“Learnership” in complex organisational textures

``Learnership'' in complex organisational textures Ray W. Cooksey New England Business School, University of New England, Armidale, Australia Keywords Leadership, Organizational learning, Organizational structure Abstract This paper focuses on developing an integrative view of leadership and organisational learning in the context of dynamic and non-linear organisational complexity. The outcome of this development is a new conceptualisation termed ``learnership''. The concept and process of ``learnership'' is seen as an evolving meld of leadership and learning where responsibility for learning and for leading is progressively diffused from a few central individuals to a critical mass of organisational members, all of whom become mutually embedded in the learning process, leading where needed, following where needed, but always with a sensitive eye on the complex texture of the learning environment they inhabit. The usefulness of the concept of ``learnership'' for organisations is discussed and some diagnostic trigger questions for sensing readiness and capability for ``learnership'' diffusion are presented. Received: May 2002 Revised: December 2002 Accepted: January 2003 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2001 Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management in Auckland, New Zealand. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/4 [2003] 204-214 # MCB UP Limited [ISSN 0143-7739] [DOI 10.1108/01437730310478075] [ 204 ] Much has been said of both leadership and organisational learning throughout the latter half of the twentieth century (see, for example, Palmer and Hardy, 2000a, for some critical reviews). The goal in this paper will not be to rehash this literature, rehearse standard arguments about leadership and organisational learning and offer up simple linear strategies and solutions for success. Instead, the goal will be to challenge the reader to think about the connections between leadership and learning in new ways. These new connections will acknowledge the complexity of organisations, embed learning as a fundamental process for coping with that complexity and intimately weave leadership around and through that learning process. The ultimate objective in the end is the development of a new concept/process/ attitude called ``learnership''. The circumstances in which most businesses today find themselves are complex, dynamic and uncertain (Stacey, 2000). These circumstances can be usefully conceptualised using an integrated systemic complexity perspective where macro-scale bundles of contextual influences can be successively unpacked into micro-scale dense networks of complexly interacting, mutually influencing and multiple causally-ambiguous considerations (see discussions in Cooksey, 2000a,b, 2001; Finlay and Cooksey, 2001; Lissack, 1999; Magala, 2000; McKelvey, 1999, for some recent explorations of the implications of such complexity perspectives for organisations, worker behaviour and managerial decision making). Figure 1 provides a diagrammatic representation of such a systemic perspective. The figure identifies four major dynamically interacting macro-bundles of contextual influence on organisational activities and exposes at least the first layer of the more densely entangled interconnected micro-aspects within each bundle (deeper and more micro-considerations are signalled by the ``Web'' symbol linked to the components of each macro-bundle): . Environment. A macro-bundle of global influences, the influences of governments, professions, markets, industries and society at large, influences associated with the physical environment, and influences associated with the information environment. Many of the uncertainties and complexities associated with the environments in which organisations operate are inevitably tied back to the behaviours of people: customers, clients, various external stakeholders, politicians, public and private interest groups, and the media. . Organisation. A macro-bundle of organisational influences arising from structure and design features, business history (past, present and trajectory toward the future), culture and diversity (of organisational members), roles and expectations (of management and employees), resources and facilities (available to support organisational activities), policies and procedures (that underpin everyday business practices), and leadership and management (at a range of levels within the organisation). . Groups. A macro-bundle of influences arising from formal and informal collectives of peers and colleagues (in terms of expectations and behaviours), group communication practices (including what Egan, 1993, has termed ``shadow-side'' communication and political activities that circumvent formal communication pathways to achieve specific goals), demands and The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm Organisational contexts: complex, dynamic, uncertain Ray W. Cooksey ``Learnership'' in complex organisational textures Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/4 [2003] 204-214 . considerations of family and friends (capturing the potential cross-over effects of home life into work life and vice versa), and work group development and dynamics (focusing on the evolution and functioning of groups of interest). Individuals. A macro-bundle of influences arising from each individual worker's cognitive, emotional and physical states, capabilities and potentials as well as their past experiences, needs and wants, and issues associated with their current work and life situations. Figure 1 essentially establishes the context for organisational learning as well as making the difficulties associated with coherent and linear organisational learning and problem