Manuel Alfonso Garzón Castrillon y André Luís Fischer
As first conclusion we can affirm that the objectives proposed for this research were totally achieved. In the first place it was possible to establish a theoretical model that describes the way to characterize the capacity of organizational learning. This way it is confirmed as a dynamic capacity in an iterative relation with knowledge that allows the generation, renewal and reconstruction of medullar competences supporting constant search for improvement of organizational results
In agreement with that proposed by: Argyris (1999); Argyris & Schon(1978); Beazly (2003); Blau & Scott (1962);Bandura (1991,2001): Cangeloisi &Dill(1965); Cyert&March(1963). ; Chestnut grove (2002); Choo (1999);Dixon (2001): Dogson (1993); Davenport ET when (2001);Drucker (2000); Etkin (2003); Fiol and Liles (1985); Follet ET to. (1960); Garvin (1992);Gore (1998); González of Creek, (1997); Gold (1994); Hurbin (1996); Lopez (2003); Krogh ET to (2001); March (1991);March and Olsen (1976); Meister (1999);Muñoz-Seca (2003); Morgan(1996) Níkeles (1997); Nonaka and Takeuchi (1999); Polanyi, M.(1966);Peluffo ET to (2002); Quintero ET to (2003); Ruggles ET to (1999); Schein, (1993); Senge (1992, 2000, 2002.2003); Tarín, (1997); Thurbin (1994); Tsoukas, (1994), the proposed model looks for balancing each of the tendencies identified in the state-of-the-art and the speculative arguments alluded in this work, conforming a theoretical corpus that establishes that the companies that want to foster organizational learning must "drink" of seven identified sources, facilitating the six proposed conditions, designing a structure oriented to learning by means of the development of competitions to learn and to de-learn stimulating the creation and operation of practical communities, learning and commitment, documenting and stimulating the use of the organizational memory, for which, it is necessary to generate a culture that allows to share the knowledge based in processes of human management, promoting values and principles that are preached and applied, obtaining a propitious climate for learning. It is possible to emphasize, that it is necessary by means of these mechanisms to close the existing gap between the academic and the pragmatic vision about knowledge, although some authors think that they are different activities.
The development of the investigation has allowed to deal with the phenomenon of organizational learning by gathering the best theories on the topic with the intention of characterizing organizational learning and allowing to develop an integration of the theoretical frame looking for integrating the great dispersion of approaches.
Secondly, the characteristics needed by organizational learning, that relate it to obtaining superior results in the organizations, given that the most relevant factors that allow it are its configuration as a dynamic capacity and its iterative relation with knowledge; nevertheless, these elements do not assure that what is learned in the organization is what is really needed. Therefore, it is necessary to affirm that there must be an alignment with the strategy of the organization. This implies an intention of learning, where there should be defined what knowledge is and how it needs to be acquired, how it is going to be taken from the identified sources of learning.
In third place, a study developed in a specific context is provided to the little empirical evidence, where studies of this type did not exist: in addition to the generation of a validated instrument and contrasted for the characterization of organizational learning which is a complex phenomenon, it contributes to the knowledge of the subject so that it can be used in another series of studies of these characteristics.
A very excellent conclusion is that it has been possible to find empirically, a highly significant relation between organizational learning, specifically between the variables that characterize it, a strong correlation between sources and conditions of 0,821 and with a P value of 0 000, between sources and culture with a 0,802 correlation, with a P value of 000. A strong correlation between conditions and culture with a value of 0.8421 and a P value of 0.000.
We also observed that in the three countries there is a high relation between the sources versus conditions; sources versus culture and conditions versus culture.
One first approach to organizational learning, confirms that current companies need the organization of new management tools allowing approaching new realities people face day by day in organizations in order to create value.
Being knowledge the capacity to create closer links with clients, the capacity to analyze corporative information and attribute them new uses, the capacity to create processes that qualify the workers anywhere to access and to use information to conquer new markets and, finally, the capacity to develop and to distribute products and services for these new markets in a faster and more efficient way.
Also in this line, another contribution of the present investigation to the creation of scientific knowledge is again that of methodological nature, considering the quantitative nature of the gathered data that allowed the development of statistical analyses that have offered results for the creation of a construct of characteristics that constitute organizational learning.
