Running head: PROPOSAL FOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING ISSUES 1 PROPOSAL FOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING ISSUES 7 Proposal for Organizational Learning Issues Name: Octavia Sanders Instructor: Dr. Annette M. West Course: Developing a Learning Organization Date: November 27, 2017 Section 1 The finding on organization learning is that the definition of the concept of 'organization learning' is obscure since the overall process is not quantifiable. The assertion that the process links to cultural progress and organization progress is equally misleading since the enlightenment of individual that forms part of culture varies. The organization cannot equally learn since it is a system but 'organization's culture' is the one that experiences transformation. Additionally, anthropomorphism and reification of terminologies create complexity. The OLM that organizations use is the external model. Professionals guide the training, and it entails partitioning organization into cultural learning units then identifying centers. The challenges in the process are that one might learn at a different pace from another person. Lastly, the norm of an organization may hinder learning leading to complexity of the processes. The recommendations, therefore, require conceptualization of the mechanism of the process as individual units before integration of each as elements of learning. The person guiding the process must understand the finer details of organization culture. The focus on leadership roles and the identification of the norms ought to guide the process for the realization of the goal of training (Lipshitz, Friedman, & Popper, 2006). It is also vital noting that an organization is a system that depends on human intellect hence focus on people should guide adjustments of systems. Section 2 The ever-increasing conceptual diversity, anthropomorphism, and reification of terminologies create discord between culture and organization learning. The complexity of diversity is leading to confusion of the meaning of learning; thus, the difficulty in assigning a meaning to the process. The anthropomorphism that describes humanization of organization’s overall systems is an impediment (Friedman, Lipshitz, & Popper, 2005). Additionally, the use of unclear terms that results only in confusion is a source of disconnect. The OLM generalize organizations as a system leading to complexity in the categorization of the mechanism that influences learning. In a bid to alleviate the concern, the team leaders guiding learning ought to visualize mechanism such as culture and leadership as individual components. Afterward, segment the organization into social (culture) units then steer leaning with clear goals. Conduct the process as a continuous program by soliciting feedback for the identification of areas of challenge (Graham & Nafukho, 2008). The subsequent complexity is the perception that organization learns yet actuality, the people forming part of the organization ...

1. Running head: PROPOSAL FOR ORGANIZATIONAL
LEARNING ISSUES 1
PROPOSAL FOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING ISSUES 7
Proposal for Organizational Learning Issues
Name: Octavia Sanders
Instructor: Dr. Annette M. West
Course: Developing a Learning Organization
Date: November 27, 2017
Section 1
The finding on organization learning is that the definition of the
concept of 'organization learning' is obscure since the overall
process is not quantifiable. The assertion that the process links
to cultural progress and organization progress is equally
misleading since the enlightenment of individual that forms part
of culture varies. The organization cannot equally learn since it
is a system but 'organization's culture' is the one that
experiences transformation. Additionally, anthropomorphism
and reification of terminologies create complexity. The OLM
that organizations use is the external model. Professionals guide
the training, and it entails partitioning organization into cultural
learning units then identifying centers. The challenges in the

2. process are that one might learn at a different pace from another
person. Lastly, the norm of an organization may hinder learning
leading to complexity of the processes.
The recommendations, therefore, require conceptualization of
the mechanism of the process as individual units before
integration of each as elements of learning. The person guiding
the process must understand the finer details of organization
culture. The focus on leadership roles and the identification of
the norms ought to guide the process for the realization of the
goal of training (Lipshitz, Friedman, & Popper, 2006). It is also
vital noting that an organization is a system that depends on
human intellect hence focus on people should guide adjustments
of systems.
Section 2
The ever-increasing conceptual diversity, anthropomorphism,
and reification of terminologies create discord between culture
and organization learning. The complexity of diversity is
leading to confusion of the meaning of learning; thus, the
difficulty in assigning a meaning to the process. The
anthropomorphism that describes humanization of
organization’s overall systems is an impediment (Friedman,
Lipshitz, & Popper, 2005). Additionally, the use of unclear
terms that results only in confusion is a source of disconnect.
The OLM generalize organizations as a system leading to
complexity in the categorization of the mechanism that
influences learning. In a bid to alleviate the concern, the team
leaders guiding learning ought to visualize mechanism such as
culture and leadership as individual components. Afterward,
segment the organization into social (culture) units then steer
leaning with clear goals. Conduct the process as a continuous
program by soliciting feedback for the identification of areas of
challenge (Graham & Nafukho, 2008). The subsequent
complexity is the perception that organization learns yet
actuality, the people forming part of the organization are the
ones that learn. For that reason, it becomes impossible eluding
that organization progress is cultural learning. Organizations

