Readiness to Learn

(1)

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May 2006 67

Readiness to Learn

Dr. Philip L. Ramsey, Massey University, New Zealand Dr. Stephen J. Legg, Massey University, New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Learning-related values can be used as the basis for a holistic model of organisational learning. Values shared by members of an organisational community shape what the community is ready to learn and constitute an organisation‟s

“learning culture”.

Dilemmas are an established method for measuring values. Four learning-related dilemmas were surfaced in three New Zealand organisations using „Culture Exploration Workshops‟. These dilemmas were subsequently used to compare patterns of values held in four organisations. The studies suggest that values can be useful approach to measurement of organisational learning. Further development is required to (1) identify dilemmas pertinent to learning in organisations, and (2) refine the way dilemmas are presented

INTRODUCTION

An area of concern for many involved in the study of learning organisations is how the impact of learning efforts can be sensibly and usefully measured (Heraty & Morley, 1995). Lahteenmaki, Toivonen and Mattila (2001), in their survey of measurement efforts, found that there was a proliferation of consultation tools but little that was based on clear, holistic models of organisational learning.

This article explores the usefulness of values as a basis for measurement and comparison of learning organisations.

It will discuss the nature of values and culture and the impact values have on learning. Two studies are reported as an early effort in developing a system for the measurement of organisational learning: one in which learning dilemmas are identified, and a second where dilemmas are used to chart differences between organisations.

THE ROLE OF VALUES

Values are the unconsciously held preferences people hold that shape what they actually do (Hampden-Turner &

Trompenaars, 2000). Values become apparent when people face dilemmas: situations where they must choose between two attractive ways of acting. While I might aspire to be „honest‟, when I am in situations where I have the choice of being honest or getting things done, my values come to the fore. I might consistently choose to sacrifice honesty in order to get things done. In this case I value „pragmatism‟ rather than honesty.

How do values form? Work on Human Dynamics (Seagal & Horne, 1997) has demonstrated that we are born with personality dynamics that incline us toward certain ways of acting. That is, some of our values are built into us. Other values are learned as a result of the various communities to which we belong (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 2000).

As communities develop, they face dilemmas that they learn to resolve. The more often they resolve a dilemma by putting one value (such as pragmatism) ahead of an opposite value (such as honesty) the more „skilled‟ they become:

capable of making a choice without being consciously aware that they are doing so (Argyris, 1990).

Unconsciously held values create what Fritz (1989) calls a “path of least resistance” within a community. It becomes easier and easier for people to act in harmony with the values held by the community because the values are becoming ever more deeply embedded in the minds of people, the decisions they make and in the infrastructure that

(2)

supports daily life (Ramsey, 1997). The culture of a community can be understood as the pattern of values held by that community, which distinguishes it from other communities and shapes the way that dilemmas are resolved (Hampden- Turner, 1990). This pattern of values will be evident from artefacts produced by the community (Schein, 1992).

Because a value is something chosen ahead of an opposing value—an alternative, desirable way of responding to a dilemma—as a community embeds some values in its culture it suppresses others. For instance, a community that values pragmatism will, over time, suppress the value of honesty. Naturally, there will be unintended and harmful consequences to suppression, and some members of the community will be well aware of the need created by the community‟s culture. Often the result is that people will espouse the very values that the community has been suppressing, while acting in harmony with the unconsciously held values of the culture. The dynamics associated with values create fertile ground for conflict, frustration and resistance to change (Johnson, 1993). Further, these dynamics occur in all cultures. Often the values embedded in one community are suppressed in another, and vice versa.

Consequently, people travelling between communities experience the „mutual relevance of difference‟ described by Bateson (1974): the differences they see help them understand better what their own community is lacking.

VALUES AND LEARNING

Values shape how we act. Because of our values we are attracted to some fields and prefer to ignore others. And the way we approach any work we do will also be shaped by what we value. This deeply affects learning. Because of our values, we will find ourselves more interested in learning some subjects than others, and we will prefer certain approaches to learning. We are also likely to be unaware of these unconsciously held preferences. We may assume that the nature of our preferred subject means it is inherently more appealing, and that the kinds of learning we prefer are really „best educational practice.‟ Thus, culture—the pattern of values in a community—will shape what the community finds easiest to learn and what it will struggle to learn. The values making up a community‟s culture can be said to determine what the community is ready to learn.

