WEEK 3

By the end of this week, you will be able to:

1.Assess the application of personality studies to the work organisation.

2.Explain different personality types.
3.Explain the nature of ability and emotional intelligence.
4.Focus on valuing individual differences and factors affecting organisational
performance.

My personality is a logician. I should set realistic goals, manage time properly and follow through
on ideas as a focus to improve myself and abilities

Today’s environment forces organisations to undergo radical changes and to

reassess the role individuals play in terms of their capacity for individual and
collective development. This development offers organisations the potential to
revitalise.

Individuals may act in response to expectations of the organisation or as a

result of the influences of the external environment. Creativity in organisations
is a result of individual differences that can foster enjoyment and satisfaction at
work, but can also be the potential for conflict and frustration.

A key requirement of managers is to be competent at recruiting and developing

individuals who will be valuable to the organisation. Managers need to be
vigilant about those who have the potential for development, are capable of
effective performance, and work well with other people within the context of
the organisation as a whole. Effective management of people requires not only
an understanding of individual employees, but also recognition of the culture of
the organisation. What is expected and accepted in one work situation may not
be the same in another. For instance, creativity and individuality may be
encouraged in one organisation but undermined by bureaucracy in another
(Mullins, 2016). What are the factors that make us different as individuals? List
as many as you can think of, before clicking

from the WEF article:

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/04/coronavirus-covid-business-
resilience-preparedness-skills/
• Even prior to COVID-19, companies were envisaging the future as a survival
struggle.
• Hard-to-digitize and people-dependent sectors are the least resilient.
• The crisis is an opportunity for companies and employees to reinvent
themselves.
 Response

These include (Mullins, 2016):

• ethnic origin
• physique
• gender
• early family experiences
• social and cultural factors
• national culture
• motivation
• attitudes personality traits and types
• intelligence
• abilities perception
Developmental influences, such as ageing and health, may also arguably affect
personality characteristics. Some of these characteristics are shared with
others – for example, individuals who are from the same ethnic group, or who
have the same ability levels, or who share similar physical attributes, such as
short-sightedness.

For our purposes, we define personality as:

“Specific characteristics of individuals which may be open or

hidden and which may determine either commonality or
differences in behaviour in an organisation” (Brooks, 2017: 42).

Personality may be viewed as consisting of stable characteristics that explain

why a person behaves in a particular way. We would be surprised if the person
one day demonstrated autonomy and initiative and the next withdrew and
delayed any decisions.

As mentioned earlier, personality differences can lead to hostility between

individuals, which could hinder the development of effective teams – although
the right mix of different personalities can lead to the formation of efficient
teams.

People engage in a wide range of behaviours in their daily lives, yet close
inspection of those actions reveal perceptible patterns called personality traits.
Such consistency would be considered abnormal because it indicates a
person’s insensitivity to social norms, reward systems, and other external
conditions (McShane & Von, 2018).

People vary their behaviour to suit the situation, even if it is at odds with their
personality (Brooks, 2017). One area of significance is that of locus of control,
which is the amount of control individuals feel they have over a situation, and
how much that control lies elsewhere. Generally, those with an internal locus
of control tend to be more motivated and committed
Nomothetic and Idiographic Approaches
Broadly speaking, personality studies can be divided into two main approaches,
labelled nomothetic and idiographic (Mullins, 2016).

The nomothetic approach is a measurable and specific perspective that looks

at the identification of traits and personality as a collection of characteristics.
These characteristics are ones that can be described, identified and measured,
and therefore can be subjected to observation and tests. Some psychologists
are interested in describing and measuring characteristics and comparing
individuals’ scores: does this person exhibit more or less than ‘average’ of this
particular trait? Being able to predict behaviour is a major aim and outcome of
this approach.

The idiographic approach is a holistic and dynamic perspective that insists

managers take into account a ‘whole’ understanding of the individual at work.
They regard individuals as responding to the environment and people around
them, and see the dynamics of the interactions as playing a critical part in
shaping personality.

Personality Determinants: Nature vs Nurture

Personality is shaped by both nature and nurture, although the relative

importance of each continues to be debated and studied.

Nature refers to our genetic or hereditary origins – the genes we inherit from
our parents. Studies of identical twins reveal heredity has a large effect on
personality; up to 50% of variation in behaviour and 30% of temperament
preferences can be attributed to a person’s genetic characteristics (Saudino,
2005).

