Types Of Collective Learning Types

In the recent past information and knowledge revolution have been witnessed in all sectors of production and have had the magnitude of the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries (Ondari-Okemwa & Smith, 2009). “Knowledge has been increasingly recognised as the most important economic resource surpassing the traditional resources of capital, labour and land” (Drucker, 1993). Tacit Knowledge creation and sharing has been attracting increasing interest, since the process of creating and managing it is relatively complex as compared to explicit knowledge. It is almost impossible to characterize tacit Knowledge without describing Knowledge and Knowledge Management (Mungai,

Explicit knowledge is easily transformed through written or verbal communication, while tacit knowledge can be very difficult to articulate to others. Also, explicit knowledge is readily available to most, can be learned through books, always conscious and accessible information, and is general information. Tacit knowledge is highly personal in nature, is based on experience, sometimes holders doesn’t even recognize that they possess it, and is situation specific. Each of these ways of learning have their places in the work place and beneficial if companies are challenging their

Peter Senge was born in 1947, and he graduated in an engineering Stanford and then undertake a Master in Social Systems modelling at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and after that he completed his PhD on Management (Mark,2001). According to Peter Senge , learning organizations are “ Organizations where people continuously expand their capacity to create the results they really want , where expanded and new patterns of thinking are developed, where collective goal is set free, and where people are continuously learning to see the whole together”.

The concept of a learning organization knows its roots back to Garratt in 1987, which later on in the late 90’s was revived by Peter Senge. Senge (1990) focuses on the organization acting as a unit where innovative ideas are generated and common goals are reached. Collective commitment of the team is fundamental. Furthermore, according to Senge (1990), the organization must go through 5 domains in order to reach the productivity of a learning organization: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision and team learning.

The novel, The Fifth Discipline, states the significance of learning organizations and the fundamental learning disabilities currently in companies. As the head of planning for Royal Dutch/Shell, Arie De Geus stated, the ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage (“Discipline”). The world is becoming more interconnected and businesses are becoming more complex and dynamic, which is why it is significant for work to become more “learningful.” In more depth, organizations that discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to absorb at all levels in an organization will truly excel in the future, as it is no longer sufficient to have one person learning for a corporation (“Discipline”). Teams that are truly learning will result in individual members growing more rapidly than before, generating extraordinary outcomes.

talk about sharing knowledgethey have begun to put into place the tools and processes that can actually bring it about. Knowledge databases, best practice seminars, technology fairs, cross-functional teams, "Does anyone know . . . ?" e-mails, and groupware, to name but a few knowledge-sharing processes, have the avowed purpose of getting knowledge that exists in one part of the organization put to use in another part of the organization. Three Myths Pervading the idea of knowledge sharing are three myths. Perhaps myth is the wrong termmaybe they are just assumptions that seem reasonable at first glance, but when acted on send organizations to a dead end. Many of the organizations I studied started with one or more of these assumptions and then had to make corrections to get back on track. The three myths are (1) build it and they will come, (2) technology can

There is the need for the organisation to acquire knowledge from outside environment and build its knowledge base and also contribute by sharing knowledge with its business partners; these constitute the seventh and eight step. Finally, as the organisation continues in its learning process, there is the need to build an organisational memory so that learning can be constantly upgraded and to avoid loss. This is also consistent with the seminal work by Huber (1991) who elaborates four constructs linked to organisational learning-knowledge acquisition (the process by which knowledge is obtained), information distribution (process by which information from different sources is shared and thereby leads to new information or understanding), information interpretation (process by which information that has been distributed is commonly understood) and organisation memory (means by which knowledge is stored for future use).

Genuine learning originates from individuals. Taking in that knowledge requires great coordinated effort and administration. I trust that, the capacity to interconnect and team up with in a gathering setting of different individual qualities and learning condition will come about a win. While teaming up with individuals or building up a team, one must consider

It 's essential to distinguish between “learning group” and “organizational learning”, they deem that these ideas must no longer be regarded as they 're identical (Graham & Nafukho, 2007). A learning organization is involved in making a metamorphosis in behavior in an effort to behavior the company to fully grasp its preferred reworking (Blackman & Henderson, 2005). The learning organization (LO) embodies the monitor of the group in a definite structural framework; even as organizational learning (OL) is deemed as a enormous operative software used to encapsulate the training movements within the organization (Garavan, 1997). The two terms are unique but strongly interrelated; organizational learning need to achieve a segment where the switch of learning and sharing of knowledge is simpler (sun & Scott, 2003). Although learning organization is an analysis of how companies learn, the preliminary factor will perpetually be a scrutiny of how contributors learn. In parallel, the organizational learning is deemed a approach to categorical that organizational members are man or woman freshmen who own the potential to be trained jointly. Then, organizational learning is pertained as a knowledge sharing method; additionally, the competitive strategy of the institution that can engender its sustainable competitive advantage (Hoyle, 1995).

Peter Senge argues that not only we humans learn, but organizations also. However, learning itself may not be enough for the organization to survive in this ever-challenging era. In his book, The Fifth Discipline, Senge introduced five ‘disciplines’, namely systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning, that characterizes an organization as a learning organization.

During these years, there has been an increased trend toward emphasizing on the importance of learning in organizational management, due to the managers were told that the economy has turned into a knowledge economy (Drucker, 1993 cited in Berends et. al, 2003), and that knowledge and learning “are of prime importance for creating and sustaining competitive advantage”(Nonaka, 1994 cited in Berends et. al, 2003). This great change has encouraged organization to not only adapt and acquire knowledge but also to learn how to apply what they learned into practice. Therefore, to develop organizational learning and to be learning organizations become

Organizations must be able to learn in order to be successful (Colorado State University - Global Campus, 2015).

Being challenged by the dynamic world of complex needs and expectations, organizations need to effectively and efficiently manage their internal base of resources. An essential organizational resource is knowledge (Choo, 2002). It is not only an essential resource itself but a facilitator and stimulator of new internal capabilities (Little, 2002).

Fortune 500 companies lose roughly “$31.5 billion a year by failing to share knowledge” (Babcock, 2004, p. 46), a very scary figure in this global economy filled with turbulence and change. Social issues in knowledge capture and its reuse will result in decreasing chances of success. Those issues could increase costly mistakes and failure in services to clients. Some of the consequences of the social issues in knowledge management can be described as follows:

If we refer to organizations and learning we must also mention what Reg Revans called Active Learning, a method used for personal training, training specialists and organizational learning. Grouped in small teams (named active learning groups) people approach important and learn from achievements in order to change things. Active learning includes four elements: the person itself, the active learning group, the respective problems and the measures taken in order to solve the problems which allow learning. The set of values that organizations work with and which constitutes the subject of learning is a complex one and has determined theoreticians to establish conceptual hierarchies of knowledge. The model of the five levels 15 that we present below reflects the progressive accumulation of the value of the data as they turn into competencies (see figure 1). Therefore, it is obvious that the data are a priori than isolated elements. When elements are placed into context and combined within a structure, the information acquires higher values. The information acquires new meanings by interpretations and assimilations, thus turning into knowledge. On this level, information is placed inside a mental structure and can be consciously used, for