• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Transforming a University From a Teaching Organization to a Learning Organization

Posted on: Monday, 3 October 2005, 12:01 CDT

By Friedman, Hershey H; Friedman, Linda W; Pollack, Simcha

Abstract

Successful 21-century universities will have to be lean, flexible and nimble. In fact, Peter Drucker claims that 30 years from now the "big universities will be relics" and will not survive. In the corporate world, businesses are becoming learning organizations in order to survive and prosper. This paper explains why it is necessary for universities to become learning organizations and provides ideas as how to make the transformation.

Introduction

Peter Drucker noted in an interview that: "Thirty years from now the big university campuses will be relics. Universities won't survive. It's as large a change as when we first got the printed book" [18]. This may be an exaggeration, but there is no question that universities that refuse to change may not survive. The rise of for-profit universities (e.g., the University of Phoenix), decreased government support for universities, the rising costs of education, the globalization of education, technological change, the growing number of working adults who need continuing education to avoid obsolescence and distance education are forcing universities to transform themselves. In fact, Andrews et al. [1] urge academia to respond to the "wake-up call" and recognize that inflexibility and the failure to respond quickly and decisively to environmental change can be dangerous.

For colleges to change, they not only have to learn to run their organizations in a more business-like fashion, they have to be willing, when necessary, to add and shrink programs quickly. This is not easy when the organizational structure of today's university has more to do with the convenience of establishing accounting budgets than with the demands of intellectual growth and education [12,14]. Edwards [9] notes that "the actual elimination of departments is extremely rare and usually generates a wave of unflattering national news, so the substitution strategy is driven toward less visible, more surreptitious methods."

It is becoming quite apparent that being inflexible and resistant to change in an extremely fast-moving environment is a prescription for disaster, whether we are dealing with a business or academic institution. Several visionaries believe that the university of the future will be very different from the university of today: more interdisciplinary programs, and the substantial modification of the current prevalent academic organizational structure.

Duderstadt [7] suggests that the university of the future will be divisionless, i.e., there will be many more interdisciplinary programs. There will also be "a far more intimate relationship between basic academic disciplines and the professions." He asks "whether the concept of the disciplinary specialist is relevant to a future in which the most interesting and significant problems will require 'big think' rather than 'small think'" [8]. Kolodny [16:40- 41] asserts that the antiquated way of organizing colleges-by departments-will have to "evolve into collaborative and flexible units." Students with narrowly defined majors will have great difficulty comprehending a world in which the knowledge required of them is complex, interconnected and, by its very nature, draws from many areas. Edwards [9] maintains that "in so many cases, the most provocative and interesting work is done at the intersections where disciplines meet, or by collaborators blending several seemingly disparate disciplines to attack real problems afresh."

The Learning Organization

Clearly, there are great changes ahead for higher education, but changing the culture of an organization is a daunting task. Forward- thinking institutions have to consider what can be done to make their organizations more responsive to change. In the corporate world, many firms are recognizing that the ability of an organization to learn is the key to survival and growth, and "organizational learning" has become the mantra of many companies [3,21].

What is organizational learning? Organizational learning has been defined in many ways: Stata [24] asserts that: "organizational learning occurs through shared insights, knowledge and mental models ... [and] builds on past knowledge and experience." Senge [21] writes: "learning organizations are not only adaptive, which is to cope, but generative, which is to create." Pedler et al. [20] state: "A learning company is an organization that facilitates the learning of all its members and continually transforms itself." Garvin [11] believes that a learning organization is "an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights."

What should we find in a learning organization? The following briefly summarizes what one would expect:

* Awareness of the external environment. Knowing what the competition is doing.

* Belief that individuals can change their environment. A learning culture.

* Shared vision. One that encourages individuals to take risks.

* Learning from past experience and mistakes-experience is the best teacher.

* Learning from the experiences of others in the organization. Organizational memory in order to know what worked in the past and what did not.

* Willingness to experiment and take chances. Tolerance for failure.

* Double-loop or generative learning. With double-loop, as opposed to single-loop, learning, assumptions are questioned. "Double loop learning asks questions not only about objective facts but also about the reasons and motives behind those facts" [2].

* Concern for people. Respect for employees. Diversity is seen as a plus since it allows for new ideas. Empowerment of employees.

