Abstract
This paper argues that interest differences are the key to understanding the nature of organizational learning and the processes by which it occurs, yet the concept of ‘interest’ is very much underdeveloped in the organizational learning literature. Drawing on the work of Habermas and Lukes, the paper proposes a model of the relationship between shared learning and interests and elaborates on it using a case study of pay and performance management change at a large Australian finance-sector company, DollarCo. The case study provides many examples of shared learning associated with both common and competing interests, including a great deal of learning resulting from tensions between DollarCo’s economic and technical interests, on the one hand, and employees’ ontological interests on the other. By doing so, it underlines the value of foregrounding interests and interest differences in studies of workplace and organizational learning and raises questions about the extent to which many published accounts of so-called ‘organizational’ learning are actually describing ‘shared interest group’ learning.
Highlights
In recent decades, many investigators have looked at the nature of organizational learning and the processes by which it occurs
This paper argues that in such investigations, interests and interest differences deserve far more attention than they have received to date
Consistent with the conceptual analysis reported earlier ( Lukes’ framework) and summarized in Table 1, DollarCo management learnt a great deal about exercising power during the case study period As the data were analyzed, it became clear that management’s learning about exercising power at DollarCo primarily fell into three categories, namely learning about pluralist aspects of work, learning to apply pressure to perform and learning to manage information to achieve sought-after outcomes
Summary
Many investigators have looked at the nature of organizational learning and the processes by which it occurs. Bjerg Hall-Andersen and Broberg (2014) draw on case study data to consider learning across knowledge boundaries in organizational settings They show that learning at work tends to reside at the level of individuals and of ‘pockets’ associated with particular domain-specific conditions relating to management, power, pre-existing practices and resource considerations. Common interest provides the focus of knowledge and learning in communities of practice studies, but the concept of ‘interest’ is secondary to consideration of knowledge transfer and learning processes As these examples illustrate, while some scholars of knowledge management and workplace learning have considered the role of interests, the depth of treatment has tended to be limited. (p. 6) impact of being governed by ‘self-interest’, again without elaboration
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
