Emotion in Organizational Learning

Looking across the four-quadrant framework, it seems that emotional and motivational factors are either subsumed under broader headings such as ‘learning culture’ (e.g. Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell, 1996; Garvin et. al., 2008) or condensed to attributes like ‘trust’ (Kang et. al., 2007; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Similarly, although a wide literature has annotated the various factors that may facilitate both formal and informal learning—such as reward systems (Arthur and Aimant-Smith, 2001), personal commitment to self-actualization (Senge, 2006), and openness to new and different experiences (Pedler et. al., 1996) (touched on in quadrant one)—it is not clear how these mechanisms influence learning at a higher level than the individual. This lack of attention to emotion has, according to some scholars (e.g. Fineman, 2003), led to under-theorization in this area.

Close scrutiny indicates that there are suggestive links. Bandura (1982, 1997), discussed in quadrant two, has highlighted the role of self-efficacy in learning, suggesting that the momentum (and, by implication, the positive feelings) gained through achieving mastery may raise expectations and fuel an individual’s willingness to take on new challenges. Defensive thought patterns (cf. Argyris and Schön, 1978), by contrast, are laden with fear and threat, and likely to undermine double loop learning. According to Kelly (1955), however, whose work follows on from Mead (1938), seeing emotions as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is simplistic; instead, emotions signal whether one’s understanding of the world is evolving in the ‘right’ direction (according to expectations). Anxiety, for example, signals that the construct system is breaking down and requires revision.

Shifting the focus to the organization, Argyris and Schön (1978) have argued that only in an atmosphere of trust and openness are people likely to share their honest thoughts and fears. Vince and Saleem (2004) have shown that a culture indicative of caution and blame inhibits learning. Kang et al. (2007) concur that culture affects learning, but argue that exploratory learning may be suppressed in cultures emphasizing strong ties, indicating instead that exposure to new and different perspectives may be required. The suggestion is that feeling too ‘comfortable’ within a particular setting may not necessarily be conducive to deeper-level learning. The sense-making literature too hints at emotion (e.g. Christianson et al., 2009). According to this perspective, collective experiences with widespread implications prompt shared feelings, which, in turn, trigger new patterns of thinking across the organization. Again, emotions are suggested rather than made explicit, being associated with punctuations in the sense-making process, suggestive of the interplay between the negative and the positive. The question of how emotions and cognition interact to elicit the learning remains unaddressed.

In terms of future developments, a number of considerations are worth taking forward. Seeing emotion as somehow separate from cognition may be misleading. Emotion infuses both action and thinking, and arises from the socio-political context within which work activity takes place. We therefore concur with Fineman (2003) that social-constructivist approaches exploring how learning and change occur over time offer scope for assessing emotional dynamics in a particular setting. We also endorse theoretical perspectives that bring together cognitive and emotional elements (e.g. Kelly, 1955). According to Kelly, emotions signal when the existing construct system needs to be revised. Changes in construct systems arise from awareness of developments in the wider environment, and are likely to evolve in a shared way given a common setting. A construct is discarded once the person has evidence that it is no longer valid, that is, it no longer enables the environment to be effectively anticipated. At this stage, the person experiences anxiety (because a new construct has yet to evolve) but in time the construct is adjusted for optimal anticipation of events. Therefore, a sense of awakening or disturbance is necessary for the re-construal process. For example, if people can see that an existing operation in the company is no longer appropriate they are more likely to search for alternatives that fit better with their construal process (i.e. what needs to happen in order to better anticipate the challenges of the environment).

It would be informative to assess what this approach might mean for research located in the third quadrant, where social constructivist perspectives currently examine cognitive rather than emotional dynamics. This is also the case for the second quadrant, where analysis touches on issues around context and individual agency again without overtly addressing the question of emotion. A more processual perspective on organizational learning is suggestive of the re-construal of meaning rather than the transfer of knowledge across the organization in an exchange process (Shipton and Sillince, under review). We suggest that learning takes place as people frame meaning in a particular setting rather than through negotiating thought patterns (Argyris and Schön, 1978) or processing information (Huber, 1991).

Overall, this discussion leads us to suggest that there may be scope in bringing together organizational learning and emotional intelligence literatures (cf. Shipton and Sillince, under review). We wonder whether companies that are successful at learning treat emotion as a tool rather than as a barrier. We also ask whether leaders in companies with a strong propensity to learn are more aware of emotion and emotional transitions, making an explicit connection between emotion and organizational learning. Approaching some of the questions so might produce a more nuanced understanding of the way in which emotions in a collective setting seem most likely to influence learning and change.