Friday, 9 March 2012

'Positivism' and 'Social Constructionism' are two contrasting traditions of social science research



'Positivism' and 'Social Constructionism' are two contrasting 
traditions of social science research. 

By: Vera Ndrecaj, BA(Hons), MBA 
verandrecaj@yahoo.co.uk 

The research philosophies contain important assumptions about the way the ‘world’ will be
 viewed (Saunders et al., 2008). Most of the topics belong to social science because they contain human aspects (Smith and Dainty, 1991; Saunders et al., 2009). In this context, Biggs (1986) explained that, social science research is a technique of  talking to people about their experience, attitudes, opinions, complains, feeling, emotions and believes. 
Burrell and Morgan (1979) model will help us to distinguish between the nature of science and society research, to understand various research approaches, and also to clarify the research direction (Saunders et al., 2009). The research contain elements of  inside-inquiry research that is characterized as an anti-positivistic, phenomenological, enthnomethodological, experiential, existential, ideographic, participative, anthropological, qualitative, dialectic, pragmatic, subjective, intensive, soft, and unscientific (Smith and Dainty, 1991). Each of these characteristics represents a ‘high context’ nation (Hall, 1976). The research will investigate the relationship between two variables  ‘high staff turnover’ and structure of the organization by identifying factors causing the phenomenon since is a little known about the nature of these variables. Building and establishing body of knowledge can possibly be associated with ‘science’ (Bennett, 1983; Smith and Dainty, 1991).

Despite the fact that there is an ongoing debate how social research could be conducted, ‘positivism’ and ‘social constructivism’ are seen as a red and blue corners two contrasting epistemological philosophises of social science (Holton 1993; Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Feigl, 1969; and Easterby-Smith et al., 2008),  their principals and characteristics separate epistemological assumptions, but share the ontological or real word assumption (Knorr-Cetina, 1983; Guba and Lincoln, 1989; Becker and Niehaves, 2006). Confusion can occur at the time that the social science is often interchangeable with the natural science, or if is not distinguished between epistemology described by (Crotty, 1998) as a set of assumptions as regards the best way of inquire into the nature of the world, and ontology described by (ibid) as a philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality. However, Remenyi et al., (1998) cited by Saunders et al., (2009) argued that, the philosophical position of the natural science will be suitable if the research philosophy reflect the principals of positivism. While, Weber (2004) clarified that, they have something in common, both share the assumption that, ‘real world’ exist beyond the realms of human cognition. Although, Kuhn (1962; 1970) claims that, research is validated not only by objective scientific evidence, but also by the consensus of community orientated practitioners. This is a description which has appealed to sociologists because it appears to question their believes that natural science hold higher authority than social science (Bryant, 1975; Heyl, 1975; and Barnes, 1983) cited by Hassard (1991). Social science studies the human aspects of the world, therefore is important to understand (McQueen and Knussen, 2002).  

The idea of ‘positivism’ initially dissented from Comte (1853) since several scientists came to realise that there is a problem with epistemological approach in applying physical science model (Dilthey, 1913; Pierce 1931; Husserl et al., 1970; and Bernstein, 1971) it is developed in to a distinctive paradigm (Kuhn 1962 as cited in Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). While the idea of social constructivism is developed by Berger and Luckman (1966); Watzlawick (1984); and Shotter (1993), people make sense of the ‘world’ by sharing their experience.  But on the other hand, the key idea of positivism is that the social world exists externally, knowledge is explicit, and it is regarded as an objective ‘facts’ (Feigl, 1969; Holton 1993; Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Weber, 2004: Easterby-Smith, 2009).  While, the idea of social constructionism is that, people make sense of the ‘world’ through sharing their experience with other via the medium of language, which mean that, negotiation persuasion and power (Gergen (1991). It also creates tacit knowledge which is regarded as a subjective (Berger and Luckman, 1966; Watzlawick, 1984; Shotter, 1993; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;   and Estearby-Smith, 2009).

Alternatively, Crotty (1998) states “... social constructionism emphasises the hold our culture has on us: it shapes the way in which we see things (even the way in which we feel things!) and gives us a quite definite view of the world” (1998:58).  This mean that, the knowledge being socially constricted is seemed as constructionism, it is a product of linguistic, social and cultural practices Hall, (2008). Whereas, Gergen (1994) argued that, through psychological views an individual’s knowledge of the world is constructed within a social community.         

