the learning organization_ principles, theory and practice

The learning organization. Just what constitutes a

‘learning organization is a matter of some debate.

We explore some of the themes that have emerged

in the literature and the contributions of key

thinkers like Donald Schon and Peter Senge. Is it

anything more than rhetoric? Can it be realized?

contents: introduction · the learning society and the

knowledge economy · the learning organization · systems

theory and the learning organization · dialogue and the

learning organization · some problems and issues ·

conclusion · further reading and references · links

associated pages: donald schön and the learning society ·

peter senge and the learning organization · dialogue · social

capital

infed is a not-for-profit

site provided by the YMCA

George Williams College.

Give us feedback; write

for us. Join us on Facebook

and Twitter.

log in | register

faqs: about us, copyright,

printing, privacy, disclaimer

Hosting by Memset

Dedicated Servers

[CarbonNeutral®].

infed.org | The learning organization: principles, theory and practice http://infed.org/mobi/the-learning-organization/

1 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

commercial significance of organizational learning – and the

notion of the ‘learning organization’ has been a central

orienting point in this. Writers have sought to identify

templates, or ideal forms, ‘which real organizations could

attempt to emulate’ (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999: 2). In

this sense the learning organization is an ideal, ‘towards

which organizations have to evolve in order to be able to

respond to the various pressures [they face] (Finger and

Brand 1999: 136). It is characterized by a recognition that

‘individual and collective learning are key’ (op. cit.).

Two important things result from this. First, while there has

been a lot of talk about learning organizations it is very

difficult to identify real-life examples. This might be because

the vision is ‘too ideal’ or because it isn’t relevant to the

requirements and dynamics of organizations. Second, the

focus on creating a template and upon the need to present it

in a form that is commercially attractive to the consultants

and writers has led to a significant under-powering of the

theoretical framework for the learning organization. Here

there is a distinct contrast with the study of organizational

learning.

Although theorists of learning organizations have often

drawn on ideas from organizational learning, there has

been little traffic in the reverse direction. Moreover, since

the central concerns have been somewhat different, the

two literatures have developed along divergent tracks. The

literature on organizational learning has concentrated on

the detached collection and analysis of the processes

involved in individual and collective learning inside

organizations; whereas the learning organizations

literature has an action orientation, and is geared toward

using specific diagnostic and evaluative methodological

tools which can help to identify, promote and evaluate the

quality of learning processes inside organizations.

(Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999: 2; see also Tsang 1997).

new : What is education?

Cultivating learning and

possibility? A definition

and discussion

new : Serious and

organised crime toolkit

new : The impact of

austerity on schools and

children’s education and

well-being.


2 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

and the process by which organizations eventually reach

th[e] ideal of a learning organization’ (Finger and Brand

1999: 136).

On this page we examine the path-breaking work of Donald

Schon on firms as learning systems and then go on to explore

Peter Senge’s deeply influential treatment of the learning

organization (and it’s focus on systemic thinking and

dialogue). We finish with a brief exploration of the

contribution of social capital to the functioning of

organizations.

The emergence of the idea of the ‘learning organization’ is

wrapped up with notions such as ‘the learning society’.

Perhaps the defining contribution here was made by Donald

Schon. He provided a theoretical framework linking the

experience of living in a situation of an increasing change

with the need for learning.

The loss of the stable state means that our society and all

of its institutions are in continuous processes of

transformation. We cannot expect new stable states that

will endure for our own lifetimes.

We must learn to understand, guide, influence and

manage these transformations. We must make the

capacity for undertaking them integral to ourselves and to

our institutions.

We must, in other words, become adept at learning. We

must become able not only to transform our institutions,

in response to changing situations and requirements; we

must invent and develop institutions which are ‘learning

systems’, that is to say, systems capable of bringing about

their own continuing transformation. (Schon 1973: 28)


3 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

which companies, social movements and governments were

learning systems – and how those systems could be

enhanced. He suggests that the movement toward learning

systems is, of necessity, ‘a groping and inductive process for

which there is no adequate theoretical basis’ (ibid.: 57). The

business firm, Donald Schon argued, was a striking example

of a learning system. He charted how firms moved from

being organized around products toward integration around

‘business systems’ (ibid.: 64). He made the case that many

companies no longer have a stable base in the technologies of

particular products or the systems build around them.

