DO INDIVIDUALS CHANGE FROM LEARNING, AS WELL AS LEARN FROM CHANGING?
Dr Elena P. Antonacopoulou Manchester Business School University of Manchester Booth Street West Manchester, M15 6PB United Kingdom Tel: + 44 (161) 275 6333 Direct line: + 44 (161) 275 6365 Fax: + 44 (161) 275 6598 E-mail:
[email protected]
ABSTRACT This paper reviews and critiques the relationship between learning and change, which currently underpins much current thinking in the field of organisational learning. Contrary to the existing focus on the perspective of the organisation, this paper examines the relationship between learning and change with the individual manager as the unit of analysis. Drawing on recent empirical findings from a study of managers in the Retail Banking sector in the UK, the paper examines how individuals perceive learning from change, and whether change from learning is possible. The analysis highlights the dilemmas experienced by individuals in the process of learning in relation to organisational changes. Moreover, the paper shows that the changes resulting from learning are more subtle than the resulting behaviour may demonstrate. The paper makes the case for a more integrative analysis, which recognises both the psychological and sociological underpinnings in the process of learning and changing.
1.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been an explosive development of ideas and concepts in relation to organisations as learning systems (Nevis et al., 1995; Ulrich et al., 1993; Shrivastava, 1983). A central proposition, which underpins much current thinking in this field, is that learning is the key for responding to the changes in the business environment. For example, the notion of the ‘learning organisation’ promotes learning as a fundamental element in surviving the on-going changes within and outside organisations (Senge, 1990; Garvin, 1993; Finger and Buergin, 1998). Similarly, one finds that many of the existing definitions of organisational learning are based on the assumption that in order to respond to change organisation must continuously learn (Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Huber, 1991; Srivastva et al., 1995). Argyris (1993) for example, defines organisational learning as “... a mechanism to overcome obstacles for organisational change”. In short, the existing literature promotes a strong relationship between learning and change, and some commentators have argued that the two are synonymous (Dixon, 1994; Handy, 1989). Attractive as this proposition may be, currently there is limited empirical substantiation to these claims. Moreover, the existing analysis of the relationship between change and learning is primarily examined with reference to organisations, and there is as yet little indication of the interconnection between learning and change from the perspective of the individual. To assume that learning and change are strongly related, because they improve organisational performance and competitiveness, is to neglect that learning and changing at the individual level also reflect a whole spectrum of social and political dimensions. These social and political dimensions could well influence whether individuals learn from the changes they experience, and what changes result from the learning experiences they encounter. Exploring the relationship between learning and change from the perspective of the individual reveals new insights (see Antonacopoulou, 1999c). For example, it appears that the relationship between learning and changing is based on social, cultural and political factors specific to the context in which it takes place. Moreover, change as a learning opportunity when examined from the individual’s perspective, shows more clearly the individual’s concerns and the tendency to passively adapt to the new demands placed upon them. Learning in relation to organisational changes is a means of maintaining security and protecting one’s self-image. Furthermore, the changes resulting from learning are far more widespread than the demonstrated behaviour may indicate. Therefore, it can not be casually assumed that learning leads to change, nor that, adaptability to change equals learning particularly from the perspective of the individual manager. A more critical analysis of the relationship between learning and change is necessary, particularly if the debate on organisational learning is to move forward, and concepts such as the ‘learning organisation’ are to become more meaningful. The paper makes a contribution to this debate by providing recent empirical findings from an in-depth study of individual managers in the Financial Services Sector in the UK. The research, which this paper reports, examined how individuals learn and adapt to organisational changes and the perceived contribution of training and development activities provided by the organisation. (Antonacopoulou, 1996). A longitudinal approach has formed part of the research methodology as was the use of case-studies (three retail banks) as the main research method for contextualizing the analysis of the findings. The managerial sample (78) in the three retail banks was randomly selected by the researcher and is representative of the population in each bank, incorporating 1
managers across a broad spread of age, seniority, specialisation, and gender and across various regions. The main strand of the field research was the qualitative interview (semistructured), while observation, questionnaires and the critical incident technique, were supplementary data collection methods employed. The critical incident technique was employed in this study as a means of understanding the potential changes resulting from ‘ideal’ learning events, that individual managers experienced. The longitudinal approach was central in tracing individual’s changing and learning. As part of the longitudinal approach individual’s learning goals were identified and tracked down over time. Individual managers where asked to describe an identified learning goal in the course of the first interview. This was followed up six to eight months with a second interview, which sought to unravel several issues in relation to learning and changing. Some of the issues raised during the second interview were the following: The reasons which encouraged individuals to set that learning goal, whether they have pursued or abandoned the learning goal, the expected and unexpected difficulties encountered in the process of pursuing the learning goal, the main effects of the learning goal on them individually and on the organisation etc. The findings emerging from the study provide new insights into the relationship between learning and changing at the individual level. This paper seeks to unravel some of the dimensions in the process of changing and learning that so far lip service has been paid to. Following the introductory section, a brief review of the main propositions in the existing literature regarding the relationship between learning and change is provided. The discussion will unveil the main proposition and underlying assumptions, which underpin our current understanding of the relationship between learning and change from the perspective of the organisation. The empirical findings across three retail banks will extend and enhance the discussion by demonstrating how learning from changing is understood by managers and whether changing from learning is possible. 2.
