The Structuration of Organizational Learning, Research Paper Example

 Introduction

Recent developments in the organizational landscape serves as a continuous reminder to the fact that the organizational practices of yesterday cannot be trusted to be develop optimum output. To this end, prying questions about the most sustainable strategy in achieving organizational success are now been asked. This current essay in many ways can be said to be raising similar questions on the one hand and answering them on the other hand. This study unlike a good number of the works conducted on similar topics is more of an academic collation and review of what is available within the domain of academia as far as organizational development is concerned. In other words, drawing from the works of previous scholars in this area will in one way or the other be used as a mirror reflection to gauge where the subject matter stands in our day and age.

To begin this task, the core aspect of this current work is built on an understanding of the fact organizational culture is a useful precursor to accomplishing the stated task of understanding organizational setups. Within this respect other vital indicators that will be considered include amongst other things organizational learning, organizational planning and development. Each of these indicators according to Schein (1992) falls within the broad universal bracket of organizational culture which also tends to exert a degree of considerable influence of events in any organization.

Given the centrality of organizational cultural inclinations on the overall posture of contemporary organizations it will not be farfetched to contend that for leadership to enhance its effectiveness within the organizational setting then much of the onus lies on the capacity to make periodic flexible adjustments to accommodate immediate and contemporary realities (Schein, 1992). Stated differently, the most ideal way to appraise the status of an organization within the paradigms of today’s realities, it is imperative to understand the individual internal dynamics that regulates the respective cultural functionalities that are operational in each organization. Doing this enables a fine line to be drawn to reflect where the cultural intricacies begin and where they end all within the framework of the organization. It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of such an organizational cultural posture. It further brings it under the spotlight to enable an objective measurement of the parading dynamics and most importantly how any of the facets can be susceptible to relevant changes.

Within the limited scope of this work, emphasis is placed on the need to understand as well as come out with a tenable interpretation of an organization’s culture to serve as a roadmap to comprehensive sustainable management practices that reflect the intricate demands of the twenty first century. The second important guiding factor in this process is based on the fact that a firm understanding and interpretation of organizational culture enables an organization’s management hierarchy to steer the organization on the cause of its strategic development within a given time frame; it also has significant impacts on the output and most importantly the needed learning process required at any level of the organizational system.

It is also known that culture in its absolute sense has the capacity to either make or hamper any development that an organization plans to pursue. Given the importance placed on organizational culture within this work coupled with the fact that it will be a recurring factor in this essay provides sufficient reason to conduct an exhaustive discussion of what organizational culture is, so as to ensure that a careful screening of irrelevant discourses will eventually contribute to the further illumination of the subject matter of this essay.

A Review of the Available Literature on Organizational Culture

In casual terms, organizational culture can be seen from the perspective of the most dominant identifiable values and attitudes that have overtime become part of an organization’s operational processes. Come to think of the fact that an organization’s success or failure in its chosen endeavor cannot be treated in isolation with the cultural disposition of the organization barring all unforeseen circumstances. Organizational culture and its diverse streams of interest gained emerged as an integral managerial concept a little over two decades ago and have since gained widespread acceptance and usage.

One will be forgiven to think that taking cognizance of the level of popularity of the term there will certainly be some level of universality in reference to the term. On the contrary there is no universally accepted standard for defining what organizational culture is. What is observed when it comes to the discussion of the concept of organizational culture is a sharp division by scholars as to what constitutes the term in its precise nature. Within the limited scope of this essay, a strenuous effort will be put in place to review the most cogent definitions that have been presented by different scholars about the term over the years.

According to Van Maanen (1979), organizational culture refers to the visible rules that regulate behavior as people interact with each other. Deal & Kennedy (1982) have summarized it as the most dominant values espoused by an organization. Within the same threshold Robbins (1998) describes it as the pattern of perceptions held within an organization. A skim through all the afore mentioned definitions or descriptions, if you like, can show some very basic ideas flowing through the heart of each of the definitions provided. Commonality is a theme that clearly recurs in each of them (See Tunstall 1983; Martin 1985; Beyer & Trice 1987; Barney 1986 and Ker 1991 for a presentation of some of the other important definitions ascribed to organizational culture by these scholars).