Crucially Donald Schon then went on with Chris Argyris to

develop a number of important concepts with regard to

organizational learning. Of particular importance for

later developments was their interest in feedback and single-

and double-loop learning.

Subsequently, we have seen very significant changes in the

nature and organization of production and services.

Companies, organizations and governments have to operate

in a global environment that has altered its character in

significant ways.

Productivity and competitiveness are, by and large, a

function of knowledge generation and information

processing: firms and territories are organized in networks of

production, management and distribution; the core economic

activities are global – that is they have the capacity to work as

a unit in real time, or chosen time, on a planetary scale.

(Castells 2001: 52)

A failure to attend to the learning of groups and individuals

in the organization spells disaster in this context. As

Leadbeater (2000: 70) has argued, companies need to invest

not just in new machinery to make production more efficient,

but in the flow of know-how that will sustain their business.


4 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

appropriation and exploitation.

It was in this context that Peter Senge (1990) began to

explore ‘The art and practice of the learning organization’.

Over 750,000 copies of The Fifth Discipline (1990) were sold

in the decade following its publication – and it is probably

this book that has been the most significant factor in

popularising the notion of the learning organization.

However, as Sandra Kerka remarked in 1995 ‘there is not… a

consensus on the definition of a learning organization’.

Indeed, little has changed since. Garvin (2000: 9) recently

observed that a clear definition of the learning organization

has proved to be elusive.

Learning organizations [are] organizations where

people continually expand their capacity to create

the results they truly desire, where new and

expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where

collective aspiration is set free, and where people are

continually learning to see the whole together.

(Senge 1990: 3)

The Learning Company is a vision of what might be

possible. It is not brought about simply by training

individuals; it can only happen as a result of

learning at the whole organization level. A Learning

Company is an organization that facilitates the

learning of all its members and continuously

transforms itself. (Pedler et. al. 1991: 1)

Learning organizations are characterized by total

employee involvement in a process of collaboratively


5 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

towards shared values or principles. (Watkins and

Marsick 1992: 118)

We can see much that is shared in these definitions – and

some contrasts. To start with the last first: some writers (such

as Pedler et. al.) appear to approach learning organizations

as something that are initiated and developed by senior

management – they involve a top-down, managerial

imposed, vision (Hughes and Tight 1998: 183). This can be

contrasted with more ‘bottom-up’ or democratic approaches

such as that hinted at by Watkins and Marsick (1992; 1993).

Some writers have looked to the learning company, but most

have proceeded on the assumption that any type of

organization can be a learning organization. A further crucial

distinction has been reproduced from the use of theories

from organizational learning. This is the distinction made

between technical and social variants (Easterby-Smith and

Araujo 1999: 8). The technical variant has looked to

interventions based on measure such as the ‘learning curve’

(in which historical data on production costs is plotted

against the cumulative output of a particular product) (op.

cit.). There is a tendency in such approaches to focus on

outcomes rather than the processes of learning. The social

view of the learning organization looks to interaction and

process – and it is this orientation that has come to dominate

the popular literature.

According to Sandra Kerka (1995) most conceptualizations of

the learning organizations seem to work on the assumption

that ‘learning is valuable, continuous, and most effective

when shared and that every experience is an opportunity to

learn’ (Kerka 1995). The following characteristics appear in

some form in the more popular conceptions. Learning

organizations:


6 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

Use learning to reach their goals.

Link individual performance with organizational

performance.

Foster inquiry and dialogue, making it safe for people to

share openly and take risks.

Embrace creative tension as a source of energy and

renewal.