If we assume that learning is a natural process and that when people are ready to learn learning is bound to happen, then „readiness to learn‟ provides us with an effective lens to help us measure, describe and compare learning organisations. Measuring the values held by an organisational community will provide an insight into the dynamics of learning within the organisation.

Focusing on values does not indicate the quantity of learning an organisation has done in a particular area. Rather, values tell us about the direction of the learning. It seems that a variation of Heisenberg‟s Uncertainty Principle applies:

we may be able to measure the position an organisation has reached with learning, and we may be able to measure an organisation‟s learning momentum, but we cannot measure both at the same point in time. By measuring values we are concentrating on the momentum and direction of learning, and sacrificing our understanding of the position the organisation has reached. How can we measure values, and what values are pertinent to learning in organisations?

Earlier, dilemmas were mentioned as a basis for understanding the nature of values. Values form as people confront dilemmas and develop an unconscious preference for one way of acting over the other. As well as explaining what values are, dilemmas provide a basis for measuring values in a community. When people are presented with dilemmas they choose between the options on the basis of values they already hold. Differences between communities are evident in the proportions of people resolving dilemmas in particular ways (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 2000).

Differences in values between organisations reflect learning that has taken place in the past. The organisations may have had experiences that shaped the values of community members. The type of work may influence the preferences

(3)

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May 2006 69 that become part of the organisations‟ cultures. And, some organisations may be more likely to employ people with particular values.

But values represent more than a reflection of the past. They also indicate what the organisational communities are ready to learn. An organisation in which people value self-directed learning, for instance, is less likely to respond positively to centrally initiated programmes than one in which people value executive leadership. Understanding values thus provides a basis for the thoughtful design of learning efforts.

IDENTIFYING DILEMMAS

What dilemmas are appropriate to use in charting differences between organisations involved in learning activities?

To answer this question, „Culture Exploration‟ workshops were run in three organisations. Each workshop was designed to surface dilemmas associated with the organisation‟s learning journey.

Schein (1992) advocates the use of workshops, or “Large Group Meetings”, as part of a process for enabling organisations to understand their own cultures. The entire process outlined by Schein involves four stages: (1) gaining leader commitment; (2) conducting a Large Group Meeting to explore the nature of the organisation‟s culture; (3) working with subgroups within the organisation to identify cultural aids and hindrances to their work; and (4) reporting assumptions and joint analysis of the culture.

Large Group Meetings involve a facilitator teaching participants about the nature of culture, presenting an artefact of the culture to the group, eliciting descriptions of the artefact from the group and then working with the group to identify espoused values represented by the artefact. Finally, the group makes a first cut at describing the shared underlying assumptions held by members of the organisation. This process is designed to sensitise the group to the values embedded in artefacts, and then to draw out from the group their understanding of what those values are. The group‟s understanding is informed by the expertise of the facilitator. However, the need to generate the group‟s own description at each stage prevents the facilitator from imposing a perception that the group does not hold.

For this study the Culture Exploration Workshops were designed so that stories produced by participants acted as artefacts. Stories have been used in research into both culture (Trice, 1993;Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 2000) and organisational learning (Roth & Kleiner, 1998) as a means of conveying how dilemmas emerge and can be reconciled. The full workshop procedure involved (1) discussing ground rules and issues of research consent; (2) a short lecture on the nature of culture, dilemmas and artefacts; (3) identifying significant events in the organisation‟s

„learning journey‟; (4) generating stories about events; (5) reading the stories as a group; and (6) having participants identify dilemmas evident in the stories. Workshops were run in three organisations: Skill New Zealand (SNZ), Pan Pac Forest Industries and South Waikato District Council (SWDC). Between eight and twelve staff took part in each of the workshops.