* Infrastructure allowing the free flow of knowledge, ideas and information. Open lines of communication. Sharing of knowledge, not just information. Team learning where colleagues respect and trust each other. An organization where one employee will compensate for another's weaknesses, as in a successful sports team.

* Utilization of shared knowledge. Emphasis on cooperation, not turf.

* Commitment to lifelong learning. Constant learning and growth.

* Ability to adapt to changing conditions. Ability to renew, regenerate and revitalize an organization.

Knowledge sharing is a necessary condition for having a learning organization. To foster the sharing of knowledge, computer software has been developed to make it easy for coworkers to share their expertise. For instance, the AskMe Corporation (http:// www.askmecorp.com/) claims that it is "the leading provider of software solutions that enable global 2000 companies to create and manage Employee Knowledge Networks (EKNs)." AskMe notes on its website that creating EKNs helps ensure that employees do not have to solve problems that others have already solved, i.e., "reinventing the wheel." It also enables employees in a firm to quickly find the individual with the appropriate expertise to solve a problem.

One thing the AskMe company discovered is that knowledge sharing is difficult in pyramid-shaped organizations with tall organizational structures, i.e., characterized by numerous layers of management. Knowledge sharing works much better where there is a flat organizational structure with a relatively short chain of command. However, managers have to be willing to accept suggestions, ideas and answers from their employees. When information flows in all directions-even from the bottom of the organizational pyramid to the top-some managers might feel that they are losing some of the status and authority of their position. After all, it is quite conceivable that someone in the mailroom might be able to answer a question that stumps top management. Knowledge can be found anywhere and everywhere.

The power of knowledge sharing should not be underestimated. Linux, the extremely successful computer operating system, was developed by the collaboration of programmers all over the globe.

Are Universities Learning Organizations?

Before discussing universities, it might be instructive to examine whether schools-especially primary and secondary ones-are learning organizations. The evidence, albeit limited, indicates that they are not. Shields and Newton [22] examined schools that participated in the Saskatchewan School Improvement Program and found that they were not learning organizations, lsaacson and Bamburg [15] also came to the same conclusion. Schools rarely have visions, teachers rarely share knowledge with colleagues, and schools are managed with a top-down approach. Many others agree that schools have not functioned as learning organizations [5,10]. When Senge was asked by O'Neill [19] whether or not schools were learning organizations, he replied: "definitely not."

Universities are not run like high schools or elementary schools and stress research/learning as much as (or more than) teaching. Despite this, it seems that very few universities would qualify as learning organizations. It is quite ironic that teaching organizations do not know how to learn. Most universities have little knowledge sharing and are notorious for turf battles. Smith [23] asserts that: "Academic departments serve as organizations that exhibit all the segmentary politics des\cribed by anthropologists: segmentation for largely demographic reasons, balanced opposition among themselves, and unitary resistance to a superordinate entity, usually the college or university as a whole." Harrington [13] believes that departments encourage loyalty to the discipline rather than to the university. Apparently, most universities are not learning organizations.

Transforming the University into a Learning Organization

The following are some suggestions that can be used to help transform the university into a learning organization.

1. Establish a message board to function as a research matchmaking service. As noted above, the most exciting research is often at the interface of two disciplines. Furthermore, researchers with expertise in one area (e.g., biology) might need to collaborate with a faculty member with expertise in another area (e.g., computer simulation or geology) in order to write a paper. Universities could provide a central message board where faculty members could state the area(s) in which they are doing research and the kind of co- author, if any, they seek. This site could also be used to find ideas for research. Senior faculty members might be willing to provide ideas for research in return for a byline on any resulting article. If successful, this service can be extended to include faculty in other colleges. Universities have to understand that discouraging professors from writing co-authored papers is counterproductive. It is certainly not consistent with a key philosophy of a learning organization: sharing knowledge. Moreover, working with scholars from other disciplines creates a synergy that can result in truly innovative research. It is not uncommon in academe to find professors who continue to write essentially the same paper over and over with very little new information. There is nothing wrong with collaboration if it produces exciting research. One wonders whether James Watson and Francis Crick would have been as successful if they had worked alone. The Human Genome Project took 13 years and involved researchers from at least 18 countries.

2. Establish an online archive where faculty can post papers for review by colleagues before submitting them to journals. If the faculty at a university work together as a team and want their institution to flourish, they are more likely to provide helpful criticism. The late OpenTextProject (www.opentextproject.org) was an international site that allowed individuals to post their papers for pre-submission review.

