About SoLOrganizational LearningPublications & ResourcesConsulting & ProgramsCommunities & ConsortiaJoin SoLMember Access
+ The author acknowledges the support of Sloan School of Management Organizational Studies Department faculty, the MIT Center for Organizational Learning staff, and people from the Center's member companies for opportunities to develop the learning history concept in conducting research at learning projects. In addition, the members of the Learning History Pioneers group, too many to list here individually, have made numerous contributions to the ideas and practices for moving learning history projects forward. In addition, the working relationship with Art Kleiner, whose ideas have melded with many of mine, has contributed so much that to claim responsibility for the origin of particular ideas is neitherot possible nor fruitful.

1 One definition of organizational learning, from Senge (1990), proposes that it is a process by which a firm and its people develop their capabilities to create a desired future. This definition was developed through cumulative insights that came from years of systems dynamics in improving organization's decision-making processes. This way of defining and promoting organizational learning has particular implications. It implies that goals are developed and shared, that a reliable and replicable process can be created to attain goals, and that a feedback system can be devised that produces valid information to evaluate progress and attainment of goals. This definition is consistent with the requirement to capture both collective action and reasoning processes in documenting organizational learning.

2 For a description of field research projects in organizational learning see Roth and Senge (1996). Argyris, Putnam and Smith (1985: 8-9) define the components of action research to include: 1) the learning project was designed with company partners; 2) a learning cycle was used in planning research and project activities; 3) tools and techniques for thinking and learning were taught; 4) learning and development were promoted by building capacities of people in the organization; and 5) new theories, methods, and tools for learning were tested while seeking to improve business results.

3 Field projects promoting learning techniques in organizations took place at two other vehicle manufacturing companies, an electronic components manufacturer, two different semiconductor manufacturing firms, a telecommunications company, a transportation services company, and two telecommunication companies.

4 The six themes in the AutoCo learning history are "Hard results, soft concerns" (when managers paid attention to human issues like openness and fostering trust, would teams be able to produce better business results), "Setting an example of non-authoritarian leadership" (the philosophy which guided the changes were a non-authoritarian and participative approach to project leadership), "Learning labs: Teaching techniques for thinking differently" (as analytic tools provided techniques putting philosophy into action managers "taught their talk" in managerial practice field sessions for program engineers), "Combining engineering innovation with human relations: The Harmony Buck" (new technical ideas joined with a human relations approach that encourages people to apply the technical ideas effectively), "Partnerships" (functionally based people were drawn together in ways that bridged differences and focused on action with collaboration), "Process innovation in the context of a large organization" (how the process innovations in the team were brought into larger management forums and the various ways in which the larger AutoCo organization responded to the Epsilon team).

5 There is one noteworthy exception to this general phenomena of managers wanting tangible, measurable data about learning programs. In the company which is the exception, the effort was structured differently than in the other learning projects (as described in Roth and Senge, 1996). The learning initiatives at this company were established as a broad capability development programs, where managers participated in four one-week training program, with homework assignments and weekly follow-up by program staff, for a period of nine months. In addition to having the program for the participants, a weekend program for participant's bosses and significant others infrom their personal lives was held to help answer questions and integrate new learning into their lives outside the workplace and the learning program. The top leadership of the company also participated is shorter workshops which exposed them to similar materials. This company has established a range for leadership programs which emphasize developing learning capabilities. In this company there haves been fewer requests for measurement or demonstration of results. One explanation, given by program staff members, is that bosses are directly involved in selecting people for the program, they participate in workshops, are exposed to learning techniques and concepts, and have direct experience in observing the new behaviors and capabilities of participants. The instructor for the program has also suggested that the criteria bosses consider in evaluating the program is their own experience participants' new capability in responding to challenging situations.

6 To condense participants narrative into a well-rendered form, preserving the spirit of what they say, quotes are often edited. This editing requires an additional fact-checking stage. Each narrator reviews his or her own words before anyone else sees it. Fact-checking is also required to provide people the freedom to speak openly in interviews, knowing they will review and can rescind their comments before they are included in any document. For more information on how to conduct and write a learning history see Roth and Kleiner, 1995.