Question

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 1 of 12

Unit 1: The Action Learning Organization [Draft] Guiding Question: What is the “action learning” organization, how does it work, and why does it matter? This course is a practical study of the leadership work of collaborating with others to make sense of complex problems and create innovative solutions. This study will be reflexive, meaning our study of this leadership work will reflect back on itself. We will be examining how to collaboratively solve complex problems while at the same time collaboratively solving the problem of how to solve problems collaboratively.

Why Action Learning Organizations? The human endeavour to learn—that is, to gain knowledge about the world and new abilities to cope with its challenges—is central to our lived experience. Essential to human success is our ability to adapt to dynamic environments by way of our individual, and more importantly, our collective intelligence and ingenuity. By way of learning, we prepare for future action using our knowledge of the past. We reflect on present action and improve upon what we already know. We consider what we don’t know, or what we think we know (but don’t really know) to estimate emerging opportunities, imagine the impossible, and devise new capabilities. Our unique capacity for collective learning is made possible by human language, which over the ages, has enabled us to share what we’ve learned and make it a part of our collective memory. In this way, human ideas outlast the individuals who formulate them, allowing our collective knowledge to accumulate from generation to generation. We are “the learning species” writes Kolb (1984) and “our survival depends on our ability to adapt not only in the reactive sense of fitting into the physical and social worlds, but in the proactive sense of creating and shaping those worlds” (p. 1). On the surface human learning is an adaptive process—that is, 1) we preserve what is essential for our continued success, 2) discard what no longer serves our needs, and 3) develop new abilities to flourish in new ways and in new environments. However, as Kolb adds human learning is also a generative process. That is, the heart of human learning is our response to the natural tension generated by the gap that exists between our understanding of the world as it is and our envisaging of the world as it could be. Senge (1990a, 1990b) refers to this aspect of learning as creative tension, which he defines as the gap generated between reality (what is) and vision (what could be). Initiating and sustaining creative tension is what leaders do. Senge (1990b) found the inspiration for his creative tension concept from Martin Luther King, who wrote, “Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind, so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths . . . so must we . . . create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism” (p. 9). While King’s intention was societal change, Senge’s intended context is individual and organizational learning.

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 2 of 12

Our ancestors’ process of adapting to new situations, including those problematic situations we generate through the creative tension we bring forth as a species, has continued throughout the course of human history and into our present day. This pattern of collective learning broadly explains how we developed the staggering technological, social and intellectual complexity we now experience daily in our contemporary world. Our learning has brought forth “a world that is increasingly of our own creation—a world paved in concrete, girded in steel, wrapped in plastic, and positively awash in symbolic communications” (Kolb, 1984, pp. 1-2). We have created a world in our own image; characterized by an increasing rationalization of what we know and do, individualization of our sense of being, secularization of our values, industrialization of our work, urbanization of our dwelling, capitalization of our economic activity, and nationalization and globalization of our societies. When we observe the contemporary world we now inhabit, we may characterize our collective human learning outcomes in both conservative and progressive terms. To illustrate, consider how we both sustain and revolutionize our human societies through the social institutions, we inhabit and maintain. On one hand, each society continues to reproduce itself according to a shared image. Each society creates and sustains what Taylor (2007) calls a social imaginary, which brings forth a particular social order through a relatively persistent system of social institutions, patterns of interactions and customs, capable of continually reproducing those conditions essential for its own existence. These essential organizing conditions—which remain relatively constant over time—include both structural arrangements, such as, property, exchange and power relations, and cultural forms, communication relations and ideological systems of values. This social order is grounded within people’s deeply held belief in, what Schön (1973) calls, a stable state—“the unchangeability, the constancy of central aspects of our lives, or belief that we can attain such a constancy” (p. 9). Simply put, human beings don’t like uncertainty. Consequently, the collective learning outcomes within our social institutions often exhibit “dynamic conservatism,” or “a tendency to fight to remain the same” (p. 30). On the other hand, members of a society are continuously imagining and reimaging what they want the society to be. [Need an example of social revolution here.] The persistent problem with seeking the ideal of a stable state is that “the only certainty is uncertainty” (Nonaka, p. 96). Indeed, organizations must continuously make sense of a changing operating environment by either assimilating external changes to fit their existing structures, or accommodate their existing structures to fit new realities. That is, organizations need to continuously transform in response to changing social situations and requirements and act as learning organizations.