Each workshop produced three types of output: a Time Line of events in the organisation‟s learning journey; a set of stories describing events from the journey in ways that exaggerated conflicts people had experienced; and dilemmas the group identified within the stories.

Pan Pac‟s Time Line described events over a period of 16 years. Stories from the workshop dealt with movement of the company‟s mill operations from centralised to distributed control. This shift required changes to the skill levels of operators, accompanied by changes to the nature of the employment relationship. Table 1 shows an example of one of the Pan Pac stories.

(4)

Table 1 approximately here

Skill New Zealand‟s Time Line described events over a period of 10 years. Stories written by participants highlighted the shift that was made from a primarily administrative organisation staffed by bureaucrats, to an agency responsible for implementing education policy staffed by people with expertise in learning. Stories highlighted the investment necessary for change, and the volatility experienced due to political change.

South Waikato District Council‟s Time Line covered events occurring during a seven year period. Stories dealt with events around Council‟s efforts to generate cross functional activity amongst staff. Stories involved management control of learning processes and the costs of learning efforts. The nature of each dilemma is described below.

Three dilemmas emerged as common to all the participating organisations when participants examined the stories produced in their workshops: Change versus Stability, Self-Directed versus Centrally-Directed, and Aspiration versus Pragmatism.

Change versus Stability: Each of the organisations had faced a dilemma of whether learning efforts should focus on (a) moving into new, unfamiliar territory—“trail-blazing”—or, (b) consolidating by getting better at what they were already doing. Associated with this was the degree to which people should be flexible, with a degree of skill in a range of areas, or develop specialised expertise. Skill New Zealand faced this dilemma regularly, when changes to government education policy required them to make major shifts in the focus of their work. SWDC reported this dilemma when describing the challenge facing a new CEO. For Pan Pac the dilemma arose in relation to decisions around a strategy of “multi-skilling”.

Self-Directed versus Centrally-Directed: Each of the organisations reported being confronted with the dilemma of whether learning should be (a) a self-directed activity built around the natural enthusiasm people have for learning what is important to them, or (b) a centrally-directed activity that focuses on generating strategically important results, as determined by the organisation‟s executive. Related to this was the issue of whether participation in learning activities ought to be voluntary, with self-directed employees choosing for themselves whether or not to be involved, or whether the organisation needed to take action to ensure that all were included in learning activity.

This dilemma arose at Skill New Zealand as the organisation moved away from centralised Human Resource Management functions. With the organisation moving toward having everyone an expert in learning issues, it made sense to have people determine their own learning needs and how these could best be addressed. For SWDC issues of inclusion arose where the Council executive decided that everyone needed to take part in training activities. At Pan Pac the dilemma arose as a result of moves away from management control.

Aspiration versus Pragmatism: Each of the organisations faced a dilemma around how issues of principle ought to be handled. In each case, people expressed conflict between needs of key stakeholders and the ideals the organisation sought to pursue. Each organisation was confronted with the dilemma of whether decisions ought to be based on (a) the ideals the organisation aspired to uphold, or (b) the pragmatic need to meet the demands of important stakeholders. In each workshop participants identified conflict between the need to develop an organisational community where people felt they belonged to a “family”, and the need to make decisions according to the demands of the “real world”.

At Skill New Zealand this dilemma surfaced in relation to meeting the demands of government. While the agency sought to develop a tight-knit community of learning experts, changes to government policy at times disrupted the community through restructuring and called on experts to act contrary to what they believed to be best practice. At SWDC and Pan Pac, stories expressed how policies and programmes were designed—with the help of consultants—on the basis of idealistic assumptions of staff commitment, when in reality staff sought a balanced, simple life and expected to be paid competitive rates despite any sense of “family” they might have.

(5)

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May 2006 71 CHARTING LEARNING DILEMMAS

To what extent can these dilemmas be used to chart differences between organisations? To explore this question, a dilemma-based survey was administered in four organisations: the three organisations represented in the workshop process described above, and Unichem, a group of retail Pharmacies. Seventy SWDC staff (60% of their total staff) responded to the survey, 33 Unichem staff (41% of total staff), 138 SNZ staff (63% of total staff) and 61 Pan Pac staff (68% of total staff).

