Double Loop Learning benefits Your Organization

A prerequisite for organizational survival and growth in this new knowledge economy is the ability to build highly effective learning systems to improve existing working methods and adapt to rapid changes and threats. ‘‘single-loop’’ learning defined as changing individuals’ behavior as a result of errors, without changing values and norms underlying behavior. ‘‘Double-loop’’ learning, in this sense, is considered as higher-level learning which requires cultural changes in the organization where long-held assumptions about systems and policies are challenged by questioning existing processes and procedures.

In order to get a better understanding of the difference between single-loop and double-loop organizational learning, Argyris (1977) exemplifies Single-loop learning as a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and then turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is able to perform this task because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and therefore take corrective action. If the thermostat could question itself about whether it should be set at 68 degrees, it would be capable not only of detecting error but of questioning the underlying policies and goals as well as its own program. That is a second and more comprehensive inquiry; hence it might be called double-loop learning.

To complicate matters, when employees adhere to a norm that says “hide errors,” they know they are violating another norm that says “reveal errors.” Whichever norm they choose, they risk getting into trouble. If they hide the error, they can be punished by the top if the error is discovered. If they reveal the error, they run the risk of exposing a whole network of camouflage and deception. The employees are thus in a “double bind”, because whatever they do is necessary yet counterproductive to the organization, and their actions may even be personally abhorrent.

Characteristics of Learning Organizations

Peter Senge (1990) defined learning organizations as ‘‘organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together’’. Contrary to traditional organizations, learning organizations solve problems systematically by acquiring knowledge from the external environment and then testing that new knowledge in practice. Therefore, they learn from their own mistakes and past experiences of interacting with external context.

For an organization to truly be a learning organization, generating new knowledge alone is not enough; there is a need for this knowledge to be adopted in the form of system operational and behavioral changes. Organizational learning can take place at two levels; ‘‘single-loop’’ learning and ‘‘double-loop’’ learning. Arguably, this is the most widely accepted typology to understand the learning organization concept. Again, ‘‘Single-loop’’ learning is denoted by error detection and correction to improve individual performance without changing organizational norms or systems. It suggests that employees understand and correct the issue without reflecting on the system that has been used for this particular transaction. in order to look behind mere transactional problems and errors and to dramatically improve systems, organizations need to shift to higher-level learning, that is, ‘‘double-loop’’ learning. It occurs when organizational members challenge procedures and policies in use; which will result in developing new ways of working.

How Double-Loop Leaning Affects Your Construction Project Performance?

Contracting organizations have been criticized as incapable of solving unprecedented problems, grasping unanticipated opportunities, and adapting to the dynamic business environment. Further, they have been described as inflexible and slow to respond to the escalating and changing demands of customers. In a typical construction project, a Continuous Improvement (CI) process can be presented by a Plan–Do–Study–Respond cycle. 

Continuous Improvement (CI) structure in construction organizations (Wong et al, 2009)

Nonetheless, performance improvement could only be achieved if contracting organizations can respond appropriately after acquiring knowledge derived from the Performance Measurement System (PMS). In this regard, the process from knowledge acquisition to assimilation for improvement actions has been coined an organizational

Learning. Depending on the focus of the studies, researchers measured the success of CI in terms of the contracting organizations’ project performance improvement. Some of them defined project performance as the organizations’ compliance with predetermined criteria on time, cost, and quality. Project performance improvement was then regarded as a change of action that minimizes the deviations between actual and predetermined standards. Crawford and Bryne (2003) argued that this definition of PI merely described the performance in terms of project efficiency (doing things the right way), without due regard to the importance of project effectiveness (doing right things). Mintzberg (1989) further described efficiency as how well resources are optimized to achieve the measurable benefits and effectiveness as “the consistency between the situational factors and the design parameters.” As such, construction project performance should be gauged by both efficiency (Efy) and effectiveness (Efs).

Learning organization has emerged as one of the key ways to allow organizations to secure efficiency and effectiveness. Construction activities, in particular, are prone to error due to the massive on-site operations. Coincidently, these errors are very costly, for the cost of rectification, disruption, and delay. The ability to learn and improve from mistakes should therefore be a core competence of every contracting organization. Studies show that double-loop learning has a great impact on organizational performance.

Decision Making in the Context of Double-Loop Learning

Double-loop learning is what allows organizations to be proactive or generative in their decision making. A system is composed of physical and institutional structures and agents acting within the structure. The interaction of these structures and agents creates feedback loops, delays, accumulations, and nonlinearities that are responsible for various behaviors of the system. The boundary of this system is defined by the policy or the problems that the managers are dealing with.

It is a clear motivation for decision makers to become involved with data-driven decision making, the practice of basing decisions on data analysis, rather than on intuition. Therefore, the ability to learn from data is needed to build the capacity to adapt to changes in an environment in order to achieve organizational goals and vision. Such learning is characterized by the change of behavior because of an individual/group exposure to experience. The double-loop learning supports changing mental models, vision, and beliefs, and therefore building a foundation for organizational knowledge and sustainable decision making.

References

Argyris, C. (1977). Double Loop Learning in Organizations. Harvard Business Review.

Bohanec, M., Robnik-?ikonja, M., & Bor?tnar, M. (2017). Decision-making framework with double-loop learning through interpretable black-box machine learning models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(7), 1389-1406.

Deschamps, C., & Mattijs, J. (2018). How Organizational Learning Is Supported by Performance Management Systems: Evidence from a Longitudinal Case Study. PUBLIC PERFORMANCE & MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 41(3), 469–496.

Henderson, J., Ruikar, K., & Dainty, A. (2013). The need to improve double-loop learning and design-construction feedback loops. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 20(3), 290-306.

Kim, H., MacDonald, R., & Andersen, D. (2013). Simulation and Managerial Decision Making: A Double-Loop Learning Framework. Public Administration Review.

Pui Wong, P., Cheung, S., & Lam Fan, K. (2009). Examining the Relationship between Organizational Learning Styles and Project Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(6).

Williams, B., & Brown, E. (2018). Double-Loop Learning in Adaptive Management: The Need, the Challenge, and the Opportunity. Environmental Management, 62, 995–1006.

YEUNG, A., LAI, K.-H., & YEE, R. (2007). Organizational learning, innovativeness, and organizational performance: a qualitative investigation. International Journal of Production Research, 45(11), 2459–2477.