Article 9 - The application of learning organization to enhance learning in Singapore schools | Học Viện Phụ Nữ Việt Nam
Article 1 - Importance of Soft skills development in 21st century Curriculum | Học Viện Phụ Nữ Việt Nam được sưu tầm và soạn thảo dưới dạng file PDF để gửi tới các bạn sinh viên cùng tham khảo, ôn tập đầy đủ kiến thức, chuẩn bị cho các buổi học thật tốt. Mời bạn đọc đón xem!
Preview text:
Article MiE Management in Education 2016, Vol. 30(1) 10–18
The application of learning organization
ª 2016 British Educational Leadership,
Management & Administration Society
to enhance learning in Singapore schools (BELMAS) Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0892020615619665 mie.sagepub.com Kala S Retna
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Pak Tee Ng
Nanyang Technological University of Singapore, Singapore Abstract
The rise of interest in the learning organization (LO) concept attests to the value of learning by individuals and organi-
zations for continuous improvement and adaptability to the ever-changing environment. Although the LO concept ori-
ginated from business contexts, it was subsequently extended to educational organizations, particularly to schools. This
paper presents research on the way LO is practised by a school in Singapore that subscribes to the LO philosophy. Using
Ortenblad’s four integrated LO aspects (organizational learning, learning at work, learning climate and learning structure)
as a framework of analysis, the research shows that the school practises the four aspects in a way that is unique to its
school context, but that wider cultural factors have to be taken into account when interpreting LO in an Asian school context. Keywords
School, teachers, organizational learning, learning at work, learning climate, learning structure Introduction
discussion of the applicability of LO in the Asian school context.
In a rapidly evolving environment, many organizations
experience change that requires them to review their way
of management from that which was suited for an industria- Literature review
lized economy to one that is more suited for a modern
knowledge economy. The knowledge economy demands
Much has been written about the LO concept since the
that people learn efficiently and effectively in order to com-
1990s. However, some have considered that a consistent
pete with others and adapt to the driving forces of change.
definition of LO has been elusive (Henk, 2011; Thomas and
Learning is a critical source of competitive advantage for
Allen, 2006). Scholars and researchers working in the field
an enterprise (Casey, 2005; Garvin, 2000). The emergence
tend to define LO according to their own experiences (Park,
of the learning organization (LO) concept is recognition of
2008) and each organization under study has its own char-
the value of learning by individuals and organizations for
acteristics and conditions that require it to develop its own
continuous improvement and adaptability to the ever-
version of the learning organization (Senge et al., 1994;
changing environment (read, for example, Bui and Baruch,
Swieringa and Wierdsma, 1992). While there are different
2010; Grieves, 2000; Harvey and Denton, 1999; Kie-
ways of defining a learning organization, Senge’s defini-
drowski, 2006; Rowden, 2001; Senge, 1990).
tion has a humanistic perspective and is linked to learning
Although the LO concept originated from business con-
that focuses at individual, group and organizational level.
texts, it was subsequently extended to educational organi-
Senge (1990) defines a learning organization as one in
zations, particularly for schools. Many now argue that
which people continually expand their capacity to create the
schools should become LOs (read, for example, Johnston
results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns
and Caldwell, 2001; Senge et al., 2000a). The argument
of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set
is that schools that are learning organizations are able to
free, and where people are continually learning to learn
enhance their capacity to respond to change (Corcoran and
together. Such an organization focuses its attention on devel-
Goertz, 1995; Diggins, 1997; Fullan, 1993; Strain, 2000).
oping the conditions that motivate people to do great things
This paper presents research on the way LO is practised
by a school in Singapore that subscribes to the LO philoso- Corresponding author:
phy. In the subsequent sections, the paper reviews the liter-
Kala S Retna, Victoria University of Wellington, 23 Lambton Quay, PO
ature on LO, outlines the research and its methodology,
Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.
discusses the research findings, and concludes with a E-mail: Kala.retna@vuw.ac.nz Retna and Ng 11
for themselves and for their organizations. Organizations
on western assumptions might not be culturally suitable for
work the way they work because of how their members think
application in non-western organizations (Dimmock and
and interact. Only by changing the deeply embedded think-
Walker, 2000; Hofstede, 2001; Javidan and House, 2001).
ing and habitual practises of employees can organizations
Despite these debates, LO still appeals to practitioners and
develop new business capacities (Senge, 1990). Senge’s def-
researchers (read, for example, An and Reigeluth, 2005;
inition acts as an overarching framework to understand how
Marquardt, 2002). In the Singapore school context, Ng people learn in this study.
(2005) opines that LO ‘is not the perfect way, but it is a
There are different models and approaches to develop-
framework that is relatively easy to understand and prac-
ing LO. Different LO proponents approach it from different
tise’ (Ng, 2005: 9). Along the same line of discussion, there
angles but all have implications for leadership and manage-
is some literature that claims the adoption of LO in schools
ment. Argyris (1999) focuses on double-loop learning over
with successful outcomes (Brandt, 2003; Lick, 2006;
single-loop learning as a way to achieve a quantum leap. Moloi, 2010).
Huber (1991) suggests a four-step approach to LO develop-
When LO is applied in the school context, it is referred
ment: knowledge acquisition, information distribution,
to as a learning school (Ng, 2005; Senge et al., 2000a,
information interpretation and organizational memory.