Are continuously aware of and interact with their

environment. (Kerka 1995)

As Kerka (1995) goes onto comment, the five disciplines that

Peter Senge goes on to identify (personal mastery, mental

models, shared vision, team learning and systems thinking)

are the keys to achieving this sort of organization. Here,

rather than focus too strongly on the five disciplines (these

can be followed up in our review of Senge and the learning

organization) we want to comment briefly on his use of

systemic thinking and his interest in ‘dialogue’ (and the

virtues it exhibits). These two elements in many respects

mark out his contribution.

Systemic thinking is the conceptual cornerstone (‘The Fifth

Discipline’) of Peter Senge’s approach. It is the discipline that

integrates the others, fusing them into a coherent body of

theory and practice (1990: 12). Systems theory’s ability to

comprehend and address the whole, and to examine the

interrelationship between the parts provides, for Peter Senge,

both the incentive and the means to integrate the disciplines.

Three things need noting here. First, systems theory looks to

connections and to the whole. In this respect it allows people

to look beyond the immediate context and to appreciate the


7 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

extent it holds the possibility of achieving a more holistic

understanding. Second, while the building blocks of systems

theory are relatively simple, they can build into a rather more

sophisticated model than are current in many organizations.

Senge argues that one of the key problems with much that is

written about, and done in the name of management, is that

rather simplistic frameworks are applied to what are complex

systems. When we add these two points together it is possible

to move beyond a focus on the parts, to begin to see the

whole, and to appreciate organization as a dynamic process.

Thus, the argument runs, a better appreciation of systems

will lead to more appropriate action. Third, systemic

thinking, according to Senge, allows us to realize the

significance of feedback mechanisms in organizations. He

concludes:

The systems viewpoint is generally oriented toward the

long-term view. That’s why delays and feedback loops are so

important. In the short term, you can often ignore them;

they’re inconsequential. They only come back to haunt you in

the long term. (Senge1990: 92)

While other writers may lay stress on systems theory, in

Senge’s hands it sharpens the model – and does provide

some integration of the ‘disciplines’ he identifies.

Peter Senge also places an emphasis on dialogue in

organizations – especially with regard to the discipline of

team learning. Dialogue (or conversation) as Gadamer has

argued is is a process of two people understanding each

other. As such it is inherently risky and involves questioning

our beliefs and assumptions.

Thus it is a characteristic of every true conversation that

each opens himself to the other person, truly accepts his


8 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

particular individual, but what he says. The thing that has

to be grasped is the objective rightness or otherwise of his

opinion, so that they can agree with each other on a

subject. (Gadamer 1979: 347)

The concern is not to ‘win the argument’, but to advance

understanding and human well being. Agreement cannot be

imposed, but rests on common conviction (Habermas 1984:

285-287). As a social relationship it entails certain virtues

and emotions.

It is easy to see why proponents of the learning organization

would place a strong emphasis upon dialogue. As Peter Senge

has argued, for example, team learning entails the capacity of

members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into a

genuine “thinking together”’ (1990: 10). Dialogue is also

necessary to other disciplines e.g. building a shared vision

and developing mental models. However, there are

significant risks in dialogue to the organization. One factor in

the appeal of Senge’s view of dialogue (which was based upon

the work of David Bohmand associates) was the promise that

it could increase and enrich corporate activity. It could do

this, in part, through the exploration and questioning of

‘inherent, predetermined purposes and goals’ (Bohm et. al.

1991). There is a clear parallel here with Argyris and Schön’s

work on double-loop learning, but interestingly one of

Bohm’s associates has subsequently suggested that their view

was too optimistic: ‘dialogue is very subversive’ (Factor

1994).

In our discussion of Senge and the learning organizationwe

point to some particular problems associated with his

conceptualization. These include a failure to fully appreciate

and incorporate the imperatives that animate modern


9 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

requires of managers (and whether many in practice they are

up to it); and questions around his treatment of

organizational politics. It is certainly difficult to find real-life

examples of learning organizations (Kerka 1995). There has

also been a lack of critical analysis of the theoretical

framework.