Personality is also shaped by nurture – our socialisation, life experiences, and

other forms of interaction with the environment. Personality develops and
changes mainly from childhood to young adulthood, typically stabilising by
around age 30 (Kersting, 2003). However, some personality changes continue
to occur later in life. For instance, a few traits (openness to experience, social
vitality) increase through to young adulthood, then decline in later years,
whereas other traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness) tend to increase
through to late life (Kersting, 2003).

by adulthood is that we form a clearer and more rigid self-concept. This

increasing clarity of ‘who we are’ anchors our behaviour with the help of our
executive function. This is the part of the brain that monitors and regulates
goal-directed behaviour to keep it consistent with our self-concept (Heatherton,
2011).

Sociable, anxious, curious, dependable, suspicious, talkative, adventurous and

hundreds of other personality traits have been described over the years,
causing experts to try to organise them into smaller clusters. The most
researched and respected clustering of personality traits is the five-factor (big
five) model (FFM) (McShane & Von, 2018).
1. Openness / Closed-Mindedness

2. Conscientiousness / Heedlessness

3. Extroversion / Introversion

4. Agreeableness / Hostility

5. Neuroticism / Stability

However, the big five dimensions cluster several specific traits, each of which
can predict employee performance somewhat differently from others in the
cluster. Some experts suggest performance is better predicted by the specific
traits than by the broad big five dimensions. Another observation is that the
relationship between a personality dimension or trait and performance may be
nonlinear. People with moderate extraversion perform better in sales jobs than
those with high or low extraversion, for example (McShane, 2018).

However, some researchers are critical of the descriptors used. Bentall (1993)
suggests they are “tainted by the investigators’ values” and continues: “I
suspect that most people will have a pretty clear idea of where they would like
to find themselves on the dimensions of neuroticism, extroversion, openness,
agreeableness and conscientiousness.” He questions the ethical and political
nature of the scales. The relationship between personality and work
performance is also questioned by Robertson (2001), who suggests only two of
the five dimensions are linked consistently with high levels of performance –
conscientiousness and emotional stability. Despite these reservations, the
strength and value of the big five model has been extolled in a review by Lord
and Rust (2003) who conclude that the five factor model is being used to hold
personality assessment together in the corporate world. Without the use of the
model organisations could not generalise with confidence the validity of
different evaluation and testing methodologies. Support for the big five is also
provided by Luthans and Youssef, who report that the personality traits have
been found to be related strongly to performance and also to:
•individual-level outcomes, such as happiness and physical and
psychological health, spirituality and identity;
 •interpersonal-level outcomes, such as quality of relationships with peers,
family and romantic others; and
•organisational or social-level outcomes, such as occupational choice,
satisfaction, performance, community involvement, criminal activity and
political ideology.

Moutafi et al. undertook a study of 900 UK managers across 10 organisations.

Participants completed two personality tests (Revised NEO Personality
Inventory and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)) and reported their
managerial level in their organisation. Results showed that conscientiousness,
extroversion and MBTI intuition were positively correlated with managerial
level, whereas neuroticism, MBTI introversion and sensing were negatively
correlated. These findings attest to the utility of personality tests used within
the occupational community, for selection and assessment of suitability for
promotion to senior managerial roles.

Perception is an essential factor in determining individual behaviour both inside

and outside an organisation (Brooks, 2017). So what is perception? In simple
terms:

“it is how we view and interpret the events and situations in the
world about us. It can be looked upon as a cognitive process and
a social information process whereby we go through the process
of:
• picking up some external stimuli, such as a management
announcement, an event or perhaps a personal one-to-one
interaction in the corridor;
• screening, when we acknowledge only the stimuli we choose to
acknowledge; and
• some interpretation and categorisation of these stimuli, possibly
based on previous experience or on our upbringing.”

(Brooks, 2017: 71)

However, we must be aware of a number of factors that can distort this whole
process. One of the most common of these is perceptual stereotyping, where
generalisations are made about certain groups of people, sometimes a whole
gender or perceived racial group
Organisations purposefully seek to develop strong, positive perceptions in the
minds of would-be employees to encourage them to apply to the company for
work, thereby attracting a large field and improving their chances of recruiting
the brightest and the best. Many organisations are doing this through
developing employer value propositions to seek to show the advantages of
working for them. This is particularly prevalent at the international level where
there may be strong competition for available talent (Brooks, 2011).

There has been considerable interest in recent years in the concept

of emotional intelligence (EI) (also known as ‘EQ’), and whether it is a
significant personality trait that organisations should be seeking to identify in
current or prospective employees. Coleman (2015: 282)) defines EI as “the
capability of individuals to recognize their own and other people’s emotions, to
discriminate between different feelings and label them appropriately, to use
emotional information to guide thinking and [behaviour] and to manage and/or
adjust emotions to adapt environments or achieve one’s goal(s)”. Mayer et al
(2008) see it as an inherent ability to carry out accurate reasoning about
emotions, together with the ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge
to enhance thoughts and actions.