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. (Schön, 1973, p. 28)

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 3 of 12

This notion of the learning organization is historically situated within the idea of a learning society. That is, our previous observation that “our society and all of its institutions are in continuous processes of transformation” (Schön, 1973, p. 28). Hutchins (1968) adds that a learning society emerges as the necessary consequence of two intertwined societal phenomenon: “the increasing proportion of free time and the rapidity of change” (p. 130). What is most significant here, he argues is that “the latter requires continuous education; the former makes it possible” (p. 130). For Hutchins, the initial archetype of the learning society is ancient Athens where:

education was not a segregated activity, conducted for certain hours, in certain places, at a certain time of life. It was the aim of the society. The city educated the man. The Athenian was educated by culture, by paideia. (Hutchins, 1968, p. 133)

What made the ancient Greek learning society possible? It was slavery, which gave citizens the time to participate in the cultural life of the city. What currently makes our modern learning society possible? Hutchins’ (1968) argument is “machines can do for modern [people] what slavery did for the privileged few in Athens” (p. 133). Technological change is merely one of the eight environmental forces Marquardt (2011) identified, compelling organizations to either learn or face extinction.

• Globalization and the global economy • Technology and the Internet • Radical transformation of the work world • Increased customer power • Emergence of knowledge and learning as major organizational assets • Changing roles and expectations of workers • Workplace diversity and mobility • Rapidly escalating change and chaos (p. 2)

Forces, such as, economic globalization and the rapid exchange of technological innovation are driving the world toward increased integration, and creating new tensions with the enduring nature of social, political and cultural differences that identify peoples, communities, and institutions. In the midst of these tensions lies the domain of leadership, which on one hand faces the pressure for change from the technical development of the global economy, and on the other hand, people’s desire for social stability and wellbeing afforded by established values and structures. Our present socio-economic reality is recognized by many to be the dawn of a new age— that is, an age centred on a knowledge economy. It is a paradigm shift made possible by standing on the shoulders of industrial age schools. Yet, the very success of these industrial schools in educating the masses and churning out generations of “experts” has generated a whole new set of concerns. Most unsettling for those who lead is the fact that being an “expert” today is a short-lived advantage and having the “answers” is often a disadvantage when what is needed today is the ability to make

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 4 of 12

sense of what is emerging. Indeed, as the former CEO of GE insightfully observed: “an organization’s ability to learn, and translate that learning into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive business advantage” (as cited in Slater, 1999, p. 12). The nature of the problems we now face individually, in our organizations and communities, and broadly as nations and as a species is shifting before our eyes. In the late twentieth century we witnessed the rise of wicked problems. Rittel and Webber (1984) famously argued many of the problems we now face are inherently unstable, ill-defined, ambiguous, circular, stubborn, and even aggressive in nature. What this means is each wicked problem we encounter—in a wide range of fields— is unique, is often the result of other problems, has consequences that are difficult to imagine, has no criteria for knowing when it has been solved, has numerous intervention points, is resistant to change, and has solutions that are good or bad. What is changing is we are reaching a point in our collective history where our time- tested success strategy—that is, learning from the collective wisdom of our elders— is no longer sufficient to our continued flourishing. A frequently cited way of conceptualizing this emerging situation is with the acronym VUCA, created by the U.S. Army War College to describe how the multilateral world that resulted from the ending of the Cold War has become more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. The consequence of our VUCA world, according to Canadian scholar Homer-Dixon (2003) is that humanity now faces an ingenuity gap. The essence of his argument is:

The complexity, the pace, and often the unpredictability of events in our world are soaring, as is the severity of environmental stress. If we are to meet the challenges we face in this new world, we need more ingenuity. But we cannot always supply the ingenuity we need at the right times and places, and the result is an ingenuity gap. (p. 6)

In localized contexts this reality is not new; the limits of human ingenuity have been reached time and again, as evidenced by the rise and fall of numerous civilizations. What has changed, as the futurist Alvin Toffler (1980) is often quoted as saying, is “the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”1 We need leaders and organizations who are not only able to learn, but able to increase our capacity to learn together. Increasingly, it is no longer sufficient for the leader alone to learn for everyone else. Consequently, today’s leaders must create, sustain, and grow learning communities to support their leadership work of moving people toward a shared purpose. Today when we speak about the idea of the learning organization and its associated 1 This oft quoted phrase is actually a paraphrase of the original text: “By instructing students how to learn, unlearn and relearn, a powerful new dimension can be added to education…Tomorrow's illiterate will not be the man who can't read; he will be the man who has not learned how to learn.”

