Continuous learning is a term that we commonly use in training and educational contexts, yet we rarely discuss its practical implications for individuals and organizations. This essay explores the issue on several levels.
Continuous Learning in Organizations

Table of Contents

Gus Prestera, March, 2002

Introduction

Take out your buzzword bingo cards… it is time to play. On the surface, continuous learning is little more than a description of a naturally occurring phenomenon. Before each of us is even born until the moment of our deaths, our brains are constantly interpreting, encoding, storing, retrieving, and processing stimuli. Whether conscious of it or not, each of us engages in continuous learning. However, if we explore the meaning beneath the surface layer of this buzzword, its roots, and its implications for society, we find some interesting issues.

Continuous learning or just learning?

Continuous learning, as a term to describe a certain type of human resource program, refers primarily to offering workers ongoing opportunities to expand their skill-sets. For many workers, for knowledge workers in particular, continuous learning has become one of the few ways by which they can prevent from becoming obsolete in the workplace. London (1996) supports this view, stating, "Workers who engage in continuous learning are less likely to experience obsolescence and are easier to retain and redeploy" (p. 69). While large scale lay-offs have (sadly) become a commonly accepted way of doing business, workers are more and more seeing themselves as hired gunslingers who need to move from position to position, gain more and more accreditation, and constantly grow their skill-sets in order to remain marketable. In order to recruit these kinds of skilled knowledge workers, companies now offer continuous learning programs. In some organizations, continuous learning programs are integrated as part of a broader organizational learning framework.

While continuous learning has significance in terms of its meaning within human resource development, it also has significant implications as a broader social phenomenon. What does it mean to say we've learned something? Traditionally, a popular notion of learning conceived of it as an event… an event in which the learner consumes a pool of knowledge siphoning it into memory storage, ready for immediate retrieval upon demand. Knowledge is finite, objective, and external to the learner. Continuous learning, on the other hand, examines learning as a process… a process in which learners construct their own knowledge from an endless river of ideas, perspectives, and experiences. Knowledge is infinite, situational at best, perhaps even subjective and mediated through inter-personal interactions, meaning that it is internal and external to the learner. At the very least, continuous learning opens the door for the possibility that the pool of knowledge can never be emptied and that learning is a never-ending process both in corporate life and personal life.

Learning Organizations

Just as people are continuously learning, organizations (big and small) are continuously learning as well. Some, however, are more deliberate about it and more successful than others. Learning organizations is a term made famous by Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline (1990), which refers to organizations that value learning as a strategic asset (i.e., intellectual capital) and formalize learning processes within their systems.

A popular technique involves the use of the post mortem, in which team members document the lessons learned from a particular project. In learning organizations, these lessons learned are actively synthesized into the organization and used to guide future policies and practices. Another technique, benchmarking, involves learning how other organizations do things and then adapting those processes.

Another aspect of learning organizations is a commitment to individual learning. Workers are typically reimbursed for academic coursework, conferences, and certification programs even if those have little to do with work. Workers are rotated within the organization to expose them to different departments, divisions, etc. Training is highly valued and rewarded.

Knowledge management (KM) is a cybernetic outgrowth of the learning organization concept. Though this is an evolving area, KM looks to capture/store localized expertise and then repackage/re-use that knowledge to improve organizational performance. This is an extension of the notion that organizations should learn from past experiences.

All in all, learning organizations attempt to develop both the individual expertise of their workers as well as the collaborative capabilities of the organization. Senge's framework consists of systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning. It encompasses and yet also goes beyond the use of continuous learning programs. It calls for an organizational commitment to learning, yet as Garvin (1993) points out, this vision of a learning organization is often utopian and is generally ill-defined.