In reference to the construction of a measuring instrument it was based on the methodology of construction of psychometric instruments, elaborating one first version and purifying it by quantitative means as the factorial analysis, cluster, the rotated matrix, the matrix of main components, managing the convergent validity and the discriminate validity to obtain a significant set of items, to be applied finally in the study. Therefore it can be concluded, that it is the validation of the instruments to characterize the capacity of organizational learning and to determine how they influence the results of the organization.
The general objective was oriented to characterize the capacity of organizational learning and to determine how they influence the results of the Brazilian and Colombian organizations on this aspect where the capacity of the organization to learn is influenced directly by the sources, the conditions and the culture for organizational learning, having as subjects the individuals, the teams, the organizations and the Inter-organizational learning.
Referring to the specific objectives it was found:
To know how organizational learning in different levels occurs: individual, team, organizational and Inter-organizational, it was found that instead of learning levels they are subject of the organizational learning, the people, the teams, the organization and the Inter-organizational, and towards them must be oriented all the actions that are developed to stimulate learning in the organizations. Concerning the Identification of learning sources perceived by the people as necessary for the processes of organizational learning, it was found that of the ten (10) sources of organizational learning, the companies where the surveyed executives work "drink" of seven (7) and these are: the crises and the problems; the clients; the specialized units; the competition; the experience and the instructors; the technology and history.
In the specific objective oriented to determine the conditions to impel organizational learning, as far as competitions to learn and to de-learn; structure; communities of learning, communities of commitment, practical communities and organizational memory and its incidence in learning; thus it can be affirmed that they are the six sub-variables that facilitate learning that is to say: competitions to learn and to de-learn: the structure; the practical communities; the learning communities; the communities of commitments and the organizational memory.
On the culture for organizational learning it is possible to conclude that of the three proposed sub-variables in the model were identified: the companies where the surveyed executives work, those which facilitate organizational learning are: the cultural system and the organizational climate.
With relation to the designed objective to determine how it organizational learning influences the results of the organization, one concludes that for the companies in Brazil and Colombia where the surveyed executives work, the capacity of organizational learning, is influenced directly by the sources, the conditions and the culture for organizational learning, having as subjects the people, the teams the organizations and the Inter-organizational learning.
Organizational learning is the angular stone where the foundations will be laid by future organizations in this third millennium. It is a double way phenomenon which must include/understand the whole and the parts. In an organizational vision, this means to enhance its activity and to allow the recognition of individuals integrating it. When contemplating the world from this dialectic vision, few organizations are well prepared to confront the organizational distensions due to this never ending race towards change.
The necessity of the organizational de-learning is recognized, as a kind of forgetfulness that allows the organization the reformulation of its cognitive structures in conjunction with the new knowledge posed to it by the environment.
It is also possible to conclude that another contribution of this research is the creation of new scientific knowledge of methodological nature and its validation as instruments to characterize the capacity of organizational learning and to determine how they influence the results of the organization.
In the same way reliable instruments are provided to determine the incidence of factors that determine the sources, the culture and the conditions for learning generated from organizational capacities, in the context of the theoretical frame elaborated by the project and its impact in organizational learning.
Also, it has managed to generate knowledge for the study of the organizational learning and its influence on the results of the organization and the incidence in the sustainability of the companies. This vision of Organizational Learning looks for the promotion of learning as a reformulation of the previous knowledge, with the new ideas, as a way to generate new information that allows to face the contextual attacks and to conceive a decision making more attached to the organizational reality. At the same time it constitutes a knowledge obtained from practical exercise which shares solid epistemological bases that enrich and give sense to the cognitive structures of the individuals integrating the organization.
The present investigation increases the knowledge on organizational learning and the characteristics that relate it and how they influence in the results of organizations in Colombia, Dominican Republic and Brazil, and it offers information that will allow these organizations to analyze new alternatives to make decisions on strategies to oppose to new sources of management that will have to be adopted ahead with respect to organizational learning. In the same way these results are valuable for academic, research and consulting, because it will allow further research on new relations of organizational learning with other variables.