Although the term ‘emotional intelligence’ was used earlier, it was the work of
Goleman (1996) that began to develop the concept in practical terms as a
predictor of successful leaders – in fact, he saw this as more important than
technical knowledge. It is based around understanding your own emotions
through self-awareness and self-management, and also understanding the
emotions of others through empathy and relationship skills (Morrison, 2007).

Emotional intelligence is the sum of a range of interpersonal skills that form the
public persona, including the emotional qualities of individuals. Goleman’s
model outlines five main EI constructs:

•Self-awareness
•Self-regulation
•Social skill
•Empathy
•Motivation

Morrison (2007) has looked at the significance of EI in the context of social

work, a sector which has undergone substantial and rapid changes. He
suggests the ability to handle one’s own emotions and to recognise and
manage other people’s, will be increasingly needed in this sector.

EI is also associated with effective leadership because leaders engage in

emotional labor (e.g., showing patience to employees even when they might
feel frustrated), as well as regulating the emotions of others (e.g., helping staff
members feel optimism for the future even though they just lost an important
contract). However, emotional intelligence does not improve some forms of
performance, such as tasks that require minimal social interaction (McShane,
2018).

Daniel Goleman, the father of EI, explains the concept. Goleman is a

psychologist, lecturer, and science journalist who has reported on the brain and
behavioural sciences for The New York Times for many years. His 1995
book, Emotional Intelligence (Bantam Books) was on The New York
Times bestseller list for a year and a half. Final Thoughts

This week, we gave an overview of some of the main theories which can help
us understand aspects of individual behaviour in an organisation. An
organisation represents the coming together of individuals to achieve some
common purpose, and yet we need to acknowledge the diversity of individual
behaviour that is likely to occur when individuals ‘organise’ themselves
together. The danger of assuming organisations are going to be governed by
rational and logical actions and behaviour should not be underestimated.

Personality theory has made significant strides over the past two decades,
particularly in demonstrating that certain traits are associated with specific
workplace behaviours and outcomes. Various studies have reported that
specific big five dimensions predict overall job performance, organisational
citizenship, leadership, counterproductive work behaviours, training
performance, team performance, and a host of other important outcomes.

Next week, we explore learning and development at individual and

organisational levels.

Reflective Summary: Week 3 - Personality and Organisational Behaviour

This week’s focus explored the significance of personality and individual differences in
organisational settings. By understanding how personality influences behaviour, organisations can
enhance individual and team performance while fostering an environment conducive to growth.
Below is a reflective summary of the week's key learnings.

Application of Personality Studies to Organisations

Personality plays a critical role in shaping workplace dynamics. It influences how individuals
interact, respond to organisational expectations, and adapt to external pressures. Managers must
consider individual differences, as they can either foster creativity and satisfaction or lead to
conflicts (Mullins, 2016). The dual approaches to studying personality—nomothetic (trait-based
and measurable) and idiographic (holistic and contextual)—highlight the need for both quantitative
assessment and qualitative understanding in managing people effectively.
A critical takeaway is that recognising the diversity of personality traits, abilities, and emotional
intelligence equips managers to recruit, develop, and lead individuals tailored to the organisation’s
culture and goals. Mullins (2016) notes that traits such as motivation, attitudes, and abilities
significantly influence work outcomes.

Understanding Personality Types and Traits

My reflection begins with recognising my own personality as a "logician," which suggests a
proclivity for analytical thinking and creativity. To improve, I need to set realistic goals, manage
time efficiently, and commit to actionable ideas. Personality is both innate (nature) and shaped by
experiences (nurture) (Saudino, 2005), stabilising by adulthood (Kersting, 2003). This dual
influence underscores the importance of nurturing workplace environments that facilitate positive
growth and adaptability.
The Big Five Personality Model—openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism—emerged as a robust framework for predicting workplace behaviours (McShane &
Von, 2018). While conscientiousness and emotional stability were consistently linked to
performance, criticisms argue that the model’s descriptors are value-laden and culturally biased
(Robertson, 2001; Bentall, 1993). Nevertheless, its utility in corporate assessments for managerial
potential and job fit is well-established (Lord & Rust, 2003).

The Role of Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) surfaced as a vital competency for effective leadership and teamwork.
Defined by Coleman (2015) as the ability to recognise, understand, and manage emotions, EI
encompasses constructs like self-awareness, empathy, and motivation (Goleman, 1996). Leaders
with high EI can regulate emotions during crises, build optimistic workplace cultures, and handle
interpersonal dynamics skillfully. Morrison (2007) emphasised its relevance in socially intensive
roles like social work, reinforcing that EI is not universally applicable but crucial for jobs requiring
emotional labour.