solving rather more transparent. Prediction and control over circumstances and outcomes within the complex systemic perspective, especially where human behaviour is concerned, is relatively poor at the best of times, and grows increasingly poorer as the time horizon for planning and action lengthens and as turbulence in the various contextual macro-bundles increases (Cooksey, 2000c; Stacey, 2000; Wing, 1997). Small changes in one area of influence can produce massive changes in other areas and vice versa ± a symptom of the sensitivity to initial conditions inherent in non-linear dynamic and occasionally chaotic organisational systems (Guastello, 1995; Priesmeyer, 1992). Such complexity also provides ample opportunities, if they can be appropriately harnessed, for creative generation and synthesis of new pathways through chaos to higher levels of selforganisation, another characteristic of many non-linear dynamic systems (Capra, 1996; Cohen and Stewart, 1994; Prigogine and Stengers, 1984). Coping with complexity: individual and organisational learning Conceptualising the ``messiness'' of the contextual morass in which organisations Figure 1 Contextual complexity of organisational activities [ 205 ] Ray W. Cooksey ``Learnership'' in complex organisational textures Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/4 [2003] 204-214 [ 206 ] are embedded helps to remind one that the pursuit of simplistic linear and highly generalised solutions to business problems, while perhaps facilitating survival or postponing decline in the short term, will often fail, sometimes dramatically, in the longer term. The failure of such management ``fads'' in many cases occurs because insufficient attention is given to the sensitivity of the intervention or planned changes to local contextual nuances and complexities (see commentaries by Abrahamson, 1996; Cooksey et al., 1998; Dreilinger, 1994; Shapiro, 1995). What lies at the very base of this phenomenon is the distinction, made by Argyris (1990), between single loop learning and double loop learning. A single loop learning process produces changes in behaviour in response to negative feedback in order to correct a perceived performance gap. Negative feedback dampens system variability by driving the single loop learning process toward solutions that seek system equilibrium and stability. Single loop learning thus produces adaptation through incremental system modifications. Single loop learning is the most natural and adaptive mode of learning for people, especially in turbulent times, yet an overdependence on this mode of learning can lead to maladaptive responses to goals that are no longer viable or preferable. Unfortunately, the implementation of management ``fads'' is often linked to single loop learning processes at the point of implementation within a specific organisational system. The double loop learning process produces changes in behaviour in response to both positive and negative feedback. Positive feedback tends to create at least short-term instability in the system yet is more likely to stimulate the creative generation of alternative pathways for solving problems. Double loop learning thus produces adaptation through transformative change stimulated by questioning the fundamental assumptions and goals of the system. Double loop learning requires a conscious effort to embrace complexity and uncertainty in the search for new goals and ways to achieve them while simultaneously suspending the more natural urge to simply direct more resources toward achieving currently-held goals and maintaining current processes (an urge, which at its extreme, results in nonrational escalation of commitment to decisions, see Bazerman, 2002, for a discussion). Learning at both the individual and organisational levels in both single and double loop modes is critical for navigating one's way through the complexities of context in which organisations find themselves. Thus, organisational learning can potentially provide the bridging process needed to navigate the contextual complexities depicted in Figure 1. One should be able to build on the extensive (and growing) scaffold of knowledge about organisational learning to illuminate (not prescribe) alternative avenues for successful adaptation to changing circumstances (e.g. Argyris, 1999; Flood, 1999; Gates and Cooksey, 1998; Senge, 1990a). However, this body of knowledge should not simply be taken at face value or one runs the risk of mindlessly adopting yet another short-lived ``fad''. Instead one must address how this knowledge can be best put to use in the unique contexts in which organisations must operate. An organisation that learns is one where individual members actively seek out and gather feedback from multiple sources within and outside the business, employ an appropriate balance of single and double loop learning processes to cope with that feedback, and generate actions designed to maximise the opportunities for achieving success in continually changing circumstances. For many writers (e.g. Argyris, 1999; Gerber, 1998; Senge, 1990a; Stacey, 2000), making a learning organisation a reality requires, among other things, genuine empowerment and teamwork, self and team efficacy (for learning), pursuit of collective as well as individual competence, effective leadership, shared mental models and vision, continuous open and critical dialogue, systemic thinking; high levels of trust within and between all levels, resources and opportunities for learning and creating, willingness to critically question one's own behaviours, attitudes and capabilities, a culture that values both learning and risk taking without fear of failure, all-channel communication networks (where shadow side activity is either minimal or explicitly tapped into