Linking to Organizational Learning

Learning is a developmental process that integrates thinking and doing. It provides a link between the past and the future, requiring us to look for meaning in our actions and giving purpose to our thoughts. Learning enriches what we do as individuals and collectively, and is central to organizational effectiveness, to developing the quality of our work and to organizational adaptability, innovation and sustainability50.
The process of organizational analysis and adaptation that we propose in this paper is not separate from organizational learning but should be seen as integrally linked. However, in a process of analysis and adaptation the type of learning used can influence whether the organization continues within pre-established frameworks and strategies or develops new ways of working. The concepts of single loop learning51, double loop learning and now triple loop learning can help to explore this distinction.

For CSOs facing complex situations where the future is often ‘unknowable’, single-loop learning may have limited application because it is about ‘habitual ways of thinking, or continuing to see the world within the familiar categories we’re comfortable with’53. However, where organizations are struggling even to carry out core activities effectively, this type of learning may be the most appropriate. This is because it can allow them to develop more efficient ways of carrying out existing activities without overwhelming them with new areas of work.
Double and triple loop learning take a more systemic approach which can allow for the open-ended change and unpredictability that characterizes development. They can deepen our awareness by reaching beyond superficial events and current circumstances to develop a more holistic understanding of our interactions with the social, economic, political and natural environment. In complex situations, where general frameworks cannot be applied to each event as it arises, effective learning can require a continuous process of observation and course correction, which means detecting small changes, adjusting actions and being aware of the feedback those actions elicit. However, double and triple loop learning take time and are more sophisticated processes which can encounter significant barriers. They do not fit easily with an organizational culture focused on tasks, agendas and outcomes. Organizations resistant to these types of learning therefore have ready excuses to avoid them, such as lack of time, resources and access to learning professionals to facilitate these processes. 54
Also, the questioning nature of double loop and triple loop learning, and the way they challenge strongly held positions and organisational power structures, can create resistance within an organisation because they involve changing mindsets and ‘surfacing and exploring learning behaviours and organisational defences’.55 For these reasons many organisations may deliberately discourage this type of learning (or at least make it difficult). In simple terms, people (usually managers) may avoid the organisational problems exposed by double loop and triple loop learning either by doing nothing (and hoping the problems go away), or ‘escaping into action’ which gives the appearance of change but leaves the real problem unsolved56. Managers may also discourage such learning processes if they perceive criticism as threatening or if they feel uncomfortable about reducing their control of strategic direction.

Understanding the culture is critically important because it cannot be assumed that learning will take place even when it appears that all the ‘right’ conditions exist.
Cultural and contextual factors can also significantly influence organizational learning. Understanding the culture is critically important because it cannot be assumed that learning will take place even when it appears that all the ‘right’ conditions exist. For example, the Cambodian organization VBNK57 has faced challenges as a result of status issues in the culture which have created resistance to some learning opportunities, most importantly:
Understanding the culture is critically important because it cannot be assumed that learning will take place even when it appears that all the ‘right’ conditions exist.
• Resistance to learn from participants’ experiences (in Cambodian culture the teacher is expected to know all and the student nothing).
• Perceived qualifications of trainers greatly influence participants’ attitudes towards learning.
• Limited ability to transfer workshop learning into everyday work practices.
• Limited capacity to read the environment, identify new trends, and to respond flexibly to needs or develop new initiatives.
Being a learning organization requires some degree of shared agreement about the nature and purpose of learning. Learning may itself be a skill that has to be acquired in a way that is grounded in its relevance to the host culture. Adaptation and innovation can also involve processes of unlearning – of consciously giving up on learning practices that, in many cases, have long been ineffective. This process of unlearning can be a far more difficult proposition than learning because it can involve changing engrained patterns of behavior.
Integrating a deeper level of learning into the process of analysis and adaptation also raises the question of whether the current aid system, with its requirements for pre-selected outcomes based on generalised project frameworks, can provide an enabling environment where: 1) fallibility, uncertainty and risk taking are acceptable and 2) there is an openness for learning to lead to unplanned actions in response to the changing environment.
                                       Adjusting Actions: Section Summary
All organization face complexity and uncertainty deriving from forces of change in their internal and external environments. Recognizing this can enable organisations to respond more appropriately, moving beyond actions based on habits of the past while simultaneously learning to listen to the feedback that those actions elicit.