4+Theorists

This page contains information on the four sets of theorists' contributing to //Organizational Learning.//

 * ===Argyris and Schon ===
 * ===Daft and Weick===
 * ===Fiol and Lyles===
 * ===Levitt and March===

**Argyris and Schon (1978)**
In Collinson and Cook’s (2007), Organizational Learning: Improving Learning, Teaching, and Leading in School Systems, **Argyris and Schon** present a theory on organizational learning that focuses on “change.” Their ideas incorporate the following theoretical frameworks: //Espoused theories of action, theories-in-use, and single loop learning and double loop learning//. These theories explain how and why communities (schools) might act in a certain manner along with an explanation of how practices are generally changed.

Think of //espoused theories of action// to be the ideology of an organization that is expressed publicly to draw attention (usually positive). The words of the slogan or mission may or may not be true, but they are explicitly stated because they represent ideas that the organization would like to be associated with. An example of this would be in the funny but not accurate commercials for Miller High Life. Nothing about Miller High Life beer is extraordinary, but they call themselves the champagne of beers. This would imply that somehow Miller High Life is a classier, more sophisticated beer than others. [|Champagne of Beers]

In schools the espoused theories of action are things like mission statements and slogans ( e.g.High Standards Start Here-MPS; Christ Centered Education-many faith based schools). These may or may not be true, but they are certainly ideas that schools want to convey to the public. Wenger (1999) might call this a reification produced by a community. Reifications are meaningles without practice to support them. Wait...practice? What is so important about practice? That is why we have yearly slogans, new forms of curriculum, and catch phrases; to solve our problems and be the answers to our solutions, right? I wonder what people in other fields might say about practice? [|Allen Iverson's thoughts on practice] Despite what Mr. Iverson says, I think Wenger would agree with Collinson and Cook that what we do (the practice) is what matters and where change needs to occur.

Next, Argryis and Schon discuss //theories-in-use// to be the cultural assumptions that guide behavior (Collinson and Cook, pg. 19). In a school setting //theories-in-use// might pertain to such practices as organizing students by age instead of ability, standard A-F grade scales, a nine month school year, the length of class periods, etc. These are the things we are doing...even if they do not always match our espoused theories of action.

Argryis and Schon’s framework for organizational learning would say that we need to examine both //espoused theories of action// and //theories-in-use// to encourage change if our end results are not matching what we as schools intend. Wenger (1999) might explain this as looking critically at the design to see if the intended results are what is actually emerging. Two primary methods of change (learning) discussed were single-loop and double loop learning. Single loop learning is relatively basic in that it does not seek to create changes to the structures, rather sets out to make small changes within existing frameworks. An example of this at my school is how our staff worked to address the increased number of physical confrontations between students in our middle school. It was required that all teachers be present in the hallway during student passing periods. We already required certain teachers to be “on duty” during certain days of the week, but now all teachers were required to do so. Our concept on how to monitor student behavior did not change rather we tweaked the way we did it. In contrast, double loop learning creates a change that actually challenges the existing framework. For example, if my school were to explore how to address this problem using double loop learning, a system of peer mediation mght be implemented where teachers and students are able to sit down and mediate conflict before it escalates to a point of physical confrontation.

**Daft and Weick (1984)**
Another theory of Organization Learning comes from Daft and Weick (1984). Daft and Weick view organizations as systems in which organization members are trying to "interpret what they have done, define what they have learned, and solve the problem of what to do next" (p. 284). Daft and Weick defined interpretation as "the process through which information is given meaning and actions are chosen" (p. 294). There are three stages: 1) Data Collection; 2) Interpretation; 3) Action or Response. All three of these stages are connected and the actions taken serve as feedback to the previous stages (Collinson & Cook, 2007). Daft and Weick point out two critical differences among organizations; a) organizational members' assumptions about whether the environment is capable of being analyzed and b) whether or not an organizations' interactions with the environment are passive or active (p. 292). These differences described result in four catagories of organizational interpretation modes which can be seen below:



=
In Collinson and Cook’s (2007), Organizational Learning: Improving Learning, Teaching, and Leading in School Systems, a third theory on organizational learning is presented by **Fiol and Lyles** which focuses primarily on the differences between behavioral and cognitive changes. They explain cognitive change as the development of new shared understandings among organizational members (Collinson and Cook, 2007, pg. 24). In contrast behavioral change involves actual responses, structures or actions (Collinson and Cook, 2007, pg.24).=====

The concepts of cognitive and behavioral change do not lead to learning in isolation. Rather it is when these vehicles of change work in conjunction with one another that learning takes place. For example if a principal tells teachers at a school that he wants to focus on raising test-scores through direct instruction practices he will likely create a school culture where this occurs. However, according to Fiol and Lyles such a mandate would not in itself lead to learning. Yet if the principal were to share research supporting the need for direct instruction to raise standardized test scores and also shares the reasons that it is imperative that standardized test scores rise, he is creating organizational learning. Essentially learning cannot simply be based on action but also on the cognitive processes that drive a practitioners action.

Which of the examples below might lead to a behavioral change?

Which of the examples below might lead to organizational learning (behavioral and cognitive change)?

[|Example 1]

[|Example 2]

In a school setting many teachers demand students do things because "I said so." If we run our schools like the boss in example one, we might get people to follow our way of doing things, but I am not sure people will understand or be willing to learn why they are engaging in certain practices. In the second example we see a rationale argument explaining why a polcy is being put into place, thus increasing the likelihood that people not only engage in the behavior but also understand why it is important that they do so (AKA organizational learning).

**Levitt and March (1988)**
The fourth source that Collinson and Cook (2007), put forth for as an idea for organizational learning is by **Levitt and March** (1988). They see organizational learning as embedded in the organizations history and routines aiming towards a target. For instance, if a procedure has been routinely used, then according to past success, and the fact that it is part of the past repertoire, it becomes part of the organizational behavior and action. As **Levitt and March** say these actions even survive the individual member, becoming more about the general trajectory of the group then the actions of the individual. This type of organizational learning focuses on past histories to inform procedures and routines. As they look at their target in the future, they rely upon past experience to inform themselves of the outcomes. As these targets are interpreted and evaluated in light of the success or failure of how it met the target goal, routines are changed as a response. It is important to note that **Levitt and March** (2007) differ from the previous three theorists in the area of emphasizing routines, rather than interpretation and inquiry. For instance, members can make incorrect and eronous evaluations based how they view the cause and effect. Just because action occurred and an outcome appears does not mean that they are correlated or even related.



__"Do you see what I see"?__

As the two theorists point out this superstitious learning can put pieces of data and practice together that in reality does not support the assumption. The way one member interprets or infers may be wildly different from the next member based on numerous changing and highly complex situations and pressures.

[[image:http://www.fitness360online.com/wp-content/uploads/insanity.gif height="477"]]
If this is the definition of insanity, then **Levitt and March** (2007) might propose the definition of tunnelvision: //__Doing the same thing over and over because it worked before and assuming it will remain so__//, as depicted in the comic below:



This is a competency trap, a trap that can perpetuate a routine based on what was done without evaluating how it fits into the current system. It is a cycle of little growth, that pushes inquiry and self-examination to the side with a dependence on what has worked, rather then what needs to work for authentic success.