The philosophical assumption of positivism is “...use existing theory to develop hypothesis” (Saunders et al., 2008:103) while social constuctionism is associated with theory development such as ‘social cognitive’ theory (Shunk, 2000), emphasise the importance of culture in context of better understanding of situation and create knowledge based on this understanding (Derry, 1999; McMahon, 1997) and also is associated with interpretive method (Habermas, 1970). On the other hand,  positivism ... “observe social reality” (Remenyi et al., 1998:35), the observer must be independent, identify causal explanation, and use  deduction approach to find out what kind of observations will demonstrate the truth (Collis and Hussey, 2003). In context, concepts need to be operationalized enable facts to be measured quantitatively. Nevertheless, Wood and Welch (2010) criticised the view by explaining this,”...the term quantitative and qualitative, should be avoided because their meaning is confused. If we want to distinguish between a study involving a very large sample, and a study involving a more detailed analysis of a smaller sample, then we should say this and not use potentially misleading terms like qualitative and quantitative (2010:68).

However, the modification of positivist views began with Von Bertalanffy, (1962) explaining that, as a result of development in natural science field and technology researches are capable to examine full complexity of data and use mix method to analyse these data. Positivist management research problems could be reduced in samples’ possible elements, reductionism, generalisation, and cross-sectional analysis (Easerby-Smith, 2009). According to Burrell and Morgan, (1979) positivism takes a problem orientated approach to have a better understanding of phenomena it is concern with”...providing explanation of the status quo, social order, consensus, social integration, solidarity, need satisfaction, and actuality”  (1979:26). However, Patton, (2002) criticised that, a social world differs from natural, physical world and it should be studied differently.

Alternatively, social constructivism referred as an interpretive (Habermas, 1970), generate theory, it is associated with inductive approach    and its fundamental assumption are reality, although, positivism test theories and is associated with deduction approach (Kukla, 2000). This view is supported by Saunders et al (2009); (see table 4 appendix). Social constructivism gather rich data from which ideas are inducted (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008), creates knowledge (Pratt and Floden, 1994; Gredler, 1997; and Ernest, 1999), encourages learning (McMahon, 1997), and also ‘facts’ are measured qualitatively in small number of cases chosen for specific reason, while for positivism approach (see table 2 appendix) select large numbers of sampling (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).  This epistemology of social science rejects the positivism view that society could be studied objectively; it has been developed as a critique of positivism to achieve an objective value-free social science (Delanty, 1991; Hall, 2008).  Although, the view that positivism is the best research philosophy of investigating human and social behavior is criticized by (Aiken, 1956) argued that, it is just assumption of natural philosophise. The view is supported by Saunders et al., (2009) explained that, working with observable social reality the end product can be law-like generalisations similar to those in physical and natural science.

There are many dimensions along which the two broad types of research are said to differ. For example, Easterby-Smith et al (2002: 30) list eight differences between positivism and social constructionism, Robson (2002) lists eight assumptions of positivism and eight “characteristic features” of “relativistic qualitative” approaches (2002:.25), and Morgan and Smircich (1980) describe five dimensions of difference between subjectivist and objectivist approaches. All three of these sources actually point out that, the distinction is over-simplified or misleading, but each explains the distinction in sufficiently clear terms to contribute to this oversimplification (Wood and Welch, 2010). Regardless of the arguments put forward, differences between two contrasting traditions is still not clear, which philosophy approach is ‘better’ to be applied, despite the fact that both are common approaches for management research (Weber, 2004).  According to Saunders et al., (2008) they are ‘better’ at doing different things (2008:116); it depends in research question (ibid). However, Campbell and Staley, (1963); Cook and Campbell, (1979); and Kerlinger (1973) have described good research as a careful sampling, precise measurement, sophisticated design and analysis in the test of hypothesis, these characteristics are similar with features of positivism (see table 1). However, the cling of positivism, especially in management research has possibly been partly encouraged by the status position of management discipline. Smith and Dainty (1991) clarified that, any movement away from positivistic methods does not mean that management research must therefore be more biased, or unimportant, or that slavish loyalty to positivistic methods ensure that these problem have overcome. 

