International Journal of Management Reviews (2010) DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00255.

Adaptive and Generative Learning: Implications from Complexity Theories

Ricardo Chiva,1* Antonio Grando1 and Joaqun Alegre2
2 1 Universitat Jaume I, Campus del Riu Sec, 12071 Castelln, Spain, and Universitat de Valncia, Avda. de los Naranjos, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain

One of the most important classical typologies within the organizational learning literature is the distinction between adaptive and generative learning. However, the processes of these types of learning, particularly the latter, have not been widely analyzed and incorporated into the organizational learning process. This paper puts forward a new understanding of adaptive and generative learning within organizations, grounded in some ideas from complexity theories: mainly self-organization and implicate order.Adaptive learning involves any improvement or development of the explicate order through a process of self-organization. Self-organization is a self-referential process characterized by logical deductive reasoning, concentration, discussion and improvement. Generative learning involves any approach to the implicate order through a process of self-transcendence. Self-transcendence is a holo-organizational process characterized by intuition, attention, dialogue and inquiry. The main implications of the two types of learning for organizational learning are discussed.

Introduction
A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, New York Post, 28 November 1972)

In recent years, interest in the concept of organizational learning (OL) has grown dramatically, generating a great deal of debate and management research
*Address for correspondence: Ricardo Chiva, Associate Professor in Management, Universitat Jaume I, Campus del Riu Sec, 12071 Castelln, Spain. Tel: +34 964 387111; Fax: +34 964 728629; e-mail: rchiva@emp.uji.es

(Bapuji and Crossan 2004; Easterby-Smith et al. 2000). Owing to its popularity and complexity, it is surrounded by a plethora of perspectives and views (for a review, see Miner and Mezias 1996; rtenblad 2002; Shipton 2006). One of the most important classical typologies within OL literature is the distinction between adaptive and generative learning (Argyris and Schn 1974, 1978; Arthur and AimanSmith 2001; Fiol and Lyles 1985; Senge 1990). Although nowadays a myriad of terms are used to describe these two concepts of learning, this typology was most likely introduced into the OL literature by Argyris and Schn (1974) through their distinction between single loop and double loop learning. Single loop learning permits an organization to maintain its present policies or achieve its present objectives by adjusting or adapting its behaviors. Double loop learning involves the modication of an organizations underlying norms, policies and objectives. Most of the research in our eld has mentioned and even emphasized the importance of both types of learning for organizations (e.g. Fiol and Lyles 1985; Miner and Mezias 1996). However, few works (e.g.

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Adaptive and Generative Learning Argyris et al. 1985; Anderson 1997; Kim 1993; Senge 1990) have attempted to analyze what factors facilitate these activities, have tried to inquire into the process in which they take place or have incorporated these processes into the OL process. Furthermore, organizations and people are becoming good at single loop learning, at adapting to a changing environment, but practitioners and organizations are not normally so adept at second loop learning, at changing their theories, models or paradigms. This may be due to organizational inertia (Hannan and Freeman 1984) or individual resistance to change (Dent and Goldberg 1999). Managers defense mechanisms also may prevent them from broadening their beliefs and policies. Most executives are so committed to the strategies and cultures they have nurtured that it is painful for them to admit that these are obsolete (Kets de Vries and Miller 1984; Miller 1993). Whatever the case, generative learning is generally associated with radical innovations that would dramatically improve rm performance (Kang et al. 2007) and that are becoming essential in organizations. Consequently, there is still a need to improve our understanding of how double loop or generative learning takes place in organizations, where it can be located in the OL process, and how can we enhance it. According to Tsoukas (1998, 293), the sciences have historically set the tone in intellectual inquiry. Furthermore, there seems to be a fundamental human urge to want to understand both nature and society as a unied entity. Tsoukas (1998, 293) justies the appearance of a new scientic approach, complexity theory: If nature turns out to be much less deterministic than we hitherto thought ... then perhaps our hitherto mechanistic approach to understanding the messiness we normally associate with the social world may need revising. Tsoukas (1998, 291) states that the Newtonian, traditional or mechanistic style is gradually receding in favor of the complex, holistic or emergent style, characterized by the ability to notice instability, disorder, novelty, emergence and self-organization. Indeed, an increasing number of academics have started to use complexity theory to aid them in understanding organizations better. Complexity theories, generally referring to ideas and concepts at a distance from the mechanistic view, represent a research approach that makes philosophical assumptions about the emerging world view, which include wholeness, perspective observation, non-linearity, synchronicity, mutual causation, relationship as a unit of analysis, etc. (Dent 1999). The word complexity originates from the Latin

115 word complexus, meaning comprehension and wholeness; complexity theories explore the totality (the wholeness) of dynamics forces, energies, substances and forms permeating the whole universe and connecting everything that exists in a whirling web of dynamic interrelationships and interactions (Dimitrov 2003). Complexity theories are increasingly being seen by academics and practitioners as a way of understanding organizations and promoting organizational change (Burnes 2005, 74). This is so because complexity theories deal with the nature of emergence, innovation, learning and adaptation (Houchin and MacLean 2005). In spite of the potential importance of complexity theories for OL, only a few attempts have been made to improve our understanding of OL based on these ideas (e.g. Antonacopoulou and Chiva 2007; Eijnatten and Putnik 2004; Stacey 1996). However, none of these papers analyzes or improves our understanding of adaptive and generative learning within organizations. In this paper, we put forward a new understanding of the two types of learning grounded in some ideas from complexity theories. Complexity theories serve as an umbrella term for a number of ideas, theories and research programs that are derived from a range of scientic disciplines (Burnes 2005, 73). Consequently, and according to this author, there is not one theory, but a number of theories (chaos theory, wholeness theory, dissipative structures, fractals, complex adaptive systems, etc.) developed by different scientic disciplines, which are gathered under the general heading of complexity research. In fact, most of the papers that use complexity theories to aid our understanding of organizations select a few terms, concepts or ideas which are assumed to be essential in that analysis (e.g. Houchin and MacLean 2005). In this paper, we focus mainly on two concepts: self-organization (GellMann 1994; Kauffman 1993); and implicate order (Bohm 1980; Bohm and Peat 2000). These two concepts were chosen because they are essential in learning processes: complex adaptive systems learn through a self-organizing process (Gell-Mann 1994; Kauffman 1993); in contrast, Bohm (1980) considers learning and creativity as the search for and representation of a new order. Based on these concepts, we propose and explain some characteristics that describe both adaptive and generative learning. Through these characteristics we explain the process of generative and adaptive learning and make certain conceptual suggestions to help understand and foster these processes better. Finally,

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

116 we include both types of learning processes within the OL framework. With the aim of obtaining new insights from complexity theories, we follow a metaphorical approach (Houchin and MacLean 2005; Tsoukas 1998; Tsoukas and Hatch 2001), which avoids searching for common principles across a variety of very different systems (physical, social, etc.). Generative learning is a process that involves searching for (implicit) order, which is a holistic understanding of anything or anyone we interact with (holo-organization). When enacted or interpreted (unfolded), this implicate order becomes a new explicate order, or the manifested world, which is represented through mental models, paradigms, etc. Adaptive learning involves any improvement or development of the explicate order through a process of self-organization. Generative learning is developed individually or socially at the edge of chaos, through intuition, attention, dialogue and inquiry. Based on these two conceptualizations, we consider learning as any change (incremental or radical) in the explicate order (individual or social). Organizational learning implies that a new or improved organizational explicate order has been developed. In pursuing this analysis, we rst provide an overview of the adaptive and generative learning typology in the OL literature. We selected the main works that explain their importance, describe them, analyze their facilitators and incorporate them in the OL process. Secondly, we analyze the main works that explain the concepts selected from complexity theories: self-organization and implicate order. Although we focus mainly on the complexity literature, we also take into account organizational literature that has applied complexity ideas. Based on these ideas selected from complexity theory, we then present the process of generative and adaptive learning within organizations, their essential catalyzers, and a model of OL that incorporates both types of learning. Finally, we discuss the main implications of the two types of learning for OL.

R. Chiva et al. questions such as: What does OL mean? How does OL take place? Who is learning? What is being learnt? What factors facilitate or inhibit OL? or Are there different types of OL? In order to improve understanding of learning in organizations, different typologies and classications of OL research have been put forward (e.g. Elkjaer 2004; Miner and Mezias 1996; rtenblad 2002; Shipton 2006). Recently, Shipton (2006) analyzed the whole body of OL literature through two typologies: prescriptive vs explanatory and individual vs organizational. The rst typology differentiates between a more prescriptive, normative and practically orientated literature; and a more explanatory, descriptive, skeptical literature, centered on understanding the nature and processes of learning (Tsang 1997). The second typology examines the level of analysis: either individual or organizational. The former considers OL to be mainly an individual activity taking place within organizations and that it emerges naturally from day-to-day practices (Simon 1991). The latter perspective considers OL to be more than the learning of its individual members, and focuses on systematic and planned efforts to capture, share and apply the insights of the individuals and the groups to which they belong (Zollo and Winter 2002). However, one of the most recurring classications used by researchers is the distinction between adaptive and generative learning (Senge 1990). Miner and Mezias (1996, 88) explain that, in the OL literature, there are two streams of work: incremental and radical learning. The former, described by Cyert and March (1963), considers rms as incremental or adaptive learning systems in which routines and the rms adapting behavior are essential for learning (Miner and Mezias 1996). The second stream, based on Argyris and Schns (1974, 1978) distinction between single and double loop learning, stresses the importance of the latter for organizations. Single loop learning implies the ability to detect and correct errors in certain operating procedures, whereas double loop learning implies being able to see beyond the situation and questioning operating norms. Single loop learning is like a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and turns the heat on or off (Smith 2001). Single loop learning seems to be present when goals, values, frameworks or strategies are taken for granted. It is about efciency. Double loop learning occurs when error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the modication of an organizations underlying norms, policies and objectives (Smith 2001). Miner and Mezias (1996,

Adaptive and generative learning: An OL review

As Shipton (2006, 233) afrms, the study of OL is no longer in its infancy. Since the rst work in the 1960s (Cangelosi and Dill 1965; Cyert and March 1963), researchers have focused on different aspects of learning in organizations, in an attempt to nd answers to

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

Adaptive and Generative Learning 89) point out that most papers support the importance of both learning streams in organizations. Argyris and Schns (1974, 1978) distinction was probably based on Ashby (1952) and Bateson (1972), as they proposed similar concepts of learning. At almost the same time as Argyris and Schn, very similar typologies were suggested by authors such as Piaget (1969), Kuhn (1970) or Watzlawick et al. (1974), among others. Piaget (1969) discovered that children learn in two different ways. First, they can learn through assimilation, when a new fact is understood through a previous model.A different type of learning is needed when a new fact cannot be assimilated through a previous model. In this circumstance, children need to accommodate or change their model to a new reality. These two kinds of learning could be related to single and double loop learning, respectively. Similarly, Kuhn (1970) describes the evolution of science as a succession of paradigm shifts, each one completely reorganizing the mental models of the community of practitioners of a certain scientic eld. Kuhn (1970) makes a clear distinction between what he calls normal science, where scientists only solve problems by expanding the old theory to apply it to new facts, and what he calls scientic revolutions, where a scientist creates a completely new model to explain reality. In the same way, Watzlawick et al. (1974) distinguishes between two types of change. First-order changes are incremental changes made within the system, the rules of which are not changed. In contrast, second-order changes imply that the rules of the system are challenged and changed. They are no longer changes within the system, but changes of the system itself. In summary, all the divisions these authors propose show that this distinction is generally accepted, not only in the OL literature. Argyris and Schn (1974, 1978) appear to have introduced the distinction between adaptive and generative learning into the OL literature; however, they are not the only authors to consider these types of learning. Senge (1990), Lant and Mezias (1992), Virany et al. (1992), Sitkin (1992) or Fiol and Lyles (1985) mention and analyze the existence of these two types of learning in organizations. Fiol and Lyles (1985, 807) differentiate between lower-level and higher-level learning. The former is a focused learning that may be mere repetition of past behaviors, adjustments in part of what the organization does. Higher-level learning is related to the development of complex rules and associations regarding new actions.

117 Senge (1990) distinguishes between adaptive and generative learning. He afrms that generative learning, unlike adaptive learning, requires new ways of looking at the world, whether in understanding customers or understanding how to manage a business better. In order to look more deeply into generative learning, he introduces the concept of metanoia, a Greek word meaning a profound shift of mind, which he considers to be synonymous with generative learning. He explains that, for the Greeks, it meant a fundamental change, transcendence (meta) mind (noia). Senge (1990) afrms that to grasp the meaning of metanoia is to grasp the deeper meaning of learning, as learning also implies a fundamental shift of mind. He compares the everyday use of learning, such as taking information or adapting behaviors, with generative learning, and claims that real learning gets to the heart of what it means to be human. Through learning, we recreate ourselves and perceive the world and our relationship to it differently. Generative learning or metanoia refers to a change in the mental model, paradigm or knowledge through which we see reality. Recently, Senge et al. (2005) suggested that generative learning occurs through a process (the U process) that entails three major stages or elements: sensing, presencing and realizing. Sensing means becoming one with the world, mainly by observing. Presencing implies a state of becoming totally present to the larger space or eld around us, to an expanded sense of self, and, ultimately, to what is emerging through us. Realizing involves bringing something new into reality. However, OL literature has also described what structural or cultural arrangements are likely to foster both adaptive and generative learning (Anderson 1997; Argyris et al. 1985; Senge 1990). Adaptive learning is related to rationality, defensive relationships, low freedom of choice and discouragement of inquiry (Argyris et al. 1985). In contrast, double loop learning is encouraged through commitment, minimally defensive relationships, high freedom of choice and inquiry. In Senges (1990) view, generative learning requires ve disciplines: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning and systemic thinking. The rst, personal mastery, is the term Senge uses to refer to institutionalized conditions for personal learning within an organization. It is related to issues of staff empowerment and the development of staff potentials. Senge explains that people in an organization have different internal pictures of the world or mental models, the second discipline, which

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

118 should be made explicit so that they can be discussed openly and modied. The third discipline, shared vision, concerns the need for a certain degree of consensus within an organization, and at the same time the need for inspiration and motivation. Concerning the fourth discipline, team learning, Senge explains that teams, not individuals, are the fundamental learning unit in modern organizations; unless the team can learn, the organization cannot learn. This requires improved interpersonal communication between team members, a reduction in defensive behavior, and openness to creative thinking. The fth discipline, systemic thinking, is crucial to examine the interrelationships between parts of an organization rather than the parts in themselves. While a focus on individual parts would only obscure the need for larger change, a focus on the whole system makes it possible to identify how organizational change might be brought about. Adaptive and generative learning have not been extensively incorporated in frameworks or models for the process of OL. Kim (1993) develops a model of OL that links individual and organizational levels and also single and double loop learning through mental models. However, he recognizes that further work is needed for a better understanding of the role of mental models in individual and organizational learning, or the types of mental models that are appropriate for representing OL dynamic complexity. Most of the well-known models (e.g. Crossan et al. 1999; Huber 1991) obviate this typology. Huber (1991) describes four processes or constructs that contribute to OL: knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation and organizational memory. Crossan et al. (1999) developed a framework for the process of OL that identied the role of individuals, groups and the organization in feed-forward and feedback information ows (Crossan et al. 1999). This framework contains four related (sub)processes: intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing, which occur over the three levels. Intuiting and interpreting occur at the individual level; interpreting and integrating at the group level; and integrating and institutionalizing at the organizational level. Crossan et al. (1999) consider that OL is multilevel, and also that OL consists not only of exploring or assimilating new learning, but also of exploiting it or using what has already been learned (Cegarra-Navarro and Dewhurst 2007; March 1991). In sum, mention has been made of adaptive and generative learning in the literature of OL since its

R. Chiva et al. rst introduction in the eld. However, few works (e.g. Anderson 1997; Argyris et al. 1985; Kim 1993; Senge 1990) have attempted to analyze what factors are likely to enable these activities, have tried to inquire into the process in which they take place or have incorporated these processes into the OL process. In fact, this is what Visser (2007) recently termed meta-learning. The aim of this paper is to accomplish this, essentially through two concepts from complexity theory: self-organization and implicate order.

Some complexity theories and OL: Self-organization and implicate order

Complexity theories represent a research approach that makes philosophical assumptions of the emerging worldview, which include holism, perspective observation, non-linearity, synchronicity, mutual causation, relationship as unit of analysis, etc. (Dent 1999). Although complexity theories are being used by an increasing number of academics to help understand organizations, innovation, change and learning, among other aspects, the application of these ideas inspired by the physical sciences to the social world can often be controversial. While some authors draw analogies between organizations and organisms (Gregersen and Sailer 1993; Stacey 1996; Thitart and Forgues 1995), others have serious doubts about its applicability, because human systems are not like other systems in the physical world (Johnson and Burton 1994). In contrast, Tsoukas (1998) understands that both views are missing the point, because one cannot be certain whether one has captured the nature of an object of study. He proposes applying these ideas to organizations and seeing what the consequences might be (Tsoukas 1998, 305). Similarly, Houchin and MacLean (2005, 152) claim that the best use we can make of complexity theories in understanding organization development may be as a metaphor to give us new insights, rather than trying to search for common principles across a variety of very different systems (Tsoukas and Hatch 2001). However, this metaphorical approach does not imply we should ignore the role played by emotions or politics, or the options available to individuals to interpret, adjust or break rules in human organizations. These specic characteristics of human organizations need to be considered in order to improve our understanding of them. This is precisely our approach in this paper: to obtain new insights from complexity theories for the study of OL.

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

Adaptive and Generative Learning Complexity is a comprehensive concept for a number of theories and ideas that are derived from scientic disciplines such as meteorology, biology, physics, chemistry and mathematics (Burnes 2005). Therefore, a group of theories come together under the general designation of complexity research. As we mentioned above, papers that focus on these theories to advance our comprehension of organizations indicate a few terms or ideas that are assumed to be essential in their analysis (e.g. Houchin and MacLean 2005). In this paper, we essentially focus on two complexity concepts: self-organization (Gell-Mann 1994; Kauffman 1993); and implicate order (Bohm 1980; Bohm and Peat 2000). Below, we briey describe each of these concepts, and explain why they are related to learning within organizations. Self-organization Dooley et al. (2003, 62) state that a basic assumption within complexity theories is that organizations can be viewed as complex adaptive systems (e.g. Anderson 1999; Axelrod and Cohen 1999; Coleman 1999; Gell-Mann 1994; Houchin and MacLean 2005). These systems are composed of semi-autonomous agents that seek to maximize tness by adjusting interpretative and action-oriented schema that determine how they view and interact with other agents and the environment (Dooley et al. 2003). These systems are made up of heterogeneous agents that interrelate with each other and with their surroundings, and are unlimited in their capabilities to adapt their behavior, based on their experience. Consequently, they are complex, in that they are diverse and made up of multiple interconnected elements, and adaptive in that they have the capacity to change and learn from experience. Adaptability is a systems capacity to adjust to changes in the environment without endangering its essential organization. Complex adaptive systems are capable of anticipating the results of their actions, for which they develop schemas or models (Anderson 1999; Holland 1995; Stacey 1996). Each agents behavior is dictated by a schema, a cognitive structure that determines what action the agent will take, given its perception of the environment (Anderson 1999, 219). In organizational systems, agents might be individuals, groups or a coalition of groups. Different agents may or may not have different schemas, and schemas may or may not evolve over time (Anderson 1999). Gell-Mann (1994) argues that complex adaptive systems encode their environments

119 into many schemas that compete against one another internally. Changes in agents schemas, interconnection among agents or the tness function that agents employ produce different aggregate outcomes. Agents are partially connected to one another, so that the behavior of a particular agent depends on the behavior of some subset of all the agents in the system. Each agent observes and acts on local information only, derived from those other agents to which it is connected (Anderson 1999). Complex adaptive systems continuously selforganize (Anderson 1999; Axelrod and Cohen 1999). Self-organization is a process in which the internal organization of a system increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. No single program or agent completely determines the systems behavior, which is rather unpredictable and uncontrollable (Goodwin 1994). Pattern and regularity emerge without the intervention of a central controller. Self-organization is a natural consequence of interactions between simple agents (Anderson 1999). Although emergence is unpredictable and uncontrollable, Grifn et al. (1998, 321) underline that it is intelligible, as we can perceive the pattern of its evolution. Consequently, not just anything could happen: there is an immanent rationale as to how the system unfolds a generative process at work that goes beyond the correlation of causes and effects. Although it is not possible to determine or control results, according to the literature it is possible to help self-organization to happen, by facilitating the highest effective complexity or the edge of chaos. Complex adaptive systems are able to develop three types of behavior: stable, unstable or chaotic, and limited instability or tension between various forces that place them at the edge of chaos. The edge of chaos is regarded as a phase change. According to Gell-Mann (1994), this stage represents the highest effective complexity. If effective complexity is dened in terms of the length of the model, it is low when there is a high level of chaos and the environment is random, although the algorithmic information complexity is very high (Stacey 1996, 96). Effective complexity is also low when a system operates in an environment that is highly stable, in the sense that its component systems behave in a perfectly regular manner. In this situation very little happens and little learning or evolution is needed (Stacey 1996, 96). A complex adaptive system can learn only when effective complexity is sizeable, that is, in conditions that are intermediate between chaos and stability (Gell-Mann 1994).

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

120 Complex adaptive systems evolve over time through the entry, exit and transformation of agents that interact and scan their environment and develop schemas. The adaptation of a complex adaptive system to its environment emerges from the adaptive efforts of individual agents that attempt to improve their own pay-offs (Anderson 1999). Complex adaptive systems continuously co-evolve (Anderson 1999; Axelrod and Cohen 1999; Boisot and Child 1999), which means that organizations have a mutually adaptive relationship with their environment, such that they are not simply trying to adapt to a static environment, but rather the organization is learning to adapt to an environment that is itself adapting to the market (other organizations and industries). McKelvey (1997) has argued that evolution of organizations cannot be understood in isolation from the simultaneous evolution of the environment. One characteristic of a complex adaptive system that is closely related to connectivity is the tendency of several systems, or several subsystems within one main system, to move together towards new forms of existence or new stages of development (Luoma 2006). This is known as co-evolution. Co-evolution is the mutual inuence among systems or agents that become dependent on each other. Each party in a co-evolutionary relationship exerts selective pressures on the other, thereby affecting each others evolution. Few perfectly isolated examples of evolution can be identied: essentially all evolution is co-evolution. Jantsch (1980), who attributed the entire evolution of the cosmos to co-evolution, regards co-evolution as an essential aspect of the dynamics of self-organization. Co-evolution also happens among entities within a system, and the rate of their co-evolution (Jantsch 1980) is worth considering. Co-evolution can take place within an organization, the actors being any units with the ability to interact (Luoma 2006). As this author maintains, environment is not just everything that is not us; it is a rich collection of other players. We do not adapt to some overall environmental forces; rather, we constantly co-evolve with other players. In sum, complex adaptive systems self-organize when they are at the edge of chaos. This implies the evolution of a system into an organized form in the absence of external constraints. Adaptability is one of the characteristics of complex adaptive systems that implies the systems capacity to adjust to changes in the environment without endangering its essential organization. Adaptive learning is essential in these systems.

R. Chiva et al. However, existing schemas can undergo rst-order change or single loop learning and second-order change or double loop learning (Dooley 1997; Stacey 1996). The former occurs when a system employs its schema without change, adapting its behavior to the stimuli presented to it so that this behavior becomes more benecial. Second-order change or double loop learning occurs when a system adapts its behavior to the stimuli presented to it in a benecial way as a result of changing its schema. Schema change generally has the effect of making the agent more robust (it can perform in the light of increasing variation or variety), more reliable (it can perform more predictably), or making it grow in requisite variety (it can adapt to a wider range of conditions). In similar terms, Jantsch (1980) explains that, as the system reaches beyond the boundaries of its identity, it becomes creative. This author points out the importance of self-transcendence: the creative reaching out of a human system beyond its boundaries. Creation is the core of evolution, which is the result of self-transcendence at all levels. Jantsch (1980) highlights that social systems are re-creative systems because they can create new reality; sociocultural human beings have the ability to create the conditions for their further evolution all by themselves. Creativity means the ability to create something new that seems desirable and helps to achieve dened goals. By anticipating the future and creating new reality, social systems transcend themselves (selftranscendence). Human beings can create images of the future and actively strive to make these images become social reality. Individuals can anticipate possible future states of the world, society as it could be or as one would like it to become; and they can act according to these anticipations. By all this, Jantsch (1975, 1980) appeared to explain the difference between simply adapting to an environment (adaptive learning) and creating a new reality or transcending (generative learning). Implicate order Einsteins disciple Bohm (1980) used the theory of the implicate order to present a new model of reality that contains a holistic view. It connects everything with everything else. In principle, any individual element could reveal information about every other element in the universe. Bohm (1980) developed his theory of the implicate order to explain the strange behavior of subatomic particles, which he believed might be caused by unob-

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

Adaptive and Generative Learning served forces that may be reective of a deeper dimension of reality. He calls this reality the implicate order. Bohm (1980) uses the metaphor of the hologram (Pibram 1991) to explain the implicate order. He notes that the hologram illustrates how information about the entire holographed scene is enfolded into every part of the lm. It resembles the implicate order in the sense that every point on the lm is completely determined by the overall conguration of the interference patterns. Within the implicate order, everything is connected and enfolded into everything else. This contrasts with the explicate order or manifest world where things are unfolded. The explicate order derives from the implicate order. This concept is very much related to Platos theory of forms. Plato suggested that the world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only a shadow of the real world, that the world of appearances (explicate order) is the shadow of a more profound world of forms or ideas (implicate order). Within the implicate order, there is a totality of forms, which enfold everything. Bohm (1980) describes the implicate order as a kind of generative order, which is primarily concerned with a deep and inward order out of which the manifest form of things can emerge creatively. In fact, he believes there may be an innite hierarchy of implicate orders. Bohm (2004a) maintains that everybody has many experiences of the implicate order. The most obvious one is ordinary consciousness, in which consciousness enfolds everything that we know or see. According to Bohm (1980) and Bohm and Peat (2000), to approach the implicate or generative order requires (creative) intelligence, which is an unconditioned act of perception (intuition) that must lie beyond any factors that can be included in any knowable law. Bohm (1980) considers that thought is essentially mechanical and limits perception and intuition. He suggests that the perception of whether or not any particular thoughts are relevant or tting requires the operation of an energy that is not mechanical energy that we shall call intelligence. He gives an example; one may be working on a puzzling problem for a long time. Suddenly, in a ash of understanding, one may see the irrelevance of ones whole way of thinking about the problem, along with a different approach; such a ash is essentially an act of perception. Similarly, Krishnamurti (1994) understands that real learning brings order and, when learning ceases, it becomes the mere accumulation of knowledge (knowing), then disorder and conict begin. He believes that knowledge prevents learning.

121 Bohm (1980) considers that the movement from the explicate order to the implicate order and back again, if repeated enough, could give rise to a xed disposition. The point is that, via this process, past forms would tend to be repeated or replicated in the present, which implies the existence of certain patterns of vibration that create the visible forms we see in reality; that implicate orders inuence the external forms through a process of tuning in, or morphic resonance (Sheldrake 1981, 1994; Sheldrake et al. 2001). Morphic signies form, and resonance implies the tuning inof two or more parts into a pattern of the same frequency. Therefore, it means tuning in the form (Plato). Through morphic resonance, the patterns of activity in complex systems are inuenced by similar past patterns, giving each species and each kind of system a kind of collective memory (Sheldrake 1981). It should be noted here that Sheldrakes concept of morphic resonance blends with that of Jungs (1972) theory of synchronicity. Synchronous events or meaningful coincidence reveal an underlying pattern, a conceptual framework that encompasses, but is larger than, any of the systems which display the synchronicity (Peat 1987). Bohm (1980) considers that humanity, together with the whole of the biosphere, is a holistic system. All beings are part of one consciousness known as implicate order. All parts are connected with each other by frequencies and are in resonance. Frequencies, information and energies are all connected with each other in continuous cycle; they all are part of the whole. If a new impulse enters into a holistic system, it is effective in all its parts. If the impulse contains new core information, a eld-like change occurs that makes itself noticed as a mutation, evolutionary leap or as transformation (generative learning). Such transformations occur in the lives of individuals as well as in the lives of entire populations. The idea is that there is a kind of internal memory in nature. Each kind of thing has a collective memory. Sheldrake (1981) afrms that systems are shaped by morphic elds, a very similar concept to implicate order, which organize atoms, molecules, crystals, cells, organs, organisms, societies, organizations, ecosystems, planetary systems, solar systems, galaxies. In other words, they organize systems at all levels of complexity, and are the basis for the wholeness that we observe in nature, which is more than the sum of the parts. Morphic elds also contain an inherent memory given by the process of morphic resonance, whereby each kind of thing has a collective memory. As we have stated, in the human

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

122 realm this is similar to Jungs (1972) theory of the collective unconscious. And how that inuence moves across time is given by the internal process that Sheldrake (1981, 1994) calls morphic resonance. Morphic resonance suggests that it becomes easier to learn what other people have already learned; we all benet from what other people have previously learned through a kind of collective memory, morphic eld or implicate order.

R. Chiva et al.

Adaptive and generative learning processes within organizations

In the preceding section, we focused on two complexity concepts: self-organization and implicate order, which we consider essential for improving our understanding of adaptive and generative learning processes within organizations. In this section, we extend our analysis by exploring the contribution of these ideas to understanding or rethinking these two types of learning and OL process. Adaptive and generative learning In order to explain the different processes of adaptive and generative learning within organizations, we propose the distinction between complex adaptive systems and complex generative systems. While complex adaptive systems are associated with selforganization (Anderson 1999), complex generative systems are related to self-transcendence (Jantsch 1980), which implies a process that drives agents towards the implicate order. One of the chief complexity ideas is the concept of edge of chaos or bounded instability, which allows a system to initiate change. Organizational systems may present three types of states: stability, chaos and edge of chaos. When the system is stable and chaotic, effective complexity is low: either because it operates in an environment that is highly stable, in the sense that its component systems behave in a perfectly regular manner or because there is a high level of disorder. In both situations little learning may take place (Stacey 1996, 96). However, at the edge of chaos, the system is very complex, and nds itself in the transition phase between stability and chaos. In this situation, generated through interconnectivity and diversity, (adaptive or generative) learning may emerge (Gell-Mann 1994): self-organization or selftranscendence processes may occur. Neither process can be controlled or managed, and results cannot be determined in advance, although certain factors or

Figure 1. Adaptive learning

conditions might catalyze self-organizing and selftranscendence processes. Below, we analyze these conditions and describe the processes. Adaptive learning is considered by the OL literature as the renement and improvement of existing competences, technologies and paradigms without necessarily examining or challenging our underlying beliefs and assumptions. Complexity literature understands that complex adaptive systems have the capacity to adjust to changes in the environment without endangering their essential organization. Figure 1 describes the process of adaptive learning based mainly on ideas from complex adaptive systems. Explicate order, as referred to by Bohm (1980), is the manifested world, which is represented through knowledge, schemas, rules, mental models, paradigms, etc. Adaptive learning involves any improvement or development of the explicate order through a process of self-organization, which is attained when the system is at the edge of chaos. Self-organization is a self-referential process that aims to improve or increase the complexity of the explicate order without being guided or managed by an outside source. Generative learning implies being able to see beyond the situation and questioning operating norms (Argyris and Schn 1974). Senges (1990) concept of metanoia describes it as a profound shift of mind. As we mentioned previously, generative learning might be associated with complex generative systems, which self-transcend (Jantsch 1980) to develop a completely new order. This process aims to approach the implicated order and, to attain this, an unconditioned act of perception is required (Bohm 1980; Bohm and Peat 2000). Figure 2 describes the generative learning process. The process of self-transcendence (Jantsch 1980) implies going beyond a certain state or any possible

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

Adaptive and Generative Learning knowledge (explicate order) and approaching the implicate order (Bohm 1980). According to Krishnamurti (1994), learning brings (new) order. Order is not synonymous with stability, but is rather a holistic perception of reality or a new perceptive path where previously there was only poor or null sensibility. Similar concepts may include Maslows (1971) notion of peak experience or the term alignment as used by Senge (1990). Maslow (1971) denes peak experiences as sudden feelings of intense happiness and well-being, and possibly the awareness of ultimate truth and the unity of all things. In sum, all these terms are grounded on the assumption that parts often derive their nature and purpose from the whole and cannot be understood separately from it. Moreover, systemically, merely summing individual elements cannot account for the whole. This is why we also consider that the process of self-transcendence is a process of holo-organization. Within the implicate

123 order, everything is connected, everything is in everything else. Thus, we could say that Maslows peak experience is the subjective, personal and factual experience of Bohms holomovement, his implicit and seamless order revealed to the human conscience. As we noted above, self-organization and selftranscendence might emerge when certain conditions are in place. In order to determine these conditions for both learning types, we establish three dimensions or levels: individual, social and impersonal. These dimensions are based on Wilber (2000) and Kofman (2006), who understand that every organization has three dimensions or realms: the personal or individual realm comprises psychological or behavioral aspects (personal values, thinking); the social or interpersonal realm comprises relational aspects (relationships, shared values); and nally, the impersonal realm comprises technical aspects (tasks, aims) (Table 1). Adaptive learning is a self-organizational process that might happen when individuals and groups within organizations mainly exercise logic or deductive reasoning, concentrate, discuss and focus on improving any mental model, knowledge, process, etc. (explicate order). In contrast, generative learning is a self-transcendence process that might take place when individuals and groups within organizations mainly use intuition, attention, dialogue and aim to question any explicate order or knowledge. Reasoning is the mental process of looking for reasons for beliefs. Logical deductive reasoning is the type of reasoning that proceeds from general principles or premises and, based on those ideas, derives particular information or deduces the truth about each individual part of the whole. Premises upon which we base our logical reasoning are accepted because they are self-evident truths, which implies that there is no need to question or inquire. Therefore, it implies taking explicate order for granted, and improving it by reasoning.

Figure 2. Generative learning

Table 1. Adaptive vs generative learning Learning type Complex system Process Order Individual, self (I) Group, social (We) Aim, task (It) Adaptive learning Complex adaptive system Self-organization Explicate order Logic deductive reasoning Concentration Discussion Improvement Generative learning Complex generative system Self-transcendence (holo-organization) Implicate order Intuition Attention Dialogue Inquiry

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

124 Intuition is dened as a quick and ready insight, a process of coming to direct knowledge without reasoning or inferring. It is a way of knowing the truth without explanations. Bohm (1980) explains that, to approach the implicate order, an unconditioned act of perception or intuition is required. Bergson (1946) considers intuition as a simple, indivisible experience of sympathy through which one is moved into the inner being of an object to grasp what is unique and ineffable within it. Bohm (1980) explains intuition as a ash of understanding, in which one sees the irrelevance of ones whole way of thinking about the problem, along with a different approach; such a ash is essentially an act of perception. Generative learning also requires attention, which is different from concentration (Krishnamurti 1994). Concentration is a process of forcing the mind to narrow down to a point, whereas attention is a state in which the mind is constantly learning without a center, around which knowledge gathers as accumulated experience. It cannot be cultivated through persuasion, comparison, reward or punishment, all of which are forms of coercion. The elimination of fear is the beginning of attention. Fear must exist whenever there is an urge to be or to become. Hence, attention arises spontaneously when the learner is surrounded by an atmosphere of well-being, when he or she feels secure and at ease. Similarly, Senge et al. (2005) suggest the importance of observing, becoming one with the world. Consequently, generative learning is associated with intuition and attention, whereas adaptive learning is linked to logical deductive reasoning and concentration. Isaacs (1993) explains that any conversation ows to deliberation, which is to weigh up: consciously or unconsciously people weigh up different views, nding some with which they agree and others that they dislike. At this point, people face the rst crisis, a decision point that can lead either to discussing views or to suspending them (dialogue). Discussion means to shake apart, to analyze the parts (Bohm 2004b). Discussion implies dialectic conversation or the exchange of arguments and counter-arguments, respectively advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses). The outcome of the exercise might not simply be the refutation of one of the relevant points of view, but a synthesis or combination of the opposing assertions. The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion and, ultimately, the search for truth or objective reality. In order to

R. Chiva et al. improve the explicate order (knowledge, paradigm, etc.), discussions are based on its analysis, by improving the perception of reality. Complex adaptive systems are purposeful, are determined to act in a certain way, basically to adapt to an environment, which implies improving the explicate order, to advance or make progress in what is desirable. Bohm (2004b, 7) explains that dialogue is a stream of meaning owing among and through us and between us. This will allow meaning to ow in the whole group, out of which may emerge some new understanding. In dialogue, nobody is trying to win; everybody wins if anybody wins (Bohm 2004b). Following Isaacs (2003), dialogue also begins with conversation, but when different views appear, instead of discussing them (dialectic; to break apart; to win), people suspend them (Bohm 2004b). They begin to see and explore the range of assumptions that are present. For Bohm (2004b), suspending assumptions implies neither carrying them nor suppressing them, you do not believe them, nor do you disbelieve them. This idea can be related to the concept of Epoch, a Greek term developed by Aristotle and, more recently, by Husserl, that describes the theoretical moment where all beliefs are suspended. Similarly, methodic doubt, which has become a characteristic method in philosophy popularized by Descartes, is a systematic process of being skeptical about the truth of ones beliefs. Isaacs (1993, 30) considers that dialogue is an attempt to perceive the world through new eyes, not merely to solve problems using the thought that created them in the rst instance. Likewise, Bohm (1980) and Krishnamurti (1969, 1974, 1994, 2005) consider that knowledge prevents generative learning. Krishnamurti (1974) considers that the simple acquisition of information or knowledge is not learning. Learning is nding out, observing, exploring relationships. Dialogue is dened by Isaacs (1993) as a sustained collective inquiry into the processes, assumptions and certainties that make up everyday experience. In order to learn, Krishnamurti (2005) maintains that one needs to be in a state of inquiry, which requires a previous state of discontent. Discontent prompts a move to go beyond the limitations of the actual model or tendency. He proposes questioning or inquiring into everything that has been accepted. In sum, adaptive and generative learning carry out different processes and might be catalyzed or facilitated by different factors. Thus, two propositions are put forward:

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

Adaptive and Generative Learning

Proposition 1: Adaptive learning involves any improvement or development of the explicate order through a process of self-organization. Selforganization is a self-referential process characterized by logic, deductive reasoning, concentration, discussion and improvement. Proposition 2: Generative learning involves any approach to the implicate order through a process of self-transcendence. Self-transcendence is a holoorganizational process characterized by intuition, attention, dialogue and inquiry.

125 Organizations are systems formed by other systems or agents (individuals and groups), all of which can be considered social actors. We consider that adaptive and generative learning might happen in any social actor or agent, individuals and groups, which implies afrming that organizations learn through individuals (Simon 1991), by reasoningconcentration or intuiting-attention and also through communities (Brown and Duguid 1991), by discussing or dialoguing. Learning may start in individuals and in relationships, which means following a comprehensive view or accepting both perspectives, individual and social (Chiva and Alegre 2005; Elkjaer 2004; rtenblad 2002). Similarly, by adopting a social complexity perspective, Antonacopoulou and Chiva (2007, 289) seek a more holistic understanding of learning across multiple levels. When explicate orders from individuals or groups change, a process of institutionalization (Crossan et al. 1999) inuences the explicate order of the organization. Crossan et al. (1999, 529) afrm that OL is different from the simple sum of the learning of its members. Although individuals may come and go, what they have learned as individuals or in groups does not necessarily leave with them. Some learning is embedded in the systems, structures, strategy, routines, prescribed practices of the organizations, etc. Finally, when organizational explicate order inuences or affects individual or group explicate order, a process of exploitation (March 1991) takes place. Crossan et al. (1999) consider this as a feedback process. Consequently, and following Marchs (1991) terms, the exploration process might in our model take two modes: a self-organization process (adaptive) and a self-transcendence process (generative). Figure 3 describes the whole OL process.

Organizational learning Organizing and learning have traditionally been considered antithetical processes, which qualify OL as an oxymoron (Weick and Westley 1996, 440). According to this approach, organizing means ordering, structuring and controlling the chaotic world (Watson 1994), and learning is to disorganize and increase variety. However, Clegg et al. (2005) consider that organizing is not just the process of managing uncertainty, but is a process of increasing complexity and reducing it; ordering and disordering are interdependent, supplementary and parasitic. For these authors, learning becomes just one element in the process of organizing (Clegg et al. 2005, 155). In our paper, organizing and learning are considered as closely linked concepts. As suggested above, learning involves creating or searching for order (explicate or implicate), and organizing implies ordering. Generative learning is a process that involves searching for implicate order, which is a holistic understanding of anything or anyone we interact with (holo-organization). When unfolded, represented or enacted, this implicate order becomes explicate order, or the manifested world, which signies mental models, paradigms, etc. This process of unfoldment, similar to Crossan et al.s (1999) interpreting or Senge et al.s (2005) realizing, consists of unfolding the implicate order; making it explicit, applicable, knowledgeable. Knowledge is the body of data that comprises our rational picture of the world and how to live in it, and, while Krishnamurti (1994) recognizes its usefulness, he cautions us against focusing too exclusively on the building-up of knowledge at the expense of generative learning, which is a liberation from the limits of knowledge. Therefore, generative learning is beyond knowledge, because the latter is rooted in the past and would obviously prevent new things being seen. However, adaptive learning uses and improves knowledge, the explicate order.

Discussion
The fundamental contribution of this paper is the development of an OL theoretical model that incorporates adaptive and generative learning processes. This model is essentially based on two concepts from complexity theories: self-organization (Gell-Mann 1994; Kauffman 1993) and implicate order (Bohm 1980; Bohm and Peat 2000). Based on these concepts, both adaptive and generative learning processes are explained, and several procedures to catalyze them are also proposed. In order to explain the two processes and how they interact, we propose the distinction between complex adaptive systems and complex

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

126

R. Chiva et al.

Figure 3. The OL process

generative systems. The former is associated with self-organization, adaptive learning and explicate order. The latter is related to self-transcendence, generative learning and implicate order. Propositions 1 and 2 concisely describe adaptive and generative learning processes, underlining the characteristics that describe self-organizing and selftranscending processes. The rst process is characterized by logical deductive reasoning, concentration, discussion and improvement. The second one is typied by intuition, attention, dialogue and inquiry. The increasing signicance of generative learning for organizations, mainly due to the importance of radical innovations, could lead organizations to follow guidelines that facilitate or foster intuition, attention, dialogue and inquiry, which could require a new organizational form and management logic that might be related, for instance, to Kofmans (2006) conscious business or Senge et al.s (2005) presence. Adaptive and generative learning are considered to happen in individuals and in relationships, which means following a comprehensive view. Complexity theory seems to support this holistic approach (e.g. Antonacopoulou and Chiva 2007). However, OL implies more than individual-group adaptive and gen-

erative learning processes. In Figure 3, the whole OL process is depicted. The unfoldment of the implicate order is considered as a representation, interpretation or enactment. As a consequence a new individual or group explicate order emerges, which might become organizational explicate order when the former is institutionalized (Crossan et al. 1999). When organizational explicate order affects other individuals or groups within the organization, a process of exploitation (Crossan et al. 1999; March 1991) takes place. We also state that organizing and learning are strongly linked, as learning implies the search for order, which is considered as a holistic perception of reality or a new perceptive path where previously there was only poor or null sensibility. Furthermore, organizing also implies looking for order. Based on these ideas, learning and organizing are considered very closely related concepts, as both aim to bring order. This leads us to suggest that, when learning, we organize reality in a different way and, when organizing, a process of learning should have taken place. Furthermore, the concepts of self-organizing and self-transcendence highlight that both processes, adaptive and generative learning, seek to organize, to reach order. This papers approach differs from pre-

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

Adaptive and Generative Learning vious works such as those by Weick and Westley (1996), who consider organizing and learning as opposites, or by Clegg et al. (2005), who consider learning as an element of organizing. In this paper, we suggest that adaptive learning aims to improve knowledge (explicate order), whereas generative learning implies the search for implicate order, which might involve avoiding previous knowledge. According to Krishnamurti (1974) and Bohm (1980), generative learning ceases when there is only accumulation of knowledge; generative learning only occurs when there is no accumulation at all. In fact, intuition, dialogue, inquiry and attention imply suspending knowledge. We believe that this is an important statement that stresses the limited importance, and its implicit danger, of knowledge in facing generative learning and, hence, radical innovations. Most literature has theoretically and empirically stressed the importance of knowledge to develop innovations (e.g. Leonard-Barton 1992; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). However, perhaps these innovations were basically incremental innovations. Based on our theoretical model, we propose that a focus on knowledge could represent an obstacle to increasing radical innovations. We believe that our proposals on generative and adaptive learning might have important implications for the radical and incremental innovation literature. Similarly, the limited importance of knowledge for generative learning might also imply that activities like thinking or reasoning are not so essential for, and may even be a hindrance to, generative learning. Krishnamurti (1994) maintains that thinking is the reaction to what one knows. Knowledge reacts, and that is what we call thinking. However, generative learning underlines the importance of intuition, inquiry or attention, which relates to concepts like creativity or imagination. Perhaps creativeness or intuition has always been essential for human beings, even more so than rationality and thinking. Bohm (2004a, 133) believes creativity is essential not only for science or art, but for the whole of life:
If you get stuck in a mechanical repetitious order, then you will degenerate. That is one of the problems that has grounded every civilization: a certain repetition ... Many civilizations vanished not only because of external pressure, but also because they decayed internally.

127 to OL, and adaptive and generative learning. Consequently, we have not tried to search for common principles across a variety of very different systems (physical, social, etc.), but to nd out or suggest what the consequences might be for OL of taking these ideas into consideration (Houchin and MacLean 2005; Tsoukas 1998; Tsoukas and Hatch 2001). Future research might extend the model, for instance by analyzing why certain explicate orders seem to appear simultaneously in organizations, or the organizational consequences of stressing generative learning within organizations. Future research lines might also propose developing a scale to measure adaptive and generative learning within organizations, and relate it to other aspects or concepts like innovation or human resource management. In sum, this paper seeks to provide a more holistic and complex conceptualization of adaptive and generative learning within OL, challenging us to rethink the very basic assumptions that underpin our denitions of learning and organizing, essentially grounded in complexity theories.

References
Anderson, L. (1997). Argyris and Schns Theory on Congruence and Learning. Available at: http:scu.edu.au/ schools/gcm/ar/arp/argyris.html. Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10, pp. 216232. Antonacopoulou, E. and Chiva, R. (2007). The social complexity of organisational learning: the dynamics of learning and organizing. Management Learning, 38, pp. 277295. Argyris, C. and Schn, D. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Argyris, C. and Schn, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Argyris, C., Putman, R. and McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action Science, Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Arthur, J. and Aiman-Smith, L. (2001). Gainsharing and organizational learning: an analysis of employee suggestions over time. Academy of Management Journal, 44, pp. 737754. Ashby, W.R. (1952). A Design for a Brain. New York: John Wiley. Axelrod, R. and Cohen, M.D. (1999). Harnessing Complexity. New York: The Free Press. Bapuji, H. and Crossan, M. (2004). From raising questions to providing answers: reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning, 35, pp. 397 417.

Creativity is blocked by a wide range of rigidly held assumptions that are taken for granted by society as a whole (Bohm and Peat 2000). In this paper, we have metaphorically applied some complexity concepts to organizations and specically

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

128
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine. Bergson, H. (1946). The Creative Mind: An Introduction to Metaphysics. New York: Kensington. Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. New York: Routledge. Bohm, D. (2004a). On Creativity. New York: Routledge. Bohm, D. (2004b). On Dialogue. New York: Routledge. Bohm, D. and Peat, F.D. (2000). Science, Order and Creativity. New York: Routledge. Boisot, M. and Child, J. (1999). Organizations as adaptive systems in complex environments: the case of China. Organization Science, 10, pp. 237252. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991). Organisation learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unied view of working, learning, and innovation. Organisation Science, 2, pp. 4057. Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7, pp. 7390. Cangelosi, V.E. and Dill, W.R. (1965). Organizational learning: observations towards a theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, pp. 175203. Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. and Dewhurst, F. (2007). Linking organizational learning and customer capital through an ambidexterity context: an empirical investigation in SMEs. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, pp. 17201735. Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2005). Organizational learning and organizational knowledge: towards the integration of two approaches. Management Learning, 36, pp. 4968. Clegg, S.R., Kornberger, M. and Rhodes, C. (2005). Learning/becoming/organizing. Organization, 12, pp. 147167. Coleman, H.J. Jr (1999). What enables self-organizing behaviour in business? Emergence, 1, pp. 3348. Crossan, M., Lane, H. and White, R. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, pp. 522537. Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963). A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dent (1999). Complexity science: a worldview shift. Emergence, 1(4), pp. 519. Dent, E.B. and Goldberg, S.G. (1999). Challenging resistance to change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), pp. 2541. Dimitrov, V. (2003). Paradigm of Complexity: The Law of Emergence. Available at: http://www.zulenet.com/ VladimirDimitrov/pages/paradigm.html Dooley, K. (1997). Complex adaptive systems model of organizational change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 1, pp. 6997. Dooley, K., Corman, S.R., McPhee, R.D. and Kuhn, T. (2003). Modelling high resolution broadband discourse in complex adaptive systems. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 7, pp. 61 85.

R. Chiva et al.
Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learning: debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37, pp. 783796. Eijnatten, F.M. and Putnik, (2004). Introduction: Chaordic systems thinking for learning organizations. The Learning Organization, 11, pp. 415417. Elkjaer, B. (2004). Organizational learning: the Third Way. Management Learning, 35, pp. 419434. Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, pp. 803813. Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The Quark and the Jaguar Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New York: W. H. Freeman. Goodwin, B. (1994). How the Leopard Changed its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Gregersen, H. and Sailer, L. (1993). Chaos theory and its implications for social science research. Human Relations, 46, pp. 777802. Grifn, D., Shaw, P. and Stacey, R. (1998). Speaking of complexity in management theory and practice. Organisation, 5, pp. 315339. Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, pp. 149164. Holland, J.H. (1995). Hidden Order. How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Houchin, K. and MacLean, D. (2005). Complexity theory and strategic change: an empirically informed critique. British Journal of Management, 16, pp. 149166. Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2, pp. 88115. Isaacs, W. (1993). Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), pp. 2439. Jantsch, E. (1975). Design for Evolution: Self-organization and Planning in the Life of Human Systems. New York: George Braziller. Jantsch, E. (1980). The Self-Organizing Universe. New York: Pergamon Press. Johnson, J.L. and Burton, B.K. (1994). Chaos and complexity theory for management: caveat emptor. Journal of Management Enquiry, 3, pp. 320328. Jung, C. (1972). Synchronicity, an Acausal Connecting Principle, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Kang, S.C., Morris, S.S. and Snell, S.A. (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: extending the human resource architecture. Academy of Management Review, 32, pp. 23656. Kauffman, S.A. (1993). Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kets de Vries, M. and Miller, D. (1984). Neurotic style and organizational pathology. Strategic Management Journal, 5, pp. 3555.

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

Adaptive and Generative Learning

Kim, D.H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, Autumn, pp. 3750. Kofman, F. (2006). Conscious Business: How to Build Value Through Values. Boulder, CO: Sounds True. Krishnamurti, J. (1969). Freedom from the Known. San Francisco, CA: Harper. Krishnamurti, J. (1974). Krishnamurti on Education. New York: Harper & Row. Krishnamurti, J. (1994). On Learning and Knowledge. San Francisco, CA: Harper. Krishnamurti, J. (2005). Life Ahead: On Learning and the Search for Meaning. Novato, CA: New World Library. Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientic Revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Lant, T.K. and Mezias, S.J. (1992). An organizational learning model of convergence and reorientation. Organization Science, 3, pp. 4771. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). The factory as a learning laboratory. Sloan Management Review, Autumn, pp. 2338. Luoma, M. (2006). A play of four arenas: how complexity can serve management development. Management Learning, 37, pp. 101123. March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, pp. 7187. Maslow, A. (1971). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: The Viking Press. McKelvey, B. (1997). Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science, 8, pp. 352380. Miller, D. (1993). The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 18, pp. 116138. Miner, A. and Mezias, S. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: pasts and futures of organizational learning research. Organization Science, 7, pp. 8899. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledgecreating Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press. rtenblad, A. (2002). Organizational learning: a radical perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4, pp. 87100. Peat, F.D. (1987). Synchronicity, the Bridge between Matter and Mind. New York: Bantam Books. Piaget, J. (1969). Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books. Pibram, K. (1991). Brain and Perception: Holonomy and Structure in Figural Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Senge, P.M., Scharmer, C.O., Jaworski, J. and Flowers, B.S. (2005). Presence: An Exploration of Profound Change in People, Organizations, and Society. New York: Currency. Senge, P. (1990). Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday. Sheldrake, R. (1981). A New Science of Life. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher. Sheldrake, R. (1994). The Rebirth of Nature. New York: Bantam Books.

129
Sheldrake, R., Mckenna, T. and Abraham, R. (2001). Chaos, Creativity and Cosmic Consciousness. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press. Shipton, H. (2006). Cohesion or confusion? Towards a typology for organizational learning research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, pp. 233 252. Simon, H.A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, pp. 125134. Sitkin, S.B. (1992). Learning through failure: the strategy of small losses. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 14, pp. 231266. Smith, M.K. (2001). Chris Argyris: theories of action, double loop, learning and organizational learning. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Available at: http:// www.infeld.org/thinkers/argyris.htm (accessed 6 February 2008). Stacey, R.D. (1996). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler. Thitart, R.A. and Forgues, B. (1995). Chaos theory and organization. Organization Science, 6, pp. 1931. Tsang, E.W.K. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50, pp. 73 89. Tsoukas, H. (1998). Introduction: chaos, complexity and organization theory. Organization, 5, pp. 291313. Tsoukas, H. and Hatch, M.J. (2001). Complex thinking, complex practice: the case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Human Relations, 54, pp. 9791013. Virany, B., Tushman, M. and Romanelli, E. (1992). Executive succession and organization outcomes in turbulent environments: an organization learning approach. Organization Science, 3, pp. 7291. Visser, M. (2007). Deutero-learning in organizations: a review and reformulation. Academy of Management Review, 32, pp. 659667. Watson, T. (1994). Towards a managerially relevant but nonmanagerialist organization theory. In Hassard, J. and Parker, M. (eds), Towards A New Theory of Organizations: London: Routledge, pp. 209226. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J.H. and Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: Norton. Weick, K.E. and Westley, F. (1996). Organizational learning: afrming an oxymoron. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (eds), Handbook of Organizational Studies: London: Sage, pp. 440458. Wilber, K. (2000). A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality. Boston, MA: Shambala. Zollo, M. and Winter, S. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13, pp. 339351.

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management