Eight to Late

Sensemaking and Analytics for Organizations

The paradox of the learning organisation

with 15 comments


The term learning organisation  refers to an organisation that continually modifies itself in response to changes in its environment.   Ever since Peter Senge coined the term in his book, The Fifth Discipline, assorted consultants and academics have been telling us that a learning organisation is an ideal worth striving for.  The reality, however,  is that most organisations that undertake the journey actually end up in a place far removed  from this ideal. Among other things, the journey may expose managerial hypocrisies that contradict the very notion of a learning organisation.  In this post, I elaborate on the paradoxes of learning organisations, drawing on an excellent and very readable paper by Paul Tosey entitled, The Hunting of the Learning Organisation: A Paradoxical Journey.

(Note:  I should point out that the term learning organisation should be distinguished from organisational learning: the latter refers to processes of learning whereas the former is about an ideal type of organisation. See this paper for more on the distinction.)

The journey metaphor

Consultants and other experts are quick to point out that the path to a learning organisation is a journey towards an ideal that can never be reached.  Quoting from this paper, Tosey writes, “we would talk about the fact that, in some ways, the learning organization represented all of our collective best wishes for Utopia in the workplace.” As another example, Peter Senge writes of it being, “a journey in search of the experience of being a member of `a great team.”  Elsewhere, Senge  suggests that the learning organisation is a vision that is essentially unattainable.

The metaphor of a journey seems an apt one at first, but there are a couple of problems with it. Firstly, the causal connection between initiatives that purport to get one to the goal and actual improvements in an organisation’s capacity to learn  is tenuous and impossible to establish.  This suggests the journey is one without a map. Secondly, the process of learning about learning within the organisation – how it occurs, and how it is perceived by different stakeholders – can expose organisational hypocrisies and double-speak that may otherwise have remained hidden.  Thus instead of progressing towards the the ideal one may end up moving away from it.  Tosey explores these  paradoxes by comparing the journey of a learning organisation to  the one described in Lewis Carroll’s  poem, The Hunting of The Snark.

Hunting the Snark (and the learning organisation)

Carroll’s poem tells the story of ten characters who set of in search of a fabulous creature called a  Snark.  After many trials and tribulations, they end up finding out that the Snark is something else:  a not-so-pleasant creature called a Boojum. Tosey comments that the quest described in the poem is a superb metaphor for the journey towards a learning organisation. As he states:

Initially, when reflecting on personal experience of organizational events… I was struck by the potential of the dream-like voyage of fancy on which Carroll’s characters embarked as an allegory of the quest for the learning organization. Pure allegory has limitations. Through writing and developing the article I came to view the poem more as a paradigm of the consequences of human desire for, and efforts at, progress through the striving for ideals. In other words the poem expresses something about our `hunting’. In this respect it may represent a mythological theme,a profound metaphor more than a mere cautionary moral tale.

There are many interesting parallels between the hunt for the Snark and the journey towards a learning organisation. Here are a few:

The expedition to find the Snark is led by a character called the Bellman who asserts: “What I tell you three times is true.” This is akin to the assurances (pleas?) from experts who tell us (several times over) that it is possible to transform our organisations into ones that continually learn.

The journey itself is directionless because the Bellman’s map is useless. In Carroll’s words:

Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we’ve got our brave Captain to thank:
(So the crew would protest) “that he’s bought us the best—
A perfect and absolute blank!

Finally, the Snark is never found. In its stead, the crew find a scary creature called  a Boojum that has the power to make one disappear. Quoting from the poem:

In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away—
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.

The journey towards a learning organisation often reveals the Boojum-like dark side of organisations.  One common example of this is when the process of learning surfaces questions that are uncomfortable for those in power. Tosey relates the  following tale  which may be familiar to some readers,

…a multinational company intending to develop itself as a learning organization ran programmes to encourage managers to challenge received wisdom and to take an inquiring approach. Later, one participant attended an awayday, where the managing director of his division circulated among staff over dinner. The participant raised a question about the approach the MD had taken on a particular project; with hindsight, had that been the best strategy? `That was the way I did it’, said the MD. `But do you think there was a better way?’, asked the participant. `I don’t think you heard me’, replied the MD. `That was the way I did it’. `That I heard’, continued the participant, `but might there have been a better way?’. The MD fixed his gaze on the participants’ lapel badge, then looked him in the eye, saying coldly, `I will remember your name’, before walking away.