2000b). It is one that builds new capacities for deep learn-
Senge (1990) advocates the five disciplines of Personal
ing and adaptation to social changes (Ng, 2005; Robinson,
Mastery, Mental Models, Shared Vision, Team Learning
2001; Senge et al. 2000b). According to Senge et al.
and Systems Thinking. More recently, Ortenblad (2004)
(2000a: 5), a learning school is one that is ‘re-created, made
proposes another LO developmental framework that com-
vital, and sustainably renewed not by fiat or command, not
prises four integrated aspects of organizational learning
by regulation, but by taking a learning orientation. This
(OL), learning at work, learning climate and learning struc-
means involving everyone in the system in expressing their
ture. Integration of these four aspects, in particular, under-
aspirations, building awareness and developing their cap-
scores the role of leadership. Very often components of a
abilities together’. In Singapore’s context, Ng (2005: 1)
strategy attract different people and these may well pursue
explains the philosophy of the learning school:
their favoured part of the strategy without considering the
effect of that on the strategy as a whole. Leaders have to
The learning school is one in which learning is central to its
ensure that the components are kept in a coherent balance.
being. That means that the school exists because it is centred
This is the framework of analysis that we use in this
on learning. In a learning school, everyone is a learner. The
paper, as it emphasizes the significance of learning from
students, teachers, leaders and administrators are all learners.
different perspectives that encompass how learning is
The ethos of the school is an aspiration for everyone to be effi-
facilitated at various levels through different organizational
cient and effective at learning and learning how to learn activities and practices. together.
According to Ortenblad (2004), OL focuses on the dif-
ferent levels of learning, storing of knowledge and its use
There are of course challenges to leading and managing a
in the organization. Learning at work emphasizes the
LO. Specific organizational attributes inform the careful
importance of ‘on-the-job learning’ as learning and knowl-
consideration of the appropriate types of intervention and
edge are context-dependent. Learning climate recognizes
modification for learning and change to happen (Appel-
the importance of management in creating a positive atmo-
baum and Gallagher, 2000; Cook and Yanow, 1993). Con-
sphere in the workplace that is supportive, open and facil-
sidering all these, leaders of LOs play a critical role in the
itates critical and new ways of thinking for learning to take
process of OL (Hallinger, 2011; Wenger, 2000; Yeo, 2007).
place. An important aspect of the learning climate is that
Schools as LOs constantly experience tension, particu-
employees should be given the time and space to learn.
larly when learning is viewed both as a phenomenon that
That crucially means that management must allocate
is dependent on both the individual and the environment
resources, including time to make this possible. Learning
(Ng and Liang, 2010). Liljenberg (2014: 155) identifies
structure advocates a flexible organization where the struc-
five significant areas of challenges and points of tension
ture is designed to allow flexibility, decentralization and
in leading and managing schools as learning organizations:
for organizing members into teams. The learning structure
organizational structures; goals, visions and values; respon-
is a crucial precondition for learning to be a continual pro-
sibility and decision making; reflection and evaluation; and
cess. All this puts special demands on management, which
attitudes. Moreover, ‘being aware of emerging tensions,
needs to master self-resistant, facilitating processes rather
together with expanded collaboration and a professional
than ordering them into existence. Management needs to
attitude characterised by respect and trust, is also needed
relinquish some power in order to empower ‘followers’.
in order to avoid deeply rooted conceptions about teaching,
Followership, as expounded by Kelley (1988), requires the
leadership and school organisations’ (Liljenberg, 2014: appropriate leadership.
167). Beyond the walls of the school, external tensions of
Like many other management concepts, the learning
overcoming standardized reforms agenda also possibly
organization has its critics (read, for example, Eijkman,
impede the progress of learning organizations by ‘actively
2011; Grieves, 2008; Jackson, 2001; Smith, 2008; Tsang,
undermining the efforts and successes of those few, truly
1997). Several researchers have also argued that manage-
creative ‘knowledge society’ schools, and their teachers’
ment models and theories (including LO) that were based
(Giles and Hargreaves, 2006: 152). 12 Management in Education 30(1)
So, there are a few points that leaders should note in
National Education, ICT Masterplan and the Teach Less
leading a school as a LO. Firstly, leaders must ‘have a
Learn More (TLLM) initiative (Ng, 2008). While these pol-
vision of how learning should be institutionalized through
icies appeared to be top-down, more autonomy was given
the intervention of systems, structure and strategy’ (Yeo,
to schools to interpret and implement them. The govern-
2007: 525). By sharing their vision, leaders promote partic-
ment also encouraged more bottom-up school-based inno-
ipation of school staff. This consequently allows for more
vations in the areas of curriculum implementation and
opportunities to overcome hierarchical inadequacies and
pedagogical advancement (Tan and Ng, 2007). All these
leads to collective efforts at learning and change (Sheehan,
changes put a premium on the capacity of schools and their
2004). In fact, leadership is crucial to facilitate learning
staff members to learn and change. Schools are faced with
‘even when there are no immediate answers to complex
the great challenge of transformation so that they may have
issues during change’ (Yeo, 2007: 548).
