London, M., Polzer, J. T. & Omoregie, H. (2005). Interpersonal Congruence, Transactive Memory, and Feedback Processes: An Integrative Model of Group Learning.

London, M., Polzer, J. T. & Omoregie, H. (2005).  Interpersonal Congruence, Transactive Memory, and Feedback Processes: An Integrative Model of Group Learning.  Human Development Resource Review, 4(114).  Retrieved on April 27, 2010 from http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/2/114


This research is a continuation of London's earlier paper (2003) on Antecedents and Consequences of Self-Verification: Implications for Individual and Group Development.  London, Polzer and Omoregie explore how self-verification, group diversity and task demands determine identity negotiating behaviour in self-disclosure and shared feedback.


Self-verification Motivation
Feedback is critical in self-disclosure.  In early stages of formation, shared self-perception confirms what is seen in others is a reflection of ourselves.  Self-verification forms through reassurance in group response.  Group interaction that confirms self-view promotes smooth and harmonious interactions.  This process maintains self-esteem.


London, Polzer and Omoregie state that group members:

• with high self-esteem accept feedback on both positive and negative characteristics;
• with low self-esteem react well to feedback on positive characteristics;

but, when accepting feedback on negative characteristics group members:

• preferred feedback on unfavourable characteristics; and
• preferred working with partners who offer unfavourable feedback.

London, Polzer and Omoregie state that individuals prefer statements of self-verification to self-enhancement.  Motivation for self-verification may correlate with global self-esteem and desire to learn.


Situation Conditions: Member Diversity and Task Interdependence
Group efficacy is interrupted when diversity leads to perceptions of social categories.  Inaccurate views of competence negatively affect interaction and congruence.  When individual social categorisation is replaced with group social categorisation, differences are viewed as the strengths and weaknesses of the group.  Previous work by Polzer indicates that diversity in groups with high interaction improves creativity.  Complex tasks involving sequential interdependence require coordination and cooperation to collect strengths in individual skill, knowledge and experience.  Increased group cohesiveness results in better performance.


Identity Negotiation
Explicit discussion of appraisal is avoided when feedback threatens individual identity.  Negotiation occurs frequently at group inception during the introductory phase of clarifying individual contribution.  A lack of direct feedback results in individuals taking cues from each other and tracking performance data to identify group reaction.


London, Polzer and Omoregie propose the following:

• Proposition 1 - members’ desire for self-verification, learning, and feedback will be positively related to (a) the initiation of self-disclosure of skills, background, personal goals, and conflicts of interest; (b) seeking self-verifying feedback; and (c) giving feedback early in the group process (as early as the first few minutes of the first meeting). Self-enhancement and performance goal orientation will be positively related to asking for positive feedback and affirming/laudatory comments.

• Proposition 2 - situational demands will be positively related to initiation of identity negotiation and feedback. In particular, member diversity and interdependent tasks that require diverse input will be positively related to members (a) disclosing how their skills and background are likely to influence the group’s task and (b) sharing (seeking, receiving, and giving) feedback.

Change
Disruption to preestablished context indicates a need for group re-structuring and re-negotiating identity when:

• group members leave or change;
• tasks, goals and significant progress change; or
• outcomes significant to success or failure indicate a rise in self-esteem or transformation.

• Proposition 3 - change stimulates identity negotiation as an evolving process.

Achieving Self-Verification, Internal Congruence and Transactive Memory
Self-verification
Retaining individual identity motivates the group toward self-verification, London, Polzer and Omoregie propose.  Distinct roles and contribution enhances group integration in ways members recognise and value.  High levels of congruence in groups indicates fewer instances of emotional conflict.


Interpersonal Congruence
Self-verification processes benefit behaviour retrospectively.  Characteristics are recognised and utilised.  London, Polzer and Omoregie highlight the benefit groups of a heterogeneous nature necessitating judgement.


Transactive Memory
By establishing high interpersonal congruence and feedback recognised skills and knowledge become available to the group.  London, Polzer and Omoregie state that transactive memory rests in the beliefs group members' have about each others' expertise.  Transactive memory is the accumulation of group knowledge that cannot be held by a single individual, and can be drawn upon as a resource.  Acquired skills and knowledge are shared and maintained for the benefit of the group.  Core members maintain transactive memory.  Novice members observe experienced group members to increase individual knowledge.