and attended to), and high tolerance for uncertainty and failure (where failure is interpreted as an opportunity to learn). This is a lengthy and by no means exhaustive list of prerequisite conditions, and in any business, there can be many barriers and impediments to and organisational defences against the creation of a learning organisation (Argyris, 1990; Field, 1997; Henderson, 1997; March and Levinthal, 1999; Steiner, 1998). Of the many barriers and impediments that have been identified, trust tied to leadership and openness to dialogue loom large as prerequisites for getting the ball rolling in Ray W. Cooksey ``Learnership'' in complex organisational textures Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/4 [2003] 204-214 the right direction (Appelbaum et al., 1999; Ellinor and Gerard, 1998; Fairholm and Fairholm, 2000; Palmer and Hardy, 2000b). On the other hand, it is equally possible to get so carried away with the whole process of organisational learning that it becomes its own end and absorbs more energy and resources than necessary and detracts from core business activities by pursuing change simply for the sake of change (Palmer and Hardy, 2000b; Shapiro, 1995). ``Learnership'' and the active pursuit of adaptation and success What is needed is a sensitive balance in all things relevant to learning. The chances of achieving a successful learning organisation can be substantially enhanced through the cultivation of what could be termed ``learnership'' in as many organisational members as possible. ``Learnership'' can be defined as a developed capability to know when, where and how to best engage in the collective learning process to maximise the chances of successful organisational adaptation to rapidly changing circumstances. In one sense, ``learnership'' can be considered a meta-cognitive concept, incorporating knowing about learning combined with the doing of learning. ``Learnership'' can be linked to several important characteristics: high self-efficacy and confidence in one's own learning capacities and taking active responsibility for one's own learning; trust in and reliance upon others' learning capacities, ability to facilitate and support learning in others, actively working to create shared meaning, enhanced processing of positive and negative feedback, systemic as well as focused thinking (seeing the forest and the trees), knowledge of one's own limitations and how to overcome them through interdependence on others, and the willingness to energise learning, even in difficult circumstances. Figure 2 provides a way of looking at workplace learning from the perspective of ``learnership'' and shows how various individual and organisational influences contribute to its development. Note that the basic process invoked by the actioning of ``learnership'' involves a cyclical process of creating new meanings, juxtaposing (and testing) those new meanings against old meanings already held and generating new actions based on judgments that emerge from this juxtapositioning. These new actions then further stimulate the creation of new meanings and the cycle continues. This process shares many similarities with a process Darling and Parry (1999, p. 3) termed ``emergent learning'', which has the following key features: a goal of ``mastery through iteration''; driven by real-time business needs; focuses on ``performance tomorrow''; ``treats mental models as hypotheses to test'' (a double loop process); ``defined by local priorities''; and is resourced by pulling in ``new tools, training, and expertise as they become relevant''. Instead of pursuing the broad and sometimes ephemeral goal of becoming a learning organisation, one instead pursues the development and facilitation of ``learnership'' in every person in the business, top to bottom. When ``learnership'' has diffused sufficiently through the business as a capability that most, if not all, employees can exercise, a ``learning organisation'' will be the natural and sustainable outcome. Leadership and the active pursuit of ``learnership'' There is one important energising principle of ``learnership'' that requires detailed and focused attention and that is its intimate interrelationship with, and interdependence upon, leadership. Many authors (e.g. Allen and Cherrey, 2000; Belasen, 2000; Fulmer, 2000; Gronn, 1997; Mahoney, 2000; O'Brien, 1998; Senge, 1990b, 1998; Senge et al., 1999; White et al., 1996) have written about the important role that leadership plays in a learning organisation. O'Brien (1998, p. 11) summarised much of the essence of this literature when he stated ``[l]eaders retain a distinct role: helping people to grow through mentoring, coaching, evaluating, inspiring, clarifying principles, and articulating overarching values and the organization's mission''. Gerber (1998, p. 170) echoed this in his analysis of how workers learn: ``[l]eaders in such [learning] organisations play pivotal roles as designers, teachers and stewards of the learning process''. A leader's role in a learning organisation is thus depicted as one of setting the context for learning, facilitating a supportive environment for learning, serving as a role model for learning, empowering others to action their learning and creating and sharing important meanings for the business and its members. Senge (1990a) and later Agashae and Bratton (2001) highlighted the three critical roles for leaders in learning organisations (designer, steward and teacher) and reinforced the importance of these roles for building informal learning as a major pathway for change and adaptation. [ 207 ] Ray W. Cooksey ``Learnership'' in complex organisational textures Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/4 [2003] 204-214 Leaders pave the pathway along which others will travel ± an idea that appears to give primary responsibility for organisational learning, at least initially, to those in leadership positions. In this sense, leadership is really an add-on to the organisational learning process; a necessary pre-condition for success in which empowerment plays a fundamental role (Appelbaum et al., 1999; Chandon and Nadler, 2000; Johnson, 1994). While this is certainly true and necessary for organisational learning to have a chance of taking hold as a consistent and active process in people's working lives, it does not go far enough, especially for organisational contexts where leaders and workers tend to be in much closer proximity to each other and are much more sensitive to what each is up to. Leadership and ``learnership'': dynamic and inseparable partners The central argument to be made here is that effective leadership is not merely an add-on pre-condition to successful organisational learning, it is an essential dynamic component, inseparable from the learning process itself. In this light, the concept and process of ``learnership'' implicitly embeds leadership as a fundamental energising force behind learning and this embedding evolves within every person who develops ``learnership'' as a capability (an idea similar to, but not identical with, Johnson's (1994), concept of ``self-directed leadership'' as an Figure 2 Factors and forces influencing the emergence of ``learnership'' and the cyclical learning process [ 208 ] outcome of genuine empowerment, and broadly consistent with the Howell et al. (1990), and Kerr and Jermier (1978), concept of the ``leaderless group'' that relies on effective leadership substitutes). As White et al. (1996, p. 116) said: ``[i]n the true learning organization, everyone can, and should, become a learner''. Figure 2 shows leadership permeating through every aspect of ``learnership''. The sense of leadership being represented here is one that is situated, in the longer term, within each and every learner. There is a rather close alignment between the interconnectedness of leadership and ``learnership'' being implied here and the concept of ``servant leadership'' as espoused by McGee-Cooper and Trammel (1999). McGee-Cooper and Trammel (1999, p. 2) argued that ``servant-leadership'': . . . offers new ways to capitalize on the knowledge and wisdom of all employees, not just those ``at the top.'' Through this different form of leadership, big-picture information and business strategies are shared broadly throughout the company. By understanding basic assumptions and background information on issues and decisions, everyone can add something of value to the discussion because everyone possesses the basic tools needed to make meaningful contributions. Such tools and information are traditionally reserved for upper management, but sharing them brings deeper meaning to each job and empowers each person to participate more in effective decision-making and creative problem-solving. Individuals thus grow from being mere hired hands into having fully engaged minds and hearts. What ``learnership'' really implies is a fundamental shift from leaders ``facilitating'', ``mentoring'' and ``empowering'' learners to learners evolving to become leaders in their own right. This goes beyond ownership of process and outcomes to responsibility for process and outcomes (as Dixon, 1998, suggested). Leadership roles in the business thus progressively become less vested in a few people at the top of the organisation while simultaneously becoming more diffused amongst all people in the business (a process alluded to by Agashae and Bratton, 2001, but not followed through to the endstate discussed here). A shift in dependency is also suggested: from people in the business being dependent upon the formal leadership to provide the catalyst for learning to the formal leadership being dependent upon the diffused leadership embodied in the ``learnership'' of each person in the business ± a situation where learning needs no explicit catalyst since all are responsible for it. The division of leader and learner roles becomes more and more blurred as ``learnership'' Ray W. Cooksey ``Learnership'' in complex organisational textures Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/4 [2003] 204-214 capabilities become more and more developed throughout the business. Ideally, in the longer term, the only distinction in roles would be in position titles, primarily for consumption by external stakeholders. Inside the business, the role distinctions would embody less and less power differential and more and more collective commitment to pursue learning for the good of the business as a whole as well as for the good of each and every individual within the business. Thus, ``learnership'', in the fullest sense of the term, characterises organisational learning as a continual process of evolution and diffusion where, in the end, leaders become learners and learners become leaders. Figure 3 attempts to capture, in a single representation, the essence of the points made in this paper. Systemic uniqueness, complexities and uncertainties associated with organisations are explicitly acknowledged. Within that complex context, one can see, early on, a fairly clear distinction in roles between leaders and learners working to develop ``learnership'' in the more traditional sense depicted by the organisational learning literature. However, Figure 3 A systems perspective integrating leadership and ``learnership'' over time and as more and more workers begin to think systemically and engage actively in a sensitive balance of single and double loop learning processes by seeking and responding to positive and negative systemic and contextual feedback, the leader and learner roles begin to evolve toward and meld