THE EXISTING UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING AND CHANGING
The relationship between change and learning, has attracted a lot of attention in recent years particularly with the focus on organisations as learning systems and the efforts to respond to change by creating ‘learning organisations’ (Senge, 1990). Many of the proponents of this relationship, (Handy, 1989; Heywood, 1989; Clark, 1991; Lessem, 1993; Dixon, 1994; Cunningham, 1994) argue that learning is important for surviving the challenge of change. For effective change to take place organisations and individuals must first learn. As Beckhard and Pritchard (1992: 9) point out: “Probably the most important single process involved in effective change is the process of learning while doing” (original emphasis). The underlying assumption in this relationship is that learning will provide the new knowledge necessary to deal with the demands of change. Commentators presenting the relationship between change and learning in these terms draw from the laws of ecology and some refer specifically to Ross Ashby’s law of requisite variety (Lessem, 1993; Dixon, 1994). The law of requisite variety states that for an organism/system to survive its rate of learning must be equal or greater (L ≥ C) than the rate of change in its environment (Ross Ashby, 1958). Very few researchers however, see the relationship, the other way round, i.e. learning as leading to change, although some of the definitions of learning do incorporate an element 2
of change (Harris and Schwahn, 1961; Knowles, 1973; McLagan, 1978; Klatt et al., 1985). For example, Cantor (1961:3) argues that “to learn is to change”, while Crow & Crow (1963:1), suggest that “learning involves change. It is concerned with the acquisition of habits, knowledge, and attitudes. It enables the individual to make both personal and social adjustments”. David King (1964:6), defines learning as “that which enables the person to adapt to the changing demands of the environment”. However, when reference is made to the content of learning it tends to be related to the (permanent) modification of behaviour (Bass and Vaughan, 1969; Argyris, 1982; Pont, 1991). Some researchers (Weick and Daft, 1984; Shrivastava and Schneider, 1984; Gioia, 1986; Johnson, 1990; Weick, 1995) have indirectly supported a relationship between learning and change, by concentrating on meaning, frames of reference and sense-making as activities which enable organisations and individuals to interpret events in their environment. The argument is that an understanding of events may lead to changing them by redefining the environment. The relationship between learning and change is probably most vividly presented by writers who propose that learning and change are inseparable (Dixon, 1994; Beckhard and Pritchard, 1992; Handy, 1989; Friedlander, 1984). Learning and change are seen as synonymous and as being part of each other. For example, Handy (1989:44) states that: “if change is another word for learning, then the theories of learning will also be theories of changing”. Alderfer and Brown (1975: 27, 217) are probably among the first to have recognised this interdependency through their study of a boarding school - the Gaight School. Reflecting on the research experience the authors point out that: “We would not have learned what we did without being committed to constructive change at Gaight; we could not have been helpful to constructive change without being committed to learning.....We are all called upon to understand and to act in irreducible ambiguity; we are all perforce learning from changing and changing from learning”. In summary, the existing literature suggests that there is a strong link between change and learning. Some commentators attribute this link to the perceived role of learning in the change process, what may be described as the ‘learning to change’ perspective. On the other hand, other commentators consider the link between the two on the basis that change (primarily behavioural change) is an aspect of the learning process, what may be described as the ‘change from learning’ perspective. Very few commentators propose that the link between change and learning also lies in change potentially being a learning experience (i.e. the ‘learning from change’perspective). The current literature as evident from the brief review raises more questions than it answers. For example, is learning to change sufficient to enable individuals to respond to organisational changes or does this imply a passive adaptability of organisational changes by learning superficially? Do individuals perceive organisational changes as an opportunity from which they can learn? These issues are discussed in more detail, and with reference to empirical findings elsewhere (see Antonacopoulou, 1999c). For the purpose of the current debate a more significant question arises: Do individuals change from learning, as well as learn from changing? This question forms the focus of the subsequent discussion with reference to empirical findings across three retail banks.