the capacity to learn, innovate and adapt to the changing
Secondly, leaders must learn to become stewards of times (Ng, 2005, 2008).
learning. In leading and managing LOs, leaders become
During this journey of change, teachers and school lead-
stewards when they act as unifying enablers to create a
ers are highly challenged to be accountable to students, par-
sense of meaning and direction during the change process
ents, the public and the country, both a moral educationalist
in a complex environment (O’Connor, 2004; Yeo, 2007).
perspective and a bureaucratic perspective, to deliver holis-
They help to provide to staff ‘the overarching explanation
tic education and maintain good results (Ng, 2013). The
of why they do what they do, how their organization needs
Singapore education system is a high accountability sys-
to evolve, and how that evolution is part of something
tem. This is also a system that is operated by people who larger’ (Senge, 1990: 346).
are highly motivated and responsible (Ng, 2013). Against
Thirdly, leaders must learn to become chief learners.
this backdrop, this research project, which is situated in a
They need to demonstrate their own willingness to learn,
Singapore school, is harmonious with calls for utilizing a
in particular to master skills in systems thinking and the
contextualized approach in studying OL (Ortenblad,
ability to work within set timeframes (Dervitsiotis, 1998). 2011; Snell and Hong, 2011).
They need to demonstrate the outcomes of their own learn-
ing as agents of change, especially in leading the school to
Research question and methodology
‘convert mandates and problems into challenges and oppor-
tunities’ (Bass, 2000: 37). In doing so, they encourage staff
This research took place in a Singapore school that sub-
to actively utilize knowledge and continuously support OL
scribed to the LO philosophy. The main research question
(Edmonson and Moingeon, 1998; Sheehan, 2004; Yeo,
was: how does a school in Singapore practise LO? The 2007).
question was addressed using Ortenblad’s (2004) four inte-
One impetus for the adoption of the learning school phi-
grated LO aspects (OL, learning at work, learning climate
losophy in Singapore is the launch of the nation’s vision of
and learning structure) as a framework of analysis.
‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ (TSLN) in 1997.
Data was collected through three means: face-to-face
TSLN encapsulates Singapore’s vision of meeting its
interviews with staff members, personal observations and
post-independence challenges in the 21st century as an
examination of documents. Face-to-face interviews were
emerging economic powerhouse. Introduced by Goh Chok
carried out with 16 teachers of the school. These teachers
Tong, who was then Prime Minister, TSLN became the
were asked two key questions, with further probes for clar-
foundation upon which future education reforms and initia-
ification and elaboration. The first question focused on the
tives were based. It was essentially a vision of a total learn-
teachers’ understanding of learning and its importance. The
ing environment that could develop the nation’s human
second question dealt with the practice of learning organi-
capital (Ng, 2008). Goh (1997) elucidated:
zation principles and the advantages and challenges
encountered during its implementation. Personal observa-
tions of LO practices were carried out in the school and
The world today is very different from the world 10 or 20 years
ago. As change will occur at an even faster rate, we can expect
documents such as published literature regarding LO in
the world in 10 or 20 years’ time to be radically different from
Singapore schools were included in the analysis. The data
the one we see today. Our capacity to learn, as individuals and
was examined using Ortenblad’s (2004) four integrated
as a nation, will decide our future, whether we stagnate, perish,
aspects of LO as a set of lenses and the findings are pre- or continue to succeed. sented in the next section.
Therefore, in order to develop this capacity to learn, TSLN
Discussion of the findings of the research
articulated a vision of a ‘school system that can develop Learning at work
creative thinking skills, lifelong learning passion and natio-
nalistic commitment in the young’, and a Singapore society
Learning at work recognizes the importance of context
where learning is ‘a national culture, where creativity and
as an integrated process for people to learn in an organiza-
innovation flourishes at every level of the society’ (Ng,
tion (Gherardi, 2000; Kolb, 1984; Ortenblad, 2011; 2008: 6).
Revans, 1982). According to Hodkinson (2004: 12), there
Over the years since the launch of TSLN, various major
is agreement in the literature that ‘learning at work cannot
initiatives were launched under its umbrella, including
be separated from the everyday working practises of the Retna and Ng 13
workplace’. This implies that learning and knowledge are
non-threatening, conducive environment for all organiza-
seen as context-dependent and therefore most learning
tional members to learn on the job. This can be made pos-
takes place on-the-job and not in formal training courses
sible through strategies and structures that facilitate
(Holton et al., 2003; Ortenblad, 2004).
learning experiences for employees (Yeo, 2007).
In the school context, the research shows that learning at
work is generally practised by proactively engaging in
one’s personal and professional development. For example, Organizational learning
a teacher in explaining her commitment to teaching and her
own professional learning, said:
Early studies on organizational learning (OL) have been
linked to different levels and types of learning, such as sin-
As a teacher we learn every day from our own teaching, from
gle- and double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978).
other subject specialists, HODs [heads of department] and
These levels and types of learning were ultimately associ-
even from our Principal. Learning is a continuous process for
ated with the process of how individuals and organizations
teachers. We learn from our daily teaching activities. We also
learn in their daily activities. The new OL in Ortenblad’s
reflect and learn more from our reflections.
framework (2004) focuses on individual learning and shar-
ing of knowledge that takes place among members in the
This is reinforced by a head of department (HOD) who
workplace. Interpreted in this way, OL emphasizes the col- commented:
lective, rather than individual, entity of learning in organi- zations (Ortenblad, 2011).