Tables 2 to 6 show results for the four organisations in relation to each dilemma. The tables chart the percentage likelihood of people in each organisation giving the „a‟ response to the dilemmas shown below. Likelihood is presented as a bar showing the percentage of people responding „a‟ in this survey and 95% confidence intervals for that result.

The middle figure in the bar represents the result for this survey, and the outer figures show the range of the confidence intervals. Where there is no overlap of the confidence intervals for two organisations, the results indicate that we can be confident at the 95% level that there is a difference between the organisations that is not due to chance.

The Change versus Stability dilemma was explored by asking people to indicate a preference for building flexibility or consistency. The Flexibility versus Consistency dilemma is shown below.

Learning is important for our organisation because it helps us to:

a. Be more flexible, taking on new challenges and finding innovative solutions to problems that arise.

b. Be more consistent, getting better at what we do.

Table 2 shows the percentage likelihood of people in each organisation indicating a preference for „a‟, Flexibility.

At least 70% of people in each of the organisations indicated a preference for flexibility, suggesting that this may be a feature of the New Zealand „macro-culture‟: a national value influencing all of the organisations in the study. Skill New Zealand‟s result (91% preferring flexibility) is what might be expected given the organisation‟s history. As an agency it had made regular, dramatic shifts in direction in response to changes in government policy. In other words, it is reasonable to conclude that Skill New Zealand developed a learning culture in which flexibility was valued over consistency. Skill New Zealand‟s result (between 86% and 96%) does not coincide with the result for Pan Pac (between 58% and 82%), an organisation whose focus has been more consistent over the past decade.

The Self-Directed versus Centrally-Directed dilemma was explored using two dilemmas. The first examined people‟s preferences regarding leadership, and is shown below.

Which of the following statements do you agree with?

a. Learning needs to be driven from the top with executives taking a ‘hands-on’ approach. They need to lead the process of learning to ensure it addresses issues important to the organisation and that all staff are involved.

b. Executives need to trust people to take responsibility for their own learning. Learning is a ‘grass-roots’

process: people will voluntarily join in if they can see how learning will help a community they care about.

Table 3 shows the results for the organisations in the study. There was no overlap between Skill New Zealand and any of the other four organisations. This indicates that people within Skill New Zealand are more likely to value people taking responsibility for their own learning—and less likely to value executive leadership of learning initiatives—than people within the other organisations in the study.

(6)

The second of the dilemmas in this area explored people‟s preferences regarding the basis for participation in learning activity. The dilemma is shown below.

Managers in an organisation find that a few people do not want to take part in learning activities the Chief Executive considers critical for future success. Should managers:

a. Find ways to ensure that everyone takes part?

b. Let people choose for themselves if they take part?

Table 4 shows the results for the organisations in the study. With this dilemma a majority of respondents in each of the organisations showed a preference for ensuring everyone was included, though Skill New Zealand had the greatest proportion of respondents who preferred to have people choose for themselves. On this dilemma there was a clear difference between Skill New Zealand and Unichem.

The Aspiration versus Pragmatism dilemma was explored by asking people about their beliefs regarding reasons for engaging in learning: whether people were motivated by commitment to their organisations (aspiration) or a desire for a balanced, comfortable life (pragmatism). The dilemma is shown below.

Which of the following statements do you agree with?

a. The reason people get interested in learning is the personal benefit to them. People want to establish a balanced, comfortable life for themselves and their families.

b. People’s main reason for learning is a desire to contribute to the organisation. They are committed to the organisation and want to contribute to its long-term health.

Table 5 shows the results for the organisations in this study. In each of the organisations an overwhelming majority of respondents preferred the „a‟ option, suggesting that the New Zealand macroculture is one that values a balanced, comfortable life.¹

EARLY MEASUREMENT EFFORTS

This study represents an initial effort to address concerns raised by Lahtenmaaki et al. (2001) by establishing a measurement system for describing differences between learning organisations. The results show that it is possible to chart differences between organisations using learning-related values. On three of the five dilemmas examined, clear differences were found between organisations involved in the study. But are these differences the basis for meaningful measurement of organisational learning efforts?