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 5 of 12

practices and processes, people more often use the term innovation. What exactly is innovation? Put simply, it is the action or process of innovating—that is, making changes in something established. Indeed, the key characteristic of innovation is “newness”, but this concept is relative. To begin with, an “innovation can be [broadly] considered [something] new to an individual adopter, a group or team, an organization, an industry or the wider society” (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006, p. 216). In some cases, this means a truly new creation, adaptation, or adoption. And in all cases, it is something either new to an incremental degree, or radically different than what preceded it. Innovation occurs in products, services, systems, strategies, and processes (such as, how people in organizations work together). Innovation in organizations is a multi-stage process, often involving multi-disciplinary expertise.

Organizations typically innovate in response to changing (internal and external) environments. Undeniably, as marketplaces globalize, technologies proliferate, social patterns shift, and ecologies wither the strategic significance of innovation has steadily increased. Innovation is important, because it plays the central role in creating and sustaining growth. As Baregheh, Rowley, & Sambrook (2009) put it, innovation is the “process whereby organizations transform ideas into new/improved products, service or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in their marketplace” (p. 1334). Nevertheless, at the heart of innovation is learning, and to innovate organizations still need to become learning organizations, so it is this underlying pursuit we shall consider.

What is the Action Learning Organization? What is the learning organization? The first notable definition was an organization with the ability to detect and correct errors, and iteratively resolve mismatch of outcome to expectation (Argyris & Schön, 1978). Levitt and March (1988) added the idea that learning organizations intentional encode lessons learned into routines that guide behavior, including policies, procedures, and their underlying beliefs. Senge (1990a), who popularized the learning organization in his book The Fifth Discipline, described the concept as place “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 how to learn together” (p. 3). Nonaka (1991), similarly, imagined the learning organization as a “knowledge-creating” place where people “consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely throughout the organization, and quickly embody it in new technologies and products” (p. 96). Moreover, he suggested that “to create new knowledge means quite literally to re- create the [organization] and everyone in it in a nonstop process of personal and organizational self-renewal” (p. 97). Huber (1991) brought further attention to the processes and practices of acquiring, distributing, interpreting and retaining the information that organizational units recognize as potentially useful. Expanding on Huber model Garvin (1993; 2000) in a very pragmatic way defines the learning organization as a collective skilled at two critical activities: 1) “creating, acquiring,

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 6 of 12

interpreting, transferring, and retaining knowledge” and 2) “purposefully modifying [its collective] behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights (2000, p. 11). Nevis, DiBella and Gould (1995) shifted the focus back to competences and processes within an organization that maintain or improve performance based on experience. Marquardt (2011) summed up a decade of evolving definitions with his observation that the essence of a learning organization is its “[ability] to harness the collective genius of its people at the individual, group, and system level” (p. 2). Then more recently, Marquardt, Banks, Cauweiler, and Seng Ng (2018) simply defined the learning organization as “organizations that continuously learn and improve and thereby successfully adapt to the rapidly changing environment” (p. 24). A critical observation we can make about all these definitions is that they seem to reflect two different categories of thought, one being descriptive and the other one being prescriptive. Within this two stream categorization of organizational learning literature, “the descriptive strand would be the study of learning processes, while the prescriptive strand would focus on building an organization that learns” (Sun & Scott, 2003). Hence, the ground-breaking work of Argyris and Schön (1978) that described iterative error detection processes can be understood as a descriptive definition. Whereas, Senge’s (1990a) work that promoted a generative vision of learning is more characteristic of a definition that is prescriptive. This distinction is important, because it represents two unique dimensions needed to form a complete and practical definition of organizational learning. First, a valid framework for understanding organizational learning must define, “the learning process used in the organization… [dealing] with the question of how individuals in the organization learn” (Sun & Scott, 2003). Second, a valid framework must also deal with how learning transfers, “from individual(s) to collective(s) to organizational to inter- organizational, and vice versa, and [how it] ‘must’ result in changes in behavior” (Sun & Scott, 2003) to ensure that genuine knowledge transference has taken place. When the body of descriptive and prescriptive theories are all taken together as a whole a common set of “action imperatives” emerge. Thus, we might reasonably say learning organizations: (1) create continuous learning opportunities, (2) promote inquiry and dialogue, (3) encourage collaboration and team learning, (4) establish systems to capture and share learning, (5) empower people toward collective vision, and (6) connect the organization to its environment (Watkins & Marsick, 1993). When we consider the learning organization as a set of action imperatives it becomes clear it is not really a type of organization at all. It is better characterized as a leadership methodology that strives to make all organizational practices, systems, and the supporting culture an intentional, integrated, and wise learning process. Conceptualized in this way the learning outcomes of this leadership methodology is to create an organized body of people with a particular purpose (that is, an organization) that: 1) knows what to do by creating, acquiring, interpreting, transferring and retaining knowledge; 2) does what it knows by purposefully modifying its collective behavior to reflect new knowledge; and 3) expands its