Learning is much valued in our school. Being a HOD, I am
One current and critical aspect of OL for teachers is to
learning from other HODs and teachers by engaging in pro-
collectively rethink pedagogy to reform teaching and learn-
ductive discussions, sharing of teaching strategies, ideas and
ing (Ng, 2008). In Singapore, teachers are encouraged to
experiences. Our job is such that we learn and grow together
‘teach less and learn more’ (Ng, 2008). This is a fundamen- in the school.
tal reform that requires educators and other stakeholders to
understand how effective teaching and learning can be
As the HOD has indicated, it is the job of a leader to learn and
achieved in schools. Teachers need to realize the difference
grow together with other leaders and teachers in the school.
between knowledge transmission and knowledge construc-
This comment is harmonious with the idea of leaders who
tion. The OL efforts of the school helped some teachers to
take the role of chief learners and who demonstrate their own
change their perceptions about teaching and learning:
willingness to learn. This is especially important when there
are no easy answers to the challenges of change (Yeo, 2007).
I belong to the old system of education where the teacher tells
Teachers’ work is a multifaceted process and in this pro-
everything and students will learn and pass examination. Ini-
cess teachers have many opportunities to learn in a wide
tially, this style of teaching was part of my thinking. It worked
variety of activities, such as:
for me, so I thought it will work for my students. Now, I am
convinced that my traditional thinking has to change. My
social interactions about one’s own teaching and
school is transforming. We are learning to question our old
seeking advice (Frank et al., 2004);
methods and beliefs and are making some progress in learning
discussing with others on teaching strategies (Little,
collectively and doing things differently. 2003);
We are slowly changing the traditional style to more
experimenting with new initiatives (Davis, 2003);
student-centred learning. The degree of involvement by teach-
observing classroom practice of others (Daniel,
ers and HODs to create a culture of questioning the way we do 2012);
things here is impressive. We are now motivated to learn and
peer mentoring and being mentored (Kedzior and work as a school. Fifield, 2004).
The collective and organizational aspect of learning
While these activities provide opportunities (Little,
becomes a powerful movement in the school when teachers
2002) for learning on-the-job, teachers attend formal
act together and see one another in action. Furthermore, the
courses as part of their professional growth (Borko,
ability to learn from experiences drawn from one another
2004). The aspect of learning at work is, to a large extent,
adds to the power of OL (Doos and Wilhelmson, 2011).
evident in Singapore schools (Retna and Ng, 2008). It is
To facilitate OL in schools, a shared vision is important
also seen as a commitment towards life-long learning. Also
to drive the process. Shared vision is the capacity to build
the researcher’s observations indicate that there are many
and develop a shared picture of the future that a group of
professional learning platforms in the school, including
people truly wish to create (Senge, 1990). In a school con-
professional learning community (Salleh, 2011; Salleh and
text, shared vision can be practised by developing and com-
Dimmock, 2012) and mentoring and coaching schemes
mitting to an agreed direction that guides a school’s (Ng, 2012).
everyday activities and long-term progress (Silins et al.,
‘Learning on the job’ requires empathetic and suppor-
2002). A shared vision of the school brings teachers
tive leadership from management. Learning, after all, is
together to work towards common goals and for the future.
an admission of ignorance and imperfection. It is critical
Shared vision encourages genuine commitment not compli-
for leaders to continuously create opportunities and a
ance from people (Senge, 1990). It requires communication, 14 Management in Education 30(1)
participation and building of good relationships among those
leaders (O’Connor, 2004), it is important for leaders to con-
involved in the visioning process.
sider the defensive dynamics and avoid deeply embedded
However, local culture has an effect on the way the
conceptions about leading and managing schools (Liljen-
discipline of shared vision is practised and the process
berg, 2014). This challenge could be managed by creating
by which a vision is derived or implemented. Our research
a team learning environment (Yeo, 2007) as it allows
shows that teachers in Singapore are generally more
opportunities for dialogue and inquiry that helps staff to
inclined to carry out the vision than to develop the vision,
understand the importance of OL and the goals and visions
in spite of opportunities given for all to be involved in the
of the organization (Liljenberg, 2014).
visioning process. This means that many school envision-
ing exercises appear to be more ‘top-down’ than what is
advocated in the literature. However, that does not dimin- Learning climate
ish the teachers’ commitment to focus on achieving the
A learning climate facilitates the learning of its individuals
desirable outcomes of the school vision, one of which is
and is an important aspect of a learning organization. It
to facilitate OL in the school. One teacher’s remark was
refers to employees’ perception of the environment that illuminating:
an organization creates through its practices and procedures
to facilitate learning (Cunningham and Iles, 2002; Orten-
We are told to join in crafting the vision for our school. But
blad, 2004). The essence of a learning climate is that it must
many of us don’t really think it is important for everyone to
give ideas. Our principal and HODs have lots of ideas and
provide space and time for reflection so that meaningful
we know it is meant for making our school the best for students
learning can take place (Kolb, 1984). Furthermore, it must
and teachers. What is important is that we carry out what is in
promote experimentation and allow employees to take our vision and mission.