These results represent great opportunities for future investigations, because within the advanced process of investigation the suitable techniques that allowed the survey of 537 executives in Brazil, Colombia and Dominican Republic, with the purpose of characterizing the capacity of organizational learning in the Colombian, Dominican Republic and Brazilian organizations, In future investigations it must be considered the instruments and procedures used in this investigation with the purpose of assuring the possibility of tracing the measurement of the phenomenon studied in the organizations study objectives
The results obtained in the present investigation are constitute a starting point of new investigations to be developed in the short and medium term, looking for developing similar studies covering greater regions or countries. For doing this it is advisable that the future investigations have the following analysis variables: To determine the impact of organizational learning with objective indicators with quantitative and qualitative yields
Among the limitations and implications of this investigation is its cross section, this is due to the gradual and cumulative nature of learning, because longitudinal studies can provide another type of elements to observe, through time influencing organizational learning in the results of the studied organizations. Also, in this investigation the surroundings variable a non-objective performance indicator was considered.
Argyris, C. & Schön,
S. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory in action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, Chris. 1999. Sobre el aprendizaje organizacional,
México D.F., , Editorial Oxford Press.
Bandura, A. (1991)
Social cognitive theory: An agented perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Beazly Hamilton. 2003.
Knowledge continuity: the new Management function. Journal of organization excellence, 22(3): 65-81.
Beer S. 1971. Brain of the firm. The management cybernetics of organization,
Allen: The Denguin Press.
Bogoya Daniel. 2000. Trazas
y miradas, Evaluación y competencias. Bogotá
D.C.: ICFES.
Boyatzis R.E. 1982. The competent manager. Model for
effective performance. New York NY.: John Wiley
Cangelosi, V. &
Dill, W.1965. Organizational learning: Observations toward a theory. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 10 (2), 175-203.
Choo Chu, Wein. 1998. La
organización inteligente. Mexico D.F.: Editorial Oxford Press.
Conger
y Kanungo. 1988. Charismatic Leadership in
organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publisher.
Cutcher Gershenfedd
Joel. 2000. Knowledge management resource center . KM:
Oxford University Press.
Cyert, R. & March,
J. 1963. A
behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Davenport,
Thomas et al. 2001. Conocimiento
en acción. Brasil: Editorial Prentice Hall.
Dixon, Nancy. 2001. Function at the Edge of knowledge A study of learning process. Review Management Learning.
Dogson
M. 1993. Organization Learning, review of some
literatures, in organization Studies, Vol 4 (3) 375-394.
Drucker, Peter. 2002. La gerencia en la sociedad futura,
Bogotá D.C.: Editorial Norma.
Duncan R B y Weiss. 1979. Organization
learning research organization behavior.
JAI Press.
Easterby-Smith, M.,
Snell, R. & Gherardi, S. 1998. Organizational learning: Diverging
communities of practice? Management learning. 29, 259-272.
Etkin, Jorge R. 2003. Gestión de la
complejidad en las organizaciones, México D.F., Editorial Oxford Press.
Fineuld
y Soskice. 1983. The failure of training in Britain: analysis
and prescription, Oxford Review of
Economics Policy, 4(3) 21-53.
Fiol, M y Liles, M. 1985. Organizational
learning. Academy of management Review, Vol 10 (4) 803-013.
Fruin
M. 1996. Knowledge works. New
York: Oxford Press.
Garvin
D A. 1993. Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, Vol 71(4) 78-91.
Garvin,
D. 2000. Crear
una Organización que Aprende. Gestión del Conocimiento. Harvard
Business Review.
Garzón, M. 2007. Marco teórico del aprendizaje
organizacional, avance de tesis posdoctoral, Universidad de Sao Paulo,
Brasil,
Gold, J. 1994. La empresa basada en el conocimiento, en:
Replantearse la empresa, Madrid, Editorial Folio, Financial Times.
González de Riviera. 1997. Aprender a trabajar en equipo,
clave en las organizaciones que aprenden, Alta dirección, No
19 31-38.
Gore, E. 1998 La educación en la empresa,
aprendiendo en contextos organizativos, España. Editorial Granica.
Hall, R. 1986 Organización estructura y procesos, Prentice Hall, México.
Harung
H S y Harung L M. 1995. Enhancing organizational
performance, by Stern the diversity, the learning organization, Vol 2(2) 9-19.
Hedberg,
G. 1981. How
Organizations Learn and Unlearn. Handbook of
Organizational Design. Oxford Press University.
Horny D y Thomas R. 1989 Towards a better standard of management,
personnel management, London.
Hammel, G y Prahalad. 1999. Competindo pelo futuro: Estratégias inovadoras para
obter a controle de seu setor criar mercados de amanha. Rio
de Janeiro: Campus.
Kleiner, Art. 2000. El cambio basado en el aprendizaje. Realidades
sobre la transformación, México D.F., Oxford Pres.