Some limitations are evident. Firstly, with two of the dilemmas identified, little difference was found between organisations, with a high proportion of respondents in all organisations selecting the „Balanced Life‟ and „Flexibility‟

options over „Commitment‟ and „Consistency‟ respectively. The suggestion was made that these results may stem from the New Zealand macroculture. However, reaching a valid conclusion is hampered by the sample used in this study and further research involving non-New Zealand organisations is clearly needed.

A further limitation is the relatively static picture of values given by the dilemmas used in the study. These dilemmas were presented in their most basic form, with two options representing the possible values that may be held

1 A „macroculture‟ is the pattern of values held by a wider community, giving context to the one being considered. In this study the organisational cultures exist within the macroculture of the New Zealand national culture.

(7)

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May 2006 73 within the organisation. Dilemma Theory suggests that when individuals and organisations encounter dilemmas they may treat the options as an either/or choice; it is also possible, however, for people to learn to reconcile dilemmas (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 2000). Reconciliation involves finding a means by which the values on both sides of the dilemma can be honoured.

Evidence from interviews with executives in the participating organisations and comments from respondents suggest that people saw the values in this dilemma as complementary. However, a true exploration of whether people are reconciling the dilemma requires further research. Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (2000) have begun charting cultures using dilemmas with five options representing the key ways dilemmas can be resolved: two options involving the choice of one value and rejection of its opposite, one option involving compromise, and two options where reconciliation is achieved starting with either one value or its opposite. In future research our understanding would be enhanced by using this five option format.

MEASURING READINESS TO LEARN

Despite the limitations of the present study, the results indicate that it is possible to draw distinctions between learning organisations on the basis of the values they hold. In doing so, we define a learning organisation as one that has embarked on a learning journey. In the course of a learning journey the organisation will encounter a variety of dilemmas, and in resolving these dilemmas will establish a pattern of assumptions about how learning ought to take place: a learning culture. This learning culture will shape the „readiness to learn‟ of the organisational community:

people in the organisation will share values-based preferences for what and how they learn. Dilemma Theory suggests that the distinctive values of a learning culture can be charted, or measured, using dilemmas.

What value is there in using this approach to measure organisational learning efforts? Firstly, the approach answers the concern expressed by Lahteenmaaki et al. (2001) that a measurement system needs to be based on the learning of organisations rather than the learning of individuals. By conceptualising a learning organisation as a community of people engaged in a learning journey, the system measures the learning culture of the community which shapes the nature of learning within it.

A second concern regarding the use of measurement in organisational learning, is that any system of measures must address the mental models of individuals and organisations rather than particular behaviours associated with learning (Kim, 1993). Using dilemmas does that by focusing on people‟s unconsciously held preferences for one value over another. In effect, this approach brings culture—the pattern of assumptions regarding learning—to the forefront of the measurement process. It avoids the danger of assuming that change has resulted from learning, as opposed to coercive methods (Lahteenmaki et al., 2001). Defensive adaptation of mental models can, in fact, be highlighted by a measurement system that indicates if people have shifted toward or away from reconciliation.

A further concern is that measurement must be aligned to how nature works, without the objective standards that lead to reductionist thinking and mechanistic thinking (Johnson, 1999; Johnson & Broms, 2000). This approach deals with the natural phenomena of culture and the formation of values. The comparisons produced are ones that people moving between organisations would tacitly recognise. A person spending time at Skill New Zealand and at SWDC, for instance, would likely notice that more people in Skill New Zealand are engaged in personally initiated learning activity. Conversely, people at SWDC respond more readily to executive led initiatives.

A measurement system based on values will also avoid treating certain responses as ideal. People are likely to answer dilemmas, whether in the two-option or five-option format, on the basis of what they value rather than attempt to produce a „good‟ score for the organisation.