Based on their study of attempts to reform the Swiss Postal

Service, Matthias Finger and Silvia B?rgin Brand (1999)

provide us with a useful listing of more important

shortcomings of the learning organization concept. They

conclude that it is not possible to transform a bureaucratic

organization by learning initiatives alone. They believe that

by referring to the notion of the learning organization it was

possible to make change less threatening and more

acceptable to participants. ‘However, individual and

collective learning which has undoubtedly taken place has

not really been connected to organizational change and

transformation’ (ibid.: 146). Part of the issue, they suggest, is

to do with the concept of the learning organization itself.

They argue the following points. The concept of the learning

organization:

Focuses mainly on the cultural dimension, and does not

adequately take into account the other dimensions of an

organization. To transform an organization it is necessary

to attend to structures and the organization of work as well

as the culture and processes. ‘Focussing exclusively on

training activities in order to foster learning… favours this

purely cultural bias’ (ibid.: 146).

Favours individual and collective learning processes at all

levels of the organization, but does not connect them

properly to the organization’s strategic objectives. Popular

models of organizational learning (such as Dixon 1994)

assume such a link. It is, therefore, imperative, ‘that the

link between individual and collective learning and the


10 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

for some form of measurement of organizational learning

– so that it is possible to assess the extent to which such

learning contributes or not towards strategic objectives.

Remains rather vague. The exact functions of

organizational learning need to be more clearly defined.

In our view, organizational learning is just a means in order

to achieve strategic objectives. But creating a learning

organization is also a goal, since the ability permanently and

collectively to learn is a necessary precondition for thriving in

the new context. Therefore, the capacity of an organization to

learn, that is, to function like a learning organization, needs

to be made more concrete and institutionalized, so that the

management of such learning can be made more effective.

(ibid.: 147)

Finally, Finger and Brand conclude, that there is a need to

develop ‘a true management system of an organization’s

evolving learning capacity’ (op. cit.). This, they suggest, can

be achieved through defining indicators of learning

(individual and collective) and by connecting them to other

indicators.

It could be argued that the notion of the learning

organization provides managers and others with a picture of

how things could be within an organization. Along the way,

writers like Peter Senge introduce a number of interesting

dimensions that could be personally developmental, and that

could increase organizational effectiveness – especially where

the enterprise is firmly rooted in the ‘knowledge economy.

However, as we have seen, there are a number of

shortcomings to the model – it is theoretically underpowered

and there is some question as to whether the vision can be


11 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

between organizations in a globalized capitalist economy. It

might well be that ‘the concept is being oversold as a

near-universal remedy for a wide variety of organizational

problems’ (Kuchinke 1995 quoted in Kerka 1995).

There have been various attempts by writers to move

‘beyond’ the learning organization. (The cynics among us

might conclude that there is a great deal of money in it for the

writers who can popularise the next ‘big thing’ in

management and organizational development). Thus, we find

guides and texts on ‘the developing organization’ (Gilley and

Maybunich 2000), ‘the accelerating organization (Maira and

Scott-Morgan 1996), and ‘the ever-changing organization’

(Pieters and Young 1999). Peter Senge, with various

associates, has continued to produce workbooks and

extensions of his analysis to particular fields such as

schooling (1994; 1999; 2000).

In one of the more interesting developments there has been

an attempt to take the already substantial literature on trust

in organizations (Edmondson and Moingeon 1999: 173) and

to link it to developments in thinking around social

capital(especially via the work of political theorists like

Robert Putnam) (see Cohen and Prusak 2001). We could also

link this with discussions within informal education and

lifelong learning concerning the educative power of

organizations and groups (and hence the link to

organizational learning) (see the material on association

elsewhere on these pages). Here the argument is that social

capital makes an organization more than a collection of

individuals. (Social capital can be seen as consisting of ‘the

stock of active connections among people: the trust, mutual

understanding, and shared values and behaviours that bind

the members of human networks and communities and make

cooperative action possible’, Cohen and Prusak 2001: 4).