Measuring performance. According to Garvin, "Without accompanying changes in the way that work gets done, only the potential for improvement exists" (p. 80). He suggests that learning organizations are skilled at systematic problem-solving, experimentation with novel approaches, learning from experience and benchmarking, and (most importantly) transferring knowledge rapidly and efficiently to all parts of the organization. Based on these characteristics, I would expect that a successful learning organization would benefit from a significant increase in incremental innovations and possibly a moderate increase in transformational innovations. The incremental innovations, derived from improved problem-solving, benchmarking, and learning from experience, presumably would impact productivity as well as time to market, defect rates, cycle time, and operating efficiency. In addition, I would expect that cycle times would be lower if indeed learning organizations prove to be better able to recognize problems and respond more quickly than "non-learning" organizations. On the other hand, the potential transformational effects of demonstration projects (which take a clean slate approach) may have broader and more dramatic impact on the organization. However, this effect may be too complex to measure simply in terms of productivity, efficiency, or cycle time. Since these demonstration projects often require significant investments in time and materials, perhaps ROI would be the appropriate measurement criterion of success. Half-life measures may also be appropriate. They measure the time it takes to achieve a 50% improvement in a particular measure. This gives organizations flexibility in determining their key innovation measures (new drugs, car designs, printers, etc.).


Assessing continuous learning

Individual characteristics. The most stable individual characteristics are personality traits, however, they are also the most difficult to measure reliably. Also, traits are typically so stable across time that they might not change significantly as a result of continuous learning. On the other hand, measuring behaviors and cognitive skills alone do not tell the whole story. If continuous learning is part of a broader organizational learning context, it should theoretically have an impact on affective domains. For example, utilizing a hypothesis-generating, hypothesis-testing model (as Senge suggests) for problem-solving is not simply a cognitive or behavioral task. It also requires that the worker feel committed to using this approach whenever the opportunity arises. It is an attitude. Similar things can be said about training someone to use a systems theory approach, engage in team learning, etc. Assessing attitudinal change resulting from various types of learning experiences may be critical in molding learning organization cultures.

On the cognitive side, it appears that critical aspects of continuous learning include problem-solving, creating new knowledge, and spreading knowledge throughout an organization (e.g., through job rotation). This implies that cognitive flexibility, analysis, problem solving, and synthesis are important cognitive skills as well. Cognitive flexibility (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson & Coulson, 1991) refers to a learner's ability to transfer their skills and knowledge from one situation to another. Spiro and his colleagues suggested that by having learners experience multiple situations with similar yet different characteristics in an environment where they can experience multiple perspectives and themes (concepts), learners develop a more robust construction of a particular domain. This approach is particularly useful in ill-structured domains such as those involved in many problem-solving and policy-making situations. Analysis and synthesis are both high-level cognitive skills that facilitate problem-solving as well. All three sets of cognitive skills can be assessed through case-based testing, which provides a more contextually-rich environment in which to test problem-solving abilities. Organizations can also establish procedures and metrics for measuring the quality and/or success of decisions made as a way of measuring transfer of these skills.

Assessing metacognitive skills may also be an important aspect. Continuous learners will be engaged in a variety of learning contexts (formal training, job rotation, apprenticeships, academic coursework, certification programs, etc.). If they are to make good decisions about their learning opportunities and manage their learning/development process successfully, they will need to develop their metacognitive skills. Kraiger, Ford & Salas (1993) agree suggesting that "measures of awareness, self-evaluated learning, needed development and so forth would all seem to hold a place in the training evaluation domain as evidence of learning" (p. 315).

Continuous learning and goal setting theory

Goal setting theory asserts that much of human action is purposeful, directed at a conscious goal. In fact, Binswanger (1991) argues that all living organisms, even plants, are characterized by goal directedness. Based on this premise, individuals engage in continuous learning in the workplace in order to satisfy some conscious goal, whether it is job security, more money, or in order to perform better.

Three aspects of goal setting theory that have been researched significantly are specificity, difficulty, and commitment (Locke & Latham, 1990).

  1. Specificity and difficulty. Goals can be vague ("Do your best") or they can be specific. They can also be perceived by the individual as easy, moderately difficult, or difficult. According to Locke and Latham, over 400 studies have examined the relationship between these two variables, and it has been consistently found that performance is linearly related to the goal's difficulty level. Controlling for commitment and ability, the more difficult the goal, the better the performance. Individuals generally adjust their performance level to match the difficulty of the task. Specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than vague, difficult goals. With vague goals, the performer can give himself/herself the benefit of the doubt and be satisfied with doing less. Specificity helps reduce variability in performance by reducing the number of ways in which the goal can be interpreted.