3. should instead approach the process as holistic tasks but first,
visualize the mechanisms as independent.
Section 3
The OLM suitable for organization training is the
offline/external model. It entails the inclusion of a professional
from outside the organization guiding the employees of the
organization in the adaptation of the new norms/skills. The
reason for its preference is that it facilitates holistic
conceptualization of the issues that affect learning.
Consequently, the person steering the process must have a
deeper understanding of the challenges that organizations
confront in the institution of new sets of behavior. The models
also facilitate segmentation of the organization into different
units before the implementation of strategies that encourage
adaptation of new skills or knowledge that leads to
transformation of behavior.
The strength of the model is that it encourages collaboration
that recognizes variation in people understandings, thus limiting
the possibility of difference in perception halting the learning
process. The subsequent strengths of the model are that it
follows a sequential format that allows monitoring of the
learning as a progressive process that considers people as part
of the system (Meyers, van Woerkom, & Dries, 2013). The
trainer can opt to simplify the process or customize according to
employee’s needs. Additionally, during the definition of the
terminologies, the expert ensures the exploitation of the
concepts that area easily comprehensible.
The shortcomings of the exploitation of the technique in
training employees is that its focuses on transforming individual
behavior without consideration of the implication of the systems
yet the latter adjustments are critical in the quantification of the
outcome of organization training. The personnel steering the
process might lack an in-depth understanding of the values that
different employees treasure since outsider guides the process.
Another shortcoming of the adaptation of the methodology is
that the person guiding the process might assume that

4. harmonization of the different cultures will serve the objective
of the organization. However, on numerous occasions, the
harmonization of the culture leads to confusion since the
members lack a clear vision of the expectation of the program.
The possible source of the challenges in learning using OLM is
that the definition of the objective is impractical in a context
where the training facilitates segmentation of organization into
different cultural units before learning only to harmonize the
same in the latter stages. Furthermore, on a number of
occasions, the expert base decision on the comprehension of the
learning mechanism on the assumption leading to complexity in
the process. The trainer might also focus on organization as
‘learner’ and not individuals.
To aver similar scenarios in the future, the trainers should
commence by first identifying simple objectives then seeking to
understand the organization. Afterward, the segmentation of the
organization into learning units takes place before identification
of areas that unite systems and peoples attributes. The process
has to employ a cyclic model with feedback (Friedman,
Lipshitz, & Popper, 2005). The recognition of challenges as the
norm should equally take place for the realization of the goal of
the process.
The talent management strategies for implementation I
preparation for learning entails formulating guidelines that
entail recruiting individuals with the traits aligned with the
culture of the organizations then adopting coaching for
preparation of learning. Role assignments equally help, but the
investments in technologies that ease the dissemination of
knowledge is necessary during the process (Meyers, van
Woerkom, & Dries, 2013). The organization can invest in
systems that simulate human behavior to aid in the strategy. The
identification of focus groups then conducting continuous on-
job training and encouragement of individual to strive for
personal developments is helpful in the realization of the goal
of training.
Section 4

5. The high risk of the model is the possibility of the competition
amid individual affecting the overall goals of the program. The
organization might end up addressing interpersonal conflict as
opposed to focusing on the primary objective of the program.
The variation in the perception of problem or the goals of the
program then aligning it to employees needs is equally a risk in
talent management.
The steps for managing the risks entail conducting a study of
the organization outlook before the identification of areas that
deserve priority in selection of individuals. The realization that
individual learning is different from organization learning is
necessary. The trainer should visualize the process and
mechanism that dictate learning as intertwined to organization
culture. However, it is not mandatory that learning result in
talent acquisition since the quantification of the process is
unclear.
The After-Action Review (AAR) that can serve is collecting
individual feedback about the progress in learning then uses the
same as cumulative projector of talents developments or
training programs.
The mentorship approach of training can aid in learning.
Likewise, the exploitation of focus groups can help. For
instance, at the commencement of coaching, the leaders guiding
the selected employees can identify the attribute of organization
culture that needs adjustments. Afterward, use coaching
techniques in imparting skills that aid in the development of the
traits before allowing the employees to exercise the abilities in
duties. Throughout the process, the leader should monitor the
progress of the individual.
The current hindrance to organization learning according to the
model of coaching is attributable to the variation in the
perception of the cultures forming part of the organization. One
might regard a cultural action as learning contrary to the
perception of another individual in the same context. The lack
of collective culture makes it impractical modeling concerted
efforts of individual as the approach of transforming entire