  Strength of positivism
 Strength of Social Constructivism
Testing and validities theories
Testing hypotheses before the data are collected
• Can generalize a research finding when it has been replicated on many different populations and subpopulations
• Useful for obtaining data that allow quantitative predictions to be made
• The researcher may construct a situation that eliminates the confounding influence of many variables, allowing one to more credibly assess cause-and-effect relationships
• Data collection using some quantitative methods is relatively quick (e.g., telephone interviews)
• Provides precise, quantitative, numerical data
• Data analysis is relatively less time consuming (using statistical software)
• The research results are relatively independent of the researcher
(e.g., affect size, statistical significance).
• It may have higher credibility with many people in power (e.g., administrators, politicians, people who fund programs).
• It is useful for studying large numbers of people
• The data are based on the participants’ own categories of meaning
• It is useful for studying a limited number of cases in depth
• It is useful for describing complex phenomena
• Provides individual case information
• Can conduct cross-case comparisons and analysis
• Provides understanding and description of people’s personal experiences of phenomena
• Can describe, in rich detail, phenomena as they are situated and embedded in local contexts
• The researcher identifies contextual and setting factors as they relate to the phenomenon of interest
• The researcher can study dynamic processes (i.e., documenting sequential patterns and change)
• The researcher can use the primarily qualitative method of “grounded theory” to generate inductively a tentative but explanatory theory about a phenomenon
• Can determine how participants interpret “constructs” (e.g., self-esteem
• Data are usually collected in naturalistic settings in qualitative research
• Qualitative approaches are responsive to local situations, conditions, and stakeholders’ needs
• Qualitative researchers are responsive to changes that occur during the conduct of a study and may shift the focus of their studies as a result
• Qualitative data in the words and categories of participants lend themselves to exploring how and why phenomena occur
• One can use an important case to demonstrate vividly a phenomenon to the readers of a report
• Determine idiographic causation (i.e., determination of causes of a particular event)
Weakness of positivism
Weakness of social constructivism
• The researcher’s categories that are used may not reflect local constituencies’ understandings
• The researcher’s theories that are used may not reflect local constituencies’ understandings
• The researcher may miss out on phenomena occurring because of the focus on theory or hypothesis testing rather than on theory or hypothesis generation (called the confirmation bias)
• Knowledge produced may be too abstract and general for direct application to specific local situations, contexts, and individuals

• Knowledge produced may not generalize to other people or other settings (i.e., findings may be unique to the relatively few people included in the research study)
• It is difficult to make quantitative predictions.
• It is more difficult to test hypotheses and theories
• It may have lower credibility with some administrators and commissioners of programs
• It generally takes more time to collect the data when compared no quantitative research
• Data analysis is often time consuming
• The results are more easily influenced by the researcher’s personal biases and idiosyncrasies
Table 1 Sources: Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004); Easterby-Smith et al (2008); and Saunders et al., (2008).


Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004); Easterby-Smith et al (2008); and Saunders et al., (2008) have identified strength and weakness of positivism and social constructivism as shown in table 1, which will help the author to chose which philosophical research approach will answer the question (Saunders et al., 2008), but on the other hand, the author has to take into consideration the nature of research topic (Creswell, 1994). In this context, quantitative and the positivist approach provide wide exposure of whole situation, focus in hard data rather than opinion, it can be fast and economical, but it required a complicated structure and become inflexible (Easterby-Smith, 2008; Saunders et al, 2008). This approach is criticised by Dalton, (1959) and Watson (1994) by pointing that, this approach is rather idealistic, natural science do not follow its selves except in laboratory. Although, social constructionist management approach could be good for processes, and meanings, flexible and good for theory generation, data collection is less artificial and employs qualitative approach ((Easterby-Smith, 2008). But on the other hand it could be time consuming, analyses and interpretations are difficult, and also may not have credibility with policy makers (ibid). 

Burrell and Morgan (1979); Punch (1986); Bulmer (1988); and Fielding and Fielding, (1986) support Easterby-Smith et al (2008) statement about two contrasting traditions, emphasis that, mix methods provides more perspectives in investigating phenomena. Another goal of using mix methodology is to boast strengths and minimize weakness of both philosophies (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004). However, Howe (1988) argues that, qualitative and quantitative research paradigms cannot and should not be mixed. The ‘high staff turnover’ study represent the first attempt at developing a multiply paradigm analysis of the organisation.  The qualitative differences between theory-community perspectives have been described by (Silverman, 1970; Lincoln, 1985; and Martin 1989 cited by Smith and Dainty, 1991) and many have cited a meta-theoretical debate as a root of such differences (Pondy and Boje, 1980; Morgan, 1986, and Wilmot 1989), than it can be argued that, (Burrell and Morgan, 1979) model offered opportunities to learn languages and practice of rival communities, and in turn to conduct characteristics of research of their form of life, and also, through developing multiplies paradigm research we  are  able to realise greater epistemological variety in organisational analysis (Smith and Dainty, 1991).

Therefore, to conclude, there is an ongoing debate how social research could be conducted, ‘positivism’ and ‘social constructivism’ are seen as a red and blue corners two contrasting epistemological philosophises of social science (Holton 1993; Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Feigl, 1969; and Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). Their principals and characteristics separate epistemological assumptions, but share the ontological or real word assumption (Knorr-Cetina, 1983; Guba and Lincoln, 1989; Becker and Niehaves, 2006). Social science is often interchangeable with the natural science, it is not distinguished between epistemology  (Crotty, 1998) described it as a set of assumptions as regards the best way of inquire into the nature of the world, and ontology described by (ibid) as a philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality. However, the key idea of positivism is that the social world exists externally, knowledge is explicit, and it is regarded as an objective ‘facts’ (Feigl, 1969; Holton 1993; Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Weber, 2004: Easterby-Smith, 2009).  While, the idea of social constructionism is that, people make sense of the ‘world’ through sharing their experience with other via the medium of language, which mean that, negotiation persuasion and power (Gergen (1991). It also creates tacit knowledge which is regarded as a subjective (Berger and Luckman, 1966; Watzlawick, 1984; Shotter, 1993; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;   and Estearby-Smith, 2009).

