Answers
Knowledge management assignments 4 and 5
- Course
- Institution
- Book
Knowledge management assignments 4 and 5 Radboud University 2017/2018
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
More summaries for
-
Lectures Knowledge in Organisation (KiO): book + articles
-
Knowledge management assignments 1, 2 and 3
5 reviews
By: jv57 • 4 year ago
By: tommeut • 4 year ago
By: delon13 • 5 year ago
By: timvandervleuten • 5 year ago
By: dagmarstoll • 5 year ago
Seller
Follow
thomas_zz
Reviews received
Content preview
Assignment 4: Learning and Unlearning in the Shadow of Power4.1 A learning Army?
1. In a certain situation (war in Poland), the German forces are trying to defeat the Polish army
(Consequence). To do this, the German forces take action (invading Poland). However, this campaign was
not flawless. The supreme commanders were not really satisfied, because of a couple of mistakes and
deficiencies. So, they were going to learn from this situation, in order to learn and adapt the German
forces. To do this, the supreme commanders set up a training camp, in order to perfect their new methods
(which were also used in Poland). So, the theory and assumptions behind the German warfare proved to
be successful, however, the troops needed more training regarding this methods, the coordination of
assets needed to improve, the troops should be more aggressive, and the officers were learned to take
charge of their troops. In short, nothing really new, only improving the existing techniques and methods,
which were used in the campaign in Poland. So, one can conclude that the German forces did change their
action strategy, in order to achieve in a new situation (warfare in western Europe), a positive
result/consequence (defeating the allied troops). However, the governing variable, which makes the
results/consequences worthwhile to achieve, by setting norms and values, for example, did not change.
The supreme commanders, who are the governing variable, did not change, they enabled change.
So, because the German forces did not really question their existing theories and assumptions (the rather
new methods of warfare, which were tested first in Poland). Besides that, the governing variable (the
supreme commanders, who make achieving results worthwhile), did not change. So, to conclude the case
of German forces is an example of single loop learning, because the underlying values (the new methods
of warfare) are not really questioned. It is assumed they are correct.
2. The learning climate refers to: Ways in which organizations promote or inhibit reflection
and inquiry into errors (Pas, 2017). At first, the supreme commanders are asking the officers and their
subordinates about their honest opinion about the campaign in Poland. So, there is a high level of honesty
and trust within the German Army, even regarding mistakes or deficiencies. So, the organization, in this
case the army, promotes reflection upon the mistakes that are made. Also, the inquiry regarding this
mistakes is promoted, by both officers and supreme commanders. However, when the commanders were
willing to train the soldiers, in order to avoid these mistakes in the future, this was inhibited bei dem
Führer selbst. He stated that there was no time for such extensive training and that everything should go
faster. So, regarding reflection, inquiry into errors and reporting errors, the German Army has a very good
learning climate where honesty and trust are very important. However, with regard to learning from
mistakes, the German army did not have such learning climate, because the commanders were forced to
speed things up, because there was no time.
So, to conclude. Regarding reflection, inquiry into errors/mistakes and reporting them to officers, the
German army has a learning climate that is similar to model 2. Which is characterized by an open attitude
and where decisions are based on valid information. However, when it comes to avoiding these mistakes,
the German army is similar to model 1, which is characterized by a more closed attitude and a defensive
climate.
1
,Altogether, the learning climate, apart from attempts to avoid mistakes in the future, in the Germany
army is open-productive, because, as stated in the case, is characterized by honesty and trust between
the divisions.
3. A learning organization is: ‘’an organization which facilitates the learning of all of its members and
consciously transforms itself and its context’’ (Pedler, 1997). If we look at the characteristics of a learning
organization, the first key element is: the organization context should facilitate the learning of the
members. This learning then contributes to the organization context. Furthermore, a learning
organization should be flexible, in order to adapt itself to the changing environment. Besides that, the
learning organization is regarded as the antithesis of the bureaucracy. So, the learning organization should
have a ‘flat’ structure, limited top-down control, etc. (Hislop, 2013).
So, if we look at the German Forces we see that the army is capable of adapting itself to the new methods
of warfare of the Second World War. So, the Germany army is capable of changing itself effectively but is
not flexible (if it takes at least 6 months to retrain soldiers, you are not really flexible). Besides that, the
army is characterized by a top-down structure and is the perfect example a bureaucracy.
However, the Germany Army is capable of learning and constantly involves its members in this learning
process, in order to approve them. In fact, the soldiers are very important for this learning process.
Moreover, the commanders facilitate the willingness of the staff (the officers) to take risks and to make
their own decisions on the battlefield, as long as they succeed their mission.
