Philosophical prospective of organisational learning

Abstract

This article reviews and evaluates the concepts of the philosophical foundation of the organisational learning. Drawing on established literature in the field of organisational learning, the authors analyse learning from three perspectives - epistemological, ontological and sociological. They argue that how different internal and external phenomenon gives birth to the learning in organisation and how the organisation can benefit utilising them for the better management and productive engagement. The study concludes with some practical suggestions about how organisations can increase their ability to learn.

Full text

Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. X, No. Y, xxxx 1
Copyright © 20XX Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Philosophical prospective of organisational learning
Jamshid Ali Turi*, Shahryar Sorooshian,
Fatimah Binti Mahmud, Gusman Nawanir and
A.S.M. Touhidul Islam
Faculty of Industrial Management,
University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia
Email: Jamshidturi@gmail.com
Email: Sorooshian@ump.edu.my
Email: Fatimahm@ump.edu.my
Email: gusman@ump.edu.my
Email: asm_touhidul_islam@yahoo.com
*Corresponding author
Abstract: This article reviews and evaluates the concepts of the philosophical
foundation of the organisational learning. Drawing on established literature in
the field of organisational learning, the authors analyse learning from three
perspectives – epistemological, ontological and sociological. They argue that
how different internal and external phenomenon gives birth to the learning in
organisation and how the organisation can benefit utilising them for the better
management and productive engagement. The study concludes with some
practical suggestions about how organisations can increase their ability to learn.
Keywords: organisational learning; sociological prospective; epistemological
prospective; ontological prospective; organisational learning.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Turi, J.A., Sorooshian, S.,
Mahmud, F.B., Nawanir, G. and Islam, A.S.M.T. (xxxx) ‘Philosophical
prospective of organisational learning’, Int. J. Knowledge and Learning,
Vol. X, No. Y, pp.xxx–xxx.
Biographical notes: Jamshid Ali Turi is a PhD Scholar at the Faculty of
Industrial Management, University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia.
Shahryar Sorooshian is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Industrial
Management, University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia.
Fatimah Binti Mahmud is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Industrial
Management, University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia.
Gusman Nawanir is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Industrial Management,
University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia.
A.S.M. Touhidul Islam is a Scholar at the Faculty of Industrial Management,
University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia.

2 J.A. Turi et al.
1 Introduction to the study
Organisations in 21st century are facing complexity and uncertainty due to globalisation,
knowledge economy and technology disruption (Susan and Francis, 2017; Kwon et al.,
2017; Seth and Lee, 2017). One appropriate way for organisations to cope up with these
challenges is continuous learning to innovate and lead global frontiers besides
maintaining their competitive edge (Aragón et al., 2016; Susan and Francis, 2017).
Organisational learning focuses on organisational problems’ solution; creation of new
opportunities; developing new insight; synergising and charging work environment
socially and emotionally; enhancing performance and bringing cognitive; behavioural
and social productive changes to organisations and its employees (Apostolou, 2014;
Aranda et al., 2017; Aragón et al., 2016). Epistemological, ontological and sociological
perspectives view that learning, beside intrinsic motivations at all levels, needs extrinsic
stimuli to support, promote, booster and foster it. Therefore, researchers are interested to
explore and clarify different perspectives of learning in organisations. In this article we
have assessed different forms of learning either as an asset or a liability for the
organisation. We also concluded some thoughts about how organisations might increase
their ability to learn for better performance and production. There the main objectives of
the research was the exploration the philosophical aspects and justifications of the
organisational learning.
2 Literature review
2.1 Epistemological foundations of organisational learning
Epistemology is the theory and validity of knowledge. It is a branch of philosophy mainly
concerned with studying the source, prerequisites, characteristics, range, and factualness
(precision, reliability, and efficiency) of learning (Ahmed, 2008). Epistemological studies
take organisations both in objective and subjective form (Ahmed, 2008; Rajes, 2013).
Epistemology deals to confirm the learning system and its integration in the organisation.
Objectivism treats organisations as the perfect machines maintain a steady state. From
the perspective of objectivism, organisational learning is an organisational
action which is controllable and can precisely predict its process and outcomes.
Objectivism-based organisational studies address organisational learning considering
positivism and the systems theory. The organisation is considered as an entirely
integrated system and emphasised holism and synergism with well-defined organisational
structure designs, functions, and routines (Clegg, 1992; Pentland, 2002; Ahmed, 2008).
Researchers can manipulate objective perception using precise scientific calculations to
effectively represent the conversion of resources into products. Objectivism focuses on
performance enhancement and goal achievements which can be done by improving the
system and continuous learning (Rajes, 2013).
In contrast, subjectivism-based organisational studies are founded on social
construction, symbolic interactionism, hermeneutics and postmodernism. Such studies
regard the organisation as a combination of many groups or ranks, accentuating the
importance of interactions and affiliations between members (Pentland, 2002). These
studies rely on texts, narratives, and dialogues that result from the researcher’s subjective
view in engaging organisational learning. Moreover, the members of such an organisation