Positivist approach, or quantitative research provide wide exposure of whole situation, focus in hard data rather than opinion, it can be fast and economical, but it required a complicated structure and become inflexible (Easterby-Smith, 2008; Saunders et al, 2008). This approach is criticised by Dalton, (1959) and Watson (1994) by pointing that, this approach is rather idealistic, natural science do not follow its selves except in laboratory. Although, social constructionist management approach could be good for processes, and meanings, flexible and good for theory generation, data collection is less artificial and employs qualitative approach (Easterby-Smith, 2008). But on the other hand it could be time consuming, analyses and interpretations are difficult, and also may not have credibility with policy makers (ibid). The whole point of the study is that which of contrasting traditions provide a better result, the perfection is fur from both philosophise, they have their own strength and weakness. Therefore, mix methodology could be a solution, in order to boast strengths and minimize weakness of both philosophies.

Reference

(Anonymous) Social Constructivism. Available from: http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199285433/jackson_chap06.pdf [Accessed, 30/01/2011]

Bryman. A and Bell. E (2007) Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press Inc. New York. United States.

Bryman. A (1984) The Debate about Qualitative and Quantitative Research: The Question of Method or Epistemology. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/590553 [Accessed, 15/01/2011]

Biggs. L. C (1986) Learning how to ask: A social linguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom. 

Blaikie. N (1993) Approaches to social enquiry. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom.

Baldamus. N (1972) The role of discoveries in social science. Tavistock. London.

Burrell. G and Morgan. G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analyses. Heinemann. London.


Collis. J and Hussey. R (2003) Business Research. A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduates Students. 2nd ed. Palgrave MacMillan. Basingstoke.


Creswell. J (1994) Research Design; Quantitative and Qualitative Approach. Sage. London.

Clark. M.  A (2002) The qualitative-quantitative debate: moving from positivism and confrontation to post-positivism and reconciliation


Crotty. M (1998) The Foundation of Social Research: Meaning and Perspectives in Research Process. Stage. London. 

Easterby-Smith et al., (2008) Management Research. Sage.  London.

Gill. J and Johnson. P (2002) Research Methods for Managers. 3rd ed. Sage. London.  

Gill. J and Johnson. P (2010) Research Methods for Managers. SAGE Publication Limited. London.

Glebbeek, A. C., and Bax, E. H. (2004) Is high employee turnover really harmful? An empirical test using company records. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47. No. 2. Pp. 277-286.

Guba. E. G and Lincoln. Y. S (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage. London.

Hassard. L and Parker. M (1993) Postmodernism and Organisations. Sage. London.

Hall. R (2008) Applied Social Research: Planning, design and conducting real-world research. Palgrave Macmillan. Australia.


Hussey. J and Hussey. R (1997) Business Research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Macmillan. Basingstoke.

Johnson. B. R and Onwuebuzie. J. A (2004) Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Who’s Time Has Come. Educational Researcher. Vol. 33. No. 7. Pp. 14-26.

Kuhn. Th. S (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press. USA.

Mullins, L.J. (2007) Management and Organisational Behaviour.  Pearson, London.


Morgan, G., and Smircich, L. (1980) The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 5. No. 4. Pp. 491-500.

Saunders et al., (2007) Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson Education Limited. England. 
Sayer. A (2000) Realism and Social Science. Sage. London.

Smith. C and Dainty. P (1991) The management Research Handbook. Routledge. New York.

Sayer, A. (2000) Realism and Social Science. Sage. London.

Silverman. D (1970) The Theory of Organisations. Heinemann. London.

Ramanathan. R. T (2008) The Role of Organisational Change Management in Offshore Outsourcing of Information Technology Service: Qualitative Case Studies for a Multinational Pharmaceutical Company. Available from: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=luZd6PF6i0IC&pg=PA40&dq=social+science+research+positivism+and+social+constructivism&hl=en&ei=k_dPTZ9GwsCEB9Wy5ZgP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed, 07/02/2011]

Whittingham, C., & Holland, R. (1985). “A framework for theory in social work.” Issues in Social Work Education, Vol. 5, pp. 25-50.

Willmott. H (1989) Beyond pragmatic closure in organizational inquiry. Rutledge. London.  

Wood. M and Welch. C (2010) Are ‘Quantitative’ and ‘Qualitative’ Useful Terms for Describing Research. Vol. 5. No 1. Pp 56-71.    

Monday, 5 March 2012

Learning Organization: Features and Characteristics.

By Vera Ndrecaj BA (Hons). MBA. 
verandrecaj@yahoo.co.uk

1. Introduction 
The concept of ‘Learning Company’ begins with Argyris and Schon (1978), Peter & Waterman (1982).  “The excellent companies are learning organizations”(Waterman, 1982:110). Revans (1982) and Garratt (1987) have highlighted the role and impacts of managers and directors in this process.  The term of 'learning organization' is also used by Pedler et al (1987, 1991) which have identified eleven characteristics of learning organization.  Senge (1990) described it as an idea most likely to preoccupy managers in future.

The idea of learning organisation is based on models of organisational learning, this concept has become very attractive for many years.  Argyris and Schon (1978, 1996), Fiol and Lyes (1985), Hedberg (1981), March and Olsen (1976), Meyer (1982) suggested that all organisations learn, without learning organisations will not survive.  Holland (1986) the director of Manpower Service Commission as cited in Pedler (1997: xiii) announced publicly that “If we are to survive- individually or as a company, or as a country we must create a traditional of leaning. Every company must be a learning company”.

Argyris and Schon (1996), Easterby & Smith (1997) Tsang (1997) had distinguished learning organisations from organisational learning as shown in Table 1.

Organisation Learning
Learning organisation
Descriptive
The existing literature is concentrate in analyses of process involving individuals and collective learning inside the organisation.
Prescriptive
The literature of LO  has an action orientation and evaluating methodological tools that enable to identify and promote qualities of learning process.
 Ask a question; How does an organisation learn?
Ask a question; How should an organisation learn?
This term is sketch from psychology and OD, management science, sociology and organisation theory, production management and cultural anthropology
Originated mainly from management science and OD.
Senge (1990), Garvin (1993) and Nevis et al (1995) started from management science by adding insights by OD.
Dixon(1994), Hawkins( 1994), Nonaka (1994), Torbert (1994) and Swieringa & Wierdsman(1994) takes as a starting point of human development and emancipation and then distinguish between cyclical and evolutionary models of learning 
Authors focus on conceptualisation and answering the questions for instance What does OL mean? What kinds of OL are desirable?
Authors focus on continual improvement, competence, acquisition and experimentation (Garvin 1993, Ulrich 1993). The stress the role and commitment of managers to learn and incorporate learning into strategy, measuring it, and investing in it.

Table 1.  Differences between organization learning and learning organisation. Source adapted from Argyris & Schon (1996); Smith (1997); Tsang (1997)

Learning organisation definitions give a clear understanding of elements and steps organisation need to follow in order to become a learning organization. Acquiring knowledge (Garvin, 1993) and innovation (Lessem, 1990) in order to survive and succeed in rapidly changing environment (Argyris &Schon, 1978) (Dodgson, 1993). In addition, culture creation (Stahl et al (1992), sustain and give confidence to employee to learning continuously (Senge, 1990) critical thinking and risk taking with new idea (Pedler et al, 1991) allowed mistakes (Handy, 1992) value employee contributions learn from experience and experiment (Senge, (1990) disseminate the new knowledge throughout the organisation for incorporation into day- to- day activities (Ross, 1992). Peters & Waterman (1980: 110) said “excellent company is learning organisation”, and also highlighted that learning company make learning central process.

Stahl et al., (1992) explained the influence of learning organization in the process of strategy creation, structure and culture.  Argyris and Schon (1978) stressed quick responds to changes in the internal and external environments by detecting and correcting errors in organisational theory in use, and analyse the results of inquiry (double loop learning). According to  Field and Ford (1995), Pedler et al (1991), Redding and Catalanello (1994), Senge (1990) and Watkins and Marsick (1993) view the concept of a learning organisation has emerge in recent years to take account of many of these changes. But on the other hand, De Geus (1988) argue that, companies do not learn and adapt very quick.
Pearn et al (1995) stressed the continuously adaption to an increasingly unpredictable future. Revans (1982) argued that learning in an organisation must be equal or greater than the rate of changes of environment, L=C or L>C. In this contest and (Stata, 1989) emphasis the capacity of organisation to learn, learning organisation become the only sustainable source of competitive edge.

 Senge (1990) stress the importance of learning as a whole organisation, organisation learning is crucial to future success a survival, and also stressed that some organisation learn better than others. Senge (1990) and Karash (1995) stated a learning organisation as one which continually expanding its capacity to create its future. Whereas, Pedler et al.,(1991)  highlighted the importance of providing learning opportunities for all employees. Senge (1993) focus on expanding capacity whereas Pedler (1991) highlighted continual self-transformation. In addition, Pedler et al. (1992) stated learning organisation is a vision of what may be possible. It happens only as a result of learning at the whole organisation level. They defined learning  company as “... an organisation that facilitates the learning of all its members and consciously transforms itself and its context” (Pedler et al., 1992:3).

Similarly, Watkins and Marsick (1992) theory argued that learning organizations are characterized by total employee involvement in a process of collaboratively conducted, collectively accountable change directed towards shared values or principles. Thurbin (1994) stressed into importance of learning of all its individual members. Argyris (1990) LO encourage double loop learning deep analyse process.  

Although the environment relationship theories have different views (Yeo, 2005; Daft and Weick, 1984; Hitt, 1996; Hedberg, 1981 as cited in Dixon, 1999) explain learning organisation as a centred process in continuous rapidly changing environment. However, Dixon (1994) theory brings out the intentional use of learning process at individuals, groups and whole system levels to transform organisation in order to satisfy its stakeholders. Peter & Waterman (1980) arguably, emphases up on customer to the exclusion of other stakeholders. 

Alternatively, Garvin (1993) has pointed some elements or characteristics of LO such as skilled creating, transferring knowledge and modifying behaviour and reflection. This definition is helpful because it provides some insights into what a LO looks like but does not address why LO is important and in which levels will be involved in learning. Garvin’s (1993) work is essentially prescriptive but has been criticized by Pearn et al. (1995) and Pedler et al. (1991) as practitioners. However, Garcarz (2003) has pointed this  learning organisation is commonly found in fast moving and sometime living into turbulent and fast changing environment (De Gues, 1998) clarify that all these changes are accelerating competitive threats as a result of globalisation. Leonard and Barton (1992) stressed knowledge creation, collection and control. But (Dodgson, 1993) argue this developing strategy and structure to facilitate and coordinate learning in rapidly changing and conflictual circumstances. However, Denim (1986) as a radical of the Total Quality of Management (TQM) emphasizes the role of managers in managing and organizing and he comes up with 14 point which fit perfectly with the learning company. 

Mintzberg et al (1998:228) argue this the LO exist mostly for good reasons, but it is no universal for anything. This is criticised by Pedler and Aspinwall (1998) by stressing the pressure to learn and respond to change is grater in public sectors as a consequence all companies should be a learning company.  Garcarz (2003) states this learning organisation is one that recognises the whole workforce needs opportunities to lean. But, Garratt (1990) highlight willingness to accept that learning occurs continuously at all levels of organisations and need to flow freely to where it is needed.   

Moreover, Garcarz (2003) and Pedler et al (1998) argued that learning organisation is one that particularly displays its support and commitment for lifelong learning by ensuring that education, training and development are central policy of corporate strategy.  Johnson et al (2008:421) have stated LO is capable of continual regeneration from the variety of knowledge experience and skills of individuals within the culture which encourages mutual questioning and challenge around a shared purpose or vision.

 Alternatively, Morgan (2006) states this learning organisation cannot be created, but can enhance people’s capacity to learn and align their activities in creative way (Gaines, 1990) a lot of people learn.  Morgan said the grand of the learning company is a network of like minded people who enjoy challenging of working in an action learning way. The power of network is sharing and exchanging information and insights help and support each other also experiments, asking question and giving feedback are characteristics of power of network. Jones (1992) states this learning organisation is part of new ideas which help to organisations to cope with turbulence. and answer the questions what is LO?
In addition authors have different view about learning organisation but will be important to highlight the fact that learning organisation is an idea of Total  Qualities Managers(Deming, 1988), Organisation Transforming(Owen, 1987), Whole system Thinking (Senge, 1990), and Future Searching (Weisbord & Janoff, 1995).

Santosus (1996) stressed in difficulties of creating learning organisation, organisations have to change everything to change their behaviour and way of thinking. Is hard work for managers to change whole culture of organisation and to create a new clime where risk taking is allowed and evaluate errors. Furthermore, Smith (2001) argued that is impossible to transform bureaucratic organisation only by learning programmes.      

Arguably, Kofman and Senge (1993:16) said that LO is a thing we create in language. Like every linguistic creation, this category is double-edged sword that can be empowering or tranquilizing. Senge (1993) said learning organisation is unrealistic is very difficult to reach is too ‘ideal’. However,  there are some authors hesitating to define learning organisation, Pearn et al (1995:17) states that the best conceptualization of what it means to be a learning organisation will be the one that organisation arrives it itself.  Argyris and Schon (1978) did not attempt to define a learning organisation but they raised the question shows in figure 1. Arguably, Kerka (1995) said there is no consensus on the definition of a learning organisation, Garvin (2000:9) stats that a clear definition of the learning organisation has provided to be elusive. Pedler et al. (1989) and Pearn et al. (1995) suggest that the definite of learning organisation does not exist.