Social capital draws people into groups.


12 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

coherent organizational behaviour. This description of

social capital suggests appropriate organizational

investments – namely, giving people space and time to

connect, demonstrating trust, effectively communicating

aims and beliefs, and offering equitable opportunities and

rewards that invite genuine participation, not mere

presence. (Cohen and Prusak 2001: 4)

In this formulation we can see many of the themes that run

through the approach to the learning organization that

writers like Watkins and Marsick (1993) take. The significant

thing about the use of the notion of social capital is the extent

to which it then becomes possible to tap into some interesting

research methodologies and some helpful theoretical

frameworks.

Quite where we go from here is a matter for some debate. It

could be that the notion of the ‘learning organization’ has had

its ‘fifteen minutes of fame’. However, there does seem to be

life in the notion yet. It offers an alternative to a more

technicist framework, and holds within it a number of

important possibilities for organizations seeking to sustain

themselves and to grow.

Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (eds.) (1999)

Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization,

London: Sage. 247 + viii pages. A collection with a good

overview and some very helpful individual papers. The

opening section provides reviews and critiques, the second, a

series of evaluations of practice.

Schön, D. A. (1973) Beyond the Stable State. Public and

private learning in a changing society, Harmondsworth:

Penguin. 236 pages. A very influential book (following

Schön’s 1970 Reith Lectures) arguing that ‘change’ is a


13 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

develop social systems that can learn and adapt. Schön

develops many of the themes that were to be such a

significant part of his collaboration with Chris Argyris and his

exploration of reflective practice.

Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The art and

practice of the learning organization, London: Random

House. 424 + viii pages. A seminal and highly readable book

in which Senge sets out the five ‘competent technologies’ that

build and sustain learning organizations. His emphasis on

systems thinking as the fifth, and cornerstone discipline

allows him to develop a more holistic appreciation of

organization (and the lives of people associated with them).

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organisational learning: A

theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison

Wesley.

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1996) Organisational learning II:

Theory, method and practice, Reading, Mass: Addison

Wesley.

Bohm, D., Factor, D. and Garrett, P. (1991) ‘Dialogue – a

proposal’, the informal education archives.

Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1997) Reframing

Organizations. Artistry, choice and leadership 2e, San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 450 pages.

Castells, M. (2001) ‘Information technology and global

capitalism’ in W. Hutton and A. Giddens (eds.) On the Edge.

Living with global capitalism, London: Vintage.

Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001) In Good Company. How

social capital makes organizations work, Boston: Harvard


14 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

Dixon, N. (1994) The Organizational Learning Cycle. How

we can learn collectively, London: McGraw-Hill.

Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. ‘Current debates and

opportunities’ in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J.

Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning

Organization, London: Sage.

Edmondson, A. and Moingeon, B. (1999) ‘Learning, trust and

organizational change’ in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and

J. Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the

Learning Organization, London: Sage.

Factor, D. (1994) On Facilitation and Purpose,

http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue

/facilitation_purpose.html

Finger, M. and Brand, S. B. (1999) ‘The concept of the

“learning organization” applied to the transformation of the

public sector’ in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J.

Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning

Organization, London: Sage.

Gadamer, H-G. (1979) Truth and Method, London: Sheed

and Ward.

Garvin, D. A. (2000) Learning in Action. A guide to putting

the learning organization to work, Boston, Mass.: Harvard

Business School Press.

Gilley, J. W. and Maybunich, A. (2000) Beyond the Learning

Organization. Creating a culture of continuous growth and

development through state-of-the-art human resource

practices, Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Books.

Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action


15 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

Hayes, R. H., Wheelwright, S. and Clark, K. B. (1988)

Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the learning

organization, New York: Free Press. 429 pages.

Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (1998) The myth of the learning

society’ in S. Ranson (ed.) Inside the Learning Society,

London: Cassell.

Kerka, S. (1995) ‘The learning organization: myths and

realities’ Eric Clearinghouse, http://www.cete.org

/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=archive&ID=A028.