3. There could be a Web site for every course, especially multiple-section courses taught by a number of different faculty. Faculty could submit their best ideas on how to teach the course and their best lectures. This site would then be a resource for students who have difficulties with the course and would also be a resource for faculty teaching the course. Most professors teaching a course have gotten useful ideas from other faculty teaching the same course. For instance, suppose we have a site for elementary statistics. This might be a course taught by 10 different instructors. Faculty teaching the course would be encouraged to post material dealing with statistics. This might take the form of syllabi, lectures, interesting examples, humorous ways to illustrate difficult concepts, computer programs to solve statistics problems, solved exercises, etc. One of the authors has a site for his corporate finance class and has heard that students taking the course with other instructors go to the site since it contains dozens of problems with solutions in the area of mathematics of finance. Professor N. Duru Ahanotu created a Web site (http:// www.drduru.com/knowledge.html) for anyone interested in learning organizations and knowledge management.

The corporate world is learning the value of the Web for e- training. The type of Web site described above can be especially useful to faculty teaching a course for the first time. Rather than learning the best way to teach a course through trial and error, they can go to the Web site for a particular course and see how colleagues have been teaching it. Many professors do indeed go to the Web to examine syllabi and course material from the same courses taught at schools all over the country. The problem is that the caliber of student may not be exactly the same. While it is still a good idea to see how a particular course is taught at other colleges, it will often be more useful to examine the materials used by colleagues in the same school. Interestingly, Dill [6] notes that a major weakness of universities has been in the "internal transfer of new knowledge." This is why it is not uncommon to find that "within most universities there are better performing units that have knowledge about improving teaching and learning from which other units could learn."

4. Knowledge sharing should not be limited to a university. Knowledge should be shared with the public. A Web site could be created providing helpful information for the general public. For instance, this site could have links to subjects such as small business management, marketing, personal finance, ESL, etc. Outsiders could learn these subjects online for free. Brew and Doud [4] assert that work-based learning is important for students. This means that there has to be a partnership between educators and workplace supervisors, especially with professional education. This, of course, requires knowledge sharing between academics and practitioners.

5. University administrators have to realize that the pyramid- shaped organizational structure makes little sense for an academic institution. Information should not only flow from the top to the bottom, i.e., president to provost to dean to chairs to faculty. The biggest impediments to the creation of learning organizations are the twin fears of change and of things that are new. Senior faculty often resist change. Indeed, Kuhn [17] found a similar phenomenon in the sciences. Kuhn described "normal science," as where scientists who adhere to the old dominant paradigm resist the adoption of a new paradigm. Kuhn [17:52] notes that "normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none." Some of the best ideas might originate from junior faculty who often have a new perspective. Universities that want to be innovative have to allow information to flow from the bottom to the top, otherwise they will stagnate. Knowledge-sharing software could be used by administrators to get fresh ideas from the entire faculty.

6. Students have to be part of the knowledge sharing for a university to become a true learning organization. Many faculty members resist providing students with e-mail addresses and brick- and-mortar office hours of three hours per week are ludicrous in the age of asynchronous communication. How many faculty members today would deal with a bank that was only open from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., had no ATM machines and no online banking? Information about majors can be automated. There could be a Web site where students can find out about any major, including requirements for the major and opportunities in the field. Sites consisting of FAQs (frequently asked questions) could be provided for students. Expert systems could be used to advise students as to whether they have the necessary prerequisites for a course. When you purchase a book at Amazon.com, the next time you come back you are greeted by name and other books are recommend to you based on your purchase history. Students could also automatically receive recommendations for courses based on their major and their registration history.

7. As noted above, many futurists believe that interdisciplinary majors will be vital to the future of universities. Many of the newer programs being developed at colleges all over the country are interdisciplinary. It is often very difficult to get academic departments to create interdisciplinary majors when each department is interested in protecting its own turf. Learning organizations stress cooperation, not protection of turf, and this might require a new organizational structure not based on departments. Alternatively, department chairs could report to a "super" chair or dean with the responsibility for an entire school. The job of the "super" chair or dean would be to ensure that departments work together to create interdisciplinary programs and focus on what is best for the university as a whole, not just their own department. A discussion group in which faculty members could provide ideas for new programs could be established. Administrators could reward faculty and departments that create successful programs.

