b - \berent culture \bor \6a longer time and fi\6nds some customs o\b this\6 new culture accep\6t - able. The person t\6ries di\b\berent \boods\6, experiences new ac\6tivities and new w\6ays o\b thinking as part o\b \6being in the new c\6ulture but does not \beel t\6hat this is somethi\6ng to embrace permanently\6. The \bourth stage, i\ftegratio\f , is char - acterized by a cre\6ation o\b a mental mo\6del that incorporates \6the best elements o\6\b the old and new mental \6models and rejects \6 elements that do no\6t work. In our examp\6le, the person becomes \6bi-cultural. The p\6er - son’s mental model bec\6omes an amalgam o\b belie\bs and assu\6mptions that work in\6 a new environment. \6Some new ideas are accepted, and some \6old ideas are reje\6cted. In Figure 1 , the cylinder rep\6resents one’s mental model \6and the arrows dep\6ict ideas that are take\6n in. The darker ar\6row is in\bormation that fit\6s the mental model,\6 and the \baded line repr\6esents ideas \bor a \6di\b\ber - ent mental model. T\6he di\b\berence betwe\6en the last two stage\6s is the relations\6hip between behaviors \6and belie\b system t\6hat drives the behavio\6rs. In the third s\6tage, people may behave d\6i\b\berently, but because the belie\b system d\6id not change, the\6 behavior may be tem\6porary. In the \bourth stage, the behavio\6r change is permane\6nt as it is governed \6by a new mental mod\6el or new gover\fi\fg beliefs . Doub\be-Loop Learning The governing beli\6e\bs language brings\6 us to the concept o\b d\6ouble-loop learnin\6g.

Much o\b the \boundati\6onal work in the fie\6ld o\b double-loop lear\6ning can be attrib\6uted to Chris Argyris. \6Argyris began his \6career with an interest i\6n reducing un\bairne\6ss. As Argyris (Argyris &\6 Schön, 1996) studi\6ed un\bairness, he \boun\6d that human beings\6 were skill\bul at non\6-learning due to t\6heir inabilities to lea\6rn, detect, and co\6rrect their mistakes. To \burther explain w\6hy human beings were skill\bul\6 at non-learning, \6 Argyris distinguis\6hed between single\6-loop and double-loop le\6arning ( Figure 2 ). We find that many peo\6ple miss the essential di\b\berenc\6e between single a\6nd double-loop learni\6ng. In single-loop\6 learn - ing, i\b one tries t\6o do something and \6it does not work, then one \6changes something. \6 For example, i\b one \6cooks and the dish \6is too salty, the next time one\6 adds less salt.

In Argyris’ langua\6ge, single-loop le\6arn - ing occurs when a \6mismatch in a perso\6n’s behavior and inten\6tion is detected a\6nd cor - rected without cha\6nging his/her unde\6rly - ing values and ass\6umptions. Double-loop learni\6ng is needed when \6 Governing V ariables Single-loopMismatch Match Double-loop Actions Consequences Figure 2. Single-Loop and Double-Loop Learning Figure 1. In 1, the old mental mo\ndel is kept and all\n else is rejected. In 2, the old and new are accepted but only \nthe old is used. I\nn 3, some new behavior\ns are tried out, but nothing of the \nold is rejected. In 4, the mental model \nhas a new mix, some\n of the old and new are kept and some are rejected. 1 rejection using integration understanding 3 2 4 OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 46 No. 2 2014 6 the problem origina\6tes in how people \6think or believe, and th\6us correcting this\6 prob - lem requires a chan\6ge in the governin\6g belie\bs. For instance, i\b a m\6anager tries to get her work team to\6 work more e\bficientl\6y by micromanaging th\6e work and finds tha\6t this tactic does n\6ot succeed, the ch\6ange that is needed is \6in the manager’s be\6lie\b about the e\b\bective\6ness o\b micromanage - ment. The di\bficulty\6 is that it can be\6 hard to identi\by and the\6n change certain b\6elie\bs, as it takes not onl\6y a significant amou\6nt o\b sel\b-knowledge, b\6ut courage and skil\6l to change old belie\bs.\6 In Argyris’ langu\6age, double-loop learni\6ng occurs when a mi\6s - match in a person’s behavior and in\6tention is detected and co\6rrected by first ch\6anging one’s underlying v\6alues. With double-loop le\6arning, when individuals \bace a \6problem, they have \6to reflect on their be\6havior and identi\by\6 and challenge the unde\6rlying assumptions \6that drive this behavio\6r. Through this pro\6cess, the individuals’ u\6nderlying assumptio\6ns, which previously r\6emained implicit or\6 unchallenged, are \6now exposed. While\6 it may \beel unsa\be at fi\6rst, the individua\6ls then learn by refle\6cting on the entir\6e belie\b system that led to \6the problem, and th\6is learning opens the\6 door to changes i\6n their thoughts and behav\6iors, or to a new \6mental model. Changing und\6erlying belie\bs or \6 assumptions is not \6easy, the process can \6 raise anxiety, but the change i\6s possible. Argyris and Schön \6(1996) described the three\bold gover\6ning variables nee\6ded \bor double-loop lea\6rning and \bor a lea\6rning organization: (a) \6belie\b in the impor\6tance o\b using valid in\bo\6rmation; (b) belie\b\6 in the necessity o\b \br\6ee and in\bormed cho\6ice; and (c) belie\b in t\6he importance o\b in\6ternal commitment to the de\6cisions that are ma\6de and the constant mo\6nitoring (i.e., us\6e o\b \beedback loops) to m\6ake sure decisions \6 actually lead to t\6he desired outcomes\6.

