This article reports on an investigation that contributes to the understanding of social and organizational learning in the military. Data were collected through a series of focus groups with over 150 Army personnel in the Australian Army. Analysis revealed that perceived learning opportunities were shaped, enabled, and constrained by a variety of social, cultural, structural, and process-related imperatives. This was manifested through two learning systems: (1) a formal learning system directly managed by the organization and (2) an informal system that was fostered through strong social networks and driven by the organizational culture. From this investigation, we posit a social theory of learning, which encompasses sharing knowledge and experience through social interaction. This article concludes by arguing that the learning systems approach taken in this article is a useful and practical method of evaluating the organizational learning mechanisms in a military organization.
David Schmidtchen, ‘‘The Rise of the Strategic Private’’ (Duntroon, ACT, Department of Defence). These focus groups that formed part of a larger process involving data collection and interventions, are known as Anecdote Circles. This approach was formulated by Mr Shawn Callahan, Managing Director of Anecdote Pty Ltd.
2.
G. Mentzas, D. Apostolou, R. Young, and A. Abecker, ‘‘Knowledge Networking: A Holistic Solution for Leveraging Corporate Knowledge,’’ Journal of Knowledge Management5, 1 ( 2001): 94-106.
3.
Robert M. Grant, ‘‘Prospering in Dynamically Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration,’’ Organization Science 7, 4 (1996): 375-87. Also see Michael H. Zack, ‘‘Managing Codified Knowledge,’’ Sloan Management Review 40, 4 (1999): 45-58.
4.
Peter M. Senge, ‘‘The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization.’’ Senge popularized the construct of the Learning Organization, which has lead to a considerable body of literature on the idea of an organization that uses learning to achieve its organizational goals.
5.
Australian Army, ‘‘The Australian Soldier of the 21st Century’’Army Capability Requirement. Department of Defence, Australia (CA Directive 01/06, 2005).
6.
D. Schmidtchen, ‘‘The Rise of the Strategic Private.’’ See also Australian Army (2004). Future Land Operational Concept (FLOC)-Complex Warfighting, Canberra.
7.
D. Schmidtchen, ‘‘The Rise of the Strategic Private.’’
8.
Australian Army Land Warfare, ‘‘Individual Training: Developing Doctrine’’ (Doctrine 7-1, 2004): 3-19.
9.
S. Gilly, A Different View of Organizational Learning (1997). http://home.flash.net/ ∼jteague/Sue/orglearn.html
10.
Herbert A. Simon, ‘‘Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning,’’ in Organizational Learning, eds. M. D. Cohen and L. S. Sproull ( Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), 176.
11.
Bente Elkjaer, ‘‘Social Learning Theory: Learning as Participation in Social Process,’’ in The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, eds. Mark Easterby-Smith and Majorie Lyles ( Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 38-53.
12.
M.K. Smith.‘‘Learning Theory,’’ in The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education (1999), www.infed.org/biblio/b-learn.htm . Last update: April 11, 2008 .
13.
Saljo, R. ( 1979) ‘‘Learning in the Learner’s Perspective: Some Common-Sense Conceptions.’’ In Reports from the Institute of Education, University of Gothernburg.
14.
B.A. Lundvall and B. Johnson, ‘‘The Learning Economy,’’Journal of Industry Studies1, 1 (1994): 23-42.
J. Hartley , Learning and Studying: A research Perspective (London: Routledge, 1998).
17.
A. Maslow, Motivation and Personality, 2nd Edition (New York: Harper and Row, 1970).
18.
C. Rogers, Freedom to Learn: A View of what Education Might Become ( Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merill, 1969).
19.
A. Bandura , Social Learning Theory ( Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977), 22.
20.
Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger.Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. ( Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1991).
21.
Bente Elkjaer , ‘‘Social Learning Theory: Learning as Participation in Social Process.’’ In The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, eds. Mark Easterby-Smith and Majorie Lyles. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 38-53.
22.
Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger.Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. ( Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1991).
23.
A. Small, & P. Irvine, ‘‘Towards a Framework for Organizational Learning,’’The Learning Organization13, 3 (2006): 276-299.
24.
See P. Bourdieu, The logic of practice (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990).
25.
P. Bourdieu , Outline of a Theory of Practice ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
26.
Peter M. Senge, ‘‘The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization.’’Senge popularized the construct of the Learning Organization, which has lead to a considerable body of literature on the idea of an organization that uses learning to achieve its organizational goals.
27.
E.W.K. Tsang , ‘‘Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research,’’Human Relations, 50, 1 (1997): 73-89.
28.
J. Coopey, ‘‘The Learning Organization, Power, Politics and Ideology,’’ Management Learning26, 2 (1995): 193-213.
29.
J. Varila.The Learning Organization-From an Ideology into a Development Tool . (2nd International Conference on Researching Work and Learning , Calgary, Alberta, Faculty of Continuing Education, University of Calgary, 2001)
30.
M. Dodgson .‘‘Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures,’’Organization Studies14, 3 (1993): 377.
31.
National Defence-Canada, ‘‘Training Canada’s Army’’ B-GL-300-008/FP-001 http://armyapp.dnd.ca/38cbg_arsd/CBTIST/top1/Training.pdf, 2001, 87
32.
Micha Popper and Raanan Lipshitz, ‘‘Organizational Learning: Mechanisms, Culture and Feasibility,’’ Management Learning 31, 2 (2000): 184. See also R. Lipshitz, M. Popper, et al. Demystifying organizational learning (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007).