According to Pearn et al (1995) key features of learning organisation are its vision of how it going to be and clear understanding of the mission and the way in which these would be converted in value and manifest in behaviour. Therefore mission, vision, and value should be the source of the objectives and strategy created by the organisation.
In addition, Pearn et al (1997) in order to prevent failures managers need to undertake exercises to gain a share understanding of significant learning and establish learning agenda and also managers play a crucial role in making learning a key driver for the organisation as a strategic objective.

Garratt (1990) has recognized three characteristics of learning organisation. He stress the role of managers in encourages people from all levels to learn regularly.  Systems for capturing the learning and moving it where it is needed.  Value learning and continually transform their self.     

 Pearn et al (1995) have identified four kind of organisation which operating in addition to the learning company, type of organisations are stagnated organisation, frustrated organisations, and frustrating organisation and LO. Pearn et at (1995) states this LO has a strong vision of the future but he ask does it exist? Pearn et al (1994)  are concern about managerial willing for change  they thinking is done enough and many organisation are stuck in frustrated organisation, but (Argyris,1991) states that managers are often not well equipped to learn.

However, this framework give clear picture how organisations operate in today’s rapidly changing environment. I addition Pearn et al(1995) have identify six factors of INVEST module Inspired learners, nurturing culture, vision for future learning, enhanced learning, supportive management, and transforming structure. Also Pearn et al (1995) have identified four ways of thinking about learning organisation which are a critical mass of learner, a specially created environment which fosters learning, micro-learning organisation, macro-learning organisation. However, there are many different approaches to describe the characteristics of a learning organisation. Organisations must unitise Pedler et al (1991) 11 characteristics in order to diagnose techniques and instruments of processes of managing, directing, learning and participating. These characteristics are:

1)  A learning approach to strategy 
2) Participative policy making 
3) Information 
4) Formative accounting and control 
5) Internal exchange 
6) Reward flexibility
7) Enabling structure 
8) Boundary workers as an environmental scanner 
9) Inter- company learning
10) Learning  
11) Self-development opportunities for all. 
      
Strategy: Two out of 11 characteristics could fit on strategic group, but first learning approach to the strategy should be taken. Moreover it happens where policy and strategy are consciously structured by small scale experiments and use findings as a feedback. Strategy formation, implementation, evaluation and improvement are deliberately structured as learning experience by using feedback loops. Therefore, participative policy- making approach in necessary to allow all members of the organization to participate in this process.  Furthermore, the approach intends to involve all groups of stakeholder such supplier, customers, the community and so on.

Looking in; is one of four characteristics suggested by Pedler et al (1991).  Informing employees what going on in the organisation by using technology, and to ensure information is made widely available. Also formative accounting and the control, involves designing accounting, budgeting and reporting system to assess learning. Furthermore, internal exchange is another characteristic which involves all internal unites seeing themselves as customer and suppliers of each other. Pedler et al (1991) recognised this reward flexibility is one of most difficult of eleven characteristics to put into practise. Reward flexibility implies that the question of why some receive more money than others.

Structure; the characteristic suggests that roles are loosely structured in line with the needs of internal customer and suppliers, personal growth and experience should be allowed. For instance, project groups and trainers structures help to break down barriers between unites, provide mechanism for spreading new ideas and encourage the idea of change.

Looking out; Pedler et al(1991), states boundary workers as environment scanners implies that part of the role of all workers in contact with supplier, customers or community should participate in data collection. A second feature in this theme is intercompany learning. They suggested that benchmarking could be used to learn from other companies. Therefore, joining with customers, suppliers and possibly competitors in training experiences, research, and development as well as job exchanges could take place.

Learning opportunities; learning environment is important, this is, one that encourage experimentation and learning from experience, question current idea, attitudes and action ad trying out new idea. There is a focus in improvement and involvement of customers, suppliers and neighbours experimentation is suggested by Pedler et al (1991). Therefore feedbacks are continually requested. The last feature is self - development opportunities for all, required recourse and facilities for self-development for all levels in the organisation. Furthermore, coaching, mentoring, peer supporting counselling and feedbacks most are available to support individuals in their learning.