Philosophical prospective of organisational learning 3
can be given more authority, and instead of controlling them through bureaucratic means.
The organisation can encourage pluralistic voices, views, and values (Clegg, 1992). In
addition, research strategies of organisational learning can also be divided into two types:
process and outcome-oriented (Hartley, 2007). The process-oriented approach is dynamic
and continuous approach in which organisational learning development takes place. It
includes the use of information, environmental changes, feedback; and the incorporation
of an integrated organisational learning into the members’ beliefs. The process-oriented
research strategy is pertaining to the process, method, nature, subject, and possible
obstacles to organisational learning. This approach is called micro-level approach to the
organisational learning (Daud and Kamsin, 2003). The outcome-oriented research
strategy analyses the organisation’s capability and focuses on the effect and outcome
from the target-oriented viewpoint. Outcome-based learning in organisation is driven by
objectives and values of the organisation and appears at higher-level. Therefore, this
approach to organisational learning is called Macro-level approach.
Organisational epistemology has its roots in Nonaka’s theory of knowledge creation,
and Engstrom’s expansive learning theory (Hartley, 2007; Joo, 2010) and it deals with
the creation, validation and applications of individual, group and organisational
structured knowledge in context of organisation, sector and society. Some knowledge
remains no more applicable with the passage of time; therefore, it is replaced with new
ones. Organisation learns through feedbacks and input accordingly changes their
knowledge repository. This process of validation is the main concern of the
epistemological prospective (Rescher, 2003; Seirafi, 2012; Tennis, 2012). Moreover,
organisational theories focus on individual learning and development capacities at
individual levels. In strategic development phase, individual leaning is cohesively
ingrained in sociological and technological prospective at organisational level (Tennis,
2012). According to evolutionary epistemology, organisations must learn continuously
new practices, models, methods, and knowledge in the dynamic environment for their
own survival (Steininger, 2010; Aljuaid et al., 2013). These learning processes open
divergent thinking, prospective, and give new entity and identity in an environment
(Jacky, 2003). Epistemology provides support to validate the existing knowledge in the
organisation (Choo, 2016). They should focus on the internal and external prevailing
phenomenon, social gathering, visits and tours. From epistemological prospective, social
needs, demands and expectations remain the biggest stimuli in changing old knowledge
repositories and demand for continuous learning (Alzahrani and Woollard, 2011;
Gherardi and Nicolini, 2001). Since epistemology addresses questions as “What does it
mean to say that we know something?” and fundamentally “How do we know that we
know?” (Wenning, 2009) These questions play an important role in organisational
learning. By understanding correctly that we know something, employees are confident
to share their knowledge with their peers. However, the important thing that
epistemology helps with is the knowing that we know. Therefore, to use and share
knowledge confidently within an organisation, employees should know ‘how to know’
about their knowledge. As if they misinterpret their knowledge level, they may end up
sharing misinformation, wrong or even out dated knowledge.

4 J.A. Turi et al.
2.2 Ontological foundations of organisational learning
Ontologies formally define the semantics of concepts and their relations for a specific
domain. Ontologies are socially shared artefacts as their generation requires a cooperative
process to gain a consensual representation of the collective knowledge on the domain. It
is concerned with objective thoughts and disposition in organisations. It is an explicit
specification of a conceptualisation, confirms the essence of subject and true intrinsic
quality in the measurable objectives (Aljuaid et al., 2013). It focuses on the required skill
development and the perceptuality that exists in all human phenomena and behaviour.
Ontology in western philosophy is characterised by two central viewpoints: the
worldviews of being and becoming, which have also come to be known as, after further
development, objectivism and subjectivism (Virtual University, 2012; Cook and Yanow,
2012). In the following argument, we will comprehensively explain the meaning of an
organisation from those two key focal points to pave the way for further organisation-
related analysis and discussions.
2.3 Organisational studies based on objectivism
Objectivism, or the science of being, assumes that there exists a reality out there in this
world and that we can comprehend and articulate the universal truths or at least the
universal principles in existence (Gherardi and Nicolini, 2001). In terms of western
philosophical views, objectivism primarily originated from realism; therefore, it conveys
the impression that the external transcendental world exists purely because of human
consciousness (Chuang, 2009). Over the past century, organisation theory in its
contemporary form was predominantly built on mechanistic prospects. An organisation
operates by receiving inputs from the external world in the form of resources; it
implements a transformation on these resources, and the resultant products or outputs are
sent to other organisations. Such process ensures equilibrium and homeostasis in this
pendulous setting (Blackman and Henderson, 2013). The management of such an
organisation is based on scientific management, administrative principles, and
bureaucracy-oriented classical management theory, in the form of precise work design,
procedural adoption, different courses of action, hierarchical separations of authority,
written documentation, standardisation, and other normalising activity and competence
evaluations (Blackman and Henderson, 2013; Chuang, 2009). Organisation theory is also
gradually transformed into its modern version, with further emphasis on respect for its
environment. Due to this, not only does the organisation theory encompass innumerable
external factors but the organisation is also obliged to allocate additional resources for
coping with environmental factors of indefinite conditions, such as applying boundary
spanning to buffer the uncertain conditions, and it becomes customary for the
organisation to adapt itself, through organisational evolution, to the changing
surroundings. Thus, organisation theory studies at this stage are known as modern
organisational studies. Clegg (1992) states that researchers can manipulate objective
perception using precise scientific calculations, to effectively represent the conversion of
resources into products. Therefore, we have referred to organisational research based on
the systems theory and objective measures approach as objectivism-based organisational
research (Birmingham, 2015; Argote, 2013). The organisations should transform
themselves and its workers to cope with challenges and achieve the targeted objective,

Philosophical prospective of organisational learning 5
and it can be done through continuous organisational learning (Birmingham, 2015;
Argote, 2013).
2.4 Organisational studies based on subjectivism
Subjectivism is derived from the worldview of becoming and is also regarded as the
science of becoming. It essentially focuses on transitory changes; therefore, subjectivism
is not result-oriented but focuses on the process itself (Birmingham, 2015; Argote, 2013).
Subjectivism aims to offer another kind of research approach that is different from that of
positive science in terms of objectivity, rationale and empiricism (Clegg, 1992).
Researchers believe that the symbolic-interpretive theory relies mainly on participants’
observations to obtain related narratives or texts, through which it can contribute to
organisational studies conducted on either an individual or an ethnographic scale
(Curado, 2004). The communal values and principles of the organisation are intended to
lay down the standards for guiding members within the organisation as well as external
individuals, to facilitate more profound interactions (Holtgrefe, 1996). In organisational
research, this is called the cultural organisation notion. Ever since the 1970s, however,
organisations have been confronted with two primary problems that the overwhelming
size of organisations and the increasing complications between the groups of people
within the organisation (Birmingham, 2015). This has tended to affect the equilibrium of
power inside the organisational units and given rise to frequent disagreements. To sustain
intrinsic stability under such circumstances, organisations have progressively developed
the principles of cooperation. However, despite efforts to strengthen the basic structure,
routines, and system approaches, the rapid expansion of modern organisations in terms of
scale and complexity have led to further spreading out of the scheme and created
divisions between the organisation’s professionalism and its specialisation. As an
organisation becomes increasingly divided, it tends to invest more resources on
performing functional integration (for example, administration, communication and
monitoring, etc.) and coordination; however, this gives rise to an even more complicated
and unmanageable situation. Postmodernist studies have responded to the complexities
and bulkiness of organisations by reassessing the popular values and structures of past
organisations; such studies have suggested a return to a comparatively smaller and, in
turn, a more controllable organisation (Gherardi and Nicolini, 2001). However, both
culture and postmodernism-based organisational studies call attention to the researcher’s
subjectivity and rely on texts, narratives, and dialogues for their content. Unlike
objectivism, subjectivism emphasises pluralistic viewpoints in organisation researches
(Clegg, 1992). We can conclude from the above literature that organisations and its
workers should be open, welcoming, cultured and exposed, because subjects’ integration
will give birth to new learning, which will improve the processes of equipping its
employees for better production, challenges and decision making.
2.5 Sociological foundations of organisational knowledge
It is a well-known fact that learning does not take place in isolation. It needs
environment, stimuli and participation of individuals (Curado, 2004). According to the
constructivist perspective, what is learned is profoundly connected to the conditions in
which it is learned. Therefore, knowledge should not be isolated from practice and the