risks. It also accepts failure, provided that employees
reflect and learn from it (Honey and Mumford, 1989; Mum-
Another senior teacher’s expression:
ford, 1986; Poell et al., 1997). For employees to learn indi-
vidually and collectively, a learning climate must be
In coming with a vision, people are invited to attend the brain
supportive and challenging (Boydell, 1976; Knox, 1986).
storming session. Mostly our seniors and principal are
A conducive climate of learning facilitates the discipline
involved. People contribute many ideas and finally people set-
of team learning (Senge, 1990).
tle for a vision statement. Whether I like it or not, a vision is a
The research shows that to foster a climate of learning in
direction from the school leader. So, I work towards it because
the school, one critical tool is dialogue. The research find-
there is no bad ‘vision’. It is for the good of the school.
ings suggest that a critical factor to fostering a learning cli-
mate is to foster open-ness in dialogue. According to some
It is interesting to note that Singapore teachers are willing
studies, dialogue can have a positive influence on teachers’
to implement the school vision based on trusting their lead-
knowledge in applying new pedagogies (Dinham et al.,
ers. So, it is evident that there is a cultural element to the
2008; Little and Horn, 2007). Dialogue enables teachers discipline of shared vision.
to see new points of view and helps challenge their own
Moreover, a societal culture that puts a premium on fast
mental models. One teacher commented on the impact of
pace change and getting results, affects the mind sets of dialogue:
staff members. It presents challenges to OL, as the follow-
ing remarks show. From a teacher:
Dialogue allows us to discuss issues without any fear of being
‘marked’ by seniors. It helps us to see each other’s view and
When new initiative comes out, it must be implemented fast. learn from others.
LO is good but the change cannot take place so fast. All of
us need time to absorb and follow. We cannot let new changes Another teacher pointed out:
affect our students’ results. As a teacher, I must make sure my
students’ results are good. This is my main focus; otherwise I
I feel dialogue is very useful for staff to interact on important cannot progress in my career.
issues, like improving teaching. It encourages people to speak
their thoughts openly. It makes me feel so good to share my From a HOD:
opinions, ideas without fear. I enjoy dialogue sessions because
I can learn so much from others.
In my school LO is pushed for quick results. My principal
understands our highly time pressured situation, yet she expect
The findings in our research suggest that Singapore teach-
to see fast change in the school. (But) whatever new things we
ers are receptive towards dialogue and appreciate new ideas
face, our mind must be on our students’ results.
on solving teaching related issues from colleagues. The
practice of dialogue helps to enhance the learning climate
In these ways, the dynamics of OL is influenced by the cul-
in schools. However, on more controversial issues, the
ture of the school and the wider culture of the community.
effects of local culture come into play. Many teachers still
Also, the above responses from participants show that
find it difficult to share true feelings and opinions, electing
change processes can cause anxiety and can inhibit learning
to keep quiet about what they really think. It is interesting
(Yeo, 2007). As work environments are established by
to note that Singapore teachers are generally willing to go Retna and Ng 15
along with the predominant discourse, despite their private
teaching and other various roles they undertake. The leader-
views. So, it is evident that there is a cultural element to the
ship challenge is to find the balance that is effective in the
discipline of team learning, especially when it comes to
Singapore culture between driving change through a top-
dialogue (Ng and Liang, 2005). The very word ‘team’
down approach and empowerment through a bottom-up
comes with cultural connotations. It can mean a group of
approach. Creating opportunities for participation and colla-
equals, a group of seniors and juniors, and so forth. Culture
borative learning among different levels will allow a degree
cannot be ignored, but must be taken into account.
of empowerment (Sheehan, 2004) that can help to address
the restrictions of hierarchy (Senge, 1990). Learning structure Conclusion
In an organization, a good structure provides the platform
Using Ortenblad’s (2004) four integrated LO aspects (OL,
for work to be done efficiently and for learning to take
learning at work, learning climate and learning structure) as
place at different levels by individuals and teams. Accord-
a framework of analysis, this paper has presented research
ing to Ortenblad (2011), a learning structure is one that is
on the way LO is practised by a school that subscribes to
characterized as flexible, decentralized and with fewer
the LO philosophy. The research shows that the school
hierarchical levels. Furthermore, a learning structure ‘has
practises the four aspects in a way that is unique to the
a theoretical root in organic structure’ (Ortenblad, 2011:
school context, but wider cultural factors have to be taken
32). Therefore, in a learning organization, a facilitative
into account in interpreting LO in an Asian school context.
learning structure is flexible and organic (Mintzberg,
In concluding this paper, the applicability of the LO con-
1983; Ortenblad, 2011). A flexible and organic structure
cept in a school in Singapore has to take into account a few
is more conducive to learning than a bureaucratic one (Fiol
issues and challenges that relate to the fundamentals of
and Lyles, 1985). From this perspective, a flexible learning
schooling. According to Ng (2005), one defining characteris-
structure is crucial in a dynamic, uncertain and complex
tic of a learning school is that in such a school, learning is
environment where organizations have to learn continu-
joyful. Singapore schools are well organized for effective and
ously to survive (Senge, 1990).