Valuing Individual Differences

Individual differences, shaped by factors such as culture, gender, motivation, and perception, are
integral to understanding organisational behaviour (Mullins, 2016). For instance, perception—how
individuals interpret events and stimuli—can be distorted by stereotyping, affecting workplace
interactions and inclusivity (Brooks, 2017). Recognising these dynamics helps organisations
develop strategies to attract diverse talent and foster inclusive cultures.
The pandemic underscored the importance of adaptability, highlighting opportunities for
reinvention at both individual and organisational levels (WEF, 2020). Resilience in the face of
change, particularly in people-dependent sectors, depends on leveraging individual abilities and
fostering collective growth.

Key Reflections
This week emphasised the complexity of managing individuals in organisations, where diverse
personalities converge to achieve common goals. Personality theory has demonstrated its utility in
predicting behaviours such as leadership effectiveness, job performance, and team dynamics.
However, a nuanced approach—balancing measurable traits and contextual understanding—is
essential for fostering organisational harmony and productivity.
The insights gained will inform my efforts to balance personal development (time management,
realistic goal-setting) with recognising and valuing individual differences in team settings. Moving
forward, the integration of personality theories with organisational strategies will remain central to
enhancing both individual and collective success.

References
• Brooks, I. (2017). Organisational Behaviour: Individuals, Groups and Organisation.
• Coleman, J. (2015). Emotional Intelligence.
• Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence.
• Kersting, K. (2003). Personality development from childhood to adulthood.
• McShane, S., & Von Glinow, M. (2018). Organisational Behaviour.
• Mullins, L. (2016). Management and Organisational Behaviour.
• Robertson, I. (2001). Critique of the Big Five Model.
• Saudino, K. (2005). Genetic influences on personality.
• WEF (2020). COVID-19 and Business Resilience.
WEEK 4

Introduction

Talent development and management refers to the processes of identifying

the best candidates for employment at an organisation and then retaining
them. In carrying out these processes, human resource managers must be able
to identify the skills and characteristics that best fit with the overall goals of
the organisation. How does a human resource manager approach the
development and management of the individual people who make up a
workforce? Additionally, how does the manager align personal and business
goals to encourage a productive organisation?

A critical task of the human resource manager is to harness an organisation’s

human capital to develop employees’ individual talents, as well as align
employee output with the strategic direction of the organisation. In general,
human capital is an individual’s knowledge, skills and abilities (Lank, 1997).
Additionally, the process of managing organisational strategies to identify and
develop employee and human capital is called ‘talent management,’ or ‘talent
development’ (Areiqat et al., 2010). Human resource professionals help
organisations with talent development by suggesting methods for enhancing
the skills and expertise of its employees.

For managing talent well, managers need to consider several choices; there
may not be one set of best practices in this regard (Schuler, 2015). As a result,
many programmes have attempted to guide employee development and
performance management through efforts focused on narrow percentages of
employee populations thought to be the ‘best’ performers. The same
performance measurements and development guidelines are often applied
across the board for all employees. In the worst cases, programmes focus on
punitive measures rather than support and additional training for low-
performing employees.

Such an approach often results in a large percentage of the employee

population feeling left out of development programmes. The challenge for
managers lies in aligning personal developmental goals with organisational
goals, which are usually quite different. This alignment may be especially
difficult to achieve within organisations – behaviours aligned with the
company’s values are hard to find and replace (Schuler, 2015).

Kolb’s Learning Cycle

One of the most significant contributions to our understanding of learning is

illustrated by Kolb’s learning cycle. Kolb (1976, 2015) sees learning as a
continuous process based on experiences we encounter. It depends on how we
interpret and respond to these.

Image source: i.pinimg.comL

Kolb's learning cycle (1976, 2015) (image edited for clarity)
i
n
k two levels: a four-
“Kolb’s experiential learning theory works on
s
stage cycle of learning and four separate learning styles. Much of
Kolb’s theory is concerned with the learner’s internal cognitive
t
processes. o
Kolb states that learning involves the acquisition of abstract
a
concepts that can be applied flexibly in a range of situations. In
n
Kolb’s theory, the impetus for the development of new concepts
is provided by new experiences.” e
x
(McLeod, 2017) t
e
“Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through
r
the transformation of experience”
n
(Kolb, 1984, p. 38). a
l
Kolb (2015) argues there are broadly two approaches to learning from
experience: s
i
• Concrete experience – learning from doing, hands on, direct involvement
t
and abstract.
e
• Conceptualisation – learning from reasoning, theory
. development.
There are also two approaches to changing that experience: reflective
observation and active experimentation.

