Running Head: THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 1
A Comparative Analysis of Three Unique Theories
of Organizational Learning
Carol C. Leavitt
Author Contact Information:
1131 Mesa Vista Drive
Ivins, UT 84738
Telephone: (435) 773-7337
Email: cleavitt@[Link]
Publication Date: September 14, 2011
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 2
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present three classical theories on organizational learning and
conduct a comparative analysis that highlights their strengths, similarities, and differences. Two
of the theories – experiential learning theory and adaptive & generative learning theory –
represent the thinking of the cognitive perspective, while the third theory – assimilation theory –
coincides with the behavioral school of thought on organizational learning. The three criteria to
be used in the comparative analysis include: 1) the learning process, or how learning occurs in
each theory; 2) the learning target, or who experiences the learning; and 3) the learning context,
or the antecedents and conditions that promote a learning organization. Because theory building
in this discipline has a history of approaches that fragment rather than assimilate new theory
(Lähteenmäki, Toivonen, & Mattila, 2001, p. 113), a new prototype theory will be introduced
that effectively integrates the important themes, principles, and practices of organizational
learning into a more holistic model.
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 3
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction to Organizational Learning Theory ............................................................................ 4
Definitions of Organizational Learning .............................................................................. 4
The Rationale for Organizational Learning ........................................................................ 5
Three Unique Theories of Organizational Learning ....................................................................... 6
Experiential Learning Theory ............................................................................................. 7
Adaptive and Generative Learning Theory......................................................................... 7
Assimilation Theory............................................................................................................ 8
A Comparative Analysis of the Three Theories of Organizational Learning ................................. 9
The Learning Process – How Learning Occurs ................................................................ 10
The Learning Target – Who Experiences the Learning .................................................... 12
The Learning Context – Conditions that Promote Organizational Learning .................... 13
A New Model for Integrated Organizational Learning................................................................. 15
Key Principles of the New Theory & Model .................................................................... 15
References: .................................................................................................................................... 18
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 4
Introduction to Organizational Learning Theory
There exists a tremendous amount of literature on the subject of organizational learning,
and with each new research article comes a new framework or set of guidelines describing how
organizational learning occurs, how to establish and maintain a learning organization, how to
overcome the barriers to learning, and more. The phenomenon of organizational learning is a
body of work that calls on multiple disciplines in both the natural and social sciences, including
psychology, sociology, and anthropology, to name a few. It is a burgeoning branch of
organization theory that has a direct connection to other major fields, including leading change,
organizational communication, creativity and innovation, individual accountability and
motivation, management and leadership development, systems thinking and mental models,
organizational structure, shared vision and values, and much more. To offer a clear foundation,
this paper begins with definitions that characterize the nature of organizational learning, and
rationales that justify its existence and perpetuation.
Definitions of Organizational Learning
There exists a diversity of focus in organizational learning definitions. Of particular note
are two distinctive schools of thought: 1) the cognitive school, which highlights the “thinking”
element of organizational learning; and 2) the behavioral school, which focuses on its “doing”
dimension. The cognitive school reasons that learning occurs through our mental models,
structures, or schemas, which enable us to understand events and situations and to interpret and
respond to our environments. The behavioral school asserts that we learn by gaining insight and
understanding from experience through experimentation, observation, analysis, and examination
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 5
of outcomes (Azmi, 2008, p. 61). The former is clearly a thinking-based model, while the latter
is an action-oriented one.
Emphasizing the cognitive approach, one of the key tenets of scholar David Kolb’s
(1984) learning model (to be explored later in this paper) is grasping, which entails
conceptualization and understanding – both mental processes. Corroborating this point, scholars
McGill and Slocum (1994) define organizational learning as responding to new information by
altering the very “programming” by which information is processed and evaluated (p. 27).
By contrast, scholar Peter Senge’s (1990) definition demonstrates a balance of cognitive
and behavioral elements that combine patterns of thinking plus action. He claims that
organizational learning occurs where “new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured,
where collective aspiration is set free, where people continually expand their capacity to create
the results they truly desire, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (p.
3).
Finally, Nevis, DiBella, & Gould (1995) define organizational learning as the capacity or
processes within an organization to maintain or improve performance based on experience (p.
73) – clearly underscoring the behavioral components. Since this paper is a comparative
analysis, no singular definition is identified as the best one to characterize organizational
learning. The previous paragraphs merely offer three different definitions of organizational
learning to illustrate the diversity of thought along the cognitive-to-behavioral-focus spectrum.