efficient learning. They are always ranked high in interna-
A school is a complex, interconnected system where
tional tests such as TIMMS (Trends in International Mathe-
everyone is interdependent on everyone else to provide the
matics and Science) and PISA (Program of International
best education for students. Interdependence is a crucial
Student Assessment). However, they may not be very well
factor for schools to be a learning school (Little, 1990;
organized for joyful learning. The society still values results
Rosenholtz, 1989). The natural extrapolation of the above
in high-stakes examinations (Ng, 2005). This undoubtedly
discussion is that a flexible learning structure in a school
presents a challenge to school leadership. School leaders
should not be hierarchical. However, this is where culture
need to lead teachers in transforming learning into joyful
comes into play again. Even as a school implements LO, its
experiences, within a system where there are tests and exam-
learning structure has to reflect the high-power distance cul-
inations. That is part of what a learning school has to learn.
ture (Hofstede, 2001). Singapore’s school system may exhibit
A learning school is one that promotes mastery of knowl-
more ‘command and control’ features (Salleh and Dimmock,
edge and skills that are premised on good values. It is impor-
2012) compared to schools in the West. However, the
tant to inculcate good values (Lipman, 2003), especially
research finds that learning activities continue to take place
with the emphasis on the use of technology, that can bring
within the constraints of a hierarchical system. So, even as the
about undesirable outcomes if proper values are not inte-
school implements LO, one teacher commented:
grated in the teaching and learning process. The increasing
reporting of unethical behaviour in business and organiza-
Singapore believes in hierarchy in everything. In school, we
tion is a good reminder for schools to ensure that the learning
too follow the hierarchy. Whatever new initiative we imple-
is not only joyful but imparts good values. As part of their
ment, we must not forget our hierarchical system, culture and
learning and practising good values, students need to learn structure.
how to respect others and embrace diversity. Students also
Another senior teacher strongly expressed her views:
have to learn how to make moral decisions in complex situa-
tions. The textbooks may not necessarily address issues that
We are Singaporeans. So hierarchy is something we under-
relate to values and moral dilemmas that they will encounter
stand and respect in our workplace. When I really think deeply
in their future. Teachers can fill that gap, drawing on the
about it, hierarchy helps to move things fast for improvement.
experience of students and what is going on around them,
in school and the wider society. Teachers have to lead stu-
So, interestingly, while hierarchy is generally assumed to be
dents in embracing diversity, by being the first to do so.
unhelpful in building a learning school, LO development has
The ability to work with people has become a critical
to take into account of real cultural factors. Perhaps the
skill in the workforce (Brodt and Thompson, 2001). The
structure does not offer a great level of flexibility, autonomy
school is an ideal platform for students to learn to work
or empowerment. However, within the learning structure,
with classmates collectively and collaboratively. However,
the teachers have enough space to learn from each other
despite recent encouragement for students to work in
and work as teams to attain a high level of competency in
teams, there is still a high tendency for students to 16 Management in Education 30(1)
learn alone. The ‘me-and-my-grades’ examination system
Appelbaum SH and Gallagher J (2000) The competitive advan-
rewards individual ability rather than the capacity to work
tage of organizational learning.
well with others. Therefore, it is possible that ‘a student can 12(2): 40–56.
get [a] good set of results but not have any friends’ (Ng, Argyris M (1999) . Oxford:
2005: 6). However, a learning school embraces both indi- Blackwell.
vidual and collective learning. The preference for compet- Argyris M and Schon D (1978)
itive individual learning poses a great challenge for the . Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
learning school and for the entire education system.
Bass BM (2000) The future of leadership in learning organiza-
One key question that remains is whether the learning tions. 7(3):
school concept is indeed the answer to the demands placed 18–40.
upon schools. However, paradoxically, many of the current
Borko H (2004) Professional development and teacher learning:
criticisms of schools, in general, seem to suggest that under Mapping the terrain. 33(8): 3–15.
the social, political and economic agenda of the society, Boydell T (1976) . Manchester: Manchester
schools are ‘learning’ too well to ‘play the game’. Such
Monographs, University of Manchester.
learning may serve only to reproduce an educational sys-
Brandt R (2003) Is this school a learning organisation? 10 ways to
tem that is not any different from the existing one, which tell. 24(1): 10–16.
has been increasingly acknowledged as inadequate to the
Brodt S and Thompson L (2001) Negotiating teams: A level of
needs of the knowledge age and the demands of globaliza- analysis approach. 5(3): 208–219.
tion. Therefore, the learning school is not about techniques,
Bui H and Baruch Y (2010) Creating learning organisations:
it is about essence. It is not about fitting into specific LO a systems perspective. 17(3):
typologies; it is about promoting quality education, inter- 208–226.
preted within the culture of the stakeholders. The challenge
Casey A (2005) Enhancing individual and organisational learning.
for school leaders will be to decide whether they will lead 36(2): 131–147.
their school to put learning as a centre of their being or to be
Cook SD and Yanow D (1993) Culture and organizational learn-
driven by grades and rankings. This is not merely a philo- ing. 2(1): 373–393.
sophical or rhetorical question. This is the most practical
Corcoran G and Goertz H (1995) Instructional capacity and high
question that leaders will have to answer for themselves performance schools. 19(9): 27–31.