Senge (1994) the fifth disciplines are based upon Agyris & Schon theory single and double loop single loop is focus simply in errors deduction and correction. Double loop inquiry, ask question and deep analyse of the changes, conflicts or errors, furthermore this theory encourage reflective thinking in all members. The fifth disciplines of Senge (1994) are as a following:
Personal mastery; is one of most important discipline, which is focused in individuals self-development, clarifying personal vision and developing objectivity and patience.
Sharing Mental model; Everyone is different they have different views and, their own assumption. Thinking as a collective by sharing knowledge, experience opinions, views and their assumption will turned the organisation in human living body (organism). Share map of organization (Agyris & Schon, 1978).
Share vision; builds the sense of communication in a group by developing shared images of the future they desire. People are committed to excel and change their future, they are willing to learning voluntary and not because they might have to.
Team learning; starts with dialog, transforming conversational and change collective thinking skills. It is fundamental learning unit in modern organisation. 
Systems thinking; look at whole pictures of organisation rather than parts. This discipline helps to see how to change systems more effectively, and to act more in tune within large processes of the natural and economic world. This discipline integrate whole members of organization   

2. Conclusion:
The origins of learning organisation concept come from management science and OD, they have been studied for about 30 years but confusion and scepticism about this term still exists. However, Senge (1994) provided one of the best frame work as a tool for managers, to help them create the organisation which is sustainable, flexible and able to survive in rapidly changing environment. Even though in theory this frame work will work, but Senge states that these learning organisations exist as a vision in our collective imagination. The goal of learning organisation is to generate continues change and self-transformation. Academics and researchers have different views and come up with different definitions and different frame works but two of them are more useful Pedler et al (1991) 11 characteristics and Senge (1990) fifth disciplines , some of authors hesitate to define learning organisation because they do not believe it exists.  Learning organisation authors are focus on continual improvement, competence, acquisition and experimentation (Garvin 1993, Ulrich 1993). The stress into manager’s role and commitment to learn and incorporate learning into strategy, to encourage creativity and innovation, to build accurate benchmarks is considered as a future challenge since the financial bill is high. 


References

Argyris. C, (1990), Overcoming Organisational Defence: Facilitating Organisation Learning, Ally and Bacon, Boston, USA.

Argyris. C, Schon. D, (1996), On Organisation Learning:  A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, London.

Britton. B, (1998), The Learning NGO [OPS 17], [online], available: http://www.intrac.org [accessed 15/12/2009]

Chell. E, (2001), Entrepreneurship: globalisation, innovation and development, Thomson Learning, London.

Deming.W.E, (1986), Out of the Crisis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Garcarz.W, et al. (2003), Making your Healthcare Organisation a Learning Organisation, Redcliff Medical Press Ltd. UK.

Pearn et al. (1995), Learning organisation in Practice, McGraw-Hill, London.

Pedler et al. (1997), The learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainability Development, McGraw-Hill, London.

Pedler. M, Aspinwall. K, (1998), A Concise Guide to the Learning Organisation, Lemos & Crane, London.

Pearn. M (1995), Learning Organisation in Practice, McGraw-Hill international (UK) Limited, UK.

Peters. T. J, Waterman. R. H, (1982) In Search of Excellence: Lessons from American’s Best-Runs Companies, Harper and Row, New York.

Taylor et al. (2008), Human Resource Management, 7th ed, Pearson Education Limited, England.

Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Random House, London.

Smith. M.K (2001) ‘The learning organisation, the encyclopaedia of information education, http://www.infed.Org/biblio/learning organisation.htm   

Jackson. B, (2001), Management gurus and management fashion: a dramatic inquiry, Routledge, London.

McCalman. J, Paton. R, (2008), Changing Management: A Guide to Effective Implementation. SAGE Publications Ltd, London. New Delhi, California and Singapore.

Morgan. G, (1997), Images of Organisation, Sage, London.

Mabey. C, Iles. P, ed, (1994), Managing learning, Opening University Thomson, London.

Marropodi. J, (2003), The Learning Organisation Review, Practice & Application [online], available: http://www.appesstor.org [accessed 20/12/2009]

O’Hara.S, (2007)”Action learning as leverage for strategic transformation: a case study reflection, strategic change, 06/2007.

Garratt. B, (1987), The Learning Organisation; and the need for directors who think, Gower, Albershot.

Harrison. R, Reeve. F (2002) Supporting Lifelong Learning: Organising learning, RoutledgeFalmer, London.

Oxford Dictionary of Business & Management (2009), Oxford University Press, New York, USA.

Harding, T and Beresford, P. (1996) ‘The standards we expect: What services users and carers want from social workers’, London: National Institute for Social Work.

Peter Senge and learning organisation [online], available://www.infed.org.thinkers/senge.htm [accessed 20/12/2009]

Iles. V, and Sutherland, K. (2001) 'Managing change in the NHS’, London: NHS Service 
Delivery and Organisation Research and Development. October 2004