The Rationale for Organizational Learning
Why is it important to establish and maintain a learning organization? One of the
primary drivers of organizational learning becoming an imperative for today’s businesses is the
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 6
need for enhanced learning processes as organizations move from relatively stable to relatively
unstable environmental conditions in our globalized marketplace. As trends in market
conditions, competition, customer demands, technology, and other environmental areas evolve,
companies, too, must rejuvenate and reinvent themselves for long-term survival and success.
Indeed, Azmi (2008) claims that nurturing learning is a top priority in today's business world
because it contributes to competitive advantage through enhancing organizational performance
and effectiveness (p. 58). Essentially, if organizational members share their tacit knowledge
with others in the organization, this becomes one powerful resource that competitors cannot
replicate. Senge (1990) substantiates this idea, noting that the ability to learn is expected to
create the major source of competitive advantage for organizations in the future, and stressing
that learning itself is seen as a prerequisite for the survival of today's organizations (p. 4).
At the individual level, scholar William Isaacs (1993) stresses the importance of humans
everywhere developing their capacity to think and act collaboratively. He asserts that, if people
can come together and be encouraged to become conscious of the thought processes they use to
form assumptions and beliefs, they can then develop a common strength and capability for
working and creating things together. He concurs that the realities of today’s business
environment make organizational learning an imperative, claiming that the level of complexity in
business today requires intelligence beyond the capacity of any individual, which demands that
we tap the collective intelligence of groups of knowledgeable people.
Three Unique Theories of Organizational Learning
Now that we have an appreciation for the diversity of thought in defining and justifying
organizational learning, it makes sense to explore its principles and practices. Three classical
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 7
theories are presented by which to compare and contrast organizational learning models and
methods: 1) experiential learning theory from the "cognitive" school; 2) adaptive & generative
learning theory, also from the "cognitive" school; and 3) assimilation theory from the
“behavioral” school.
Experiential Learning Theory
Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory (ELT) is based in psychology, philosophy, and
physiology (p. 7), and has significantly influenced leadership and organization development and
contributed to principles of the learning organization since its introduction. Its basic premise is
that learning occurs through the combination of grasping and transforming experience. ELT
constitutes of a four-stage learning cycle: concrete experience (CE) and abstract
conceptualization (AC) comprise the grasping component, while reflective observation (RO),
and active experimentation (AE) make up the transforming experience component.
This learning process is characterized as a cycle in which the learner proceeds through
the sequence of experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting in a repeating progression that is
unique to each learning circumstance. Specifically, concrete experiences (experiencing) spark
observation and reflection (reflecting), which is internalized and integrated into abstract concepts
(thinking) that spark new behavioral experimentation (acting)(Yeganeh & Kolb, 2009, p. 15).
This learning cycle can be entered at any point, but the stages are always followed in sequence.
Adaptive and Generative Learning Theory
Kolb’s ELT model influenced scholar Peter Senge, who evolved another cognitive theory
of organizational learning that prominently identified mental models – deeply ingrained
assumptions, generalizations, or pictures and images that influence how we understand the world
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 8
and how we take action (1990, p. 8) – as a crucial component. The other four of the five
disciplines required for acquiring skills and competencies (learning) at the individual, team, and
organization level, as introduced in Senge’s theory, are personal mastery, building shared vision,
team learning, and systems thinking (p. 7).
One of the important principles of Senge's work is the differentiation between adaptive
and generative learning. He characterizes adaptive learning as focusing on the foundation of
existing knowledge, and amending that with new thinking, to accomplish an objective. This kind
of learning is particularly salient to organizations seeking continuous improvement. For
example, understanding the gaps between one's own firm’s productivity, quality, costs, or market
agility, and that of the competition, enables the generation of additional ideas by which to close
those gaps.
By contrast, when new strategies, product lines, resources, or other assets are urgently
needed, a different kind of learning is required to produce radical new ideas and discontinuous
change – which is the nature of generative learning (Harrison, 2000). This is validated soon after
by scholar James March (1991), who expanded on this theory to identify two modes of
organizational learning: 1) exploitation, or the use of existing knowledge and resources to gain
value from what is already known; and 2) exploration, or thinking in previously unused or
unforeseen ways (i.e., seeking new options, experimenting, and conducting research) (p. 72).
Assimilation Theory
Different from the cognitive theories, behavioral approaches to organizational learning
emphasize the action-based changes that take place as individuals learn through performance.