To conclude, the German Army does have a few features that do not fit within the learning organization
framework. However, they also have features that do fit within the learning organization framework. In
fact, if we see this in the context of the Second World War, the time (1940) and the army as an
organization, we could say that the Germany Army actually was very innovative for that time.
Altogether, if we look at the German Army of 1940, with the characteristics and knowledge regarding
learning organization we possess at this moment, one can state: the German Army is not really a learning
organization because it does not possess all the characteristics of a learning organization.
However, if we look at the Germany army, with the context and time (1940) in mind, one could state that
the German Army was very innovative and its time far ahead, and, for that time, actually was a learning
organization.
4. The Germany Army of 1940 is, at this moment, not a very good example for current learning
organizations. At first, this is because of the time. Nowadays, the literature and knowledge regarding
learning organizations is extended. This knowledge and features of a current learning organization are
simply not applicable to the Germany Army of 1940. Besides that, we do not think that an army, regardless
the time, should be an example for (current) learning organizations. This is because the army is an
organization with specific features, which will only work in that specific context.
However, some characteristics of the Germany army are still useable for current (learning) organization.
In the case is stated that the Germany army was able to react very quickly, on, for example, enemies. At
this moment, this is still important for organizations. Another feature of the Germany Army, which can be
set as an example, is their strong culture. If current organization can create such a strong culture, they
can turn this into a very important asset, which may influence the motivation of the employees.
As mentioned above, on theoretical grounds, it is not really wise to pick the Germany army as example.
With a practical point of view, it is possible to pick the Germany Army as an example.
However, besides practical and theoretical points of view, there is one more problem: ethical implications.
The Germany Army of 1940 is, with an ethical point of view, not a good example for current organizations.
2
, And even if, according to current standards, the German Army was a learning organization, it still would
not be a good example, because this army did violate some human rights.
Altogether, the Germany Army can, on some points, serve as an example for current (learning)
organizations. However, there are too many points/implications were the Germany army is not a good
example for the current organization. So, we have to state that the Germany army of 1940 is not a good
example for the current learning organization.
4.2 The learning multinational
1. The case describes an attempt to double loop learning. At first, one can see that managers are
encouraged to challenge received wisdom. So, this is not only about learning/changing incremental, but
also trying to reflect upon the assumptions you have. However, when an employee puts this in practice:
he questions the underlying strategy and the assumptions/theory with which the managing director had
taken decisions. This is double loop learning, because you reflect upon existing theories and/or
assumptions. In this case, this is the strategy of the MD, which was the base of his actions and decisions.
2. However, when the employee questions this underlying strategy, the managing director does not like
it. He states: That was the way I did it. So, the employee attempts double loop learning. The managing
director on contrary does not want employees to question the current strategy, which indicates that the
manager creates a learning climate, which is characterized by closed attitudes and defensiveness. He sees
the employees who question his underlying strategy and assumptions as a threat, and uses his power to
win the discussion and only tries to frighten the employee. So, the learning climate in this organization is
similar to model 1 and a closed-defensive one.
3. The person who uses power is the MD. The MD does not like the fact that the employee questions his
strategy ánd his acting regarding the project. So, he uses coercive power, based on his position to
administer some sort of punishment (one can see this because the manager says: I will remember your
name). Besides that, the manager also uses legitimate power, which is power based on your position
within the hierarchy. So, because the manager is more important within the organization hierarchy, gives
him the right to control someone's behavior. The MD uses these two forms of power to win the discussion
and shut the employee up. This is an example of the critical discourse, which states that power is a
resource which can be utilized by actors to influence others, with the aim of achieving his or her goals
(Hislop, 2013).
This has consequences for the learning and the knowledge within that organization. At first, the
organization may possess the right knowledge. The employees, for example, could possess explicit and/or
tacit knowledge, but because of the use of power by the management (as indicated in the case), the
employees are hesitant to share the explicit knowledge or try to convert their tacit knowledge. In short,
because of these power relations and power differences, knowledge may not be completely/effectively
shared, created, or retained in the organization. Regarding learning, these power relations and the use of,
especially coercive and legitimate power, inhibit the learning of the organization. This is because, when
employees try to reflect upon the current strategy and assumption, as is described in the case, in order to
learn or to perform better in the future, they are stopped by the management, that does not want such a
change. In the end, abandoning the old way of working can be scary or may lead to insecurity. But, because
of the use of power, the organization cannot fully adapt or change its current assumptions and/or
theories, even if they lead to dissatisfying results. In short, because of these power relations and the
(wrong) use of power, learning, and especially double-loop learning, is inhibited. Because of employees,
who may possess useful knowledge, are more or less neglected or oppressed.
3
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller thomas_zz. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.75. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67474 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now