(8)

A key benefit of measuring the learning cultures of organisations is the guidance that can be given to those involved in the design of learning activities. Understanding a particular organisation‟s values can allow for the thoughtful design of learning efforts. Rather than directly adopting practices developed by another organisation—one with a different pattern of values—and expecting similar results, designers can work to ensure that learning processes fit within the context of existing values. In this way, designers would be working within the limitations of an organisation‟s readiness to learn.

Additionally, learning interventions could be evaluated in terms of their impact on the readiness to learn of people within the community. Rather than focusing measurement on how much people have learned, use of dilemmas can indicate the extent to which learning related values have changed and where people are likely to direct their learning efforts in the future.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

This study has demonstrated that it is possible to use dilemmas to chart learning related values within organisations.

Doing so has the potential to provide a measurement system for learning organisations that takes account of concerns expressed by academics working in this area. Creating such a measurement system, however, will require further work.

As described earlier, further development may require a change of format from that used in this study, so that greater insight can be given into how organisational communities resolve dilemmas. Work is also needed to validate the measurement system, and this will require extending the range of organisations studied. As mentioned above, this will include comparing organisations from different macrocultures.

The primary need, in terms of further development, is the identification of additional dilemmas pertinent to the study of learning organisations. We have reported on five dilemmas used in this study; these were identified by members of a small group of organisations participating in workshops designed to surface dilemmas encountered in their learning journeys.

We might expect that an organisation will encounter three types of dilemma: (1) those that are generic to all organisations, (2) those that arise in organisations that are similar to one another, and (3) those that are unique to its particular learning journey (Wolcott, 1995). To identify generic dilemmas and those characteristic of particular groups of organisations, a variety of processes will be required, exploring different perspectives on the nature of learning organisations.

CONCLUSION

This paper has sought to address concerns raised about the measurement of learning organisations by exploring the use of dilemmas in charting learning-related values. Using values as the basis for measurement would enable researchers to focus more directly on the underlying mental models held by people within organisations and the degree to which these are affected by change efforts.

The Culture Exploration Workshops, conducted in three organisations, suggested that organisations engaged in learning efforts, or „learning journeys‟, encounter similar dilemmas. When five of these dilemmas were used in a survey of organisations, differences were found between responses from the four organisations participati

Our contention is that organisations that engaged in learning journeys encounter dilemmas and learn to resolve these in various ways. In resolving dilemmas, organisational communities establish learning-related values:

unconsciously held preferences for where learning efforts should be focused and how they should be carried out. While

(9)

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May 2006 75 organisations may encounter the same learning related dilemmas, each organisation will form a unique pattern of values:

that is, organisations form unique learning cultures. Because Dilemma Theory provides an established methodology for charting differences between cultures, it can also be used to measure learning cultures and for comparing learning organisations.

Undertaking measurement in this way has required us to make a shift in our perspective; a shift that Senge (1990) might refer to as an example of „metanoia‟. Because the approach to measurement is based on learning cultures and learning-related values it does not indicate how much change or learning has taken place, but rather where learning is now directed. In other words, rather than examining an organisation‟s ability to learn or its learning results, we are examining its readiness to learn.

While the studies in this paper suggest that this approach has potential for resolving measurement concerns, more work is needed. Of particular importance is the need for further research designed to identify dilemmas encountered by organisations engaged in learning journeys.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming Organisational Defenses: facilitating organisational learning. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bateson, G. (1974). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Balantine Books.

Fritz, R. (1989). The Path of Least Resistance. New York: Fawcett-Columbine.

Fritz, R. (1991). Creating. New York: Fawcett-Columbine.

Heraty, N. & Morley, M. (1995). A Review of Issues in Conducting Organisation-level Research With Reference to the Learning Organisation. The Learning Organisation, 2, 4, 27-35.

Hampden-Turner, C. (1990). Charting the Corporate Mind: from dilemma to strategy. New York: The Free Press.

Hampden-Turner, C. & Trompenaars, F. (2000). Building Cross Cultural Competence: how to create wealth from conflicting values. New Haven CN: Yale University Press.