Leadbeater, C, (2000) Living on Thin Air, London: Penguin.

Malhotra, Y. (1996) ’Organizational Learning and Learning

Organizations: An Overview’ http://www.brint.com/papers

/orglrng.htm

Maira, A. and Scott-Morgan, P. B. (1996) The Accelerating

Organization: Embracing the human face of change,

McGraw-Hill.

Marquandt, M. and Reynolds, A. (1993) The Global Learning

Organization, Irwin Professional Publishing.

Marquardt, M. J. (1996) Building the Learning

Organization, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Van Maurik, J. (2001) Writers on Leadership, London:

Penguin.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1991, 1996) The

Learning Company. A strategy for sustainable development,

London: McGraw-Hill.

Pieters, G. W. and Young, D. W. (1999) The Ever-Changing


16 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

learning and improvement, St Lucie.

Senge, P. et. al. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook:

Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and

Smith, B. (1999) The Dance of Change: The Challenges of

Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, New

York: Doubleday/Currency).

Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N. Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton,

J. and Kleiner, A. (2000) Schools That Learn. A Fifth

Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone

Who Cares About Education, New York:

Doubleday/Currency

Sugarman, B. (1996) ‘Learning, Working, Managing, Sharing:

The New Paradigm of the “Learning Organization”’, Lesley

College, http://www.lesley.edu/journals/jppp/2

/sugarman.html

Sugarman, B. (1996) ‘The learning organization and

organizational learning: New Roles for Workers, Managers,

Trainers and Consultants’, Lesley College,

http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/sugarman/loandtd.htm

Tsang, E. (1997) ‘Organizational learning and the learning

organization: a dichotomy between descriptive and

prescriptive research’, Human Relations, 50(1): 57-70.

Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (eds.) (1993) Sculpting the

Learning Organization. Lessons in the art and science of

systematic change, San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1992) ‘Building the learning

organization: a new role for human resource developers’,

Studies in Continuing Education 14(2): 115-29.


17 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

Analyze an organization’s learning climate – set of tools

concerning cultural aspects of organizational development.

The Business Researcher’s Interests: Organizational Learning

& Knowledge Management – Lots of links.

Index of links to learning organization websites: some ideas

for getting started in learning about learning organizations.

Learning Org — A Discussion of Learning Organizations.

Contains current messages and archives of the Learning-org

mailing list.

Learning organization profile – checklist produced by ASTD

(American Society For Training and Development)

The Learning Organizations Homepage: articles on the

nature of the learning organization plus articles and links.

The Learning Organization: journal.

The Learning Organization: Transformational Change: article

Organizational fitness Website

Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations: An

Overview Excellent collection of links and papers @

Brint.comAn overview of key concepts related to

Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations

covering questions such as: What is Organizational Learning?

What is a Learning Organization? What is Adaptive Learning

vs. Generative Learning? What’s the Managers’ Role in the

Learning Organization? What’s the Relationship between

Strategy and Organizational Learning? What is the Role of

Information Systems in the Learning Organization? Does

Information Technology Impose Any Constraints on

Organizational Learning?


18 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

inspired homepage

The Society for Organizational Learning

Stanford Learning Organization Web (SLOW): The Stanford

Learning Organization Web (SLOW) is an informal network

of Stanford researchers, staff, and students along with

colleagues and friends from the corporate world interested in

the nature and development of learning organizations.

Acknowledgement: Picture, Marble Madness is by Jo

Christian Oterhals . It was sourced from Flickr and is

reproduced here under a Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

licence. http://www.flickr.com/photos/oter/4612019947

To cite this page: Smith, M. K. (2001, 2007) ‘The learning

organization’, the encyclopedia of informal education,

http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-organization.htm.

© Mark K. Smith 2001, 207

learning organization

30 10 3


19 of 19 14-04-2015 02:17 PM

the learning organization_ principles, theory and practice

Documents

learning organization

learning andpossibility

learning society peter

thelearning organization

alearning organization

towardswhich organizations

dynamics of organizations

ideal forms