into each other, eventually becoming indistinguishable. When the evolution and diffusion of these processes has reached a critical mass (such mass would likely be uniquely different for each business), one would say that the people within the business have achieved and can action true ``learnership'' in pursuit of adaptive behaviours that ensure the continued survival, profitability and vibrancy of the business. At this point, the business can achieve true self-organising status ± something that cannot be traced back to the influence of any single individual or group. As Stacey (2000, p. 303) put it: It is the very essence of self-organisation that none of the agents [i.e. members of the organisational system], as individuals, nor any small group of them on their own, can design, or even shape, the evolution of the system other than through their local interaction. In their interaction with each other, they are co-creating its evolution but none of them, individually or in small groups, is organising the interaction, the selforganisation, across the system. No agent is setting the simple rules for others to follow and then ``allowing'' them to self-organise. If they were, the system could no longer be described as a self-organising one. It is important to emphasise that if Stacey's final sentence were true, then true ``learnership'' could not be said to have been successfully developed and engaged. Some of the more important process implications of ``learnership'' for organisations in light of the discussion thus far are summarised below: Where each organisational member seeks to: 1 Become a boundary spanner: focusing on one's ``own patch' held in sensitive and balanced tension with a focus on other's ``patches'' in the larger organisational context. 2 Establish and extend the boundaries for learning at specific points in time and space ± what, how and who is ruled in and what, how and who is ruled out; assumption-questioning and clarifying is a key aspect of this process. 3 Understand the multi-dimensional texture of the learning context ± constraints, forces and drivers, processes, people (including key internal and external stakeholders who benefit from learning outcomes), information, time and space. [ 209 ] Ray W. Cooksey ``Learnership'' in complex organisational textures Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/4 [2003] 204-214 [ 210 ] 4 Acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of every organisational member and working to harness those strengths in the service of learning through focusing personal energy and learning contributions toward areas of strength and building up mutual reliance on others to compensate for weaknesses (a deliberate valuing and harnessing of workforce diversity); weakness is not seen as a personal failing but as an opportunity to bring someone else on board who has strengths in that area; strengths are seen as pathways to creating mutual support networks in pursuit of learning (and, as a by-product, moving people toward effective group functioning, evolution of a learning culture and a clear organisational identity as a ``learning entity''). Embodies developing the capability to consciously decide when to lead and when to follow. 5 Harness commitment to an expanding critical mass of engagement in the organisational learning process, implementation of outcomes and deliberate and continual scanning for the vital feedback necessary to maintain the learning process. 6 Work constantly to make learning meaningful yet routine and informal to both oneself and to others. 7 Use open effective communication, information gathering and exchange and active assertive dialog/conversation and storytelling (Ellinor and Gerard, 1998; Kaye, 1996) as major mediums through which learning is pursued and maintained; implicates active management of the shadow side of organisational activities (Egan, 1993), bringing them into the light and inviting commitment and input into the learning process. 8 Encourage and reward vertical and horizontal dispersion of learning capability, motivation and involvement. 9 Move away from reliance on one or just a few key people in the organisation to keep the learning momentum going toward creating a self-sustaining learning process driven by mutual commitment and effort (instantiating the metaphor of the ``leaderless'' group) ± stimulating a process of contextualised selforganisation. 10 Dissolve the distinction between leader and follower in favour of the emergent ``melded'' role of ``learner' in the fullest sense and devoting deliberate learning effort toward breaking the hold of defensive routines (Argyris, 1990) in the context of a safe and risk-tolerant organisational environment. One should not be fooled into thinking that the perspective depicted in Figure 3 and the implications of ``learnership'' set out in the above list can easily be achieved. Circumstances, conditions and people have to be right before ``learnership'' can begin to develop and diffuse beyond specific individuals ± there can be no script for success since each business must adapt within its own complex circumstances. It may be that the current configurations of some organisations will block or inhibit ``learnership'' potential. It will be useful, however, to review some important questions one could ask which would flag whether or not a business is ready to actively pursue ``learnership'' development (an exercise similar to that undertaken by Appelbaum and Reichart, 1998; Moilanen, 2001; Palmer and Hardy, 2000b; in recent discussions of diagnostic tools for learning organisations). The questions in Table I are deliberately designed to trigger double loop learning processes and align reasonably well with many of the suggestions made by Bryan and Smith (2000) in their critical reconceptualisation of workplace ``training'' as well as with some aspects of Moilanen's (2001) ``learning organization diamond'' and Palmer and Hardy's (2000b) ``profiling the learning organization''. Honest affirmative answers to most if not all of the questions would signal at least a readiness to embark upon and an increased chance of realising successful development of evolved and diffused ``learnership''. Negative responses to one or more of the questions should trigger serious reflection on a potential obstacle or impediment to the development and diffusion of ``learnership''. It will be important to remember that, in the context of many organisations, the CEO may be in a rather unique position to either inhibit or disinhibit the pursuit of ``learnership'', often as a matter of personal style and belief. This means that the CEO may become the key focal person when considering answers to the diagnostic questions posed in Table I. It is also important to note that this list of questions should not be treated as static or comprehensive. In fact, considering each question in turn may stimulate other questions for critical focus in the local context, which in today's dynamic world, is exactly the sort of thinking one is after. Ray W. Cooksey ``Learnership'' in complex organisational textures Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/4 [2003] 204-214 Table I Diagnostic trigger questions for detecting readiness to pursue the development and diffusion of ``learnership'' Diagnostic category Trigger questions Systems thinking Are there people in the business who exhibit systems thinking capabilities and can see the big picture? Does such systems thinking typically show a balance between inward and outward focus, from both the business and people points-of-view? Leadership Can people occupying the formal leadership roles in the place be predominantly characterised using such descriptors as facilitating, mentoring, rewarding, empowering? Do the people occupying the formal leadership roles in the place tend to actively work to create and spread shared meanings within the business? Do the people occupying the formal leadership roles in the place tend to actively and productively connect with the people in the business? Questioning Are organisational members generally willing to ask difficult and potentially upsetting and destabilising questions in order to stimulate problem solving and lateral thinking? Is critical questioning typically rewarded? Is there a generally shared awareness of the critical assumptions that underpin the current business activities coupled with a willingness to question and perhaps discard those assumptions in favour of new ones? Empowerment Is participation at a range of levels actively encouraged and rewarded? Can the empowerment of most employees be considered genuine and actionable? Is there a generally shared awareness of what people in the business (including those in formal leadership roles) can and cannot control within the context and environment they inhabit? Feedback and evaluation Are at least some systems in place to gather feedback from inside and outside the organisation? Is the resulting feedback explicitly and periodically audited and reviewed in order to ascertain meanings and implications? Is the evaluation of feedback and of possible future actions open, critical and contributed to by many in the business rather than a few? Does learning from feedback, both individually and collectively, tend to be valued and actively pursued? Communication Is the shadow side of communication activities generally well understood, managed and harnessed and so that members actively and openly contribute to thinking and action? Is shared meaning for activities and goals easily established without creating pockets of ignorance and resentment? Are communication networks predominantly laterally oriented and open in nature rather than being vertically oriented and closed? Culture Is risk taking and experimentation by individual members and/or groups explicitly encouraged and rewarded? Is failure typically viewed as an opportunity to learn rather than as an occasion to blame and punish? Is there a culture of trust between the people in formal leadership roles and the other people in the business as well as amongst the people themselves? Can people's attitudes within the business generally be characterised by an overt appreciation of diversity and pluralism? Collective focus Does collective effort in the pursuit of goals tend to be actively valued and encouraged? Is the organisation generally sensitive to when and how teamwork might effectively be harnessed to achieve important goals? Creativity Are time, freedom and resources generally made available for engaging in creative thinking and activities? Does lateral thinking tend to be actively encouraged and rewarded? Growth and development Is individual as well as collective personal growth and development consistently encouraged and resourced? Are organisational members generally willing to take responsibility for their own learning? [ 211 ] Ray W. Cooksey ``Learnership'' in complex organisational textures Why ``learnership'' is an important conceptual shift Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/4 [2003] 204-214 This paper develops an integrative view of leadership and organisational learning in the context of dynamic and non-linear organisational complexity, leading to the emergent concept of ``learnership''. The concept and process of ``learnership'' is an evolving meld of leadership and learning where responsibility for learning and for leading is progressively diffused away from a few central individuals to a critical mass of organisational members, all of whom become mutually embedded in the learning process ± leading where needed, following where needed, but always with a sensitive eye on the complex texture of the learning environment they inhabit. ``Learnership'' moves beyond the traditional conceptions of leadership (see, for example, reviews in DuBrin, 2001; Yukl and van Fleet, 1992), which even today remain ``top-down'' in focus, locating leadership qualities and behaviours in the hands of relatively few organisational members. These traditional conceptions concentrate responsibility for moving the organisation through successful adaptations and transformations in complex organisational circumstances into a few ``guiding'' hands. This, in turn, focuses the attribution process for successes and failures squarely on those in the leadership roles creating a barrier to genuine sharing in and learning from these outcomes. Thus, in traditional leadership conceptions, those who ``follow'' must depend upon their ``leader(s)'' to energise and focus their own individual learning as well as their collective learning ± a necessarily limiting condition since the thinking and worldviews of a few would essentially drive the actions of the many, irrespective of how much ``empowerment'' had occurred. By gradually dissolving this leader/follower dependency through the evolution and diffusion of the capacity for ``learnership'', the diversity of individual capacities, the multiplicity of worldviews and myriad potential interpretations of systemic and contextual feedback can be tapped for future learning in such a way as to eventually erase the distinction between leader and learner. All would lead and all would learn, at different and appropriate times and in different and appropriate ways, within such an organisation. In this way, the complex and non-linear texture of organisational life would be matched by the similarly complex and non-linear texture of ``learnership'', enhancing the potential, at all levels of the organisation, for anticipating, detecting and [ 212 ] leading actions to pursue learning opportunities for improving organisational circumstances. References Abrahamson, E. (1996), ``Management fashion'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 254-85. Agashae, Z. and Bratton, J. (2001), ``Leaderfollower dynamics: developing a learning environment'', Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 89-102. Allen, K.E. and Cherrey, C. (2000), Systemic Leadership: Enriching the Meaning of our Work, University Press of America, Lanham, MD. Appelbaum, S.H. and Reichart, W. (1998), ``How to measure an organization's learning ability: the facilitating factors ± Part II'', Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 15-28. Appelbaum, S.H., Hebert, D. and Leroux, S. (1999), ``Empowerment: power, culture and leadership ± a strategy or fad for the millennium'', Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 233-54. Argyris, C. (1990), Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Argyris, C. (1999), On Organizational Learning, Blackwell Business, Boston, MA. Bazerman, M.H. (2002), Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Belasen, A.T. (2000), Leading the Learning Organization, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Bryan, P. and Smith, R. (2000), ``Beyond training: reconceptualising learning at work'', Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 228-35. Capra, F. (1996), The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter, HarperCollins, London. Chandon, W. and Nadler, G. (2000), ``A breakthrough thinking organization'', Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 Nos 7/8, pp. 122-30. Cohen, J. and Stewart, I. (1994), The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World, Penguin Books, New York, NY. Cooksey, R. (2000a), ``Managerial judgment and decision making'', in Dahiya, S.B. (Ed.), The Current State of Business Disciplines. Vol. 5: Management II, Spellbound Publications, Rohtak, pp. 2121-57. Cooksey, R. (2000b), ``Mapping the texture of managerial decision making: a complex dynamic decision perspective'', Emergence, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 102-22. Cooksey, R.W. (2000c), ``Scaling the peaks of business strategy when visibility is poor, the ground keeps moving and the climbing party can't seem to stay together!'', Inaugural Public Lecture Series, University of New England, Armidale. Ray W. Cooksey ``Learnership'' in complex organisational textures Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/4 [2003] 204-214 Cooksey, R.W. (2001), ``What is complexity science? A contextually-grounded tapestry of systemic dynamism, paradigm diversity, theoretical eclecticism, and organizational learning'', Emergence, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 77-103. Cooksey, R.W., Gates, G.R. and Pollock, H. (1998), ```Unsafe' business acts and outcomes: a management lexicon'', Business Horizons, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 41-9. Darling, M. and Parry, C. (1999), ``Emergent learning: taking `learning from experience' to a new level'', The Systems Thinker, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1-5. Dixon, N.M. (1998), ``The responsibilities of members in an organization that is learning'', The Learning Organization, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 161-7. Dreilinger, C. (1994), ``Why management fads fizzle'', Business Horizons, Vol 37, pp. 11-15. DuBrin, A.J. (2001), Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills, 3rd ed., Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA. Egan, G. (1993), Adding Value: A Systematic Guide to Business-driven Management and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Ellinor, L. and Gerard, G. (1998), Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Fairholm, M.R. and Fairholm, G. (2000), ``Leadership amid the constraints of trust'', Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 102-9. Field, L. (1997), ``Impediments to empowerment and learning within organizations'', The Learning Organization, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 149-58. Finlay, J.P. and Cooksey, R.W. (2001), ``Complexity at work: demonstration of a nonlinear dynamic systems approach to work performance'', International Journal of Management Literature, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-31. Flood, R.L. (1999), Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable, Routledge, London. Fulmer, W.E. (2000), Shaping the Adaptive Organization: Landscapes, Learning, and Leadership in Volatile Times, American Management Association, New York, NY. Gates, G.R. and Cooksey, R. (1998), ``Learning to manage and managing to learn'', Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-14. Gerber, R. (1998), ``How do workers learn in their work?'', The Learning Organization, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 168-75. Gronn, P. (1997), ``Leading for learning: organizational transformation and the formation of leaders'', Journal of Management Development, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 274-83. Guastello, S. (1995), Chaos, Catastrophe, and Human Affairs, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Henderson, S. (1997), ``Black swans don't fly double loops: the limits of the learning organisation'', The Learning Organization, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 99-105. Howell, J., Bowen, D., Dorfman, P., Kerr, S. and Podsadoff, P. (1990), ``Substitutes for leadership: effective alternatives to ineffective leadership'', Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 19, pp. 21-38. Johnson, P.R. (1994), ``Brains, heart and courage: keys to empowerment and self-directed leadership'', Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 17-21. Kaye, M. (1996), Myth-Makers and Story-Tellers, Business & Professional Publishing, Sydney. Kerr, S. and Jermier, J. (1978), ``Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement'', Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 22, pp. 375-403. Lissack, M.R. (1999), ``Complexity: the science, its vocabulary, and its relation to organizations'', Emergence, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 110-26. McGee-Cooper, A. and Trammell, D. (1999), ``From hero as leader to servant as leader'', The Systems Thinker, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-5. McKelvey, B. (1999), ``Complexity theory in organization science: seizing the promise or becoming a fad'', Emergence, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5-32. Magala, S. (2000), ``Critical complexities: from marginal paradigms to learning networks'', Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 312-33. Mahoney, R. (2000), ``Leadership and learning organisations'', The Learning Organization, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 241-3. March, J. and Levinthal, D. (1999), ``The myopia of learning'', The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence, Blackwell Business, London, pp. 191-221. Moilanen, R. (2001), ``Diagnostic tools for learning organisations'', The Learning Organization, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 6-20. O'Brien, W.J. (1998), The Soul of Corporate Leadership: Guidelines for Value-centered Governance, Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA. Palmer, I. and Hardy, C. (2000a), Thinking About Management, Sage Publications, London. Palmer, I. and Hardy, C. (2000b), ``Managing organizational learning: has the time come or gone?'', Thinking About Management, Sage Publications, London, pp. 197-227. Priesmeyer, H.R. (1992), Organizations and Chaos: Defining the Methods of Nonlinear Management, Quorum Books, Westport, CT. Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1984), Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature, Bantam Books, New York, NY. Senge, P. (1990a), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY. Senge, P. (1990b), ``The leader's new work: building the learning organisation'', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 1-17. Senge, P. (1998), ``Rethinking leadership in the learning organization'', The New Workplace: [ 213 ] Ray W. Cooksey ``Learnership'' in complex organisational textures Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/4 [2003] 204-214 [ 214 ] Transforming the Character and Culture of Our Organizations, Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA, pp. 43-55. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and Smith, B. (1999), The Dance of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, Nicholas Brealey, London. Shapiro, E. (1995), Fad Surfing in the Boardroom: Reclaiming the Courage to Manage in the Age of Instant Answers, HarperCollins, Sydney. Stacey, R.D. (2000), Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead. Steiner, L. (1998), ``Organizational dilemmas as barriers to learning'', The Learning Organization, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 193-201. White, R.P., Hodgson, P. and Crainer, S. (1996), The Future of Leadership: A Whitewater Revolution, Pitman Publishing, London. Wing, L.S. (1997), ``Organizations and turbulence'', Empowerment in Organizations, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 35-45. Yukl, G. and Van Fleet, D.D. (1992), ``Theory and research on leadership in organizations'', in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 4, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 147-98. Further reading Richards, B. (1995), ``Learning contexts and roles for the learning organization leader'', The Learning Organization, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 15-33.