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 7 of 12

capacity to create the results it truly desires by way of continuous individual and collaborative reflection, which clarifies its collective aspirations (what could be, and what we want it to be) and sees the systems shaping its current reality (what is). From a leadership perspective, the work of creating learning organizations may, then, be distilled into three essential action imperatives. That is, learning-oriented leaders help others (individually and collectively): (a) know what to do, (b) act on what they know, and (c) grow their capacity to create the results they truly desire.

How do Action Learning Organizations Work? At the most basic level of analysis learning is personal. Therefore, to understand collective learning we first need to understand individual learning, because as Kim (1993) argues, “organizations ultimately learn via their individual members” (p. 37). Moreover, our conceptualization of organizational learning is in fact “a metaphor derived from our understanding of individual learning” (p. 37). Consequently, leaders seeking to build learning organizations must first understand individual learning if they are to understand organizational learning and how to influence it. The formal definition of “learning” denotes the phenomena is both a product (something learned) and a process (the act of learning). In each case “learning” is attributed to an agent (that is, the learner). Learning signifies the act of acquiring “knowledge of (a subject) or skill in (an art, etc.) as a result of study, experience, or teaching” (OED). The word comes to us from the Old English (c.450-c.1100) word leornian, which meant “to get knowledge” or to “be cultivated.” The history of the word learn also has ties to the word lore, from the Old English word lar, which referred to “learning” in terms of “that which is taught" or "a piece of teaching” (OED). These definitions raise two questions for us: (a) how do humans beings learn, and (b) what is the nature of what we acquire as a result of our learning process? Individual Learning How do we learn? We learn through experience—our own and the experience of others. Ackoff (1999) argues “knowledge can be obtained either from [our own] experience—for example, by [our own] trial and error—or from someone who has obtained it from experience, their own or that of others” (p. 15). The American pragmatist philosopher John Dewey (1933/1998) describes this experiential learning process as a cycle of action and reflection. That is, we act, and then reflect on, and give meaning to our action. Dewey (1933/1998) defined reflective thought as “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 118). For Dewey, the reflective act of the learning cycle begins with: (a) “a state of doubt, hesitation, perplexity, mental difficulty, in which thinking originates,” followed by (b) “an act of searching, hunting, inquiring, to find material that will resolve the doubt, settle and dispose of the perplexity” (p. 12). Put simply, reflection in learning is an activity in which we “recapture [our] experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it” (Boud, Keogh and Walker, 1985, p. 19). Doll