Individuals develop distinct knowledge domain specialisation.  This enhances collective knowledge and individuals gain knowledge at a deeper cognitive level.  London, Polzer and Omoregie indicate research in groupwork has shown that group learning leads to establishing differentiated and specialised knowledge, increases in memory for task related information and accuracy in completing projects.  Members trained on an individual basis do not achieve similar levels of interpersonal congruency.  Overlapping task knowledge occurs, less information is retained and completed tasks are inaccurate.


Expertise defines self-views and identities.  Individual perceptions about group member expertise is relayed through feedback leading to interpersonal congruence.  Related tasks confirm individual thoughts on group member expertise that result in either positive formation  of cognitive association or dysfunctional outcomes.  London, Polzer and Omoregie state that communication is significant in retrieving group information.  Close relationships enhance the development of transactive memory.  Motivation to learn and for recall comes from group expectation for new knowledge.  Characteristics of transactive memory systems are:

• specialisation that is closely connected to group views;
• credibility generated by self-verification processes; and
• coordination of adaptation and transformation.

Mature and well-developed systems are defined by the complexity of a group.  London, Polzer and Omoregie propose that expertise in specialisation and the extent to which group members can accurately describe collective knowledge increases the efficiency of the group.  Recognition and use of relevant knowledge enhances collective reputation for competency and productivity through accurate understanding in solving complex problems.  The authors argue that issues preventing interpersonal congruence explain under-development of transactive memory.  As identity negotiation leads to self-verification and development of transactive memory systems, interpersonal congruence, behavioural routine and knowledge sharing systems are proposed as key factors in successful outcomes.

• Proposition 4 - identity negotiation is positively related to member self-verification, transactive memory and interpersonal congruence.

Feedback
Difficulties in achieving transactive memory and interpersonal congruence lie in levels of positive self-image and self-disclosure.  Feedback has been viewed as threatening to self-image.  Time for reflection is necessary for transformation.  Multi-source feedback directed at individuals or group prompts new interactions in identity negotiation.  Interpersonal congruence and transactive memory are mutually enacted by those receiving and giving feedback.  London, Polzer and Omoregie argue that it is not a product of adjustment to task demands, team leader direction or formal appraisal.


Analysis of feedback encourages members to adopt group abilities of contribution.  Process structure and leader direction relate positively in identity negotiation and shared feedback.  

• Proposition 5 - leader directed activity encourages identity negotiation and self-verification.

Ongoing Group Process, Development and Achievement
Group reflexivity consists of reflection and exploration that leads to a state of readiness and become routine, London, Polzer and Omoregie state.  Through self-verification and interpersonal congruence members establish resources and transactive memory.

• Proposition 6 - interpersonal congruence and transactive memory relates to planning, implementation and assessment.

• Proposition 7 - interventions strengthen the relationship between the development of transactive memory and its use.

• Proposition 8 - change stimulates the group to use its transactive memory.

• Proposition 9 - use of transactive memory is positively related to goal accomplishment and group development.

• Proposition 10 - goal achievement and group development is positively related to continuous and evolving identity negotiation.

• Proposition 11 - either the group or individual members take the initiative to change the situation.

• Proposition 12 - group achievement and development affects members’ motivation for further self-verification.

Directions for Research and Practice
London, Polzer and Omoregie reflect that time is needed to study the effects of interpersonal congruence and transactive memory on outcomes and processes.  Testing efffects of interventions may help identify the processes of developing transactive memory.  An exploration of antecedents to self-verification that prompt identity negotiation is warranted.  The authors question whether conditions of transactive memory and interpersonal congruence are stable, fluid or elastic.  Managerial perspectives indicate a need for evaluation of process and tools.


Conclusion
Time and environment affect group cohesion through processes of identity negotiation and self-verification.    Self-disclosure leads to seeing oneself in others and establishing competencies and expertise. Development of collective knowledge depends on interpersonal congruence and feedback.  Transactive memory increases with individual members understanding of group complexity.  High levels of interpersonal congruence correlate positively with group social categorisation.  Variables in identity negotiating behaviours should be considered as areas for further research.