The learning styles described by Kolb are based on two major dimensions:
active / reflective and abstract / concrete (Kolb, 1984):

The Converger

People with this learning style have dominant abilities in the

areas of Abstract Conceptualization and Active Experimentation.
They are highly skilled in the practical application of ideas. They
tend to do best in situations where there is a single best solution
or answer to a problem.

The Diverger

Divergers’ dominant abilities lie in the areas of Concrete

Experience and Reflective Observation, essentially the opposite
strengths of the Converger. People with this learning style are
good at seeing the ‘big picture’ and organizing smaller bits of
information into a meaningful whole.

Divergers tend to be emotional and creative and enjoy

brainstorming to come up with new ideas. Artists, musicians,
counselors, and people with a strong interest in the fine arts,
humanities, and liberal arts tend to have this learning style.

The Assimilator

Assimilators are skilled in the areas of Abstract Conceptualization

and Reflective Observation. Understanding and creating
theoretical models is one of their greatest strengths. They tend
to be more interested in abstract ideas than in people, but they
are not greatly concerned with the practical applications of
theories.

Individuals who work in maths and the basic sciences tend to

have this type of learning style. Assimilators also enjoy work that
involves planning and research.

The Accommodator
 People with this learning style are strongest in Concrete
Experience and Active Experimentation. This style is basically
the opposite of the Assimilator style. Accommodators are doers;
they enjoy performing experiments and carrying out plans in the
real world.

(Cherry, 2020)
Kolb (2015) argues we may attempt to use all four of these approaches,
although individuals may develop preferences and strengths. This work can
facilitate a learning style inventory – a test of learning styles is widely available
on the Internet. In a sense Kolb’s model can be seen as experiential learning,
constructed on the belief that we learn by our experiences.

Talent Management
Recent years have seen the emergence of the concept of talent management
as a strategic approach to gaining competitive advantage. The Chartered
Management Institute defines talent management in its broadest terms as ‘the
selection, development, engagement and retention of individuals, who are seen
to be of particular value to an organisation’:

“The development of talented employees can be one of the most

profitable investments an organization makes. As long-term
organizational performance is achieved primarily through a focus
on people, it is fundamental that talented personnel are
identified, nurtured and, most importantly, retained within an
organization. Investment in ‘human capital’ develops the skills,
knowledge and vision needed to take an organization forward
and can help to meet strategic objectives, maintain competitive
advantage within the marketplace and ensure the long-term
success and viability of the organisation.”

(Talent Management (full reference added

to Bibliography section))
Talent management is inextricably linked with the human capital management
approach, with these particularly valuable individuals seen as assets to be
invested in via development, appropriate planned deployment, and
engagement and retention initiatives (Mullins & Christy, 2016). The competitive
advantage secured is normally measured through indicators such as improved
retention and succession planning of high performers, an increased reputation
as an employer of choice, making work in the organisation more attractive to
external talent, and other factors such as increased diversity of the workforce
and ultimately the success of the organisation.

Talent management needs to be aligned with the direction of the organisation

and requires senior management endorsement to succeed. Line managers
need to understand the concept and be encouraged to view talent in their own
teams as a corporate resource, rather than be concerned about their local
deployment and workload issues. Blass (2009) refers to the difficulty in finding
a clear definition of talent management. The process may differ between
organisations and the same activity can result in different actions and/or
outcomes. However, Blass refers to the importance of a clear strategic
perspective that shapes the way an organisation takes to talent management
and how it is viewed, implemented and operationalised.

Agile Work Environments

Agile work is a term used to describe approaches to project management that
emphasise incremental delivery, collaboration and continuous learning. It is not
the same as a flexible working policy. Agile work allows people to work where,
how and when they choose, to meet professional and organisational goals. It is
a maximum flexibility approach that empowers workers.

Creating, adopting and working an agile work environment is strongly related

to optimisation. It takes both time and skill to optimise a workspace and take
advantage of its maximum potential. For example, a lot of space in traditional
offices often remains unused or empty most of the day. Agile work
environments aim to solve this problem by making sure people have the
freedom to choose where to work. This depends on the type of work a person
needs to do that day. Such environments inspire creative thinking and provide
an opportunity for people to interact more.

Often jobs are defined in quite a narrow way and people feel they only have to
perform to their job or role descriptions. People need some sort of broad
boundaries but also to be given scope. If they are to perform to their best,
managers should give them the scope to craft their job in a way that actually
helps them to do that.