These approaches characterize learning as observable, rational, and quantifiable.
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 9
Scholars Nevis, DiBella, & Goulds’ (1995) theory presents a learning process featuring
three unique stages: 1) knowledge acquisition, consisting of the development or creation of
skills, insights, and relationships; 2) knowledge sharing, characterized by the dissemination of
what has been learned; and 3) knowledge utilization, comprised of the integration of learning to
make it broadly available and generalized to new situations (p. 74). All three of these stages are
strongly behavior-linked and focused on practical application more than cognition.
To flesh out these three stages, the researchers propose seven “learning orientations” that
further define the mindset and methods by which learning occurs: 1) knowledge source: is
knowledge developed internally or acquired externally; 2) product-process focus: focus on what
the organization produces versus how it develops and delivers its products/services; 3)
documentation mode: individual possession of knowledge versus its public availability; 4)
dissemination mode: sharing learning through formal, organization-wide methods versus
informal methods; 5) learning focus: incremental versus transformative learning; 6) value-chain
focus: investing in "design and make" functions versus "market and deliver" functions; 7) skill
development focus: development of individuals’ versus teams’ skills (p. 77). The final
component to the scholars’ model is 10 “facilitating factors,” which are the structures and
processes that facilitate learning and its effectiveness (p. 76). These are covered in more detail in
the section titled “The Learning Context.”
A Comparative Analysis of the Three Theories of Organizational Learning
In the extant literature, organizational learning theory has generally been presented from
three key and differing perspectives, which will serve as the primary criteria by which these
organizational learning theories will be evaluated and contrasted: 1) the learning process, or how
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 10
learning actually occurs within an organizational; 2) the learning target, or who experiences the
learning – individuals, groups, and/or organizations; and 3) learning context, or the antecedents
and conditions that promote organizational learning. Interestingly, however, new organizational
learning theory typically focuses exclusively on one, rarely two, of these elements, and has never
incorporated all three in an integrated theory and model (Lähteenmäki, et al., 2001).
The Learning Process – How Learning Occurs
The idea of organizational learning as a process is obvious in all three of the theories
introduced. Senge (1990) introduces a four-step process called the "wheel of learning" – doing,
reflecting, connecting, and deciding – that is remarkably similar to Kolb’s (1984) ELT process of
experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting. Nevis et al.’s (1995) three-step process of
knowledge acquisition, sharing, and utilization suggests a chronology or progression of activity
in learning.
Perhaps the most interesting insight about all three theories is that they are exclusively
categorized within either the “cognitive” or “behavioral” school of thought on organizational
learning, but all three contain cognitive and behavioral elements. ELT’s components of
conceptualization and reflection are both thinking processes, yet the components of concrete
experience and active experimentation are behavioral processes. Senge's (1990) elements of
mental models and systems thinking are cognitive-related, while personal mastery, building
shared vision, and team learning are behavior-related. Additionally, Nevis et al.’s (1995)
knowledge acquisition stage assumes cognition is necessary for the intake and processing of new
data and information, while the stages of knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization are
purely behavioral.
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 11
One of the criticisms of cognitivism is its simplification of the learning process. For
example, Kolb’s (1984) ELT, which has proven to be quite useful, describes learning in four
basic steps that are said to neglect the role of social, historical, and cultural aspects of human
action (pp. 116-117). Rather than oversimplification, one of the challenges of learning from
experience in the behavioral approach is that of complexity. Experiential learning naturally
incorporates personal inferences from information obtained, while also engaging memory, past
experience, beliefs, and assumptions about each unique situation (Levinthal & March, 1993).
Not only are there limitations associated with individual inference and memory, but there are
also limitations to learning at the organizational level that include memory, conflict, geographic
disbursement, turnover, and more. These issues make it difficult to glean learnings from
individuals’ experiences and retain them enterprise-wide.
One final strength of these theories is noteworthy in the context of the learning process.
Nevis et al. (1995), similar to Senge (1990), see the need for a more bold and aggressive learning
process – generative learning – when transformational change is required, typically necessary in
today's fast-moving, often chaotic organizational environments. Both sets of scholars assert that
this by no means contradicts the value of more measured, modest learning – incremental learning
– which can serve the purpose of performing everyday "fixes," as needed. However, too much
exploration of new knowledge (generative learning) leaves the organization wishing for returns
on its investments, while too much exploitation of existing knowledge (incremental learning)
may result in its becoming outdated and useless. The challenge here is to create the appropriate
balance – even though it may be a moving target – between the need to develop new knowledge
versus leverage existing knowledge.