Another quick fact that deserves to be highlighted is that by referring to organizational culture, it is prudent to avoid any tendency to misconstrue it for an entirely self-fulfilling state. Indeed, it’s the direct product of fundamental notions that have evolved into a dynamic phenomenon in response to happenings in the organizational setting (Schein, 1989). Central to this evolution of notions and practices is the fact that overtime they become accepted, adopted and engrained as the most comprehensive way of dealing with activities within the organization—this is then followed by conformity (Graves 1986; Kramer 1974; Foy 1974). Current and future members of the organization in question will be expected as a matter of principle to be guided by these evolved notions that have come to be the epitome of the organization’s culture.

Having described organizational culture within this style, it will be recalled that a prime mover of organizational changes stretches beyond the conventional pattern of sheer conceptualization. It extends into an understanding and interpretation of this existing culture to the advantage of the organization concerned. It is not misplaced to view culture as a symbolic representation of a model of importance, as can be seen from the angle of the usage of myths and legends to seek to provide an interpretation of old historical information about a people. The same can be said about the application of the phenomenon within the organizational setup. An organizational artifact can be used as an embodiment of core principles of the organization with a predefine history. The artifact by its mere existence serves as a living reminder of what the organization is made of. Indeed, organizational culture plays to provide a clear distinguishing character between organizations from an organic position. It provides the identity label those members of the organization bear (Morgan 1986).

In reference again to Schein (1992) much of the success that can be chucked by any organization hinges on the prevailing culture that has evolved or has been created within that organization. It therefore goes without saying that an organization that has a versatile culture within its confines is more than likely to be successful as opposed to the organization with a dumb culture. Hofstede (1980) contends that if an organization operates under a dead culture, the organization suffers from the unpleasant fate of an inability to be adaptable to both existing as well as emerging realities.

Schein (1992) explicitly demonstrates that the legitimacy of leadership within an organization stems from the capacity to be able to introspectively appraise the prevailing within the organization with the view of identifying the limits of the existing culture.  Identifying the cultural limitations and constraints

Provides the relevant platform upon which necessary adjustments can be made to the organizational culture so as to make it highly responsive. The onus therefore lies on people within the managerial hierarchy to understand and interpret their organization’s culture in a manner that will also make it reflect in the organizations policies at ant given time. Louis (1985) in a carrying out a research on organizational culture found that the level of rapport amongst workers as a prime factor of the existing organizational culture. Workers’ level of commitment to the work they do is bound not to go beyond the threshold ascribed to them by the prevailing permissive organizational culture which in other words spells out their level of identification with the organization and all that the organization stands for.

Needless to say that the current global economy is moving at a supersonic speed that requires that any organization that is seriously determined to be an active player within it ought to brazen with the dexterity to keep shifting gears at different points just to be at par with events. This means that change is an inevitable constant that will be a part of organizational practices. Change in its imperative cannot be achieved by overlooking the organizational culture that is in active use in any organization. The culture being practiced in the organization holds the answer to the many questions that managers often scratch their heads so hard to find (Beer 1980; Martins 1985).

Finally, in bringing this section on organizational culture and all that comes with it, it will be prudent to present a brief synopsis that captures in the main advantages of understanding and interpreting organizational culture within our contemporary realities. Chiefly among the advantages is the fact that it enables an organization and its management structure to keep a watchful tub on the pulse of the organization within the framework of the broader environment so as to be able to make adjustments where the needed arises. Failure to respond to the revelations of organizational culture may pose catastrophic to an organization both in the short and long term periods. Secondly, understanding the organizational culture also determines the caliber of people who constitute an organization and how outsider observers will view this organization.

Finally, it provides the leeway for the creation of strategic development plans for the organization, as management respond to environmental dynamism.

Responding to Changes

The process of change in any organization is not very different from what happens in almost every human institution—learning. An organization learns to effect changes be it gradual or drastic changes. Schofield (2004) is of the opinion that learning as a process cannot just arise from the blue in an organization. On the contrary it is a vehicle that is driven by individual efforts at achievement. What this therefore means is that individuals who constitute the membership of an organization trigger the learning process needed to carry out changes. Individual members should be seen to be working towards achieving a desired change and this should clearly reflect in their behavior (Schofield, 2004).