6 J.A. Turi et al.
context (Holtgrefe, 1996). Organisations are involved in a set of practices in an organised
way, where they exchange and stimulate different practices and processes, which
provides foundations for organisational learning (Gherardi and Nicolini, 2001).
Reflexivity concept also acknowledges the sociological prospective of organisational
learning with the stance that learning occurs due to repeated interruptions. Knowledge
and practices are criticised time and again which leads to the productions of contextual
settings and institutionalise the contents for the expected outcomes in the organisations
and revise the practices, methods and theories in use (Gherardi and Nicolini, 2001;
Hilden and Tikkamäki, 2013). Critical analysis, rejection and then acceptance, according
to reflexivity work as a fuel for organisational learning (Hilden and Tikkamäki, 2013).
One major source and evidence of organisational learning has been explained by
socialisation, externalisation, combination, internalisation (SECI) model. This model
provides best mechanism to for the creation of knowledge, which starts with the sharing
and socialisation of tacit knowledge. In second stage, it is communicated with co-worker,
contextualised and interpreted in the organisational context. Similarly, 4I framework
provides starting points for understanding how individual and collective knowledge
co-evolve within organisations through the interplay of different cognitive mechanisms
and communication processes (Kump et al., 2015). While the co-creation of individual
and collective knowledge is the explicit focus of the SECI model, the 4I framework also
describes how knowledge is transferred from the individual to the collective through
cognitive mechanisms, i.e., intuiting, interpreting and social processes like integrating
and institutionalising (Kump et al., 2015).
Similarly, stable conflict management and resolution strategies, utilitarian focus with
problem driven approach provides activation phenomenon and ecology for organisational
learning. Influences of the rational thoughts provoke, socialisation, innovations and
learning. Moreover, the microinteractionists affirm that organisational learning occurs
due to due to transmission of knowledge among occupational communities. Most critical
role of the organisational learning has been presented by postmodernists, who challenge
conventional wisdom, routine and static meaning and call organisational learning as a
discursive practice and non-dogmatic forms of thoughts (Gherardi and Nicolini, 2001).
Therefore, it is advised that the organisations should developed socially, morally,
ethically, intellectually and emotionally charged learning ameliorated environment for the
sake of innovations, problems solving and better production.
3 How internal and external phenomenon gives birth to learning
According to the above mentioned philosophies and prospective of learning in
organisation, learning can be developed and captured with assimilation and
accommodation processes from both inside and outside the organisation (Curado, 2004).
Social gathering, lounge conversations, seminars, symposiums, conferences, mind
mapping, job-rotation, field and labs visits. Besides this, accumulation, dissemination and
distribution of tacit and explicit knowledge and experiences are the major sources of the
learning for the knowledge workers in the organisation (Argote, 2013; Blackman and
Henderson, 2013). Similarly, SECI model and 4I framework helps in the social,
emotional and cognitive development of the workers (Kump et al., 2015). These
processes help knowledge workers in the learning organisation to kill threats, utilise

