Assignment 3- Just need someone to make notes

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 are the ones that learn. For that reason, it becomes impossible eluding that organization progress is cultural learning. Organizations 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 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

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 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_Mystification_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/publication/250959626_A_Multifacet_Model_of_Organizational_Learning/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. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053482213000314