Baxter, G. J., Connolly, T. M. & Stansfield, M. (2009). How organisations learn: an information systems development perspective

Baxter, G. J., Connolly, T. M. and Stansfield, M. (2009).  How organisations learn: an information systems development perspective.  Learn Inq 3, pp. 25 - 46.  Retrieved on April 24, 2010 from http://springerlink.metapress.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/
content/p367781448550806/fulltext.pdf


Introduction
Although theories and models of organisational learning have been proposed extensively, none have the edge over others.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield indicate this may be due to multiple perspectives and interpretations.  Three categories that are most prevalent:

• learning as an individual activity - the individual is primarily responsible for learning within the organisation;
• collective and social learning - the predominant factor in organisational multi-level learning and is strongly related to communities of practice; and
• debated theory - can organisations learn as living entities.

The authors' support the view that organisations can learn, and outline the procedure in this paper.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield agree that social reality is a construct but do not agree that organisational learning is influenced and developed by social environment.  Individuals and organisations learn through mutual didactic support.

1. Relationship and association that facilitates individual and organisational learning is discussed.
2. Information systems development (ISD) projects can be used for multi-level learning.
3. Evaluation of organisational learning gives direction to implement measuring learning levels achieved.

What is an organisation?
Concepts and ideologies range according to interpretation and perspective on raised view points.  The authors show preference for Cook and Yanow, and Simon who view the organisation as a system of interrelated roles and cultures.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield use this generally accepted outlook as a basis to question who learns in an organisation and the concept of organisational learning.


Influential work on learning within a social environment has been further developed for analysis in individual patterns of work, communication and social hierarchy formation.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield observe the structure of social groups and the activities that bind them.  Language is seen as a key aspect of communication and interaction, and communities of practice are seen to facilitate and define social practice.


Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield observe the social traits of organisations to identify dynamic or static trends.  The authors recognise that the most prominent social aspect is embedded on creation as organisations are established for particular purpose.  Values are instilled based on their foundation.  The rules and regulations consist of procedures for interaction.  This infrastructure gives the organisation the impetus to learn.  Individual and social groups support evolution.  As structural changes occur, the organisation evolves to adapt and modify behaviour, allowing groups to evolve and develop cognitively.  A mutual relationship of learning occurs.


What is learning?
Learning in organisational learning literature is defined as having process and outcome.  Within the domain of learning in organisation, several aspects have achieved prominence.  The lack of clarity when defining learning in organisations is in part due to processes that occur in conjunction but lead in "different directions and at different speeds".  The presumption here is that organisations learn from human action.  Information systems and their role within the organisation may identify mutual learning relationships.


The technology of an environment is intertwined with individual personal development and professional capacity to learn.  The objective of the information systems must be clear as they support human activity systems.  The authors question whether the fundamental aim of the process is to enhance performance or enhance the infrastructure and ensuing activities for the individual members.  Learning occurs directly and indirectly as groups share, learn and apply new knowledge practically.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield indicate that where individual learning in organisations occurs directly and indirectly, organisations can only learn indirectly.  Learning is summed up as a ‘‘social process where individuals interact and learn from and among one another to develop existing and gain new skills, acquire new knowledge with the intention of leading to an improvement of working practice in their jobs.’’


Organisational learning and the learning organisation
As organisations operate through department sub-units, analysis of a fragmented structure is difficult.  The authors argue that the social element of an organisation is strongly associated with cultural aspects of learning (i.e. context).  It would appear that the organisation has an active role in shaping the learning process.  Knowledge acquired by practical working experience is channeled back into the organisation.  Reflection and modification ensue, thus supporting the well-being of the organisation and increased knowledge of its members.


Understanding the concept of learning in organisations means reflecting on the cultural environment and infrastructure that supports diverse learning styles of individual members.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield note literature draws attention to learning capacity, contextual aspects, social perspectives, narratives and communities of practice.  Organisational learning is about divergent social learning practices that occur as a result of infrastructural support.  The authors cite Cook and Yanow in defining learning as the "operational consequences for the activities of the organisation."


This perspective of social and functionalistic interpretation by Ortenblad indicates that firms transform into learning organisations.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield highlight the on-going debate on classification of terminology - it is argued whether the two terms can be used synonymously and interchangeably or if they are distinct and interrelated.  The authors emphasise the element of infrastructural adaptability and state "in providing human entities with an infrastructure to learn, a learning organisation continues to learn in itself by modifying its behaviour through the tacit knowledge embedded and subsequently interpreted in its information systems and diverse knowledge channels."


Concurrent learning of individuals and organisations
Organisations and individuals develop a reciprocal pattern of learning from each other.