One could argue that a certain kind of learning – that of how the organisation learns – occurred here:  the employee learnt that certain questions were out of bounds. I think it is safe to say, though, that this was not the kind of learning that was intended by those who initiated the program.

In the preface to the poem, Carroll notes that the Bellman there is a rule  –  Rule 42 – which states, “No one shall speak to the Man at the Helm,” to which the Bellman (the leader) added, “and the Man at the Helm shall speak to no one.” This rendered communication between the helmsman and the crew impossible. In such periods the ship was not steered. The parallels between this and organisational life are clear: there is rarely open communication between the those steering the organisational ship and rank and file employees. Indeed, Tosey reformulates Rule 42 in organisational terms as, “the organization shall not speak to the supervision, and the  supervision shall not speak to the organization.” This, he tells us, interrupts the feedback loop between individual experience and the organisations which renders learning impossible.

(Note:  I can’t help but wonder if Douglas Adams’ famous  answer to the life universe and everything was inspired by Carroll’s rule 42…)

In the poem,  the ship sometimes sailed backwards when Rule 42 was in operation. Tosey draws a parallel between “sailing backwards” and unexpected or unintended consequence of organisational rules.  He argues that organisational actions can result in learning even if those actions were originally intended to achieve something else. The employee in the story above learnt something about the organisational hierarchy and how it worked.

Finally, it is a feature of Rule-42-like rules that they cannot be named. The employee in the story above could not  have pointed out that the manager was acting in a manner that was inconsistent with the intent of the programme – at least not without putting his own position at risk. Perhaps that in itself is a kind of learning, though of a rather sad kind.


Experts and consultants have told us many times over that the journey towards a learning organisation is one worth making….and as the as the Bellman in Carroll’s poem says: “What I tell you three times is true.” Nevertheless, the reality is that instances in which learning actually occurs tend to be more a consequence of accident than plan, and tend to be transient than lasting. Finally, and perhaps most important, the Snark may turn out to Boojum:  people may end up learning truths that the organisation would rather remained hidden.   And therein lies the paradox of the  learning organisation.

Written by K

June 4, 2013 at 9:23 pm

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Brilliant as always, although I wonder if I am not feeling the effects of groupthink, since you so frequently give voice to some of the things I have long wondered. Organizational learning couldn’t really get off the academic runway. In spite of all the resources thrown at it, it seemed a good thought experiment for academics and a few bandwagon leaders. On the corporate floor, it turns into an exceptionally hard concept to put into practice (although I mean to say, an impossible one in a typical hierarchical corporate culture, with typical issues of different aspects of human nature running around the conference table.) But at a meta level, human beings learn, although what we learn and how we apply it (for good or for less-than-good) seems to depend on the filters through which the process and results (consequences?) are viewed. If we were good at applying what we learned, then perhaps history would not repeat. Oh wait: it’s not history that repeats anything. It’s people who do the same things over and over again, expecting different outcomes. Now to the important stuff: Adams’ 42 from Carroll?? Who’da thunk it?



    June 5, 2013 at 2:11 am

    • Hi FS,

      Thanks so much! I truly appreciate your reading my articles, as also the time you take to post your always insightful observations.

      Some thoughts that came to me after I read your comment:

      One can see why the concept of learning organization is an attractive one to those who run organisations – after all, which CEO would not want an organisation that (magically) adapts to changing circumstances. Problem is the same folks will not do what it takes to create an environment that fosters the kind of thinking that is necessary for such an organisation to develop. It is not so much about learning per se. Learning in set ways (which is what most “learning” programmes teach) will only lead to the same old responses to change. It is more about meta-learning: changing the way in which organisations (and employees) perceive themselves and their environment thus leading to changes in the way they learn. This kind of learning is hard for individuals let alone entire organisations, so it shouldn’t be surprising that it fails.