There are various ways people can do that in terms of tasks, but those who
work in a client-facing environment need to be able to develop relationships in
a way that is going to work for each particular one. To perform, they need to
work with the client and say "Well, how is this going to work?”.
They need scope to be able to set their own boundaries and, particularly as
organisations are changing, the ability to give people that little bit of flexibility
to be able to shape the job.

The person who is leaving a job should sit down and write what should come,
who takes it next, what it might consist of. Not what it is, but what it might
consist of, to allow somebody else to take it to the next level. And this is how
jobs evolve. Within parameters, people get the opportunity to devise their own
distinct role, and put their stamp on the work they do.

Organisational design provides the framework through which the people

within an organisation work together to meet the goals of the organisation.

In planning or revising organisational design, some suggest the best place to

start is with the people within the organisation (Holbeche, 2004). The human
resource manager can gather valuable data by talking to employees about
whether they feel they have the support and abilities necessary to do the work
and if they understand the organisational goals towards which they are
working. Some organisations thrive with top-down management. Others
succeed when senior management and lower-level employees work closely
together in ‘partnership’.

Reflect

Think about your own organisation and jot down some thoughts:

1. Is it set up in a traditional way by either division or line function?

2. Do multiple leaders guide cross-functional teams?
3. How does this organisation compare to others in which you have worked?

As you begin to explore the readings for this week, consider the effectiveness
of the various structures you have experienced. How might they be improved
by the strategies covered in the readings?

It is widely accepted that organisational design has a profound effect on the

overall organisational performance (Veldsman, 2015), and can enable
predictable results (Csaszar, 2012). An important element of a high-performing
work environment involves the establishment of clear and structured goals.
Achieving goals creates a sense of satisfaction, which contributes to the overall
meaning and purpose of work and increases productivity. When people feel
their work life lacks meaning and purpose, they are more likely to resign,
causing retention problems for the organisation (Holbeche, 2004).

When planning or revising organisational design, the human resource manager

should start with the people in the organisation. This can lead to a greater
sense of meaning and therefore harmony between personal and business
goals.

Organisational Design and Engineering (ODE)

The following excerpt explains ODE:

“ODE is about the socio-material entanglement of the design of

organizations and the engineering of computer-based artefacts.
It is asserted that organizations are not about either design or
engineering and that the either-or mindset has been a major
obstacle to the development of organizational thinking in the
21st century. One reason for this state of affairs is that in higher
education bridges are still to be built between design and
engineering in organizations. Business schools know very little
about what is going on in the real world of computer-based
artefacts and schools of computer science have little interest in
the developments in organization theory. It is also argued that in
order to play a central role in the development of ODE, and in
line with the call from various scholars, the information systems
discipline should re-establish its focus on the organizationally
entangled building and implementation of computer-based
artefacts. In doing so, the information systems discipline would
raise its profile vis-à-vis the communities at the sharp end of the
organizational implementation of computer-based artefacts,
namely the organization science and the computer
science/engineering communities.”

(Magalhães and Silva, 2009)

Introduction

Maintaining a high-performance work environment does not stop at attracting

top talent and carefully designing how the organisation supports it.
Organisations rely on knowledge acquisition for continued success. High-
performance work environments depend on dedication to continuous
development.

This development includes organisational learning, an important factor for

an organisation to have a competitive advantage (Barakat and Moussa, 2012).
Leaders within organisations must examine not only what people learn
but how they learn. They must address how knowledge is learned, shared and
stored. They must also ensure employees have the opportunity to use what
they have learned.

One area of concern within organisational learning is individual learning.

Individuals learn in different ways, and an organisation should provide learning
opportunities to meet the needs of all employees.

Reflect

In your organisation, are there opportunities for experimental, self-paced and

group learning?

Making sure a wide variety of learning styles are accommodated, in turn

ensures more employees successfully gain knowledge. Leaders within an
organisation must also establish learning goals related to the pursuit of
organisational goals. To do this, it is important to investigate how
organisational mental models are developed (Ellis, Margalit and Segev, 2012).
These models encompass the ways people learn and share their knowledge.

Reflect

Consider your organisation: is key learning captured and stored centrally or is

there an unequal balance of knowledge among individuals? When there is
organisational change, how is related knowledge captured and shared?

Another factor to consider in organisational learning is the quality of the

working relationships within the organisation. Consider the nature of working
relationships where you work and how human resource management practices
influence them: do you feel encouraged to share ideas in your organisation?

When people feel safe enough among team members to share ideas and
contributions, the overall learning in the system increases (Bruller and Carmeli,
2011). Human resource professionals and organisational leaders can develop
systems that encourage positive working relationships and collaboration.