Johnson, B. (1993). Polarity Management. Amherst MA: HRD Press.

Johnson, T. (1999). Moving Upstream from Measurement. In Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. & Smith, B. (1999) The Dance of Change: the challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organisations. New York: Doubleday Currency, 291-298.

Johnson, T. & Broms, A. (2000). Profit Beyond Measure. New York: The Free Press.

Kim, D. (1993). The Link Between Individual and Organisational Learning. Sloan Management Review, 35, 1, Fall, 37-50.

Kofman, F. & Senge, P. (1993). Communities of Commitment: the heart of learning organisations. Organisational Dynamic, Autumn, 5-23.

Lahteenmaki, S., Toivonen, J., & Mattila, M. (2001). Critical aspects of organisational learning research and proposals for its measurement. British Journal of Management, 12, 113-129.

Ramsey, P. (1997). The Structure of Paradox: managing interdependent opposites. The Systems Thinker, 8, 7, November, 1-5.

Ramsey, P. (2003). The Learning Organisation Metaphor. In Kumar, P. (Ed.) Organisational Learning for all Seasons, Singapore: National Community Leadership Institute, 23-31.

Roth, G. & Kleiner, A. (1998). Developing Organisational Memory Through Learning Histories. Organisational Dynamics, 27, 1, Autumn, 43-59.

Ryan, S. (1995) Learning Communities: an alternative to the „Expert‟ Model.” In Chawla, S. & Renesch, J. (ed.s). Learning Organisations:

developing cultures for tomorrow’s workplace. Portland OR: Productivity Press.

Schein, E. (1992). Organisational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2/e.

Seagal, S. & Horne, D. (1996). Human Dynamics: a new framework for understanding people and realising the potential in our organisations. Waltham MA: Pegasus Communications

Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation, New York: Doubleday Currency.

Senge, P. and Kim, D. (1997) “From Fragmentation to Integration: building learning communities” The Systems Thinker, 8, 4, May pp1-5.

Trice, H. (1993). Occupational Subcultures in the Workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Wolcott, H. (1995). The Art of Fieldwork. Walnut Creek CA: AltaMira Press.

(10)

TABLES

Table 1: A Story from Pan Pac

Table 2: Percentage Likelihood of Answering A: Flexibility

SWDC

Unichem

Skill NZ

PanPac

Table3: Percentage Likelihood of Answering A: Executive Led

SWDC

Unichem

Skill NZ

PanPac

Time’s Up for the Time Clock

Pan Pac Mill management have bowed to anarchist pressures and removed the sole means by which hourly staff could be recorded as being present at work. In a manner typifying the deterioration of family values, Pan Pac have removed the time clocks, providing a sour lesson to today‟s youth who have enough trouble staying in school as it is.

Union officials have welcomed the move, considering it a major step toward recognising workers‟ rights. However supervisors are concerned that the move will lead to increased absenteeism and potentially create a hazardous situation within the mill due to not knowing “who is where”. Staff have mixed feelings, welcoming the increased responsibility and empowerment, but also worrying about the lack of formal recording of overtime, and the potential for missed or inaccurate overtime payments.

“Its [sic] the end of an era” said a supervisor who declined to be named. “The next thing you know we‟ll be hiring women!”

“This is choice” said the son of one Pan Pac worker, obviously reading the same potential as this reporter. “If dad doesn‟t get checked when he gets to work, why should I be checked when I got to school. [sic]” One can only image the chaos to come. Time will tell.

88 71 54

82 70 58

92 83 74

96 91 86 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 77 66 55

45 35 27

77 60 43

69 56 43

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

(11)

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May 2006 77 Table 4: Percent Likelihood of Answering A: Inclusion

SWDC

Unichem

Skill NZ

PanPac

Table 5: Percentage Likelihood of Answering A: Balance

SWDC

Unichem

Skill NZ

PanPac

97 90 83

94 88 82

99 88 77

90 79 68

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 87 77 67

71 62 53

99 88 77

81 69 57

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0