3
3. CHANGING FROM LEARNING AND LEARNING FROM CHANGING: SOME NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE BANKING SECTOR This section of the paper presents findings from three organisations in one sector (retail banking) which are discussed in the light of the organisation and industry specific characteristics. Choosing from the emerging findings of the study, the paragraphs which follow present evidence which highlight the relationship between learning and changing from the perspective of the individual manager. The Retail Banking sector provides an interesting example of an industry, which has undergone a process of reconstruction, which demanded fast responsiveness to change and a high need for learning. Triggered by a series of external forces (e.g. trends in the world economy) and internal forces (e.g. changes in the market, the intensification of competition etc.), the recent changes have forced a new orientation towards the basic principles of banking (Cappon, 1994). No longer are banks, purely money laundering organisations, instead they are diversifying into new businesses and have become increasingly sensitised to the importance of valuing the customer. In response to these changes banks are moving away from the paternalistic approaches to developing their employees. Traditionally banks tended to recruit school-leavers, who they trained internally through a formal disciplined classroom approach and developed through professional qualifications. In the light of the present uncertainties in the market, banks are no longer willing to invest in the traditional training and development approaches. The new training and development policies are orientated towards a more learner-centred approach with an emphasis on personal responsibility for development (Pedler et al., 1990). A common assumption, which underpins the introduction of selfdevelopment, is that by transferring the responsibility for learning and development to the individual this would enable them to be better placed in responding to the rate of change in the sector. This assumption is reflected in each of the three banks, in the present study, who have additional priorities behind the introduction of self-development. For example, in bank A, a priority in using self-development is reducing costs. In bank B, the priority is becoming a ‘learning organisation’ and in bank C the emphasis is to provide more flexibility in the development process (for a more detailed analysis see Antonacopoulou, 1999b). The assumptions and expectations of the three banks, from the introduction of selfdevelopment, reveal some of the characteristics of their culture and ethos in relation to staff development. The rhetoric of the recent training policy may be advocating selfdirection in learning and more freedom for individuals to take responsibility for their development. However, in practice all three banks appear to determine to a large extent how individuals should develop and what knowledge and skills are relevant to their development (for a more detailed analysis see Antonacopoulou, forthcoming). The three banks essentially seek to address organisational priorities while advocating individual development. This approach constitutes a simplistic response to a very complex set of issues, which may well determine whether individuals will be more receptive to change and willing to learn. An understanding of the assumptions, which underpin individuals’ perceptions, of the relationship between change and learning reflects the complexity of learning and changing within organisations. The sections which follow discuss managers’ perceptions of the importance of learning in the light of the on-going organisational changes and analyses these perceptions by tracking longitudinally the process of identifying and pursuing a learning goal while tracing the changes and effects of their learning. 4
3.1. Managers’ perceptions of the importance of learning in the light of organisational changes. Managers were asked a series of questions, about their perceptions of the current organisational and environmental changes and their impact on them individually, their perceptions of the learning process and the role of learning in relation to current and future job changes. The findings in relation to the importance attached by managers to learning in relation to the current and future job changes highlight some contradictions, which reveal some of the assumptions about the role of learning in the change process. The findings show that on the one hand, the majority of managers interviewed in each of the three banks (Bank A: 96%, Bank B: 77%, Bank C: 81%) perceive learning to be important in the light of the on-going organisational changes. Managers perceive that learning is a means of “adapting to change”, “remaining abreast of changes”, “facing uncertainty and job insecurity” “maintaining an open mind”, and “understanding how to keep up with the pace of change”. These statements capture the perceived contribution of learning to the change process, which is very similar across the three banks. However, on the other hand, equally similar are managers’ comments across the three banks in relation to change being one of the main obstacles to learning. Managers who take this view point out specifically that, a major obstacle to learning is “the continuous change and uncertainty”, “the shifting horizons of the bank”, “the constant restructuring”, “ the increasing work pressure” and “the changing requirements on the job”. Managers provided several explanations as to why organisational and environmental changes are an obstacle to learning. For example managers in the three banks said that: “change limits the ability to define the boundaries of work”, “it allows limited space and time to learn”, “it prevents having a clear understanding of what is required” and “it creates a non-conducive environment for learning, because it makes knowledge questionable”. The lack of a clear career path makes some managers across the three banks, feel that learning has little value, because of the uncertainty of whether learning will be appropriate or necessary. Therefore, some managers are not prepared to commit themselves to learning when they are unclear about the prospective use of the knowledge they are likely to acquire. The words of a manager in bank A illustrate the point: “its not learning in isolation...because of the current uncertainties learning carries little value, because one does not know whether he or she will need it or use it”. Another manager added that: “in view of the lack of clear career you don’t know or plan your learning. You don’t know the skills that you need to have, to plan in advance”. The contradictions evident in managers’ perceptions of the importance of learning in the light of on-going organisational changes reflect several dilemmas that individuals have to manage. One significant dilemma is whether to learn or not to learn. As evident in the responses of the majority of managers across the three banks the importance of learning in relation to organisational change is undisputed. However, the perceived role of learning in relation to change is primarily one of survival and not one of selfdevelopment. A very large proportion of managers in the three banks, perceive that, “learning is a means of survival in a changing environment”. A more detailed analysis of managers’ perceptions of the role of learning in the change process reveals that learning is understood as a means of acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills, which will enable them to cope with the new requirements. Therefore, the majority of managers 5
in the present study learn primarily in order to maintain some sense of stability, rather than to change (see Antonacopoulou, 1999c, Cook and Yanow, 1993). Another dilemma is whether to learn for the sake of learning or whether that learning will have some meaningful purpose. This dilemma is particularly evident in the politics, which underpin the way managers perceive learning from changing. Essentially managers are seeking to reconcile their own development needs with those of the organisation. The difficulty of striking a balance between personal and organisational requirements leads some managers to treat learning superficially and consequently, to adapt passively to organisational changes in order to survive. This point is aptly reflected in the words of a manager in bank C who said: “… the expanding work load and the increasing work pressures of the current changes means that everyone wants everything yesterday. This is an obstacle to learning, because in the light of such pressures, having to work towards tight objectives and performance targets forces self-development to be set aside in order to get the pay rise”. Learning in order to survive is also reflected in the longitudinal findings of the present study, in relation to the learning goals individuals identify and pursue. It is evident from the findings that the majority of managers in the three banks primarily pursue learning goals which are specific to their current job and which would be approved by the organisation (see Antonacopoulou, 1998a, 1998b). In other words, individuals’ decision as to what to learn is to a large extent dictated by the perceived requirements of the organisation. From the individual’s point of view however, such an approach to learning tends to be mechanistic and potentially meaningless. Therefore, managers may learn in order to respond to the organisational changes, but this does not always mean that the learning is meaningful to them, consequently they are not committed to learning from changing. This observation is reflected in the proportion of managers across the three banks who abandoned their identified learning goal. Managers abandoned the identified learning goal, because of “the sheer pressure on the job”, “changes in the department”, “limited provision of training”, “redundancies in the bank”, “family priorities” etc. The factors provided by managers to explain why they abandoned their learning goal suggest that the changing circumstances in the organisation and in their personal life no longer made the learning goal meaningful or viable. The overwhelming majority of the managers however, abandoned the learning goal, because they could not see any value in learning. This observation is reflected in the comments made by some managers: “It’s not only whether it’s nice to know or have these skills, but it is also a case whether I need to have that knowledge and skills and whether I will be using it. I wouldn’t embark on a learning goal unless I know where I would be going” (Manager, Bank A). “I abandoned it because I can’t see how it fits with my career” (Manager, Bank B). “I don’t intend to undertake any tasks on my own initiative without the help or guidance of the bank, because I can’t see the point” (Manager, Bank C). The dilemmas faced by the managers in this study and the contradictions evident in their perceptions of the importance of learning in relation to organisational changes suggests that individuals are not prepared to learn in a vacuum. Learning in organisations is more likely to take place when managers identify and pursue learning goals that are meaningful 6
