In this zone, we critically evaluate the concept of the learning organisation and examine whether the phenomenon has been relegated to the vaults of history or whether it is alive and a vision to which organisations can still aspire.
During the 1980s and 90s, the concept of the learning organisation seized the imagination of global scholars, practitioners and business leaders. The seminal theories of US systems scientist, Peter Senge46 and UK academics, Mike Pedler, John Burgoyne and Tom Boydell,47 espoused how organisations could leverage its tenets to become more flexible, knowledgeable, adaptable and better prepared to survive and thrive in the turbulent and competitive business environment.48 Although the learning organisation concept is fully established in both the US and UK, by virtue of the work and advocacy of Senge,46 Pedler et al.47 and theorists such as Garavan,49 Marquardt50 and Marsick and Watkins,51 consensus has yet to be reached as to what constitutes and defines a learning organisation.
On this note, Örtenblad52 acknowledges that ‘many people still ask, “what is a learning organisation,”
“what does the concept mean?” ‘ He accepts that this line of enquiry is ‘entirely understandable. The LO . . . is a concept (or phenomenon) that is not easily defined.’ As highlighted earlier in the chapter, Senge’s rather abstract definition advocates the ‘power’
of the concept to expand people’s capacity to create and achieve their desired results via freed collective aspiration, expansive thought patterns and continuous, collegial learning. In more concrete terms, Pedler et al.47 define the concept as ‘a company that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously and consciously transforms itself and its context.’ They contend that the practice of continuous and conscious transformation generates valuable individual and organisational learning opportunities that could be used to generate and sustain competitive advantage.
Based on their empirical and practical research, the scholars charted their vision of an ‘ideal’ learning company and arrived at the eleven characteristics, which are outlined below.53 1 . A learning approach to strategy. Everyone should be involved in strategy formation, implementation and monitoring, which is treated as a conscious learning process.
2 . P articipative policymaking.
Individuals should be enabled or empowered to take part in policy making.
3 . I n formating. IT is used to facilitate the free flow of knowledge and information, to enable better decisions to be made.
4 . F ormative accounting and control. Working in collaboration with IT, discourse and feedback should be encouraged on how money is used in the business.
5 . I n ternal exchange. Horizontal co-operation and dialogue are encouraged through inter-departmental customer/supplier exchange.
6 . R eward flexibility. Designing a system that promotes monetary and non-monetary rewards, including supporting risk taking and experimentation.
7 . E nabling structures. The structure is sufficiently adaptable and flexible to support learning through the implementation of more organic, decentralised structures.
8 . B oundary workers as environmental scanners.
Individuals, who are in contact with customers, suppliers and other stakeholders, are in a key position to bring knowledge and other intel back into the organisation.
9 . I n tercompany learning. Linked to Characteristic 8, enabling more conscious learning and knowledge acquisition from and with external organisations.

10.Learning climate. Fostering a climate through the organisation’s overarching culture, which encourages learning from mistakes, experimentation and experience 

11.Self development opportunities for all. Facilitating and empowering individuals to develop themselves, their careers and jobs idiosyncratically interpret, tailor and implement them to their own contexts. Importantly, Thomsen and Hoest53 view the work of Pedler et al. as less ‘airy’ and ‘far more practice-oriented’ than other theories of its ilk, providing managers with ‘concrete tools to promote learning’.
With an emphasis firmly on knowledge rather than learning, Garvin et al.,54 define the learning organisation as ‘a place where employees excel at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge.’ For this to be enabled, they proffer that three essential building blocks must be present. First, an environment that supports learning. Second, learning processes and practices that are tangible, rather than abstract and third, behaviours from leaders that reinforces learning.
Arguably, one can draw parallels between Garvin et al.’s building blocks and many of Pedler et al.’s characteristics.
Both frameworks suggest the implementation of an infrastructure and culture that enables the creation, sharing and utilisation of knowledge for competitive advantage.
Although many of the theories espoused in the literature predominantly view the learning organisation as a ‘thoroughly virtuous concept’48, questions have been raised about the reasons why Senge’s vision and widely-cited theory, which was proposed nearly three decades ago, has not been more fully realised.
Daly and Overton55 attest that a number of answers have been mooted. First, the model is overly theoretical and too disciplined to be implemented in practice.
Second, leaders are not up to the job and are thus not capable of implementing the concept, and third, the myopia and short-term thinking of managers, who envision it purely as a one-off change programme.
As a prescription for this, Senge counsels that a large dose of ‘metanoia’ or mind shift is needed to adopt the concept’s premise and tenets. Arguably, it also requires a change in culture and climate47 that encourages experimentation, experiential learning and continuous improvement through initiatives such as empowerment. Further critique is offered by Grieves56 (p. 464), who refers to the concept as an ‘impenetrable impossibility’ and acknowledges the tendency of extant literature to express Senge’s work as a string of

‘clichéd aphorisms’ that are difficult to apply in practice. One could argue that learning organisation models espouse unitarism and everyone collectively working towards a shared vision and mental models of learning and the optimisation of performance.
With this in mind, Grieves contends that the concept is ‘naively apolitical’ because it ‘assumes that people share the same interests, are not abused by exploitative managers’ and ‘are not driven by systems that seek to maximise effort at the expense of rewards’.
When Pedler and Burgoyne57posed the question ‘is the learning organisation still alive in 2016?’
based on research findings, they concluded ‘no clear answer emergesµ.µ.µ.µthe yea-sayers will find plenty of evidence for the LO’s continued existence and relevance µ.µ.µ.µthe nay-sayers will also feel at least partly vindicated.’
Pedler and Burgoyne attest that the findings highlight the need for further research into the concept, the answers of which will determine ‘whether the LO still has legsµ.µ.µ.µwe are left pondering: are all ideas fated to come and go, or are some more durable?’
Critics argue that becoming a learning organisation is not an easy feat. Garratt58 contends that he has never come across a ‘true’ learning organisation and aspiring to become one is a journey towards a destination that is never reached. Garavan attests that the concept poses the important question whether learning can be managed and, ultimately, who is the benefactor and custodian of new knowledge and attitudes that the learning organisation is espoused to generate. Despite contention that the concept is alive and living on through its relationship with constructs such as knowledge management,59 Garavan49 proffers that its ‘elusive and perhaps self-contradictory’ nature ‘raises the question of whether it is possible to create a learning organisation’. Whilst he concludes that the concept is ‘an idealised state that may never be attained’, others may perceive it as a vision to which organisations can still aspire

1.Pedler et al. advocate that boundary workers should be treated as environmental scanners, as they have direct interaction with a variety of stakeholders, each of which is a potential source of knowledge. With reference to knowledge management literature, a)
critically discuss the types of capital that can be generated from such interface, and

b) how can this intel be used to generate competitive advantage.

2.Critically evaluate the relationship between the learning organisation and knowledge management.

3.Since its first espousal, the learning organisation has been the subject of academic and practitioner praise as well as critique. Using relevant literature, prepare a compelling case for the concept being used as a tool to promote learning and knowledge.