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 8 of 12

(1993) adds learning reflection involves a critical and creative thinking process, which “reconstruct[s] … actions taken” and “re-look[s] at meanings made” (p. 141). What is the outcome of our learning experiences? That is, what do we acquire in our learning process? Memories, certainly; but what is their nature? Our memories are mental representations, or models. That is, cognitive psychology suggests that people have an internal world of mental models that represent what they know, generate their behaviors, and reflect their expectations of others. This internal repository of mental models is the content of a person’s intelligence, defining the limits of their capacity to understand the world in which they operate and their resourcefulness in coping with its challenges. This conceptualization of the mind’s internal world has a long history in psychology and philosophy, beginning with the writings of Plato (notably, his allegory of the cave in the Republic). In everyday life, people simply refer to these mental models as ideas, but for our discussion it is helpful to be more specific. Gardner (2004) identifies four kinds of mental models that are common to most human learning: concepts, stories, theories and skills. Gardner (2004) defines the concept as the mind’s elementary unit of representation, a model of things having common characteristics, generalized from particular instances of those things. Stories build on concepts through narratives that tell the particulars of an act or incidence or course of events over a period of time. Theories are generalized stories that explain the causal processes responsible for some phenomena observed in the world. And skills are essentially procedural stories that result in the performance of tasks. Concepts, stories, theories and skills embody the contents of the mind and serve as the products of learning. Hence, at the most basic level of our memory, learning can be defined as a change in a person’s mental models. Collective Learning Building on two decades of best practice research Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008), propose “three broad factors that are essential for organizational learning and adaptability: a supportive learning environment, concrete learning processes and practices, and leadership behavior that provides reinforcement” (p. 3). Supportive Learning Environment According to Garvin et. al. (2008) for learning to occur within an organization its social environment must be characterized by:

1. Psychological safety: To learn, people cannot fear being judged by others for being naïve, incompetent, or for holding a minority opinion or idea.

2. Appreciation of difference: Learning requires exposure to difference—a different opinion, idea, point-of-view, or experience of some kind.

3. Openness to new ideas: Learning is not merely a trial-and-error process, but involves imagination, experimentation, and discovery of new and novel ideas.

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 9 of 12

4. Time for reflection: In addition to exposure and application Learning also involves reflecting on new experiences and making sense of what they mean.

Concrete Learning Processes and Practices Organizational learning (that is, a social group learning as a whole) is ultimately based on individuals who learn. Thus, building a learning organization begins with establishing and nurturing effective individual learning practices throughout the whole organization. Building upon these distributed individual learning practices are concrete collective processes acting to coordinate the generation, collection, interpretation, and dissemination of data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. Peter Senge’s five disciplines. In the 1990s, Senge (2006) proposed a set of five integrated practices and processes, or disciplines, that were “converging to innovate learning organizations” (p. 6). He believed “each provide[d] a vital dimension in building organizations that can truly ‘learn,’ that can continually enhance their capacity to realize their highest aspirations” (p. 6). Senge’s five disciplines are: Personal mastery. Personal mastery is the discipline of articulating a coherent image of one’s vision—the results a person most want to create in their life— alongside a realistic assessment of the reality of their life today. This produces creative tension on personal level that when cultivated, can expand a person’s capacity to make better choices and to achieve more of the results they have chosen. Shared vision. This collective discipline establishes a focus on mutual purpose. People with a common purpose can learn to nourish a sense of commitment in a group or organization by developing shared images of the future they seek to create and the principles and guiding practices by which they hope to get there. Mental models. This discipline of reflection and inquiry skills is focused on the conceptual practices of developing awareness of attitudes and perceptions—your own and those of others around you. Working with mental models can also help you more clearly and honestly define current reality. Since most mental models in organizations are often un-discussable and hidden from view, one of the critical acts for building a learning organization is to develop the capability create safe spaces where you can talk productively about risky and discomforting subjects. Team learning. This is a discipline of collaborating with others. Specifically, learning how to learn with others. Through such techniques as dialogue and skillful discussion, small groups of people transform their collective thinking, learning to mobilize their energies and actions to achieve common goals and drawing forth an intelligence and ability greater than the sum of individual members’ talents. Systems thinking. A system is any perceived whole whose elements “hang together” because they continually affect each other over time. In this discipline, people learn to better understand interdependency and change and thereby are able to deal more