33.
George P. Huber , ‘‘Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literature,’’Organizational Learning, eds. M. D. Cohen and L. S. Sproull ( Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), 153.
34.
George P. Huber , ‘‘Organizational Learning,’’126.
35.
Karl E. Weick ,. Sensemaking in Organizations ( Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995).
36.
Flick, U.An Introduction to Qualitative Research (London : Sage, 1995).
37.
R.E. Stake , The Art of Case Study research ( Thousand Oaks, Sage, 1995).
38.
Yiannis Gabriel , ‘‘The Use of Stories.’’ In Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research , eds G. Symon and C. Cassell. (London: Sage, 1998), 136.
39.
M.Q. Patton , Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 2002).
40.
N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, The Handbook of Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage, 2000), 5
41.
Grounded Theory Method has a number of schools of thought, the most notable being that of Glaser (see for example 1978, Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press) and Strauss & Corbin (Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, 1990.) and Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
George P. Huber, ‘‘Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literature,’’Organizational Learning, eds. M. D. Cohen and L. S. Sproull ( Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), 153.
44.
S. B. Ling and T. B. Choo, ‘‘Connecting Theory to Practice-Using Technology to Support Situated Learning in Vocational Education’’ (Paper presented at the ITE Teachers’’ Conference, 2005). See also P. O’Toole, ‘‘Learning through the Physical Environment in the Workplace.’’ In Organizational Learning: Perspectives and Practices, ed Bhaskar Basu (Delhi, India: ICFAI University Press, 2006).
45.
L. Herrington and R. Oliver, ‘‘Critical Characteristics of Situated Learning: Implications for the Instructional Design of Multimedia’’ (Paper presented at the ASCILITE ‘‘95 Conference, Melbourne1995).
46.
See David A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (Englewood Cliffs: NJ Prentice-Hall, 1984). See also L. Jackson and R. S. Caffarella (Eds.) Experiential Learning: A New Approach (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994).
47.
George P. Huber, ‘‘Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literature,’’Organizational Learning, eds. M. D. Cohen and L. S. Sproull ( Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), 126
48.
George P. Huber , ‘‘Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literature,’’Organizational Learning, eds. M. D. Cohen and L. S. Sproull ( Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), 153.
49.
D.W. De Long and L. Fahey, ‘‘Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management,’’The Academy of Management Executive14, 4 ( 2000): 113-27.
L.M. Lucas and D. Ogilvie, ‘‘Inter-Unit Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Corporations’’ (Paper presented at the Organisational Learning Conference, Lancaster University, UK, 1999), 1.
52.
Tom Schuller , Stephen Baron, and John Field, ‘‘Social Capital: A Review and Critique.’’ In Social Capital: Critical Perspectives , ed Stephen Baron , John Field, and Tom Schuller ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
53.
Cited in Tom Schuller, Stephen Baron, and John Field, ‘‘Social Capital: A Review and Critique.’’ In Social Capital: Critical Perspectives, edited by Stephen Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 5. See also P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 51.
54.
Guy Siebold , ‘‘The Essence of Military Group Cohesion,’’Armed Forces and Society33, 2 ( 2007): 289.
55.
Fukuyama (1995) cited in Tom Schuller , Stephen Baron, and John Field, ‘‘Social Capital: A Review and Critique.’’ In Social Capital: Critical Perspectives , ed Stephen Baron , John Field, and Tom Schuller ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 26.
56.
Nooteboom, Bart , and Frédérique Six, ‘‘Introduction ‘‘ In The Trust Process in Organizations, ed Bart Nooteboom and Frédérique Six (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2003).
57.
George P. Huber, ‘‘Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literature,’’ Organizational Learning, M. D. Cohen and L. S. Sproull (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 124-162.
58.
See Retaining Knowledge through Organizational Action, Shannon Press where P. O’Toole describes how systems evolve through top-down, bottom-up and environmental processes.
59.
C. Schreiber and K. Carley, ‘‘The Impact of databases on Knowledge Transfer: Simulation Providing Theory’’ (NAACSOS Conference Proceedings, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003).
60.
J.E. McCann and M. Buckner, ‘‘Strategically Integrating Knowledge Management Initiatives,’’Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, 1 (2004): 47-63.
61.
Cited in Huber, ‘‘Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literature,’’Organizational Learning, eds. M. D. Cohen and L. S. Sproull ( Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), 146.
62.
Australian Army, ‘‘Training to Win 2007-2012’’ (Training Command-Army, 2006).
Australian Defence Force, Doctrine and Training Series-ADFP 7.0.2-The Defence Training Model, Australian Defence Headquarters, 2006, 1-7.
65.
I. Ali, C. Pascoe, and L. Warne, ‘‘Interactions of Organizational Culture and Collaboration in Working and Learning,’’ Educational Technology and Society 5, 2 (2002): 60-9. J. Butterfield and N. Pendergraft ‘‘Cultural Analysis in IS Planning and Management,’’ Journal of Systems Management 47 (1996): 14-17. D. W. De Long and L. Fahey ‘‘Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management,’’ The Academy of Management Executive 14, 4 (2000): 113-27.
66.
Edgar H. Schein ‘‘On Dialogue, Culture, and Organisational Learning,’’ Organisational Dynamics, 22 2: 40-51 cited in H. Park, V. Ribiere and W. D. Schulte ‘‘Critical Attributes of Organizational Culture that Promote Knowledge Management Technology Implementation Success’’ in Journal of Knowledge Management 8, 3 (1993): 107.