What do Individua\bs\I Need to be ab\be to \I Engage in Doub\be-Loop Learning?

While Agyris used \6the notion o\b doubl\6e- loop learning in t\6he context o\b organ\6iza - tions, the concept\6 can pertain to in\6dividual learning as well. \6For individual doub\6le-loop learning to occur, some pre-requisit\6es have to be in place. Th\6e individual has t\6o be will - ing to engage in t\6rans\bormative learn\6ing and be reasonably com\bortable with anxiety.

These two always g\6o together. Mezirow (2000) warned: Trans\bormative learn\6ing, especially when it involves s\6ubjective re\bram - ing, is o\bten an intensely t\6hreatening emotional experienc\6e in which we have to become awar\6e o\b both the assumptions undergi\6rding our ideas and those supporti\6ng our emotional responses to the n\6eed to change.

(p. 6-7) Then, the individu\6al has to go throu\6gh the \bour essential \6steps: 1. Critical reflection \6o\b sel\b-behavior; 2. Identification o\b va\6lues or assump - tions underlying t\6he behavior; 3. Changes in underly\6ing values or assumptions; and 4. Change in the beha\6vior (La Ven - ture, 2013). To demonstrate the a\6pplication o\b these\6 steps on an indivi\6dual level, we wil\6l use a situation o\b Eve, who does not g\6et along with her co-worker \6Mike. She sees him as\6 arrogant, believes\6 that he constantl\6y ques - tions her work, and\6 experiences him ac\6ting like he always knows\6 best.

Critical reflection o\f sel\f\bbeh\Ravior— Eve took time, a\bter she had a run-\6in with Mike, to figure out w\6hat happened and analyze the situat\6ion. She was workin\6g on a spreadsheet \bor a\6 project \bor which \6she and Mike were both respo\6nsible, when he walked into her o\bfic\6e and said, “Did y\6ou complete the spread\6sheet \bor the meeti\6ng this a\bternoon? I want to\6 veri\by that you did everything rig\6ht.” Eve’s \bace got hot and she could \beel \6her body clench as\6 she grew angry. She told him she \6would look at the spreadsheet ag\6ain to make sure it \6was right, and he le\bt saying he would \6be back in an hour to see \6her work. She reali\6zed that she had acqui\6esced to his implic\6ation that her work neede\6d monitoring, as we\6ll as that Mike was more able th\6an she.

Identification o\f values or assumptions\R underlying the beha\Rvior— Eve tried to identi\by what value\6s and assumptions w\6ere being stimulated wh\6en she became angry\6.

She realized she d\6id not tell Mike about her conviction that he\6r work had been don\6e correctly in the fi\6rst place. As Eve became more purpose\bul in \6critical reflection\6 o\b sel\b-behavior, she discovered t\6hat it is important to her to\6 do good work and h\6ave her education and \6work ethic be value\6d by others. In additio\6n, she realized th\6at it is important that othe\6rs listen to her. Upon \burther reflection, \6she realized two t\6hings.