  2. Commitment. Commitment refers to the level of importance and immediacy that the individual assigns to a goal and the degree to which the individual will fight to overcome obstacles. Locke and Latham found that goals with a rationale were more effective than ones with no rationale. Commitment is increased by people believing that they can achieve the goal. Bandura (1981) used the term self-efficacy to describe the confidence people feel about doing a particular task. Self-efficacy is influenced by ability, experience, training, past successes, internal attributions, and information about task strategies (Locke & Latham, 1990). While commitment cannot be compelled by the manager, it is more readily given to managers because of the perceived legitimacy of the manager. Peers can also influence commitment to goals by conveying information about norms, through competition, and through their own commitment to goals (Hollenbeck, Williams & Klein, 1989). Commitment to a difficult goal will be higher if the individual has high self-efficacy (Bandura & Cervone, 1986). The high self-efficacy provides the task-specific confidence needed to overcome the obstacles, failures, and setbacks that can naturally occur with difficult tasks. High self-efficacy workers are also more likely to respond with increased effort when they receive feedback indicating that their performance was low.

  3. Continuous learning. Based on the premise that continuous learning is driven by goal attainment, goal setting HRM practices should support continuous learning in the workplace. For example, if a performance appraisal reveals opportunities for development, instruction may help to address it. If a firm uses individualized development plans, the manager and the subordinate generate a list of personal, professional, and developmental goals. The developmental goals may point directly to a learning opportunity. Personal and professional goals may point to a deficiency which in turn points to a learning opportunity. These sorts of common HRM practices can be used to generate goals that involve continuous learning opportunities. The learning experiences themselves should improve both the worker's self-efficacy and ability, which in turn should improve his/her commitment to the performance goals. As a result, more and more difficult goals can be achieved, which in turn feeds the self-efficacy of the worker.

An alternate view posed by Senge (1990) among others is that continuous learning should be a goal in and of itself. Continuous learning should be an attitude, not just a means towards meeting performance goals. By closely connecting the idea of continuous learning with goal setting practices, firms may undermine the notion of learning as an attitude. Personally, I believe that both concepts can coexist within an organization and that they can even feed one another. When a worker begins experiencing goal-oriented learning opportunities, he/she may decide to look for other non-goal related opportunities. The challenge for HRM and training professionals is to provide both kinds of experiences within a broader organizational framework of continuous learning.

References

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 92-113.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Binswanger, H. (1991). Volition as cognitive self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 154-178.

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Drucker, P.F. (1999). The new pluralism. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & I. Somerville (Eds.), Leading Beyond the Walls. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Banks.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Garvin, D.A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 78-91.

Heneman R.L. (1992). Merit pay: Linking pay increases to performance ratings. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Hollenbeck, J.R., Williams, C.R., & Klein, H.J. (1989). An empirical examination of the antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 18-23.

Locke, E.A. (1991). The Essence of Leadership. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

London, M. (1996). Redeployment and continuous learning in the 21st century: Hard lessons and positive examples from the downsizing era. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 67-79.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311-328.

Robbins, S.P. (1998). Organizational Behavior (Eighth Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rummler, G., & Brache, A.P. (1990). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the institution chart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schuler, R.S., & Jackson, S.E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 207-219.

Senge, P.M. (1999). Leadership in living organizations. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & I. Somerville (Eds.), Leading Beyond the Walls. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Banks.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24-33.

Wheelen, T.L., & Hunger, J.D. (1995). Strategic Management and Business Policy (Fifth Edition). Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.

Wright, P.C., & McMahan, G.C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295-320.

Wright, P., Pringle, C.D., & Kroll, M.J. (1994). Strategic Management: Text and Cases (Second Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Zaccaro, S.J., & Klimoski, R.J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: An introduction (Chapter 1). In S.J. Zaccaro and R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), The Nature of Organizational Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.