A multi-facet model of organizational learningRaanan Lipshitz and Micha PopperVictor J. FriedmanAugust , 2000Send comments to:Dr. Raanan LipshitzDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of HaifaHaifa, Israel, [email protected] objective of this paper is to map the many facets of organizational learning into an integrative and parsimonious conceptual framework that can help researchers and practitioners identify, study, and introduce organizational learning to organizations. Today many organizations aspire to be a learning organizations, but the proliferation of this subject both in the literature and in practice has not necessarily led to greater clarity about what this actually means. This paper addresses this gap between theory and practice by providing a working definition of “productive organizational learning” and then describing the conditions under which organizations are likely to learn. The model presented draws on scholarly organizational learning literature, practitioners accounts, and our own experiences as researchers and practitioners. It argues that learning by organizations, as distinct from learning in organizations, requires the existence of organizational learning mechanisms. These mechanisms, which represent the “structural facet,” are necessary but not sufficient for generating productive organizational learning. The quality of organizational learning depends on additional facets of organizational learning, cultural, psychological, policy and contextual which facilitate, or inhibit, learning. The paper describes these facets and the relationships between them. It argues that there is no single path or one best set of arrangements for creating learning organizations. Rather, the model provides the basis for experimenting with alternative configurations in order to understand and promote learning in a particular organization.Insert Figure 1 hereInsert Figure 2 hereInsert Table 1 hereI believe that if a patient dies or fails to heal it is our [i.e., the staff’s] fault. This is a healthy attitude, even if factually it may not be true. One can always rationalize that the patient was 80 years old, that his heart was weak, that his wife nagged him to death, and so on and so forth. There is an infinite number of excuses that one can find to CYA [cover your ass]. For me, this attitude is unacceptable. If the basic premise is that we are at fault, it follows that we should find out what went wrong so that next time we will avoid this error. In my opinion, that’s the key to constantly learning and improving.Insert Figure 3 hereLey, D., & Hitt, M.A. (1995). Strategic restructuring and outsourcing: The effect of mergers and acquisitions on building firm skills and capabilities. Journal of Management, 21, 835-859.Lipshitz, R. (2000). Chic, mystique, and misconception: Argyris and SchÖn and the rhetoric of organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 456-473 .Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2000). Organizational learning in a hospital. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36, 345-361.A multi-facet model of organizational learning Raanan Lipshitz and Micha PopperUniversity of HaifaandVictor J. FriedmanRuppin InstituteAugust , 2000Send comments to:Dr. Raanan LipshitzDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of HaifaHaifa, Israel, [email protected] objective of this paper is to map the many facets of organizationallearning into an integrative and parsimonious conceptual framework that canhelp researchers and practitioners identify, study, and introduceorganizational learning to organizations. Today many organizations aspire tobe a learning organizations, but the proliferation of this subject both in theliterature and in practice has not necessarily led to greater clarity about whatthis actually means. This paper addresses this gap between theory andpractice by providing a working definition of “productive organizationallearning” and then describing the conditions under which organizations arelikely to learn. The model presented draws on scholarly organizationallearning literature, practitioners accounts, and our own experiences asresearchers and practitioners. It argues that learning by organizations, asdistinct from learning in organizations, requires the existence oforganizational learning mechanisms. These mechanisms, which represent the“structural facet,” are necessary but not sufficient for generating productiveorganizational learning. The quality of organizational learning depends onadditional facets of organizational learning, cultural, psychological, policy andcontextual which facilitate, or inhibit, learning. The paper describes thesefacets and the relationships between them. It argues that there is no singlepath or one best set of arrangements for creating learning organizations.Rather, the model provides the basis for experimenting with alternativeconfigurations in order to understand and promote learning in a particularorganization.2Several seminal works on organizational learning were skeptical about theability of organizations to learn. March and Olsen (1976) asked what organizations could actually learn in the face of barriers such as superstitiouslearning and the ambiguity of history. Argryris and SchÖn (1978) provided an affirmative answer to the question, “what is an organization that it may learn?” (p. 8), but devoted most of their work to studying and overcoming human reasoning and behavioral patterns that limit learning. Over a decade later, Huber’s (1991) evaluation of the literature still focused on the “obstacles to organizational learning from experience” (p.95). Reflecting on the state of the literature itself, Huber (1991) concluded that “the landscape of research on organizational learning” was “sparsely populated”, that there was a lack of cumulative and integrative work, that there was little agreement on what organizational learning is, and that there were few research-based guidelines for managers wishing to promote it.More recently, however, Barnett (n.d.) showed that “Although the definitions of organizational learning are somewhat varied, there is also a noticeable convergence of key terms and their meanings” (p. 8), and there seems to be little question that