to them. Grounded in the findings of the study meaningful learning would be described as that, which addresses what the individual perceives to be important (e.g. a perceived need to bridge an identified learning gap) and is relevant to the context in which learning takes place. The findings of the present study suggest that managers in the three banks in pursuing a learning goal are also looking to establish some return from their efforts. This return is frequently in the form of reward and recognition, which may lead to greater job security and enhanced career prospects. However, the lack of return on the investment (in terms of energy and willingness) to learn is a source of great de-motivation for some managers. This observation is reflected in managers’ comments: A manager in bank A said: “the culture of the organisation does not place high value on learning and it does not reward achievement”. A manager in bank B also confirms this point saying: “the limited recognition for learning is an added source of de-motivation and reduces the willingness to learn”. The lack of recognition, coupled with the perceived helplessness to determine their career progression leads some managers to adopt an instrumental approach to learning or to be reluctant to learn all together (see also Antonacopoulou, 1995). The contradictions and dilemmas reflected in manager’s perceptions of the importance of learning in relation to organisational changes, provide some valuable insights into the process of learning and changing. The analysis highlights that learning, as a process requires personal commitment and energy on behalf of individuals, both in terms of their willingness to learn, but also in terms of balancing the internal conflict they experience when confronted with dilemmas and competing priorities. Moreover, the findings suggest that some element of consistency and clarity in direction is important if learning is to be meaningful and of value for both the individual and the organisations. Paradoxically, however, this clarity and consistency arises from flexibility rather than a predetermined strategic intend. Finally, learning is particularly hard and potentially painful when it takes place in periods of uncertainty and change. Both learning and changing involve a journey into the unknown and unknowable which makes even the most basic assumptions and taken for granted beliefs potentially no longer valid. Learning and changing have the potential of opening up possibilities for development that fall outside the existing remit of experiences and understanding. As a result learning from changing at the individual level is limited to learning in order to create a sense of stability rather than introducing a fundamental transformation. This response to a large extent is dictated by the very organisational systems, which are meant to encourage learning. As evident from the culture and approach of the three banks in the present study the learning which is encouraged is intended to act as a means of ‘managing’ change and not one of ‘creating’ change (see Senge, 1990). The challenge of-course does not end here, because learning to manage change also assumes rather simplistically, that learning will only lead to a modification in behaviour. What happens when learning leads to other changes, which may not be so easy to control and extend beyond mere behavioural modifications? This issue is discussed in more detail in the next section, which examines the process of changing from learning. 3.2.
Changes resulting from learning at the individual level
In an effort to explore the process of changing from learning the study sought to examine in more detail incidences of learning which managers perceived to be ideal and to 7
establish what made those incidences special and what impact those learning incidences had on managers. Managers’ ideal learning experiences ranged from specific training events provided within and outside the organisation, a model manager with who they worked, a specific appointment, specific experiences on the job etc. An interesting observation from the findings is that a significant proportion of managers across the three banks (bank A: 52%, bank B: 54%, bank C: 46%) rated training interventions provided by the organisation as their ideal learning experience (see Antonacopoulou, 1999a). More importantly, however, managers in the three banks described several effects from the specific learning experiences, which show that the learning experiences had a significant impact on them. Managers argued that learning increased their selfconfidence, their self-awareness, and provided them with greater willingness to embrace learning more consciously and understand better their role within the organisation. For example a manager in bank A said: “the learning experience widened the knowledge of the self. It enabled me to understand how I fit in the bank’s structure, recognising my strengths and weaknesses and trying to find ways of developing them”. Another manager in the same bank said: “I started to learn and believe in myself when I realised I could set goals and achieve them… the recognition of a trigger point which enabled me to get on to a self-development process which boosted my self-confidence”. Moreover, a significant proportion of managers across all banks (bank A: 53%, bank B: 54%, bank C: 66%), claim that the learning experience has affected their personal capacity to learn. Managers across the three banks defined personal capacity as the ability to learn. According to the majority of managers in the study, personal capacity consists of “the individual’s self motivation”, “will”, “ability to absorb information”, “enthusiasm” and “the ability to learn how to learn”. Managers explained that the learning experience changed their capacity to learn. Managers described this change saying that: “I realised that they were able to learn from a variety of sources”, “my attitude towards learning has become more positive” and “I feel better able to learn more fully”. In relation to the latter point a manager said: “it woke up my appetite for learning”. Another manager said: “I was impressed by the ability to learn from other people and not necessarily a structured teaching process”. It is important to note