Organisational learning as an individual process
Theories on knowledge creation in organisations indicate that learning transpires from the bottom up and is generated in principle by individuals.  As stated earlier, the authors argue that individual learning cannot take place without appropriate infrastructure.  Learning can be driven by individuals, teams or the organisation.  The shared objective is to facilitate change or improvement.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield indicate that collaboration, interaction and sharing are priorities of a learning organisation.


The social and cultural perspective of organisational learning
The authors cite Wenger who states that learning in organisations should be viewed as a social phenomenon.  Learning in social terms requires communities of practice to understand work in context and setting, otherwise known as learning in situ.  Activity theory of knowledge highlights the need for interaction through collaboration.  Perceptions of organisations evolve to "social learning systems" that directly influence collective learning.  Learning complements knowledge that becomes embedded in the organisations' social practice.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield cite Yanow who argues that if organisations produce fundamental values of a collective, they can also be said to learn.  Members can shape the evolution of the learning structure as the organisation absorbs knowledge from social interactions.


Can organisations learn?
Organisational learning has produced various philosophies that focus on diverse elements and hierarchies.  Reaction to everyday social situations from internal and external environments requires adjustment and evolution.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield quote Hedberg who states that organisations develop "cognitive systems and memories".  While individuals develop personalities, habits and beliefs, organisations develop views and ideologies.  Mental models built at individual level align with organisational processing capabilities.  Research done by Argyris, and Argyris and Schon indicate that double loop learning is essential for members to question policies and objectives held by the organisation, the authors state.  


How organisations can learn through ISD projects
Information system development relies on the social perspective of organisational learning and is similar to communities of practice for the intention is to improve the organisation through computerised knowledge sharing.  Information system development is embedded in activity theory and focuses on multi-level learning.  Projects can adopt new approaches and make modifications as it progresses.  Information system development methodology uses Extreme Programming (XP) to share mental models because of its' agility and lower cost.  Each project requires a satellite group to share existing and new knowledge.  With emphasis on dialogue, Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield indicate that learning maintains social relations.  Undeveloped working communities could adversely affect outcomes.


The authors make reference to an organisations' legacy - the system of environment and processes, and the way individuals interconnect and learn.  The authors refer to the works of Lyytinen and Robey; Levitt and March; Stata; McGill, Slocum and Lei; and Al-Shehab, Hughes and Winstanley who suggest it is important to recognise and learn from past mistakes and experiences.  It is through interpretive reflection that organisations learn during and after project initiation.  In addition to infrastructure, project success depends upon an open-learning culture to support meetings and debriefing.  Similarities from previous projects provide a platform for understanding and knowledge gathering.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield argue that this view point highlights the assumption that organisations can learn.  New projects provide new learning experiences.  Organisations construct modifications to infrastructure.  New knowledge is embedded in organisational memory.  Strategy and decision-making can take on new direction.


Conclusions
The focus of this paper outlines effective use of information system development in determining whether organisations can learn.  Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield indicate that while knowledge resides in a specific project member initially, the process of information system development allows collective learning to occur.  Interaction, dialogue and sharing utilise skills sets particular to individuals that support a dynamic and fluid social environment.  The authors indicate information system development theory promotes organisation infrastructure through facilitating social processes and see projects as a practical approach for elevating individual-level learning to organisational-level learning.  Thriving social activity develops a culture of flexibility within the organisation.


Through exploring the relevance of organisational memory and learning from past mistakes Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield make a case in understanding how organisations can learn.  For organisational learning to develop, more information on identifying how individuals learn, and consequently how organisations learn, is needed.


Future research
Identification of when organisational learning has occurred is also required.  An establishment of approaches has been called for.  Empirical testing of academic studies will define best practice models to advance the discipline.  A wide focus is needed to include learning approaches from different industry sectors.


Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield have initiated a research project to understand the criteria of recognising organisation learning.  The learning technology used is a blog.  The authors propose that blogs are complementary to the interpretive process and can be conceptualised as an information system.  Generally, blogs have not been identified as a communication tool in information system development.  However, the authors indicate that blogs provide a platform to increase levels of knowledge and stimulate group and organisational reflection.  Analysis of blogs will assess any increase in learning, knowledge or attitudinal behaviour.  By developing Organisational Learning Mechanisms (OLM), organisations develop an effective means that allow individuals to learn and enhance skill sets.  Social and cultural aspects of organisations feature predominantly at individual learning levels where an open-learning culture may lead to creative innovation processes.