because it influences all other efforts at developing a LO
Cunningham P and Iles P (2002) Managing learning climates in a
in school. However, given the existing culture and reality,
financial services organisation.
school leaders will have to develop the ability to walk the 21(6): 477–492.
tight rope to both promote the learning school and to obtain
Daniel C (2012) Observing classroom practice.
results. Both can be achieved for they are not incompatible 70(3): 32.
goals. However, it will take wisdom to be able to achieve
Davis KS (2003) ‘‘Change is hard’’: What science teachers are
that (Ng, 2008). Of course, wisdom develops from one’s
telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative
willingness to learn deeply and continuously. However, practises. 87(1): 3–30.
there is great hope for Singapore is reputed to have a cadre
Dervitsiotis KN (1998) The challenge of managing organizational
of capable school leaders and a robust system of profes-
change: Exploring the relationship of re-engineering, develop-
sional development (Stewart, 2013).
ing learning organizations and total quality management.
Therefore, in moving forward, a pertinent question for 9(1): 109–122.
further research and analysis is to re-examine the very phi-
Diggins PB (1997) Reflections on leadership characteristics nec-
losophy and substance of what a learning school is and fun-
essary to develop and sustain learning school communities.
damentally what it is supposed to learn. Even though this 17: 413–425.
paper provides some empirical evidence of the practice of
Dimmock C and Walker A (2000) Developing comparative
LO in a school context, it raises more questions about
school leadership and management: A cross-cultural approach.
whether there are certain fundamentals that make a learning 20(2): 143–60.
school different from a learning business organization.
Dinham S, Aubusson PJ and Brady LI (2008) Distributed leader-
These two issues provide an agenda for future research.
ship as a factor in and outcome of teacher action learning.
Declaration of conflicting interests 12(4): 1–13.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
Doos M and Wilhelmson L (2011) Collective learning: Interac-
to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
tion and a shared action arena. 23(8): 487–500. Funding
Edmonson A and Moingeon B (1998) From organizational learning
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency to the learning organization. 29(1): 5–20.
in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Eijkman H (2011) The learning organisation as concept and jour-
nal in the neo-millennial era – A plea for critical engagement. References 18(3): 164–174.
An YY and Reigeluth CM (2005) A study of organisational learning
Fiol CM and Lyles MA (1985) Organisational learning. at Smalltown hospital. 44(10): 34–39. 10: 803–813. Retna and Ng 17
Frank KA, Zhao Y and Borman K (2004) Social capital and diffu-
Kiedrowski F (2006) Quantitative assessment of a Senge learning
sion of innovations within organisations: The case of computer organisation intervention. 13(4): technology in schools. 77: 148–171. 369–383. Fullan M (1993) Knox DA (1986) . San Francisco, CA: . Bristol, PA: Falmer. Jossey-Bass. Garvin DA (2000)
. Boston, MA: Harvard Kolb DA (1984) Business School Press. . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pre-
Gherardi S (2000) Practice-based theorizing on learning and ntice-Hall. knowing in organisations. 7(2): 211–223.
Lick DW (2006) A new perspective on organisational learning:
Giles C and Hargreaves A (2006) The sustainability of innovative Creating learning teams.
schools as learning organizations and professional learning 29: 88–96.
communities during standardized reform.
Liljenberg M (2014) Distributing leadership to establish develop- 42(1): 124–156.
ing and learning school organisations in the Swedish context.
Goh CT (1997) Shaping Our Future: Thinking Schools, Learning 43(1):
Nation, Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by 152–170.
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Opening of the 7th Lipman M (2003) . New York: Cambridge
International Conference on Thinking, 2 June. University Press.
Grieves J (2000) Navigating change into the new millennium:
Little J (1990) The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initia-
Themes and issues for the learning organisation.
tive in teachers’ professional relations. 7(2): 54–74. 91: 509–536.
Grieves J (2008) Why we should abandon the idea of the learning
Little JW (2002) Locating learning in teachers’ communities of organisation. 6(15): 463–473.
practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of
Hairon S and Dimmock C (2012) Singapore schools and profes- everyday work. 18(8):
sional learning communities: Teacher professional develop- 917–946.
ment and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system.
Little JW (2003) Inside teacher community: Representations of 64(4): 405–424. classroom practice. 105(6): 913–945.
Hallinger P (2011) Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40
Little JW and Horn IS (2007) Normalizing problems of practice. years of empirical research.
Converting routine conversation into a resource for profes- 49(2): 125–142.
sional learning in professional communities. In: Stoll L and
Harvey C and Denton J (1999) To come of age: The antecedents Louis KS (eds) of organisational learning.
. Berkshire, UK: Open University 36(7): 897–918. Press, pp.79–92.
Henk E (2011) Making sense of the learning organisation: What is Marquardt MJ (2002) it and who needs it? 18(5): . Palo Alto, CA: 412–414. Davies-Black Publishing, Inc.
Hodkinson P (2004) Research as a form of work: Expertise, com- Mintzberg H (1983)
munity and methodological objectivity.
. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 30(1): 1–26.
Moloi KC (2010) How can schools built learning organisations in Hofstede G (2001) . CA: SAGE difficult education contexts. Publications. 30: 621–633.
Holton EF, Chen HC and Naquin SS (2003) An examination of
Mumford A (1986) Learning to learn for managers.
learning transfer system characteristics across organisational set- 10(2): 1–28. tings. 14: 459–482. Ng PT (2005) . Honey P and Mumford A (1989) Singapore: Prentice Hall.
. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey Publications.
Ng PT (2008) Educational reform in Singapore: from quantity to
Huber GP (1991) Organisational learning: The contributing pro- quality. 7(1): cesses and the literatures. 2(1): 88–115. 5–15. Jackson B (2001)
. Ng PT (2012) Mentoring and coaching educators in the Singapore London: Routledge. education system.
Javidan M and House RJ (2001) Cultural acumen for the global 1(1): 24–35.
manager: Lessons from project GLOBE.
Ng PT (2013) An examination of school accountability from the 29(4): 289–305.
perspectives of school leaders in Singapore.
Johnston C and Caldwell B (2001) Leadership and organisational 12(2): 121–131.
learning in the quest for world class schools.
Ng PT and Liang TY (2005) Speaking the unspeakable: The Paper 15(2): 94–102. Dialogue approach.
Kedzior M and Fifield S (2004). Teacher professional develop- 5(2): 190–203. ment. 15: 1–6.
Ng PT and Liang TY (2010) Educational institution reform:
Kelley R (1988) In praise of followers.
Insights from the complexity-intelligence strategy. 66(6): 142. 29(2): 1–9. 18 Management in Education 30(1)
O’Connor BN (2004) The workplace learning cycle: A problem-
Stewart V (2013) School leadership around the world.
based curriculum model for the preparation of workplace learn- April Issue: 48–54. ing professionals.
16: 341–349. Strain M (2000) Schools in a learning society: New purposes and
Ortenblad A (2004) The learning organisation: towards an inte-
modalities of learning in late modern society. grated model. 11(2): 129–144. 28(3): 281–298. Ortenblad A (2011)
Swieringa J and Wierdsma A (1992) Malaysia: Yayasan Ilmuwan. . Wokingham: Addison-
Park JH (2008) Validation of Senge’ Learning Organisation Wesley.
model with teachers of vocational high schools at the Seoul
Tan CHP and Ng PT (2007) The dynamics of change: the decen- Megalopolis. (9)3: 270–284.
tralized centralism of education in Singapore.
Poell R, Tijmensen ECM and van der Krogt FJ (1997) Can 8(2): 155–168.
learning projects help to develop a learning organisation?
Thomas K and Allen S (2006) The learning organisation: A meta- 2(2): 67–75.
analysis of themes in the literature.
Retna KS and Ng PT (2008) The perception of staff on the effects 13(2): 123–139.
of transformational leadership in a Singapore school.
Tsang E (1997) Organisational learning and the learning organisa- 23(1): 64–77.
tion: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive Revans RW (1982) . research. 50(1): 73–89. Lund: Student Literature.
Wenger E (2000) Communities of practice and social learning
Robinson VMJ (2001) Descriptive and normative research on systems. 7(2): 225–246.
organisational learning: locating the contribution of Argyris
Yeo RK (2007) Change interventions to organizational learning: and Schon.
Bravo to leaders as unifying agents. 15(2): 58–67. 14(6): 524–552. Rosenholtz SJ (1989) . New York: Longman.
Rowden RW (2001) The learning organisation and change. 66(3): 11–20. Author biographies
Salleh H (2011) Professional learning communities in Singapore
schools: Potentialities and issues. In: Choy W and Tan C (eds)
is a senior lecturer at the School of Manage-
. Singa- ment at Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand).
pore: Prentice Hall, pp.149–164.
Her main areas of teaching, research and consultancy are Senge P (1990) . New York: Doubleday.
school leadership, design thinking, organizational behaviour,
Senge P, Cambron-McCabe N, Lucas T, et al. (2000a)
learning organization, knowledge management, cross-
. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
cultural management and teaching and learning in schools
Senge P, Cambron-McCabe N, Lucas T, et al. (2000b)
and higher education. She is the author/reviewer of sev-
. New York: eral journal articles and conference papers. She is also Doubleday/Currency.
an Editorial Board Member of other journals.
Senge P, Roberts C, Ross RB, et al. (1994)
is Associate Dean, Leadership Learning, and . London: Nicholas Brealey.
concurrently Head of Policy and Leadership Studies Aca-
Sheehan MJ (2004) Learning as the construction of a new reality.
demic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), 16(3): 179–196.
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His main
Silins H, Zarins S and Mulford B (2002) What characteristics and
areas of teaching, research, training and consultancy at NIE
processes define a school as a learning organisation? Is this a
are learning organization, change management, knowledge
useful concept to apply to schools?
management, innovation, leadership, coaching and educa- 3(1): 24–32.
tion policies. He is the author/co-author/editor/co-editor
Smith PAC (2008) The learning organisation turns 15: A retro-
of five books and numerous journal articles, book chapters spective. 15(6): 441–448.
Snell RS and Hong J (2011) Asian perspectives on organisational
and conference papers. He is also the executive editor
learning. In: Easterby-Smith MPV and Lyles M (eds),
of Educational Research for Policy and Practice, the flag-
ship journal of the Asia-Pacific Educational Research
. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, pp.635–658. Association