Philosophical prospective of organisational learning 7
opportunities, solves problems in the best possible, feasible, optimal and viable way
(Alzahrani and Woollard, 2011).
Table 1 Summary and applications of the philosophical prospectives to organisational learning
S. no. Philosophical
prospectives Application to organisational learning
1 Epistemological
prospective Sources and validity of the organisational learning, integration of
learning to organisation, treat organisation as a system believe in
social construction and symbolic interactionism.
2 Ontological
prospectives It focuses solid and calculated objectives, mission and vision of
the organisation, professional skill development help to find most
suitable learning materials.
a Objectivism It believes in scientific management, administrative principles,
bureaucracy-oriented classical management, in the form of
precise work design, procedural adoption, different courses of
action, hierarchical separations of authority, written
documentation, standardisation, and other normalising activity
and competence evaluations.
b Subjectivism It focuses on transitory changes, rationale and empiricism,
symbolic-interpretive, participants’ observations, related
narratives or texts, individual or an ethnographic scale,
equilibrium of power inside the organisational units, intrinsic
stability, structure, routines, organisation’s professionalism,
communication and coordination among employees and different
units of the organisation.
3 Sociological
prospectives Organisational learning based on reflexivity, contextual setting,
institutionalisation, critical analysis, acceptance and rejection.
4 Conclusions and recommendations
In this article, the author tried to explain the prospective for learning. At times, this may
seem like defending the indefensible, so we have also tried to acknowledge both sides of
the argument. Nevertheless, we believe that there are aspects of learning that have real
strategic relevance to the competitiveness of companies, and hence, we have focused on
some of the practical consequences of learning and provided some guidance on how to
facilitate organisational learning. There is also a potential academic research agenda here,
both to explore the nature of learning itself and to see whether insights into learning can
strengthen our understanding of organisational learning processes. Our discussion reveals
some dimensions of learning in general and some effects on practices and impact of
learning; however, much work still needs to be done to understand organisational
learning, and its benefits and consequences. There is a need for research into the tension
between remembering and retrieving knowledge on one hand and forgetting or losing
past knowledge on the other. We know that firms do utilise some mechanisms for
remembering, such as meetings to share and discuss issues. However, little research has
addressed the extent to which firms have practices that allow them to discriminate among
valuable past experiences and those that should be forgotten and in what circumstances.
At a strategic level, our discussion suggests further research to inquire the theoretical
contribution of ‘learning’ to the knowledge-based theory of the firm and to the practice of