      The bit about 42 is pure speculation on my part…but it feels plausible, doesn’t it? I wonder if we’ll ever know for sure, though it would be kind of fitting if it were forever to remain a mystery.

      Thanks again.





      June 5, 2013 at 8:19 pm

  2. I appreciate the argument, and the link to Tosey’s paper. The learning organization concept is almost 30 years old, and I remain unable to find evidence about its utility. Your analysis suggests why that might be. Seems like none of the leadership, management, or organizational change ideas from the last two decades “work.” But the idea of looking at one’s world through a system lens continues to persist (e.g., Thinking in Systems: A Primer, by Meadows).

    Thanks for the post.


    India Pincer

    June 5, 2013 at 7:35 am

    • Hi India Pincer,

      Thank you for reading and for your comment. Tosey’s paper really struck a chord as I was pretty sceptical about the concept.

      Systems thinking is probably a better paradigm than the one currently used in organisation-land. Unfortunately, it is often misinterpreted and applied piecemeal. Done right, it should get people to focus on patterns rather than chains of cause and effect. This is hard to do because we are trained from a very early age to think in terms of the latter.





      June 5, 2013 at 8:21 pm

  3. Kailash, you keep dazzling us with the depth of your research and with your solid and rational arguments. Brilliant…as usual.


    Shim Marom

    June 5, 2013 at 9:07 am

    • Hi Shim,

      Thanks for your very kind words mate, much appreciated. It was terrific to chat the other day and I look forward to our continuing conversations.





      June 5, 2013 at 8:22 pm

  4. I know that the ‘learning organisation’ movement has seemingly failed to delivery, but I wonder if the expectations it created were unrealistic?
    To bring an organisation to the nimbleness that the LO movement might have contemplated would be a massive challenge, particulalry when most people and most organisations want stability.
    Nevertheless, I think that learning does occur; but its slow, and erratic, and unfortunately stimulated more by fashion than thought. So a lot of unlearning needs to occur in many places, I would think.



    June 7, 2013 at 5:47 am

    • Hi David,

      Thanks for reading and for your comment – it is good to hear from you again!

      That’s a good point: people do want stability. That said,the two features, nimbleness and stability, are not necessarily at odds with each other. It is possible, I think, to do both by creating an environment that encourages experimentation and accepts failure. I submit this is more the responsibility of (and challenge for) managers rather than employees.

      To your second point: yes, learning in organisations does tend to follow the fads of the day. Perhaps this is even more common now than some years ago because managers are bombarded incessantly with advice from Gurus and all-sorts on various social media outlets. However, I think employees (if not managers and organisations) are not so easily fooled; they can tell between genuine discovery/learning and the mere following of fashion. The “learning” that comes from latter tends to be superficial and washes off rather easily.

      I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.





      June 8, 2013 at 10:40 am

  5. […] Introduction. The term learning organisation refers to an organisation that continually modifies itself in response to changes in its environment. Ever since Peter Senge coined the term in his book, The Fifth Discipline, assorted …  […]


  6. […] open to other points of view but contradict their words subsequently (see my article entitled, the paradox of the learning organization, for an example of […]


  7. K, great article, you always open up my mind to other avenues of exploration. Thanks, Peter



    November 2, 2013 at 9:04 am

    • Thanks Peter – your feedback is hugely appreciated!





      November 2, 2013 at 9:17 am

  8. […] as a result. Check out this article on learning organizations for more on this topic, and this post for a more nuanced (realistic?) […]


  9. […] section draws on a post I wrote while ago. In the introduction to that post I stated […]


  10. […] to achieve in practice. Indeed, attempts to create learning organisations have often ended up with paradoxical outcomes.  In view of this it seems more practical for organisations to focus on developing what one might […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: