A significant number of companies in crisis exhibit two frequent behaviors. The first is to cut resources from the training item. The second is to invest the diminished resources in training programs and not in apprenticeship programs.
For some, the above may simply be a play on words; for others, a reflection on the development of human capital as a strategy to add value to the organization, increasing its competitiveness.
Frequently, the entities distribute the resources assigned to Training between two components: 1. A structured program based on a diagnosis of the needs of the workers and 2. Approved applications for attendance at Congresses, Seminars, Graduates and Postgraduates.
In both cases, it is rare to analyze the relationship between the training received and performance improvement. Whoever receives the training is expected to have sufficient criteria to incorporate the knowledge at work. A few months later, little is remembered of the training, and even less of its contribution to performance.
In these circumstances it is not surprising why in a company in a crisis condition, the training item is cut first than others.
Training emphasizes content, learning emphasizes processes. In training the most frequent question is what is taught. In learning the most important question is what is changed. In training the attitude is usually receptive. In applicative learning.
The main recommendation of this article is not to change the name "training programs" to "learning programs". A new name is useless for an old practice. For example, how many human management offices are nothing more than personnel offices with a new name.
The purpose of this paper is to sensitize the reader to the need to deepen the concept of organizational learning, as a strategy to improve competitiveness, in a better cost-benefit ratio, than traditional business training.
Next, a brief theoretical review on the concept of organizational learning will be presented.
Even though organizations only learn through learning individuals, individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning. Additionally, learning in organizations is not the sum of the learning of its members. Organizations develop their own visions, values, concepts and developments, which tend to remain, regardless of the entry and withdrawal of human talent (Hedberg, 1981).
Peter Senge (1992), perhaps the best-known author in the field, defines a learning organization as one that continually expands its capacity to build the future. It is the integration of talents and functions, in a productive totality.
Argyris and Schon (1978), two of the pioneering authors in the area, make a difference between what they call single-loop learning and double-loop learning. The first refers to changes and corrections made by workers, based on the existing premises in the organization. The second, to changes that imply establishing new premises in the organization to overcome the current ones.
Years later and in the same direction, McGill, Slocum and Lei (1992) speak of adaptive and generative learning. Adaptive learning refers to changes, to facilitate the organization's adjustment to the environment. For example, using know-how to solve a specific problem, based on existing premises, that allows the entity to continue operating normally. Generative learning is related to the transformation of the environment, through radical changes in structure, strategy and organizational systems. While adaptive learning seeks accommodation to the environment, generative seeks to transform the environment. Adaptive learning corresponds to a single cycle and generative learning to a double cycle. In either case, the organization learns in its interaction with the environment.
In both the Argyris and Schon approach and the McGill, Slocum and Lei approach, the emphasis of learning is on change. There is no learning without change. This approach is blurred in traditional training programs, where the emphasis is on teaching and how to teach and not on what is taught and what is more important, if learning occurred as a result of teaching. That is, what changes in the real work environment were facilitated with the training.
The evaluations of the trainings, when they exist, are limited to topics such as: fulfillment of expectations, fulfillment of objectives, clarity of presentations, adaptation of the methodology and logistics. Few times to establish whether or not the training is applicable to the job, beyond a yes or no. Additionally, action plans are rarely proposed to generate adaptive or generative changes in the work environment. In other words, the emphasis is on training and not on organizational learning.
An organization that learns, as Marquardt (1996) puts it, "is an organization that learns collectively and continually transforms itself, to collect, manage and better use knowledge, for the success of the company". Or in the words of Aramburu (2000), "organizational learning is associated, both with the change in organizational behavior, and with the creation of a knowledge base that supports it."
Training does not guarantee organizational learning, especially when it is massive and decontextualized. It is like playing target shooting with your eyes closed.
Organizational learning can be possible through training, only if there is a disciplined exercise on the scope of content in relation to change processes. On the other hand, traditional training is neither the only nor the best organizational learning strategy.
Today it is possible to learn within the company or entity, if there is a culture of sharing, understood as the exchange of information and knowledge. Unfortunately, although for some sharing is an opportunity for development, for others it is a risk associated with loss of power (Castañeda, 2002).
To convert personal knowledge into organizational knowledge, as Nonaka and Takeuchi (1999) suggest, it is necessary that there be an environment that facilitates dialogue, discussion, observation, imitation, practice and experimentation.
This environment must be promoted from senior management and not only with words and brochures, but with behaviors that become role models for everyone. It is highly likely that if senior management uses dialogue as a permanent learning strategy, this example will be followed by others.
The current crisis, characterized by diminished resources, is an opportunity to promote learning environments that, in light of a corporate mission, facilitate interactive and interdependent people, willing to share knowledge, observe and imitate good practices, receive and give feedback, in such a way that individual learning becomes collective learning. Environments where dialogue is a tool for creating knowledge that adds value to organizations.
Bibliography:
Aramburu, N. (2000). A study of Organizational Learning from the Perspective of Change. Deusto University.
Argyris, C., Schon, S. (1978). Organizational Learning: A theory in Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley.
Castañeda, D. (2002). Variables of Human Capital Associated with Knowledge Management: The Role of Perception. International Association for Knowledge Management, March Articles.
Hedberg, B. (1981). How Organizations Learn and Unlearn. Handbook of Organizational Design. Oxford University Press.
Marquardt, M. (1996). Building the learning organization. Mc Graw Hill.
McGill, M., Slocum, J., Lei, D (1992). Management Practices in Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics, Vol 21, Summer, pp. 5-17.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1999). The Knowledge Creation Organization. Oxford University Press.
Senge, P. (1992). The Fifth Discipline. Granica.
Article published by LEGIS on Human Management Punto Com