Knith, S. 1999. NLP solutions, Nicholas Breales
Publishing, London.
Kofman
y Senge. 1993. Communities of commitment: The
heard of learning organization, organizational Dynamics, Autumn 5-23.
Krogh Von, G. 2001. Facilitando
a criação do conhecimento, reinventando a empresa como o poder dar
inovação continua, Rio de Janeiro, Campus.
López, C. 2003. Aprendizaje organizacional, en: www.gestiopolis.com.
March
J.G. y Olsen J.P. 1976. Ambiguity
and Choice in organizations. Bergen, Universitets Forlaget.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, Vol 2 71.
Maturana,
F. y Varela 1980. Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization
of the living, vol 42, Dordecht; Reibel Publishing Co.
Meister, J. 1999. Universidades empresariales, Bogotá
D.C., Editorial McGraw Hill.
Méndez Álvarez, C E. 2004. Marco teórico para la cultura
organizacional, en Revista Universidad&Empresa, vol 1(7) 45-65.
Morgan A. 1996. Global team spirit
companies of the future: The European Graduate Survey. 24-5.
Muñoz-Seca, B. et al. 2003. Del buen hacer y el buen pensar,
Madrid, Editorial McGraw Hill.
Nonaka,
I y Takeuchi, H. 1999. La organización creadora de conocimiento.
Cómo las compañías japonesas crean la dinámica de la innovación, México, Oxford
University Press.
Palacios, M. 2000 Organizational Learning Concept, Process and
Strategic”, Revista Hitos de Ciencias Económicas Administrativas,
México D.F.
Papert. 1980. Learning
theory in practice: Case study of learner centered design.
Pedler, et al 1998. The
learning company a strategy for sustentative
development. London Mc Graw Hill.
Peluffo, M et al. 2002. Introducción a la gestión del conocimiento
y su aplicación al sector público, Santiago de Chile, Editorial ILPES.
Polanyi, M. 1966. The Explicit Dimension. New York: Anchor Day Books. Pondy, LR y Mintroff II. 1979. Beyond open system models in Research organizations, JAI pres,
Greenwich CT.
Prieto, I. et al. 2004. La naturaleza dual de la gestión del
conocimiento: implicaciones para la capacidad de aprendizaje y sus resultados
organizativos. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, Cladea, Vol 32 47-75.
Quintero, Á. et al. 2003. La empresa que educa,
trabajo de grado de Maestría en Educación, Universidad de la Sabana, Bogotá
D.C.
Revans, A. 1984.Origins an Growth of action learning, London Char well
Bratt.
Ruggles, R. et al. 1999. La ventaja del conocimiento,
México, Editorial CECSA.
Schein, E. 1999.How
can organization learn Faster, The challenge of entering the free room, Sloan Management Review, Winter, 85-92.
Senge, P. 1992. La quinta disciplina. Barcelona:
Granica.
Senge, P. 1992. Escuelas que aprenden. Norma.
Senge, Peter. 2000. La danza del cambio, Bogotá D.C.,
Editorial Norma.
Senge, Peter. 2003. El aprendizaje organizacional en el siglo
XXI, Conferencia impartida en Buenos Aires, MIT (traducción libre), Slater, F.y
Narváez, JC. 1995. Market orientation and learning organization in Journal marketing, Vol 59(3) 63-74.
Sotaquira,
R. et al. 2001. Aprendiendo sobre el aprendizaje
organizacional, UNAB, Univalle, Bogotá D.C.
Tarin, Weis. 1997. The
implications culture an identify the country capacity development
international Journal of Science, Springer, 333-356.
Thompson
y Hunt. 1996.Learning organization, organization in
action, New York NY, Mc Graw Hill.
Thurbin, Patrick. 1994. La empresa capaz de aprender,
Madrid, Biblioteca de la Empresa Folio, Financial Times.
Tsoukas, H. 1994. The firms
a distributed knowledge system: A construction approach, Strategic management,
Special Issue, Vol 7 11-25.
Valdés, L. 1995. Conocimiento es futuro, Hacia la sexta
generación de los procesos de calidad. México: FUNTEC, Segunda edición.
Vera y Crusan. 2000. Situated action: A symbolic
interpretation in cognitive Science. 17(1) 7-48.
Weick, K. E.Sense. 1995. Making in the organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vol. 31 (1) 2010
[Índice]