One is that in the\6 conversations wit\6h Mike on this project, s\6he did not believe\6 that he valued her work or \6her expertise on t\6he topic, and this mad\6e her angry. Looking into her past she \6saw this as a patt\6ern; when being challen\6ged, she tended to\6 de\ber, \bearing that the \6other person would\6 somehow hurt her i\b\6 she stood up \bor hersel\b. She also r\6ealized that she a\6ssumed that he finds her i\6ncompetent. She got\6 upset with hersel\b \6because she did no\6t have the courage to sta\6nd up \bor hersel\b a\6nd \bor her work. This t\6oo was an old patt\6ern, becoming angry at t\6he other person fir\6st and later becoming \6angry with hersel\b.\6 Changes in underlyin\Rg values or assump \b tions— What values or ass\6umptions might Eve have to change?\6 One is to recogni\6ze that she de\berred t\6o Mike rather than de\bend her work. Eve’s task was to ex\6plore what belie\bs about \6hersel\b led her to \6de\ber, and then to choose\6 whether or not to\6 keep these belie\bs. \6Another was that s\6he assumed Mike thought she was\6 incompe - tent. But why did she ass\6ume rather than ask him about what h\6e meant? What belie\6\b prevented her \brom \6finding out more abo\6ut Mike’s concerns? Wrestling with ques\6tions like this can be an\6xiety producing.

Change in the behav\Rior— Eve decided to change the belie\bs \6that led her to de\6\ber to Mike and to become an\6gry as the result \6o\b his demands. She ha\6d some choices abou\6t how to proceed wit\6h her behavior. She chose to accept th\6at she de\berred out\6 o\b \bear, and to change he\6r behavior by test\6ing whether her old as\6sumptions were corr\6ect.

She chose to speak \6up \bor hersel\b, and\6 i\b and when this le\6d the other person\6 to 7 What do Organi\fations Need to \nLearn to \become a Learning Organi\fation? become angry or di\b\6ficult, she would s\6eek to explore the int\6eraction by examini\6ng the mutual assumpti\6ons she and the ot\6her person had.

Individual double-\6loop learning works\6 when a person trie\6s to be sel\b-reflect\6ive, by which we mean to be\6 in touch with one\6’s \beelings. The perso\6n has to analyze r\6oot causes o\b his/her o\6wn \beelings and beh\6av - iors, and be coura\6geous enough to ac\6cept the premise that he\6/she is not per\bect\6.

However the easy pa\6rt is that it depe\6nds only on one person\6. In an organizati\6on, to have double-loop l\6earning, it would \6take more parts o\b the e\6quation. Let us sh\6ow how double-loop learning would work in an organization.

Organizationa\b Doub\be\I-Loop Learning We worked with a tra\6nsportation depart\6 - ment o\b a large sch\6ool district. One \6o\b the on-going and expen\6sive problems was t\6hat drivers did not re\6port minor accident\6s with the busses. The ri\6sk o\b not reporting \6these minor problems soon\6er, rather than late\6r, was more costly rep\6airs in the long r\6un and risk to children’s sa\bety.

Critical reflection o\f sel\f\bbeh\Ravior— Drivers knew that r\6eporting minor dama\6ge and problems would \6be valuable \bor the\6 transportation dep\6artment. Problems c\6ould be fixed more quickly\6 and less expensiv\6ely when identified ear\6ly on, and there w\6ould be less sa\bety risks\6. But drivers simply would not report d\6amage and problems \6i\b they thought they \6would not get caug\6ht.

\formally these were \6honest people, who\6 cared about the ch\6ildren they transp\6orted, but acted out o\b ch\6aracter when it ca\6me to damage and problems\6.

Identification o\f values or assumptions\R underlying the beha\Rvior— It turned out that the district-\6wide culture was p\6unitive, and drivers believ\6ed they would be p\6un - ished i\b they had e\6ven a minor mistake.\6 I\b a driver were id\6entified as having \6an accident, then HR \6became involved and\6 required that an i\6nsulting warning l\6etter be sent to the dri\6ver. The intent o\b HR \6was to begin the firing\6 process, i\b the dr\6iver did not shape up. \6The organizational\6 value was to protect the\6 district, even th\6ough this meant disrespecting\6 the driver.

Changes in underlyin\Rg values or assumptions— How does an organiz\6ation change its values \6and assumptions? Th\6e trans\bormative lear\6ning had to come at\6 the leadership level fi\6rst. Actually, the depart - ment director disli\6ked the way the dis\6trict reprimanded people,\6 but he reluctantl\6y went along with th\6e system. For him, the new trans\bormative \6learning was about\6 re\busing to engage \6in destructive org\6aniza - tional practices a\6nd sharing his rea\6soning with the people ab\6ove him in the hier\6archy.

So while the goal w\6as to change the d\6rivers’ behavior, the trans\bormatio\6n began with the change in the \6leader’s assumption\6s and behavior, and then communic\6ating this to the drivers throug\6h designing new pr\6oce - dures that would s\6upport new behavio\6rs.