It is important to understand how organisational learning processes contribute

to organisational performance (Martinette and Obenchain-Leeson, 2012).
Organisations committed to learning, having shared vision and specific
mechanisms for sharing their experiences, are more innovative and high
performing. Organisations should invest in learning initiatives as these
processes help improve organisational performance (Vij and Farooq, 2015).
Organisation As a Brain: The Learning Organisation
From the perspective or paradigm of the learning organisation, we can analyse
organisations as systems of communication, complex information, learning and
decision-making.

Considerable work in management information systems (MIS), operations

research (OR) and management decision systems (MDS) has attempted to
develop decision-making tools and data management principles and practices,
in some ways reminiscent of the human brain (Brooks, 2017). The resultant
complex systems of data management in the fields of logistics, production,
finance and marketing, and the implementation of teams that can ‘think’ for
the rest of the organisation and control activities, is reminiscent of a
centralised brain that regulates activity (Morgan, 1996).

An area of particular interest to modern organisational behaviour is

the learning capability of an organisation (as opposed to the learning capability
and capacity of a series of individuals within an organisation). A contemporary
question inviting considerable debate and interest is whether organisations can
learn. It is argued that if they can, they are better able to embrace
organisational change because they can learn to manage and cope with
circumstances which have not previously been experienced.

Reflect

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented change everywhere,

including in organisations. How has your organisation adapted to this? Do you
feel the quality and speed of this adaption are related to the learning capability
of your organisation? How so? Jot down your thoughts.

Organisational Learning and Change

The question ‘can organisations learn?’ invites often heated and contentious
debate. Clearly individuals in organisations can and do learn, yet we have
evidence that organisations as a whole (as well as individuals within them)
continue to repeat activities that sometimes lead to dysfunction and lack of
success. It appears to many that organisations fail to adapt to dynamic
markets, and only learn slowly to cope with a dynamic environment. Argyris
and Schön (1978) argue the important distinction in this debate lies between
an organisation’s ability to engage in single-loop or double-loop learning.

They also suggest that most organisations (and individuals) engage in and are
proficient at single-loop learning. That is learning within accepted limits,
where an organisation is able to scan its environment, set objectives and
monitor its performance to keep it on course, usually resulting in ‘same-again’,
single-frame solutions. In bureaucracies, for example, the fundamental
organising principles, based on precedent, rules, procedures and regulations,
often obstruct the learning of different ways of working, organising or
managing. The same or similar solutions are generated as a response to
perceived organisational problems, with the result that the organisation is
locked into single-loop learning and defensive routines.

Single loop vs double loop learning

Double-loop learning is an educational concept and process that involves

teaching people to think more deeply about their own assumptions and beliefs.
It can occur only when organisations and individuals reflect on their practice,
challenge accepted practices and norms, recognise solutions do not lie in
previous experiences only, and allow alternatives to emerge. For these actions
to occur requires an organisation to break free from the paradigm into which it
is locked.

In double-loop learning, an organisation does not automatically attempt to

solve a problem or conduct a task in the same way as it has in the past.
Instead, it has the ability to reflect on previous experiences, to learn from them
and to innovate and experiment with alternatives. Double-loop learning
requires individuals and groups to be willing to discuss sensitive issues openly,
confront differences in views, and seek ways to clarify vague and ambiguous
ideas and data. They must attempt to engage in collective reflection and
problem resolution (Brooks, 2017).

Argyris and Schön conclude that in reality, most organisations are locked into
mere single-loop learning.
Organisational Development
Today’s organisations operate in a rapidly changing environment.
Consequently, one of the most important assets for an organisation is the
ability to manage change – and for people to remain healthy and authentic.
Consider the following definition of organisational development (OD):

“Organization Development is the attempt to influence the

members of an organization to expand their candidness with
each other about their views of the organization and their
experience in it, and to take greater responsibility for their own
actions as organization members. The assumption behind
Organization Development is that when people pursue both of
these objectives simultaneously, they are likely to discover new
ways of working together that they experience as more effective
for achieving their own and their shared (organizational) goals.
And that when this does not happen, such activity helps them to
understand why and to make meaningful choices about what to
do in light of this understanding.”

(Neilsen, 1984, pp. 2-3)

Experts might agree that the following definitions of OD represent the major
focus and thrust of many of today’s OD practitioners:

“Organization Development is a system-wide application of

behavioral science knowledge to the planned development and
reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures, and
processes for improving an organization's effectiveness”.

(Cummings and Worley, 1997, p.2).

