Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Through use of literary analysis, the author of the article identifies some ways
in which leaders can influence organizational learning, which he has identified at the
core as being collective learning by members of the organization (Yukl, 2009, p.
49). Leaders can directly influence collective learning conditions with what they say
and do and indirectly influence it by implementation or modification of structures,
systems, and programs that can help encourage and facilitate this type of learning
(Yukl, 2009). He also identifies ways leaders can influence collective learning within
teams, but stresses that relevant knowledge from team leadership theories could
help to create a multi-level leadership of organizational learning theory.
Next, Yukl (2009) discusses how in order to better understand organizational
learning, one needs to use multiple theories and research, which include collective
processes at the both group and organizational level. He claims that the more
common dyadic leadership theories, while important to explaining influence on
individual subordinates, do not explain leader influence on collective learning
amongst a majority of the organization. He goes on to give the example of
transformational leadership, which includes the idea of motivating subordinates to
do more than expected or something different, but does not explain how the leader
can directly influence collective learning. Likewise, charismatic leadership discusses
how charisma can ones influence; however, charismatic leaders can also negatively
impact organizational learning because subordinates are more inclined to look to
the leader as knowing whats best for the organization and are therefore less likely
to challenge what may be failing.
Yukl (2009) discusses a leaders influence on the learning processes of
exploration and exploitation, common dichotomies identified in organizational
theory and change research. Because both learning processes seem to be
necessary for most organizations, the challenge comes in helping leaders gain the
benefits of each, while avoiding their negative effects. Yukl (2009) explains, Too
much emphasis on exploration may result in excessive costs for acquiring new
knowledge, but too much emphasis on exploitation can reduce flexibility and
discourage development of new products and services (p.51). It is Yukls thoughts
that popular leadership theories, like transformational or transactional leadership,
do not explain how leaders could positively influence both learning processes for the
benefit of organizational learning. He claims there is opportunity to develop a more
encompassing model which includes leadership behaviors providing both direct and
indirect forms of influence that help to facilitate collective learning within an
organization.
Yukl (2009) also includes discussion of obstacles leaders may face in trying to
influence collective learning. Some common obstacles include lack of a
collaborative approach for leading change, restriction of information and knowledge
to leaders which is unsupportive of collective learning, the siloed design of many
organizations which creates barriers for sharing information, and potential conflict
amongst organizational stakeholders. He goes on to suggest ways leaders can
overcome these obstacles, such as supporting initiatives which foster learning and
innovation, encouraging communication and providing more access to information,
developing shared values and objectives between subunits, and helping build a
culture that is flexible.
Lastly, Yukl (2009) suggests alternative research methods better suited for
studying more complex and dynamic processes that happen over time within
organizations. While behavior description questionnaires have long been the
common research method in leadership studies, Yukl believes the use of an
intensive, longitudinal studies might provide more information and results that are
easier to interpret. This type of study might include comparing an organization with
high levels of organizational learning to organizational with lower levels to
determine what skills leaders use to influence that learning. He also suggests use of
simulation studies where a realistic task is performed over long periods of time and
various team members have the opportunity to take the role of the leader. This type
of study not only involves team learning, but also allows scholars to understand how
collective learning happens amongst people whose decisions influence the
organization. He also promotes use of field experiments, but warns that finding
appropriate samples and gaining permission for access can prove challenging.
Nonetheless, he advocates that scholars who want to further develop the research
on organizational learning look for these types of opportunities.
Critical Assessment
Yukls (2009) discussion on organizational learning seems extremely relevant
to the concept of systems thinking. The process of organizational learning includes
discovering new and impactful information, distribution of this knowledge to people
within the organization who may need it, and the application of this knowledge to
improve both current and future situations (Yukl, 2009). It appears that the concepts
of organizational learning fit right into the overall idea of systems thinking, which is
to take a big picture, all-encompassing approach to thinking when it comes to an
organization. Meadows (2008) states, a system is more than the sum of its parts,
(p.12) much like organizational learning includes the thoughts of all members of an
organization. The knowledge of all members of an organization put together is more
than the sum each individual members knowledge.
purpose. In truly understanding themselves, they are likely more prepared to adapt
to the future.
Lastly, a final Future Search principle relevant to organizational learning
stresses the need to invite self-management and personal responsibility
(Weisbord, 2012, p.416). While Yukl (2009) aimed to discuss some of the obstacles
in creating a collective learning environment, in his solutions he made many ties to
the invitation of personal responsibility and self-management. Yukl (2009) identified
a collaborative approach to key for fostering a collective learning environment and
stated that in doing so, leaders at all levels in an organization can help to build and
sustain a culture with strong values for learning, innovation, experimentation,
flexibility, and continuous improvement (p.52). Yukl (2009) also encouraged
leaders interested in collective learning to encourage the sharing of accurate
information, allow access to information, and encourage the use of social networks
amongst subordinates as a way to increase access to new ideas and information. It
seems in order to maintain a level of collective learning amongst members of the
organization, a leader should encourage those members to take personal
responsibility for idea generating and information sharing.
Because of the shared concepts of a very all-inclusive approach to
information, ideas, concerns, and solutions, systems thinking, the primary focus of
LDRS 802: Organizational Systems, Change, and Leadership at Fort Hays State
University, seems to encompass the ideals of organizational learning and vice versa.
While Yukl (2009) identified some limitations to the current research on
organizational learning, Meadows (2008) and Weisbord (2012) stick to a more
conceptual approach to explaining what systems thinking is and how its most
beneficial; therefore, the author of this paper was unable to compare Yukls
those values and objectives which helps build trust and appreciation amongst
members.
What the author most appreciates about Yukls (2009) work is his ability to
take a critical look at the current place of organizational learning in leadership
research. While he addresses many limitations of the current research, he also
identifies areas of growth and also suggests ways to approach the research. It
seems as though he has done about everything he can to help identify a place for
organizational learning in leadership study, but complete all the research himself.
Because of the authors limited knowledge on various research methods, it is tough
to be critical of his suggested approaches. He seems to present a very well-rounded
case regarding the current research and its limitations by also providing areas of
needed research and suggested approaches.
References
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT:
Chelsea Green
Publishing.
Weisbord, M. R. (2012). Productive Workplaces: Dignity, Meaning, and Community in
the 21st Century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yukl, G. (2009) Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research.
Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 49-53. doi:10.1016/j.leadqua.2008.11.006.