that managers’ descriptions of the changes resulting from a learning experience are further evident from the longitudinal findings and in particular managers’descriptions of the effects of the learning goal they have pursued. Some of the effects of learning described by managers included: “an increase in self-confidence and personal satisfaction”, “an enhancement in personal development”, “an improvement of performance” and “a greater job satisfaction”. A significant proportion of managers across all three banks (56%) pointed out specifically that their motivation has increased as a result of their learning experience. For example a manager in bank B said: “I feel a bit wiser now. I don’t need a shoulder to cry on. I am more confident now to handle situations. I now realise I am stopping myself from learning. I pick myself from the ground and I exercise better self-analysis”. A manager in bank A said: “I proved I can do it… by seeing that you are improving you feel you can progress”. A manager in bank C said: “I am more motivated now, because I can see I am getting somewhere now”. An equally significant proportion of managers across the three banks (51%) describe that pursuing their identified learning goal has changed their perceptions and attitudes towards learning and they are now more positive and open to learning. For example a manager in bank C said: “Competence stimulates learning. It emphasises the need for 8
learning, not knowing it all. It told me that I am not too old to learn”. A manager in bank A said: “It brought home to me the need to remain continuously up-to-date”. A manager in bank B said: “It is such a discipline learning to learn. I now realise how poor my learning was. Before our meeting it was not a topic of discussion. I realised the need to learn and to help others to learn. This experience has reawaken the need for learning”. In relation to the impact of the learning experience on their future approach to learning managers made the following comments. A manager in bank B said: “I realise that I was neglecting my development. I was sitting back on my ACIBD qualification almost to the extent of arrogance. I realised that I have to think more”. A manager in bank A said: “I recognised the need to be more proactive with learning. Self-development is the way forward. Taking learning as a personal purpose and taking personal responsibility for self-development. It is easy to think one is right and does not need to learn, but that’s wrong, one should always be open to new ideas”. The findings from this study show that from the perspective of the individual, learning may lead to change, however, the nature of the change is not necessarily restricted to the demonstrable behaviour as the existing literature suggests (Bass and Vaughan, 1969; Argyris, 1982; Pont, 1991). The findings of the present study suggest that changes resulting from learning are more subtle and complex than the resulting behaviour may convincingly demonstrate. The findings suggests that learning is more likely to generate new emotions, lead to different attitudes and perceptions about the self and the learning process, rather than merely produce observable behavioural changes. In other words, the changes resulting from learning are more likely to be subtle and intangible, therefore by focusing on ‘hard’, tangible evidence of behavioural change we are missing much valuable information about the multiple and varying factors which shape the process of changing from learning. The process of changing from learning at the individual level, highlights that meaningful learning can be a powerful personal experience, because it has significant repercussions on individuals’ self-esteem, self-efficacy and psychological well being. However, personal identity and well being are not only a psychological state. They also reflect the social structures, which support individuals in validating, reflecting and translating a learning experience into a meaningful event. This observation is evident in managers’ decisions to pursue a learning goal and the means employed to fulfil the identified learning goal. As evident in the previous section learning goals are frequently a response to organisational requirements and are contextually specific. In other words, managers would identify and pursue learning goals, which are specific to their current job and approved by the bank. This observation is further reflected in the actions proposed by managers across the three banks in fulfilling the identified learning goals. Almost unanimously managers across the three banks would choose to fulfil an identified learning goal by: “attending a relevant course on the topic” (currently provided by the organisation), “solicit the help of colleagues”, “be coached by the line manager”, “talk to people in the bank”, etc. These findings suggest that individuals’ psychological well being, is also socially constructed in the process of interacting with others from whom they learn and with whom they share their learning. The dilemmas discussed earlier in the paper, regarding the process of learning from changing, are a reflection of the isolation some managers feel when the social structures are not sufficiently supportive in their 9
learning and changing. Therefore, learning becomes psychologically meaningful in the process of social interaction. The process of changing from learning helps explain further why learning is a difficult and potentially painful process and one that demands personal commitment and a clear sense of direction. The outcomes of learning are not just the new knowledge and skills that may have been developed in the process of learning. As the findings of the present study demonstrate the outcomes of learning are also emotional, attitudinal and perceptual which are far more difficult to identify, let alone quantify. 4.
