Advertisement

Innovations in Organisational and Community Learning

  • Lisa Vos
Chapter

Abstract

Human beings have an extraordinary capacity to self-organise and accomplish great results. We have proven so since ancient history. Mankind also has an amazing capability to learn collaboratively and to create innovative solutions by combining a diversity of multiple perspectives, brains, personalities and ideas. Despite overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of self-organising systems, the dominant approach to organising and design is top-down, structured and planned. In this chapter the argument is made that the dominant mental model and approach in organisations and in learning are ineffective in the face of most of the challenges people and organisations need to handle today. An alternative way of thinking and acting is needed to effectively deal with adaptive challenges. One possible alternative model is that of self-organisation and collaborative learning. The dominant mental model will be explained first, then a framework will be introduced which helps discern in which circumstances this model is effective and which circumstances require a different mind-set. Then self-organisation is offered as an alternative mind-set. When self-organisation is applied to knowledge creation and innovation, “collaborative learning” is discussed as mental model and as a set of methodologies. The argument will be made that collaborative learning methods have proven to create novel solutions to wicked problems, enabling input from many and diverse stakeholders, establishing ownership and alignment and doing all this more efficiently than traditional top-down learning models. The chapter will draw on research and publications on the nature of learning in social contexts, organisational and system change, chaos theory and complexity theory. In addition the author’s professional experience in Organisational and Leadership Development in The Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand provides a source of data.

Keywords

Mental Model Collaborative Learn Wicked Problem Collective Learning Learn Domain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational learning. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Beer, S. (1975). Platform for change. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design – How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  7. Bunker, B. B., & Alban, B. T. (1997). Large group interventions: Engaging the whole system for rapid change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Capra, F. (1982). The turning point: Science, society and the rising culture. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  9. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  10. Chandler, A. D. (1990). Scale and scope – The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge/London: The Belknapp Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Conant, R. C., & Ashby, R. W. (1970). Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system. International Journal of Systems Science, 1(2), 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative Inquiry in organizational life. In W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organization change and development (pp. 129–169). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cooperrider, D. L., Barrett, F., & Srivastva, S. (1995). Social construction and appreciative inquiry: A journey in organizational theory. In D. Hosking, P. Dachler, & K. Gergen (Eds.), Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism (pp. 157–200). Aldershot: Avebury Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of change. San Francisco/Brunswick: Berret-Koehler/Crown Custom.Google Scholar
  15. Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heifetz, R. A., & Linski, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  17. Homan, T. (1998). Large scale interventions. Breukelen: Nijenrode Organisational Learning Centre.Google Scholar
  18. Homan, T. (2001). Teamleren: Theorie en facilitatie. Schoonhoven: Academic Service.Google Scholar
  19. Homan, T. (2005). Organisatiedynamica. Den Haag: SDU.Google Scholar
  20. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Kraybill, R., & Wright, E. (2006). Cool tools for hot topics: Group tools to facilitate meetings when things are hot. Intercourse: Good Books.Google Scholar
  22. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mitra, S. (2006). The hole in the wall: Self-organising systems in education. New Delhi/New York: Tata-McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Morgan, G. M. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Peters, J., & Wetzels, R. (1997). Niets nieuws onder de zon en andere toevalligheden: Strategie uit chaos. Amsterdam: Business Contact.Google Scholar
  26. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  27. Revans, R. W. (1980). Action learning: New techniques for management. London: Blond and Briggs.Google Scholar
  28. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robinson, K. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. London: Report to the UK Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the UK Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.Google Scholar
  30. Roggema, R. (2009). Adaptation to climate change: A spatial challenge. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roggema, R. (2012). Swarming landscapes: The art of designing for climate adaptation. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  33. Stacey, R. D. (1999). Strategic management & organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity. New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Swieringa, J., & Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1990). Op weg naar een Lerende Organisatie. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  35. Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lisa Vos Consulting and Melbourne Business SchoolWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations