Traditionally, theories of organizational learning have taken one of two approaches that share a common characterization of learning but differ in focus. One approach focuses on learning by individuals in organizational contexts; the other, on individual learning as a model for organizational action. Both base their understanding of organizational learning on the cognitive activity of individual learning. However, there is something organizations do that may be called organizational learning, that is neither individuals learning in organizations nor organizations employing processes akin to learning by individuals. This form of organizational learning can be seen in the case of three small workshops that make "the finest flutes in the world." This essay proposes a perspective on organizational learning, drawing on the concept of organizational culture, that can be useful in understanding the case. This perspective provides a fruitful basis for exploring the above distinctions in both theory and practice.

Culture and Organizational Learning

Several different explanations of policy change based on notions of learning have emerged in the policy literature to challenge conventional conflict-oriented theories. These include notions of ‘political-learning’ developed by Heclo, ‘policy-oriented learning’ developed by Sabatier, ‘lesson-drawing’ analyzed by Rose, ‘social learning’ discussed by Hall and ‘government learning’ identified by Etheredge. These different concepts identify different actors and different effects with each different type of learning. Some elements of these theories are compatible, while others are not. This article examines each approach in terms of who learns, what they learn, and the effects of learning on subsequent policies. The conclusion is that three distinct types of learning have often been incorrectly juxtaposed. Certain conceptual, theoretical and methodological difficulties attend any attempt to attribute policy change to policy learning, but this does not detract from the important reorientation of policy analysis that this approach represents.

The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change

Despite the growing popularity of the term 'organizational learning," writings on the topic have little consensus in terms of definition, perspective, conceptualization, and methodology. This article examines the dichotomy between two main streams of theorizing in the field. The first stream, prescriptive writings on the learning organization, is concerned with the question "How should an organization learn?" Targeting practitioners, these studies are usually based on the authors' consulting experience and seldom follow rigorous research methodologies. They also tend to overgeneralize their theories to all types of organization. Descriptive researches on organizational learning fall in the second stream which tackles the question "How does an organization learn?" These are academic studies striving for scientific rigor. Nevertheless, they often fail to generate useful implications for practitioners. In the final section of the article, brief suggestions are made to integrate the two streams of research.

Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy Between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research

In public policy processes, collective learning among policy actors is important in shaping how these processes unfold and the types of policy outcomes that may result. Despite a widespread interest in learning by policy scholars, researchers face a number of conceptual and theoretical challenges in studying learning across different collective settings within policy processes. In this article, we offer a theoretically grounded approach to defining and understanding collective-level learning. In defining learning, we first draw out the connection between learning processes and learning products, both cognitive and behavioral. In examining learning processes, we further explore the relationship between individual and collective learning. Then we identify and define the key characteristics of collective settings that will likely influence learning processes. We conclude by offering recommendations for policy scholars to apply this approach in studies of learning across diverse policy contexts.

Building a Conceptual Approach to Collective Learning: Lessons for Public Policy Scholars

The majority of the literature concerning the implementation of public policy assumes that public managers can carry out new policy initiatives regardless of the behavioural, cognitive or technical demands that the introduction of such policies may make upon them. There has been a tendency to assume that managers actually have the detailed technical knowledge by which to enact such new policies. The paper proposes that in effect, public managers have to learn a range of often new and detailed techniques in order to implement what are often ambiguous policy directives. Drawing on data gathered from the introduction of capital investment appraisal in the British National Health Service, a model of Learned Implementation is presented that describes one way in which public managers can learn to enact new policy initiatives. Using a mix of six organizational processes and variables, the model demonstrates how learning occurs and is used to solve the problems that are inherent in the introduction of new policy initiatives. The model further describes how the managers routinize these solutions into job tasks and procedures and hence a policy initiative is operationalized. The paper concludes with a discussion about the difficulties of predicting the operational consequences of new policy initiatives and raises questions about knowledge, ability and capability in the implementation of public policy.

Lloyd S. Etheredge

Papers

Thinking about government learning