Change in the behav\Rior— It took a while, but through new pr\6ocedures, the driv\6ers changed their assu\6mptions about the d\6is - trict, and there i\6s much more sel\b-rep\6orting about minor acciden\6ts and problems. In\6 \bact, the number o\b \6accidents dropped \6 significantly withi\6n a year (Conbere, Heo - rhiadi, & Oestreic\6h, 2014).

To engage in double\6-loop learning, th\6e members o\b an organi\6zation have to be \6 able to work at the\6 4th stage o\b trans\6\borma - tive learning, dis\6cussed earlier. This is the level, on which th\6e organizational c\6ulture change actually ha\6ppens. The organiz\6a - tion that makes peop\6le behave di\b\berent\6ly without changing t\6he mental model tha\6t govern employees’ b\6ehaviors, really d\6oes not change its cul\6ture. Moreover, the orga - nization has to be\6 open to explore, \6sa\bely \bor all, the existi\6ng mental model. Th\6is is very di\bficult work, \6at least at first. \6Schein (2004) explained t\6his di\bficulty well.\6 He noted that: Basic assumptions, \6like theories-in- use, tend to be \fo\fco\ffro\ftable and \fo\fdebatable , and hence are ex\6tremely di\bficult to change.\6 To learn some - thing new in this \6realm requires us to resurrect, reex\6amine, and possibly\6 change some o\b the \6more stable por - tions o\b our cognit\6ive structure— a process that Arg\6yris and others have called “double-loop learni\6ng” or “\brame breaking” \6(Argyris et al., 1985; Bartunek, 198\64). Such learning is intrinsically d\6i\bficult because the\6 reexamination o\b ba\6sic assumptions temporarily destabi\6lizes our cogni - tive and interpers\6onal world, which \6 releases large qua\6ntities o\b basic anxiety. (p.31) So, in order to be \6truly learning, an\6 organization has t\6o create an enviro\6n - ment in which peopl\6e examine their basic assumptions s\6a\bely, which in turn, calls \bor developin\6g the intellectual\6 and emotional muscles t\6hat will allow peo\6ple to release large q\6uantities o\b basic \6anxi - ety \brom time to tim\6e. How do we create such an organizati\6on? The work has to\6 be done by an organiz\6ation on individua\6l and organizational lev\6els, with the help\6 o\b OD practitioners. On the individual \6level, organizatio\6nal leaders can begin \6to help employees t\6o become more sel\b-refl\6ective. Because th\6is will raise anxiety\6 \bor some i\b not mos\6t employees, leaders \6have to create a c\6limate in which employees \6believe that they \6will not be hurt by oth\6ers i\b they verbali\6ze their In a way, deve\boping a \bearning \Iorganization is a si\Imp\be task. This task ca\b\bs for \Icreating a c\bimate th\Iat rewards openness about ide\Ias, with a bent for\I examining data and assumptions; a\Ind he\bping peop\be b\Iecome more se\bf- reflective. What is not simp\be \Iis getting there. OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 46 No. 2 2014 8 reflections. Argyri\6s’ (2003) model \bor\6 the development o\b orga\6nizational learnin\6g began with having \6the leader modeling\6 the openness and non-j\6udgmental approach \6 that are essential\6 \bor double-loop le\6arn - ing. People who take the \6risk o\b exposing their belie\bs need to \bee\6l sa\be, and this sa\bety begins with \6the leader. On the organizatio\6n level, the cultu\6re has to trans\borm to\6 one that supports\6 double-loop learni\6ng. To sustain this trans\bormation, thr\6ee pieces have to \6be in place: (a) leaders\6’ involvement and m\6odel - ing; (b) a system t\6hat supports the n\6ew mental model; and (\6c) \beedback loops to\6 collect valid in\bor\6mation. Any organiz\6ation can create rein\borc\6ement \bor engaging \6in trans\bormative lear\6ning on the indivi\6dual level, and double-\6loop learning on t\6he col - lective level. And how does the l\6eader learn to do all this? That \6is the consultant’\6s role, modeling new behavi\6ors and/or coachin\6g the leader. That is why cons\6ultants need to be able to enga\6ge in trans\bormativ\6e or double-loop learni\6ng themselves. I\b t\6he practitioner is no\6t sel\b-aware, reflec\6tive, and courageous enough \6to explore within,\6 then there is little li\6kelihood this perso\6n can help others to do \6the same.

Formu\ba for \freating a Learning Organization In a way, developing a lea\6rning organiza - tion is a simple ta\6sk. This task calls \6\bor creating a climate \6that rewards openn\6ess about ideas, with \6a bent \bor examinin\6g data and assumption\6s; and helping peo\6ple become more sel\b-refl\6ective. What is no\6t simple is getting t\6here. Why? Because\6 to get there means to \6go through all \bour\6 stages o\b trans\borma\6tive learning in a\6 sa\be manner and get to t\6he place in which \6new behaviors are gove\6rned by the new men\6tal model o\b being a le\6arning organizatio\6n.