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 10 of 12

effectively with the forces that shape the consequences of their actions. Systems thinking is a powerful practice for finding the leverage needed to get the most constructive change. Systems thinking causes people to think more deeply about the relationships and interplay of events, looking for patterns, and root systemic causes (that is, structures) that will help get to the heart of the matter. After Action Reviews. The practice of After Action Reviews (AARs) is a simple and proven way of engaging learning from everyday work experiences. The AAR stems from the U.S. Army’s intentional integration of individual, team, and organizational development into everyday training, aiming “to capture learning in common duties, ensure timely feedback, and allow reflection and analysis” (Shinseki & Cavanagh, 2004). The essence of the AAR is a, “professional discussions of events, focused on performance standards that allow participants to discover for themselves what happened, why it happened, and how to sustain strengths and improve on weaknesses” (Shinseki & Cavanagh, 2004). After a field exercise an observer will facilitate an AAR dialogue throughout by asking questions such as: “What were the conditions that caused you to do this? Why did you make that decision? Knowing what you know now, what would you have done differently?” (Tichy, 2002). Action Learning. A process of group problem-solving, integrated with team, leadership, and organizational development practices. The approach was initially devised by Reg Revans, inspired by his work in the 1940s at the University of Cambridge and his observations of how a group of physicists he worked with— several who became Noble Laureates—self-organized their collaborations. He applied these insights to his work with coal miners and later hospitals in the United Kingdom, where he encouraged managers to meet together in small groups, to share their experiences and ask each other questions about what they saw and heard. Revan (1980) called this emerging learning model of self-management “action learning”, which he stated, “is the Aristotelian manifestation of all managers’ jobs: they learn as they manage, and they manage because they have learned—and go on learning” (p. 64). Marquardt et al. (2018) later observe that since the introduction of action learning in 1940, “there have been multiple variations of the concept, but all forms of action learning share the elements of real people resolving and taking action on real problems in real time and learning while doing so” (p. 3). While many processes and practices are possible in our course we will focus on action learning, because as Marquardt et al. argue, action learning teams are “mini-learning organizations that model perfectly what a learning organization is and how is should operate” (p. 19). Leadership that Supports Learning For organizations to learn leaders must take responsible for other’s learning. First, leaders must become disciplined learners—practicing personal mastery. Second, leaders must model personal mastery for others. Third, leaders must encourage and support the learning of those they lead. Lastly, leaders must share the work of leadership across the organization.

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 11 of 12

References Ackoff, R. L. (1999). On learning and the systems that facilitate it. Reflections, 1(1),

14-24. doi:10.1162/152417399570250 Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action

perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary

definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323-1339. doi:10.1108/00251740910984578

Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the Adoption of Innovation in Organizations: Effects of Environment, Organization and Top Managers. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 215-236. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8551.2006.00498.x

Dewey, J. (1933/1998). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Rev. and expanded ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Gardner, H. (2004). Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people's minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-92.

Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109-116.

Homer-Dixon, T. (2003). Human Adaptation and the Ingenuity Gap. Brook Education, 12(3), 1-22.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organizational Science, 2(1), 88-115.

Hutchins, R. M. (1968). The learning society. New York, NY: F. A. Praeger. Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan

management review, 35(1), 37-50. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology,

14, 319-340. Marquardt, M. J. (2011). Building the learning organization: Achieving strategic

advantage through a commitment to learning (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey.

Marquardt, M. J., Banks, S., Cauweiler, P., & Seng Ng, C. (2018). Optimizing the power of action learning : real-time strategies for developing leaders, building teams and transforming organizations (Third Edition. ed.). Boston: Nicholas Brealey.

Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan management review(Winter), 77-85.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104.

LDRS 310: Unit 1 Notes | Mark Halvorson, 2020

Page 12 of 12

Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1984). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 135-144). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Schön, D. A. (1973). Beyond the stable state. New York, NY: Norton. Senge, P. M. (1990a). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning

organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Senge, P. M. (1990b). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan

management review, 32(1), 7-23. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning

organization (Rev. and updated. ed.). New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency. Shinseki, E. K., & Cavanagh, R. (2004). Be, know, do: leadership the army way:

adapted from the official army leadership manual. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Slater, R. (1999). Jack Welch and the GE way: Management insights and leadership

secrets of the legendary CEO. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sun, P. Y. T., & Scott, J. L. (2003). Organizational learning and the learning

organization. The Learning Organization, 10(4), 202-215. Taylor, C. (2007). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University. Tichy, N. M. (2002). The Cycle of Leadership: How Great Leaders Teach Their

Companies to Win (First ed.). New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Morrow. Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.