8. A learning organization cannot last long if members of the organization have no interest in learning. Unfortunately, a significant number of faculty (one number often quoted is 60%) never publish an article after they receive tenure and become associate professors. Incentives must be put in place to ensure that faculty continue to learn even after being promoted to full professor. Lifelong learning is now necessary in many professions, including medicine and law. It should also be encouraged in academe.

Conclusion

Establishing a paradigm of knowledge sharing and continuous growth through lifelong learning is not easy even, or perhaps especially, in academe. Interestingly, in these very turbulent times, many academicians are complacent and feel that there is no compelling need to make any serious changes. This is definitely a myopic way of thinking. Transforming colleges into learning organizations will not solve all problems, but it is certainly an important first step.

It is quite ironic that teaching organizations do not know how to learn. Most universities have little knowledge sharing and are notorious for turf battles.

Knowledge-sharing software could be used by administrators to get fresh ideas from the entire \faculty.

Lifelong learning is now necessary in many professions including medicine and law. It should also be encouraged in academe.

References

1. Andrews, R. L., M. Flanigan, and D. S. Woundy. "Are Business Schools Sleeping Through a Wake-Up Call?" Decision Sciences Institute 2000 Proceedings, 1. 2000, 194-196.

2. Argyris, C. "Good Communication that Blocks Learning." Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72, No.4, 1994, 77-85.

3. Argyris, C. and D. Schoen. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996.

4. Brew, A. and D. Boud "Preparing for New Academic Roles: A Holistic Approach to Development." The International Journal for Academic Development, Vol. 1 No. 2, 17-25.

5. Conzemius, A. and W. Conzemius. "Transforming Schools into Learning Organizations." Adult Learning, Vol. 7 No. 4, 1996, 23-25.

6. Dill, D. D. "Academic Accountability and University Adaptation: The Architecture of the Academic Learning Organization." Higher Education, 38, 1999, 127-154.

7. Duderstadt, J. J. "A Choice of Transformations for the 21st- century University." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, Feb. 4, 2000, B6-B7.

8. Duderstadt, J. J. "The Future of the University in an Age of Knowledge." The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1, 1997, 78-88.

9. Edwards, R. "The Academic Department: How Does it Fit into the University Reform Agenda?" Change 31, 1999, 17-27

10. Fullan, M. The School as Learning Organization: Distant Dreams. Theory into Practice, Vol. 34, 1995, No. 4, 230-235.

11. Garvin, D. A. "Building a Learning Organization." Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, 1993, 78-91.

12. Gazzaniga, M. "How to Change the University." Science, 1998, 237.

13. Harrington, F. H. "Shortcomings of Conventional Departments." In D. E. McHenry (Ed.), Academic Departments: Problems, Variations, and Alternatives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977, 53-62.

14. Hollander, S. "Second Class Subjects? Interdisciplinary Studies at Princeton." The Daily Princetonian, April 24, 2000, 3.

15. Isaacson, N. and J. Bamburg "Can Schools Become Learning Organizations?" Educational Leadership, Vol. 50, No. 3, 1992, 42- 44.

16. Kolodny, A. Failing the Future: A Dean Looks at Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998.

17. Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

18. Lenzner, R. and S. S. Johnson. "Seeing Things as They Really Are." Forbes, March 10, 1997, 122-131.

19. O'Neil, J. "On Schools as Learning Organizations." Educational Leadership, Vol. 52, No. 7, April 1995, 20-23.

20. Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne and T. Boydell. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.

21. Senge, P.M. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday, 1990.

22. Shields, C. and E. E. Newton. "Empowered Leadership: Realizing the Good News." Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1994, 171-196.

23. Smith, J. Z. "To Double Business Bound." In C. G. Schneider and W. S. Green (Eds.), Strengthening the College Major. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, 1993, 13-23.

24. Stata, R. "Organizational Learning-The Key to Management Innovation." Sloan Management Review, Spring 1989, 63-74.

Hershey H. Friedman, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

Linda W. Friedman, Baruch College of the City University of New York

Simcha Pollack, The Peter J. Tobin College of Business, St. John's University

Copyright St. Johns University, College of Business Administration Fall 2005

Source: Review of Business

More News in this Category