We predict that ver\6y o\bten organizations \6 in pursuit o\b the g\6oal to become a lea\6rn - ing organization g\6et only to the sec\6ond or third stage o\b t\6rans\bormative learn\6ing.

They may have intro\6duced new arti\bacts\6, perhaps even chang\6ed some behaviors, \6but they still retaine\6d the old mental mo\6del, in which learning rema\6ins single-loop. B\6eing sel\b-reflective, ind\6ividually and orga\6ni - zationally, as well as willi\6ng to share on this level with ot\6hers, especially i\6n times o\b stress or crisis\6, is not normative \6in our workplaces. Organiz\6ations tend not to\6 like those who “rock the\6 boat.” However, \bor those who des\6ire to create a learning \6organization, is t\6here a \bormula? We o\b\ber the \bollowin\6g as tasks that are esse\6ntial \bor developin\6g a learning organization: 1. Foster a culture th\6at supports trans - \bormative learning on the individual level and double-l\6oop learning on the collective lev\6el. 2. Develop and promote\6 leaders who support the new cu\6lture and trans - \bormation process. \6 3. Develop and promote\6 leaders who are truly receptiv\6e to the \beedback and risk-taking associated with deep level sel\b-reflectio\6n and change.

This may require co\6aching \bor top leaders. During tr\6ans\bormation, and as employees de\6velop critical thinking skills, the\6y may become more likely to chall\6enge the leader, thus, the leader h\6as to be open to being challenged. \6 4. Encourage and prov\6ide opportuni - ties \bor employees \6to engage in critical reflection\6 o\b sel\b-behav - iors and apply the\6 double-loop learning \bramework. \fonc\busion Our goal has been \6to describe trans\bo\6rma - tive learning and \6double-loop learni\6ng and their relationship\6 to the learning o\6rgani - zation. We suggest that bot\6h trans\borma - tive learning and \6double-loop learni\6ng are attainable, bu\6t only with sustai\6ned e\b\bort that takes in\6to account the cha\6nges that must be made o\6n the individual a\6nd corporate levels, \6and the courage to\6 accept resistance and anx\6iety generated by \6the very e\b\bort.

Re\ferences Argyris, C. (2003)\6. Flawed advice a\fd th\Ue ma\fageme\ft trap. \few York, \fY: Ox\bord University Press. Argyris, C., & Sch\6ön, D. A. (1996). Orga - \fi\batio\fal lear\fi\fg I\UI. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Conbere, J. P., Heorhiadi, A., & Oe\6streich, T. (2014). SEAM’s r\6ole in a sustainab\6le change o\b organizat\6ional culture: A case study o\b a tra\6nsportation center\6.

Unpublished manuscr\6ipt. Kegan, R. (2000). W\6hat “\borm” trans - \borms? A constructi\6ve-developmental approach to trans\bo\6rmative learning. I\6n J. Mezirow (Ed.), Lear\fi\fg as tra\fsfor\U - matio\f (pp. 35–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. La Venture (2013). How the discipline \6o\b energetics \bosters \6double-loop learni\6ng:

Lessons \brom multipl\6e positivistic cas\6e studies (Doctoral \6dissertation). Avail - able \brom ProQuest \6Dissertations and \6 Theses database. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learni\6ng to think like an adult. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Lear\fi\fg as tra\fsformatio\f (pp. 3–34). San Fran - cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (2004). Orga\fi\batio\fal culture a\fd leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

A\b\ba Heorhiadi, PhD, \IEdD, is Co- director of the SEAM International Institute at the Un\niversity of St. Thomas, Minnesota, \nand has taught in the OD doctoral program since 2005. She can\n be reached at aheorhiadi\fstthomas.\dedu . Ke\b\by La Venture, EdD, is Assistant Professor of Manageme\nnt at Northland College, Wisconsin, and has taught in t\nhe fields of business and managem\nent since 2006. She can be reached at k\baventure\fnorth\band.edu . John P. \fonbere, EdD, is Co- director of the SEAM International Institute at the Un\niversity of St. Thomas, Minnesota, \nand has taught in the OD doctoral program since 2002. He can \nbe reached at jpconbere\fstthomas.edu . 9 What do Organi\fations Need to \nLearn to \become a Learning Organi\fation? Copyright ofOD Practitioner isthe property ofOrganization Development Networkandits content maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the copyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles forindividual use.