As the individual learning process is consolidated, it then advances into catching up with other vital forces that make up the block units of the organization. It should be noted that much of what is imbibed in as a product of learning to effect change is limited by what the individual members have been able to pick up as the broader representation of an organization’s policy. It becomes the pivot upon which further evidence is established to provide a justifiable discernment of all that can be done within the organization (Berends et al 2003; Nevis et al 1995). What is however lacking when it comes to the implementation of change principles within the organizational setting according to Garvin (1993) and Ulrich et al (1993) is the lack of tentative and empirical studies that enlightens the process of implementation of organizational change drivers.

Vince and Saleem (2004) have attributed the information arising from the implementation lag to the broad nature of the subject matter; thus making it difficult to capture all the areas covered under organization management. Their view however presents a limited summary of what is required to achieve successful implementation. From an unconventional posture they are convinced that the first step towards this realization can be taking from looking at organizational management as a political as well as social undertaking. Human agents are essentially the principal actors playing on the platform on frequent relationships with each other. From this point Gherardi et al (1998) have seen the potential for the eruption of conflicts from time to time since human relationships are involved in the process.

Finger and Brand (1999) are among the scholars who are of the opinion that organizational learning should be a continuous process as opposed to an intermittent response or intervention to an identified problem in the course of the operations of an organization. In what appears like a sharp rebuttal of what is the idea of individual learning transposing into an organizational learning reality Hedberg (1981) thinks that towing such a line is littered with a lot of latent difficulties. His reasons are that since individuals are not permanent members of organizations neither are leadership structures permanent by themselves, making individual learning the central focus of management of organizational process can be compromised by organizational turnover.

Conclusion

The global economy has entered a phase that can be described as an era where the economic foxes are so poised to eat the lame ducks of inefficiencies. Going by this, the overall competitiveness of any organization within the current milieu is largely a factor of well that organization is able to set itself up to respond to both the challenges and the opportunities presented by this current dispensation. This of course is no mean task, considering the sophistication that organizations of our day and age have assumed.

As a key point highlighted in this essay is the fact that organizational culture, its understanding and interpretation are at the very heart of making an organization very viable. It serves as a platform by which an organization can offer itself an objective introspective appraisal to prepare it for making relevant adjustment in the quest to achieving organizational and managerial success.

Reference

Berends, H., Boersma, K. and Weggeman, M. (2003) ‘The structuration of organizational learning’, Human Relations, 56: 1035–1056.

Deal Terrence and Kennedy Allan (1982). Corporate Cultures: The rites and rituals. Addison-Wesley Publishers, Massachusetts.

Finger, M. and Brand, S.B. (1999). The concept of the ‘Learning Organization’ applied to the transformation of the public sector: Conceptual contributions for theory development in organizational learning and the learning organization in M. Easterby-Smith, Araujo, L. and Burgoyne, J., Developments in Theory and Practice. London: Sage.

Garvin, D. (1993) ‘Building a learning organization’, Harvard Business Review, July-August: 78-91.

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odella, F. (1998) ‘Towards a Social Understanding of How People Learn in Organizations’, Management Learning 29 (3): 273–97.

Hedberg, B. (1981) How organizations learn and unlearn. In Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H. (eds) Handbook of Organizational Design. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-27.

Kerr, E. B., & Hiltz, S. R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication systems. New York: Academic Press.

Martin, J., Feldman, M., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. (1983). The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 438-453.

Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J. and Gould, J.M. (1995) ‘Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems’, Sloan Management Review, 36 (4): 73-85.

Schein, L. (1989). A manager’s guide to corporate culture (Research report No. 926). New York: Conference Board.

Schein E (1992) Organisational Culture and Leadership 2nd edition Jossey Bass, California.

Trice, H. M. , & Beyer, J. M. (1987). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Von Glinow, M. (1993) ‘High impact learning: building and diffusing learning capability’, Organizational Dynamics, Autumn: 52-60.

Van Maanen, J. 1979. The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4): 539-550.

Vince, R. and Saleem, T. (2004) ‘The Impact of Caution and Blame on Organizational Learning’, Management Learning, 35 (2): 133–154.