6. organization (Lipshitz, Friedman, & Popper, 2006).
Despite the difficulty, organizations elements such as the
existence of technological resources that support leaning make
exploitation of the training techniques such as external coaching
techniques. The desire for most of the employee attaining a new
set of skills due to the competitive nature of the modern
workplace can serve as a precipice for encouraging the
implementation of the training. The diverse nature of the
workplace can serve as the motivation for identification of
learning mechanism. As a result, the trainer might identify the
underlying complexities that interfere with the process; thus
amending changes in places where necessary.
References
Friedman, V. J., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2005). The
mystification of organizational learning. Journal of management
inquiry, 14(1), 19-30.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247737818_The_Myst
ification_of_Organizational_Learning
Graham, C. M., & Nafukho, F. M. (2008). Exploring
Organizational Learning Mechanisms in Small‐Size Business
Enterprises. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human
Resource Development, 22(1), 4-23.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ983870.pdf
Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V., & Popper, M. (2006). Demystifying
organizational learning. Sage.
Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Friedman, V. J. (2002). A
multifacet model of organizational learning. The journal of
applied behavioral science, 38(1), 78-98.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Victor_Friedman2/publicat
ion/250959626_A_Multifacet_Model_of_Organizational_Learni
ng/links/555b2bd508ae980ca612dd19.pdf
Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom, M., & Dries, N. (2013). Talent—
Innate or acquired? Theoretical considerations and their
implications for talent management. Human Resource
Management Review, 23(4), 305-321.

7. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S10534822130
00314
Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 1
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 7
Identifying the Organizational Learning Issues
Name: Octavia Sanders
Instructor: Dr. Annette M. West
Course: Developing a Learning Organization
Date: October 22, 2017
Organizational Learning
Organizational learning is a complex concept, and there is no
agreement on what organizational learning is. Various scholars
have come up with varied definitions of organizational learning.

8. Transitioning a company from individual learning to
organizational learning requires the firm to understand aspects
surrounding this concept. Some of the aspects include
understanding the culture of the company regarding knowledge
sharing and disconnect between the culture and organizational
learning based on the mystifications of organizational learning,
current organizational learning mechanisms, and the norms
surrounding organizational learning.
Organizational culture and organizational learning
The company’s culture mirrors one company, one team, and one
passion. In this company, employees are free to share their
ideas and thoughts, support the company and inspire it to grow.
The company encourages the employees to share knowledge for
propelling the company forward. Additionally, the organization
believes that pushing the company forward is dependent on the
vision, innovation as well as the passion of every employee
thereby the company focuses on building a healthy relationship
with the employees creating a free environment for sharing
knowledge. Also, the company has an inclusive workplace that
acknowledges and respects diversity. Further, it has a policy
that discourages discrimination of people against race, religion,
gender, age, ideas, and thoughts and therefore all the employees
can share their views, thoughts, and ideas without fear.
However, there are significant issues within this culture
particularly with sharing information as knowledge sharing in
some departments is reserved.
There is a disconnect between the company’s culture and
organizational learning based on the mystifications of
organizational learning including the ever-increasing conceptual
diversity, anthropomorphism, and reification of terminologies
(Friedman et al., 2005). The ever-increasing conceptual
diversity makes organizational learning obscure. There is
inconsistency in defining organizational learning as there is no
agreement on what constitutes organizational learning.
Different researchers and firms have different viewpoints about
organizational learning (Friedman et al., 2005). For example,