THE RELATIONSHIP REVISITED
BETWEEN
LEARNING
AND
CHANGING
The preceding analysis suggests that there is much more to learning and changing than our current understanding enables us to discern. Firstly, the process of learning and changing have strong psychological implications, which are shaped by the social and political dynamics of the context in which learning and changing take place. An understanding of the process of learning and that of changing could be better informed by an integrative analysis which engages the psychological with the social and is sensitive to the psychodynamic nature of learning and changing. Clearly, there is a need for more research, which combines and integrates different disciplinary perspectives. Moreover, an integrative approach to analysing learning and changing processes apart from an interdisciplinary focus it must also seek to examine the nature of these processes at different levels of analysis, while exploring the interaction between different levels of analysis in order to understand the full complexity of these processes. The present study has sought to examine learning and changing at the individual level, however, in so doing reference to the same processes at the organisational and industry/societal levels was also important. The process of learning and changing at the individual level is a reflection of the dynamic interaction between industry and organisational characteristics and individual’s reality. Organisational practices have a strong baring on individual’s assumptions and the way they respond to events. Equally, the three banks in the present study despite the differences in their approach to staff development, they share similar assumptions about self-development, which reflect the impact of the wider experiences historically and currently in the sector. Secondly, in contrast to the rather simplistic view presented in the existing literature, about the relationship between learning and change, the analysis in this paper reveals much of the underpinning complexity in the relationship between learning and changing from the perspective of the individual. The relationship between learning and changing can not be assumed to be strong nor can the two processes be assumed to be synonymous. The findings presented in the paper suggest that individuals do not always learn in order to change, nor does learning always lead to behavioural change. The distinction made between superficial and instrumental learning with meaningful learning suggests that what may be interpreted as change may be a behavioural act which is in line with organisational expectations (Goffman, 1959; Rosenfioeld et al., 1995). Equally, managing change by passively adapting does not reflect the same learning as instances where learning may create change. Therefore, not all changes from learning are possible to see and what we see may not be what we assume, as far as learning in response to organisational change is concerned. Exploring the relationship between learning and changing with the individual as the unit of analysis provides valuable insights into the dilemmas which shape whether managers learn from change and what changes may result 10
from learning. From the perspective of the individual, learning from changing is not the same as changing from learning nor do learning and changing necessarily take place simultaneously. 5.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper provided an overview and a critique of the current propositions of the relationship between learning and change. Using recent empirical findings the paper provided new insights, which show how individuals within organisations approach learning and change and the factors, which influence their interpretation of the significance of learning and change and the way they may be employed. The findings of the present study show that managers in the three banks seek through learning to survive and adapt to the organisational changes. Managers in the three banks do not seek to transform themselves through learning. Instead they seek through learning, to maintain their security and to protect their self-image. Moreover, the findings from this study show that from the perspective of the individual learning may lead to change, however, the nature of the change is not necessarily restricted to the demonstrable behaviour as the existing literature suggests. The analysis shows that learning is more likely to generate new emotions, lead to different attitudes and perceptions about the self and the learning process, rather than just result in observable behavioural changes. In other words, the changes resulting from learning are far wider, more subtle and difficult to quantify. This observation highlights the significance and the richness of learning as a process, which does not always result into observable or demonstrable outcomes. The findings of the present study show that organisational policies and practices in some instances fail to encourage ‘genuine’ learning to take place, because of the short-term orientation and the focus on outcomes instead of process. By focusing on the outcomes organisations are missing much valuable information about the multiple and varying factors which shape whether individuals learn in order to change and the nature of changes resulting from learning. It is therefore, critical that there is a shift of emphasis from the outcomes of learning and change to the process of changing and learning. In the light of the emotional and attitudinal changes resulting from learning, our efforts to understand learning within organisations perhaps may be better informed by exploring why is it that positive emotions and attitudes towards learning cannot be sustained, are short-lived and unexplored.
11