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 12
The Learning Target – Who Experiences the Learning
The second criterion for evaluating these three theories is the learning target, or the
recipient of the learning. Almost all theories on organizational learning are concerned with
knowledge acquisition and transfer, which occurs exclusively at the individual level. Indeed,
Argyris (1991) emphasizes the importance of managers and employees looking inward in order
to learn and reason about their own behavior in new and more effective ways (p. 100). This is
corroborated by scholar Hodgkinson (1998), who underscores the need for individuals to reflect
on their actions and be lifelong learners. Too, Kolb’s (1984) work reflects a learning process
that is exclusive to the individual, and Senge (1994) focuses on individual learning, emphasizing
how individuals’mental models are created and perpetuated through unique processes inside
one’s own head that include the ladder of inference, the left-hand column, and others (pp. 237-
252).
Less has been written about the assimilation process – the step by which knowledge
becomes institutionally available, frequently referred to as "organizational memory" (Nevis, et
al., 1995, p. 74). Yet, in determining whether this is truly organizational learning, as opposed to
learning at the individual level, the challenge arises when we consider that knowledge is more
than information, as was mentioned earlier in this paper – it includes the meaning or
interpretation of the information, combined with unique context that is tacitly held by the
communicator (such as history, experience, assumptions, and the like).
Some scholars have adopted a broader view and argue that organizations learn at the
systemic level, stressing that organizational learning is not merely the aggregate of the learning
accumulated by each of its members. Learning "systems" are embedded in an organization's
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 13
culture, norms, and history, and are communicated through – and influence – all of its members.
Researchers Cummings and Worley ([1997], as cited in Lähteenmäki, et al., 2001, p. 116) claim
that individual members can learn while the organization doesn't, exemplified by a member
learning to serve a customer better without sharing that knowledge with anyone else. Further,
they assert that it is possible for the organization to learn without individual members learning,
as demonstrated by improvements in work processes or materials designed that do not reflect
participation in learning by all individual members involved (p. 116). Distinctive from the other
two theories, Nevis et al.’s (1995) assimilation theory incorporates very specific practices by
which learning is disseminated organization-wide.
The Learning Context – Conditions that Promote Organizational Learning
The final criterion for analysis – the learning context – identifies the antecedents and
conditions that promote a learning organization. First, Senge (2004) introduces a new set of five
operating principles that serve as requisite mindsets and practices, for learning organizations,
which reflect a more dynamic and ambiguous business world (pp. 4-5). These include: 1) the
learning organization embodies new capabilities; 2) learning organizations are built by servant
leaders; 3) learning arises through performance and practice; 4) process and content are
inseparable; and 5) learning is dangerous. While most of these are classic elements that are
reflected in much of the contemporary literature, the last item is uniquely bold and progressive.
Second, Nevis et al. (1995) defined 10 “facilitating factors” that are the structures and
processes which affect how easy or hard it is for learning to occur (pp. 76-83). These include:
1) scanning imperative; 2) performance gap; 3) concern for measurement; 4) experimental
mindset; 5) climate of openness; 6) continuous education; 7) operational variety; 8) multiple
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 14
advocates; 9) involved leadership; and 10) systems perspective. A few of these align with
Senge's five disciplines for learning organizations: a systems perspective is identical to systems
thinking; continuous education relates to both personal mastery and team learning; and multiple
advocates can be linked to building shared vision.
Finally, it is valuable here to summarize the more common themes from the extant
literature regarding antecedents and conditions that promote organizational learning, and
highlight where those themes have occurred in the three theories analyzed herein. As is true in
the above examples, most of the research is prescriptive in nature and proposes how
organizations should be designed and managed in order to create favorable conditions and
promote effective organizational learning. Common themes include establishing a learning
climate and culture that offer learning opportunities for all (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Nevis, et
al., 1995; Peter Senge, 1990); facilitating members’ experimentation and learning from
experience, and giving appropriate feedback and guidance (Isaacs, 1993; Nevis, et al., 1995;
Peter Senge, 1994; Yeganeh & Kolb, 2009); people being encouraged to take responsibility for
their own professional development, as encouraged by the leader (Argyris, 1991; Nevis, et al.,
1995; Peter Senge, 1990); and the role of the leader, the guiding force behind the learning
process, who has to adopt different, effective roles depending on the particular situation (Argyris,
1991; Nevis, et al., 1995; Peter Senge, 1996b). A final common theme is that learning
organizations are built by empowering employees in the development of their working context
and getting them committed to continuous personal development (Isaacs, 1993; Peter Senge,
1990; Peter Senge, 1996a, 2004).