9. the company‘s culture mirrors organizational learning as
creation and transfer of knowledge within the company to
facilitate productivity. Therefore, the company’s culture
regarding organizational learning is only based on one among
the many definitions of the concept.
Another disconnect is anthropomorphism referring to attribution
human features or behavior to a non-human entity. In this case,
anthropomorphizing organizational learning means an
organization having the learning capability. Humans have the
capability to share knowledge and learn from experience, but it
is impossible for the organization to do so. Treating the
company as a human being adds to mystifications of
organizational learning (Friedman et al., 2005). For example,
the company’s culture is based on the belief that organizational
learning occurs through training its employees. However, this is
a disconnect as learning of individual members of the
organization does not translate to organizational learning
Also, the company‘s culture incorporates new terminologies
pertaining to organizational learning without conveying the
exact meaning. Organizational learning has led to the upsurge
of new terminologies including systems thinking, organizational
memory, defensive routines, and creation of knowledge. The
issue is that the terms are widely used without conveying
precise meaning or showing a considerable change in
application (Friedman et al., 2005). For example, the company
uses double-loop learning to refer to all kinds of far-reaching
organizational change in the company when its original meaning
is to refer to a particular kind of learning in a specific context.
Organizational learning mechanisms (OLM)
Organizational learning mechanisms are vital to organizational
learning. However, OLMs including the company culture,
leadership, and systems and structures are some of the
hindrances to organizational learning. Culture involves the
shared values, knowledge, and assumptions regarding
organizational learning (Sambrook & Stewart, 2000). The
company lacks a collective culture as each unit in the

10. organization has its own culture thereby hindering
organizational learning. Also, the company’s leadership does
not motivate, facilitate feed-forward and experimental learning,
and encourage wide involvement thereby establishing the
processes and systems essential for organizational learning is a
challenge (Graham et al., 2008). Also, the company’s systems
and structures do not externally and internally collaborate to the
firm and discourage evaluative success hence do not support
organizational learning processes (Graham et al., 2008). A
training program for training employees on the new information
system software was ineffective since after a week of training
majority of the employees did not know how to use it and this is
attributed to non-collaborative culture between company units,
poor leadership, and inadequacy of company systems and
structure.
Offline/external organizational learning mechanism
The best OLM to replace the above-identified OLMs hindering
organizational learning is off-line/external OLM. According to
Lipshitz et al., (2006), offline/external OLM involve learning
carried by the experts. An organization assigns the experts to
the task pertaining to organizational learning on a around the
clock basis, have particular analytic skills, and are based in
centralized units which are organization-wide knowledge
repositories and centers for knowledge dissemination. Hiring
the experts to work in the organization on a full-time basis
would certain there availability to handle all aspect relating to
organizational learning thereby facilitating the process.
Norms in organizational learning
Organizational learning is based on norms, understanding, and
shared experiences which foster positive behavior as well as
learning techniques. Norms of the learning culture of the
company hinder productive learning as these norms are not in
line with the culture of organizational learning. The company
needs to re-evaluate the inquiry and transparency norms
(Lipshitz et al., 2002). For example, currently, there is a limited
application of the inquiry norm in the company, and that

11. explains the issues of innovation and poor decision-making the
corporation is experiencing. The company can foster the inquiry
norm through the adoption of the inquisitive style culture which
would enhance the process of learning and knowledge sharing
(Lipshitz et al., 2002). Also, application of the transparency
norm is low. For example, regarding knowledge sharing is some
of the departments is reserved and share best practices only
among the unit members rather than sharing with the entire
organization. This has hindered the emergence of creative and
innovative ideas and further hindered organizational learning.
The company needs to foster the wide application of the
transparency norm to facilitate organizational learning.
Conclusion
Despite lack of agreement on organizational learning concept,
organizations continue to embrace it. Companies have
developed cultures and systems and structures that support
organizational learning. Fostering organizational learning
necessitates an understanding of the company’s culture,
organizational learning mechanisms, and norms of
organizational learning.

12. References
Friedman, V. J., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2005). The
mystification of organizational learning. Journal of management
inquiry, 14(1), 19-30.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247737818_The_Myst
ification_of_Organizational_Learning
Graham, C. M., & Nafukho, F. M. (2008). Exploring
Organizational Learning Mechanisms in Small‐Size Business
Enterprises. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human
Resource Development, 22(1), 4-23.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ983870.pdf
Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V., & Popper, M. (2006). Demystifying
organizational learning. Sage. p.35
Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Friedman, V. J. (2002). A
multifacet model of organizational learning. The journal of
applied behavioral science, 38(1), 78-98.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Victor_Friedman2/publicat
ion/250959626_A_Multifacet_Model_of_Organizational_Learni
ng/links/555b2bd508ae980ca612dd19.pdf
Sambrook, S., & Stewart, J. (2000). Factors influencing
learning in European learning oriented organizations: issues for
management. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 24(2/3/4), 209-219.