REFERENCES Antonacopoulou, E.P. (1995) Mathophobia and Philomathia: A new perspective and its implications for management education, Warwick Business School Research Papers series, No. 183. Antonacopoulou, E.P. (1996) A Study of interrelationships: The way individual managers learn and adapt and the contribution of training towards this process, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK. Antonacopoulou, E.P. (1998a) ‘Developing Learning Managers within Learning Organisations’ in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (Eds) Organisational Learning: Developments in Theory and Practice, London: Sage. Antonacopoulou, E.P. (1998b) ‘Reconnecting Management Education, Management Development, Management Training through Learning’, Proceedings of the Emerging Fields in Management: Connecting Learning and Critique, Conference, Leeds. Antonacopoulou, E.P. (1999a) ‘Training does not imply learning: The individuals’ perspective’, International Journal of Training and Development, 3(1), 14-33. Antonacopoulou, E.P. (1999b) ‘Can Individual and Organisation Development be reconciled?: Issues in the Retail Banking Sector’, in Rainbird, H. (Ed.) Issues and Trends in Training, UK: MacMillan. Antonacopoulou, E.P. (1999c). ‘The effects of change on learning: A perspective from the banking sector’, Paper to be presented at the British Academy of Management Conference, Manchester. Antonacopoulou, E.P. (forthcoming) ‘Organisational Development Vs Individual Development: A process of joined negotiation?’ Personnel Review, Special Issue on Employee Development. Alderfer, C.P. & Brown L.D. (1975) Learning from Changing: Organisational Diagnosis and Development, USA: Sage. Argyris, C. (1982) Reasoning, Learning and Action, USA: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. (1993) On Organisational Learning, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Bass, B.M. & Vaughan, J.A. (1969) Training in Industry: The management of learning, 2nd Edition, London: Tavinstock. Beckhard, R. & Pritchard, W. (1992) Changing the essence: The art of creating and leading fundamental change in organisations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cappon, A. (1994) ‘A life-cycle view of banking’, Journal of Retail Banking, 16(1), 3337. Clark, N. (1991) Managing personal learning and change: A trainers guide, London: McGraw-Hill. Cook, S.D.N. & Yanow, D. (1993) ‘Culture and Organisational Learning’, Journal of Management Inquiry, December, 2(4), 373-390. Crow, L.A. & Crow, A. (1963) Readings in Human Learning, New York: McKay. Cunningham, I. (1994) The wisdom of strategic learning: The self-managed learning solution, London: McGraw-Hill. Daft, R.L. & Weick, K.E. (1984) ‘Toward a model of organisations as interpretation systems’, Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 284-295. Dixon, N. (1994) The organisational learning cycle: How can we learn collectively, London: McGraw-Hill. 12
Finger, M. and Buergin, S. (1998) ‘The concept of the ‘Learning Organisation’ applied to the transformation of the Public Sector: Conceptual contributions for theory development, in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (Eds) Organisational Learning: Developments in Theory and Practice, London: Sage. Fiol, C.M. & Lyles, M.A. (1985) ‘Organisational learning’, Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813. Friedlander, F. (1984) ‘Patterns of individual and organisational learning’, in P. Shrivastava, (Ed), The Executive Mind, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Garvin, D.A. (1993) Building a Learning Organisation, Harvard Business Review, JulyAugust, 78-91. Gioia, D.A. (1986) ‘Symbols, Scripts and Sensemaking: Creating meaning in the organisational experience’, in H.P. Sims & D.A. Gioia and Associates, (Eds), The Thinking Organisation, USA: Jossey-Bass. Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Handy, C. (1989) The age of unreason, London: Arrow. Harris, T.L. & Schwahn, W.E. (1961) Selected readings on the learning process, New York: University Press. Heywood, J. (1989) Learning adaptability and change: The challenge for education and industry, London: Paul Chapman. Huber, G. (1991) ‘Organisational Learning: The contributing processes and literature’, Organisation Science, 2(1), 88-115. Johnson, G. (1990) ‘Managing strategic change: The role of symbolic action’, British Journal of Management, 1, 183-200. King, D. (1969) Training within the organisation, London: Tavistock. Klatt, L.A., Murdick, R.G. & Schuster, F.E. (1985) Human Resource Management, Florida: Bell & Howell. Knowles, M.S. (1973) The adult learner: A neglected species, Houston: Gulf Publishing. Lessem, R. (1993) Business as a learning community, London: McGraw-Hill. McLagan, P.A. (1978) Helping others learn: Designing programmes for adults, USA: Addison Wesley. Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J. & Gould, J.M. (1995) ‘Organisations as learning systems’, Sloan Management Review, Winter, 73-85. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T. & Welshman, G. (1990) Self-Development in Organisations, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Pont, T. (1991) Developing effective training skills, UK: McGraw-Hill. Rosenfioeld, P., Giacalone, R.A. & Riordan, C.A. (1995) Impression management in organisations: theory, measurement and practice, UK: Sage. Ross Ashby, W. (1958) ‘Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems’, Cybernetica, 1(2), 83-99 Senge, P.M. (1990) ‘The leaders’ new work: Building learning organisations’, Sloan Management Review, Fall, 7-23. Shrivastava, P. (1983) ‘A typology of organisational learning systems’, Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 7-28. Shrivastava, P. & Schneider, S. (1984) ‘Organisational frames of reference’, Human Relations, 37(10), 795-809. 13
Srivastva, S. Bilimoria, D, Cooperrider, D.C. and Fry, R.E. (1995) ‘Management and Organisational Learning for Positive Global Change’, Management Learning, 26(1), 37-54. Ulrich, D, Jick, T. and Van Clinow, M.A. (1993) ‘High impact learning: Building and diffusing learning capability’, Organisational Dynamics, Autumn, 52-66. Weick, K.E. (1995) Sense Making in Organisations, USA: Sage.
14