“Organization Development is a body of knowledge and practice

that enhances organizational performance and individual
development, viewing the organization as a complex system of
systems that exists within a larger system, each of which has its
own attributes and degrees of alignment. Organization
Development interventions in these systems are inclusive
methodologies and approaches to strategic planning,
organization design, leadership development, change
management, performance management, coaching, diversity,
and work/life balance”
 (Minahan, MM & Associates).
Bibliography

Books

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action

Perspective, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brooks, I. (2017) Organisational Behaviour: Individuals, Groups and

Organisation, Harlow: Pearson Education Canada.

Cummings, T. G., Worley, C. G. and Donavan, P. (1997) Organization

Development and Change, Sixth Edition, South-Western Publishing, p.2.

Kolb, D. (2015) Experiential Learning: Experiences as the Source of Learning

and Development, 2nd edn, London: Pearson Education.

Kolb, D. (1976) The Learning Styles Inventory, Boston: McBer & Co

Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning

and Development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Morgan, G. (1996) Images of Organization, 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mullins, L. J. and Christy, G. (2016) Management and Organisational Behaviour,

London: Pearson Education.

Neilsen, E. H. (1984) Becoming an Organization Development Practitioner,

Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall.

Articles

Areiqat, A., Tawfiq, A. and Al-Tarawneh, H. (2010) Talent management as a

strategic practice of human resources management to improve human
performance, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business,
2(2) pp.329-341.

Barakat, A. & Moussa, F. (2012) Variables influencing expatriate learning and

organizational learning, Competition Forum, 10(2) pp. 28-41.

Bingham, C. B., & J. P. Davis, (2012) ‘Learning Sequences: Their Existence,

Effect, and Evolution’, Academy Of Management Journal, 55 (3) pp. 611-641
Blass, E. (2009) Talent for the downturn, Professional Manager, 18(2), pp.26-8.

Brueller, D. and Carmeli, A. (2011) Linking high quality relationships to team

learning and performance in a service setting: A reference group
perspective, Human Resource Management, 50(4), pp.455-477.

Cherry B. (2020) ‘Kolb’s Theory of Learning Styles’ [online], Very Well Mind, 15
May. Available at: https://www.verywellmind.com/kolbs-learning-styles-
2795155#citation-1L[accessed 30 July 2020]
i
Csaszar, F. A., (2012)nOrganizational structure as a determinant of
performance: evidence k from mutual funds, Strategic Management Journal,
33(6) pp. 611-632 s

t
Ellis, S., Margalit, D. and Segev, E. (2012) Effects of organizational learning
o
mechanisms on organizational performance and shared mental models during
planned change, Knowledge and Process Management, 19(2), pp.91-102
a
n
Holbeche, L., (2004) ‘How to Make Work More Meaningful’ [online], Personnel
Today, 8 June. Available at: http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/how-to-make-
e
work-more-meaningful/L[accessed 30 July 2020]
x
i
t
Lank, E. (1997) Leveraging n invisible assets: The human factor, Long Range
e L L
k
Planning, 30(3), pp.406-412.
r i i
s
n n n
Magalhães, R. and Silva,a A. (2009) Organizational design and engineering
k k
(ODE), CODE-Centre lfor tOrganizational Design and Engineering Working Paper
o s s

Martinette, L. A. and sObenchain-Leeson, A. (2012) t The relationship

t between
a
i
learning orientation and business performance ando the moderating
o effect of
n
competitive advantage:t a service organization perspective, Journal Of Service
Science, 5(1) pp.43-58e a a
e
. n n
x
Minahan M, as cited in Conkright
t T (2014), Everyone Should Contribute to
Organization Development,
e Linkedin Pulse, Available
e e
at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140826141832-4502331-everyone-
r x x
should-contribute-to-organization-development/
n t [accessed
t 30 July 2020]
a e e
McLeod, S. A. (2017) ‘Kolb r r
l – learning styles and experiential learning cycle’
[online], Simply Psychology. Available n n
a
at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html
s a[accessed 30 July
2020] i l l
t
e s s
. i i
t t
e e
. .
Holbeche, L. (2008) Great performance occurs when people know what is
expected and why that matters, People Management, 14(22) pp.24-27

Schuler, R.S. (2015) The 5-C framework for managing talent, Organizational
Dynamics, 44(1) pp.47-56.

Talent Management (updated 2014). Available

at: https://www.managers.org.uk/~/media/Files/Checklists/Talent-
management.pdfL[accessed 30 July 2020]
i
Veldsman, T. (2015)n Where to organisational design? In search of design criteria
k
for future-fit organisations, Proceedings of The European Conference on
s
Management, Leadership & Governance, pp. 513-522.

Vij, S. and Farooq,t R. (2015) The relationship between learning orientation and
o
business performance: Do smaller firms gain more from learning
orientation?, IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4) pp.7-28.
a
n

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

s
i
t
e
.