8 J.A. Turi et al.
organisational learning. Moreover, it is required to understand how different methods for
organisation learning can be described and how can we measure it.
References
Ahmed, A. (2008) Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Assumptions: Qualitative
Versus Quantitative, University of Exeter, UK.
Aljuaid, N.M., Alzahrani, M.A. and Islam, A. (2013) ‘Assessing mobile learning readiness in
Saudi Arabia higher education: an empirical study’, The Malaysian Online Journal of
Educational Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.44–67.
Alzahrani, I. and Woollard, J. (2011) ‘The role of the constructivist learning theory and
collaborative learning environment on Wiki classroom, and the relationship between them’,
International Conference For e-learning & Distance Education, pp.1–9, University of
Southampton, UK.
Apostolou, K. (2014) The Role of Organizational Learning in Maintaining a Stable Context for
Transformation: The Case of a Scottish SME, University of Edinburgh, UK.
Aragón, M.I., Jiménez, D.J. and Valle, R.S. (2016) ‘Training and performance: the mediating role
of organizational learning’, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.161–173.
Aranda, C., Arellano, J. and Davila, N.A. (2017) ‘Organizational learning in target setting’, Journal
of Academy of Management, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp.1189–1211.
Argote, L. (2013) ‘Organizational learning: creating, retaining and transferring knowledge’,
Springer Science Business Media, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.31–58.
Birmingham, U.O. (2015) Learning Theories, Stages and Styles, University of Birmingham,
Birmingham.
Blackman, D. and Henderson, S. (2013) ‘Does a learning organization facilitate knowledge
acquisition and transfer?’, The Dynamics of Learning Organization, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.56–72.
Choo, C.W. (2016) ‘The inquiring organization: how organizations acquire knowledge and seek
information’, in Social Epistemology and Organizational Learning, Oxford, ISBN:
9780199782031.
Chuang, H.H-C. (2009) Psychological Safety and Group Learning: Cycle-Time Reduction for
Collaborative Product Development, Texas A&M University, Texas.
Clegg, S.R. (1992) ‘Post-modern organizations or postmodern organization theory?’,
Organizational Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.218–233.
Cook, N. and Yanow, D. (2012) ‘Culture and organizational learning’, Journal of Management
Inquiry, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.355–372.
Curado, C. (2004) Organizational Learning and Organizational Design, Technical University of
Lisbon, Portugal.
Daud, N.R. and Kamsin, A. (2003) The Study of Learning Organizations in Malaysia, University of
Malaya, Malaysia.
Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2001) ‘The sociological foundations of organizational learning’,
Sociology of Organizational Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.27–60.
Hartley, D. (2007) ‘Organizational epistemology, education and social theory’, British Journal of
Sociology of Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.195–208.
Hilden, S. and Tikkamäki, K. (2013) ‘Reflective practice as a fuel for organizational learning’, The
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.76–95.
Holtgrefe, A.A. (1996) ‘How organizations learn’, Dynamics of Organizational Learning, Vol. 2,
No. 5, pp.288–301.
Jacky, H. (2003) ‘Researching organizational learning: diversity of modes and methods’,
Organizational Learning and Knowledge, University of Macau, China.

Philosophical prospective of organisational learning 9
Joo, B-K. (2010) ‘Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: the roles of perceived
organizational learning culture, leader–member exchange quality, and turnover intention’,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.69–85.
Kump, B., Moskaliuk, J., Cress, U. and Kimmerle, J. (2015) ‘Cognitive foundations of
organizational learning: re-introducing the distinction between declarative and non-declarative
knowledge’, Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.11–29.
Kwon, H., Kim, J. and Park, Y. (2017) ‘Applying LSA text mining technique in envisioning social
impacts of emerging technologies: the case of drone technology’, Tech-innovation, Vol. 60,
No. 61, pp.15–28.
Pentland, B. (2002) ‘Information systems and organizational learning: the social epistemology of
organizational knowledge systems’, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.1–21.
Rajes, M. (2013) A Behavioral Theory of Strategic Renewal: The Impact of Performance Feedback
and Organizational Learning on Strategic Renewal Actions, University of St. Gallen,
Germany.
Rescher, N. (2003) Epistemology: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, State University of
New York, New York.
Seirafi, K. (2012) ‘Organizational epistemology: a normative understanding of knowledge in
organizations. Philosophical foundations and implications for researchers and practitioners’,
Organizational Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.219–234.
Seth, T. and Lee, J. (2017) ‘Consensus and conflict: exploring moderating effects of knowledge
workers on industry environment and entrepreneurial entry relationship’, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp.119–132.
Steininger, T. (2010) The Learning Organization from the Perspective of the Evolutionary
Epistemology, Jägerhausgasse, Austria.
Susan, L. and Francis, Y. (2017) ‘How to lead the way through complexity, constraint, and
uncertainty in academic health science centers’, Academic Medicine, Vol. 92, No. 5,
pp.614–621.
Tennis, J.T. (2012) ‘Epistemology, theory, and methodology in knowledge organization: toward a
classification, metatheory, and research framework’, Knowledge Organization, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp.102–112.
Virtual University (2012) Learning Theories, Virtual University, Lahore.
Wenning, C.J. (2009) ‘Scientific epistemology: how scientists know what they know’, Journal of
Physics Teacher Education Online, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.3–15 [online] http://www2.phy.ilstu.edu/
pte/publications/scientific_epistemology.pdf.