EDF2806: Understanding the Nature of Work, Organisation and Learning

Only recently are we beginning to understand work-based learning extensively enough to be able to work towards comprehensive models of how it can be effectively integrated and managed in the workplace. Such a models should incorporate theory and practice modes of learning and explicit and tacit forms of knowledge whilst recognising learning as ongoing within the organisation. Furthermore learning within the workplace must be extended beyond the individual and reach out the collective level, incorporating group dynamics within the organisation and sometime even outside the organisation.

Types of Knowledge and Learning

It may be useful to identify how each of these forms may be defined:

• Explicit – Stated and codified forms of knowledge, such as a manuals, documents, and procedures, that can be readily transmitted to others.
• Tacit – knowledge that people have in their minds and, therefore, difficult to access and not easily shared. Tacit knowledge might only be known by an individual and may be difficult to communicate to the rest of an organisation.

Brown and Duguid (1996) refer to explicit knowledge as canonical and tacit knowledge as non-canonical.

A Model for Work-Based Learning

Raelin first examines 2 separate matrixes of work-based learning, individual and collective, before proposing his unified model.

Work-Based Learning as an Individual Property. As all individuals are predisposed to a particular learning style it is necessary to encompass all of the following four learning types for fast and effective learning within the organisation. Raelin contends that learning at the individual level involves a matrix blending knowledge, as explicit and tacit, with learning, as theory and practice.

• Conceptualisation
• Experimentation
• Experience
• Reflection

Work-Based Learning as a Collective Property. Similarly to learning as an individual, it is proposed by Raelin that four types of learning as a collective should be considered when working towards a unified model for work-based learning.

Applied Science. It is possible to gain insight into areas of objective knowledge left undiscovered through the manipulation of theoretical propositions using the rules of hypothetico-deductive logic. By selectively subjecting such knowledge to this intensity of inquiry it may:

• Become more validated
• Become expressible as a serious of logical relationships
• Invite reformulation

Action Learning. The value of tacit knowledge acquisition through real-world experiences should not be overlooked by educators. The process of becoming a practitioner, not learning about the practice, is a critical issue in work-based learning. Thus opportunities should be provided for practitioners to merge theory with practice within the social construct of the organisation, and interchange ideas with each other.

Community of Practice. Practitioners involved with one another in action evolve their communities of practice as they develop values, beliefs, communication and a shard history.

Action Science. Action science seeks to bring mental process into consciousness to help form new ones that may serve us better.

Having developed separate models of work-based learning that encompasses the individual and collective learning levels Raelin works toward a more comprehensive model and proposes how it can be used to conceptualise an integrative approach. Raelin’s figure of “A Comprehensive Model of Work-Based Learning” (Raelin, 1997, p. 573) embodies the contention of the article by brining together the otherwise disparate sets learning processes. This integration demonstrates the interplay between forces that impede or facilitate learning in the workplace. The previous two traditional matrixes have been combined into a three dimensional model that shows transitional movement across the dimensions.  Independent of the type of learning to take place, all eight types of learning need to be considered.

A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation

Ikujiro Nonaka (1994) proposes a paradigm whereby organisational knowledge is generated through continuous interplay between tacit and explicit knowledge. Four patterns of such interaction are devised with consideration to the role of the individual, who is primary responsible for generating such knowledge, and the organisation, who is critical in articulating and amplifying such knowledge.

Nonaka proposes four modes of knowledge creation resulting from conversion of different knowledge types (tacit and explicit).

1. Socialisation (tacit to tacit). Knowledge is acquired when transferred through interactions and experience.
2. Combination (explicit to explicit). The reconfiguring and recontextualising of knowledge by the receiving individual may lead to new knowledge.
3. Externalisation (tacit to explicit). Knowledge is translated for communication.
4. Internalisation (explicit to tacit) is representative of traditional ‘learning’.

Organisational knowledge, different to that of the individual, is proposed to be produced or amplified when all four modes of knowledge are managed effectively by the organisation in a spiralling effect, from one to the other. It is critical for organisations to spread tacit knowledge and Nonaka’s examination of Japanese companies found that these organisations promoted sharing of tacit knowledge through five enabling conditions; Intention; autonomy; fluctuation; redundancy; and requisite variety.

Organisational Learning and Communities-of-Practice

Brown and Duguid’s (1996) key focus is the way in which organisational practices differ fundamentally to the canonical processes set by the organisation itself. The information set out by the organisation in manuals, training programs and charts is so vastly different from what actually takes place within the organisation that it may actually be detrimental for individuals to follow such practices alone. This also applies to communities and groups that are identified by the organisation, and Brown and Druids contention is that communities within the organisation will form as is required to achieve goals within the organisation and not as the organisation prescribes them. Brown and Druid examine ways in which these communities-of-practice form within different organisational contexts.

Working. The sheer amount of variables within an organisation are so overwhelming that, to achieve day-to-day functionality within an organisation, the need continually arises for individuals to step beyond information supplied by the organisation, and even to step well outside their intended job description. Solving problems in situ requires individuals to learn and develop new skills by forming communities independently within the organisation and therefore demonstrates that learning-in-working is an occupational necessity.

 Learning. The traditional pedagogical method of transferring explicit, abstract knowledge from one individual to another are being rejected by research in favour of a model that incorporates practice and social context. The old concept of decontextualising knowledge is seen to be less and less efficient and learners learn much better within the communities they will actually work in since learning is about becoming a practitioner, not learning practice. 

Innovation. Small groups within organisations can often avoid the limited conditions in place form the organisation itself and offer a haven for innovation and development within the organisation. Too often such non-canonical groups are seem as counter-productive, but should not be overlooked by the organisation as a rich source for innovation and development.

Action Science and Organizational Learning

Argyris’ studies of organisational leaning note what I consider to be two very interesting points; Individual’s espoused theory was almost always different to their theory-in-use and; although espoused theories were broad and varied, theory-in-use was almost always the same throughout the industrialised world. Furthermore, theories-in-use often cause defensive behaviours that inhibit learning within the organisation. Argyris then moves to propose methods by which individuals may redesign their actions and adopt better theories to apply to their organisation.

Summary

A precious commodity for organisations in the 21st century will be their skills of knowledge transfer and innovation but organisational learning throughout the industrialised world is in need of a shake-up. New models of learning need to be adopted into mainstream organisational learning cultures across the board, not just in disparate groups of certain ambitious pioneering organisations, pushing beyond their comfort zones. As studies in the field develop they are showing that methodologies and practices in place by organisations are being shown to be increasingly inefficient. The old “tried and true”, such as the endorsement of abstract knowledge, are proving to be more detrimentally counter-productive to business, yet facilitators, knowledge managers and practitioners are sticking by them despite their internal beliefs.

The power of communities within organisations is often overlooked, and indeed sometimes frowned upon, as being counter-productive to organisational practices. But the very practices set out b the organisation could not be realised without the formation of such groups. Communities need to be nurtured and recognised within the organisation as these inter-groups of individuals are shown to be key in learning and innovations within the organisation.

For organisations to truly succeed in the areas of learning, knowledge and innovations they need to grow to become learning organisations themselves. Organisations must harness these virtues at the individual level, the communal level, and at the very heart of the organisation.

References

Argyris, C. (1995) Action Science and Organizational Learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(6), 20-26.

Brown, J.S. & Duguid P. (1996) Organizational Learning and Communities-of-practice. In Cohen, M.D. & Sproull, L. S. (Eds.) Organisational Learning (pp.58-82). Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications.

Nonaka, I. (1994) A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organizational Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Raelin. J. A. (1997) A Model of Work-Based Learning. Organizational Science,8(6), 568-578.