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 15
While these themes are fairly pervasive in the literature, in general, theory-building in
this discipline has a history of approaches that fragment rather than assimilate new theory
(Lähteenmäki, et al., 2001, p. 113). As a result, a new prototype theory is introduced in the next
section that effectively integrates the important themes, principles, and practices of
organizational learning into a more holistic model.
A New Model for Integrated Organizational Learning
Key Principles of the New Theory & Model
This new model and theory integrates the three criteria from the analysis and evaluation
section, depicting the requisite antecedents and/or conditions that promote organizational
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 16
learning (far left), its “players” or beneficiaries (middle), and the key processes recommended
for each of the targets (far right). First, conditions required to create and sustain learning
organizations that were key themes among the three theories explored herein are included, as are
those additional and complementary antecedents that were repeatedly mentioned in the extant
literature. Second, while most of the literature focused exclusively on learning at the individual
level, this new model demonstrates equal emphasis on learning occurring at the team and
organization levels, themes that were mostly present in Senge (1990) and Nevis et al.’s (1995)
work. Third, it is made clear in this new model that the learning process features unique steps
and foci at each level.
One important principle of the new theory and model demonstrates a commitment to
measures related to organizational learning at the individual, group, and organization levels,
which serves to underscore the importance of this body of work and put "teeth" behind its use
and reinforcement. For example, cognition, as a thoughtful and purposeful process, is still
included as a vital part of the individual learning process, and the behavior change that emanates
from it is a strong metric for performance evaluation.
Another key factor is the establishment of learning processes and systems enterprise-wide
that support the collection, storing, and disseminating of information and knowledge. This type
of technological infrastructure is required in order to make it easy and "natural" for members at
all levels to engage in knowledge sharing. Additionally, technology can be instrumental in
facilitating access to peers – especially when they are geographically dispersed – through virtual,
albeit face-to-face means, which also supports and reinforces the sharing of tacit knowledge.
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 17
The learning theories introduced by Kolb (1984), Senge (1990), and Nevis et al. (1995),
and analyzed herein, each provides a unique perspective regarding how learning takes place
within the context of organizations. Research has continued to add considerably to these
foundations, with new ideas and concepts being developed even today. The value of
organizational learning is unmistakable as we see its ability to create competitive advantage in
today's complex, dynamic, ambiguous, competitive marketplace. It serves as a method for
rejuvenation and reinvention, both for organizations as well as individuals. Yet, the task of
implementing and sustaining organizational learning is a daunting and complex task that
involves significant culture change, attitude change, behavioral change, systems change, process
change, and more. Moving forward in organizational learning research, the crucial goal for
scholars in this field is to strive for integration, rather than fragmentation, so that new advances
can be of maximum usefulness to practitioners who are forwarding this important work as a key
priority within their own firms.
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 18
References:
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99-
109.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory in action perspective.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Azmi, F. T. (2008). Organizational learning: Crafting a strategic framework. ICFAI Journal of
Business Strategy, 5(2), 58-70.
Harrison, R. (2000). Learning, knowledge productivity and strategic progress. International
Journal of Training & Development, 4(4), 244.
Hodgkinson, M. (1998). The ‘learning organization’ and emergent strategies. Strategic Change,
7(7), 421-433.
Isaacs, W. N. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning.
Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24-39.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Lähteenmäki, S., Toivonen, J., & Mattila, M. (2001). Critical aspects of organizational learning
research and proposals for its measurement. British Journal of Management, 12(2), 113.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management
Journal, 14, 95-112.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organized learning. Organization Science, 2,
71-87.
THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORIES 19
McGill, M. E., & Slocum, J. W. (1994). The smarter organization: How to build a business that
learns and adapts to marketplace. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning
systems. MIT Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 73-73.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning
organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P. (1996a). The ecology of leadership. Leader to Leader(2), 18-23.
Senge, P. (1996b). Leading learning organizations. Training & Development, 50(12), 36.
Senge, P. (2004). Creating communities. Executive Excellence, 21(9), 4-5.
Yeganeh, B., & Kolb, D. (2009). Mindfulness and experiential learning. OD Practitioner, 41(3),
13-18.
