Memorandum To The CEO Overview Using The Same Scenario ✓ Solved

Memorandum to the CEO overview using the same scenario from

Memorandum to the CEO overview using the same scenario from Identifying the Organizational Learning Issue, as the vice president of human resources, you must create a memorandum to the CEO on the issues you discovered from the research.

This memorandum serves as your communication to share the discovered problems and request for permission to continue researching future solutions.

Instructions Write a 1–2 page memorandum in which you: Identify the issue(s) you discovered in the organization's mystification from individual learning to the organizational learning using the examples that you provided in Identifying the Organizational Learning Issues assignment.

Elaborate on the significant barriers that you discovered impact the process of learning within the organization’s culture.

Provide a brief description of the selected OLM (such as, Off-line/Internal, Online/Internal, Off-line/External, or Online/External) that will be most suitable for this transition. Justify the selection.

Suggest two actions that management can take in order to raise the level of trust as part of their strategy to create psychological safety. Justify your suggestions.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

As the Vice President of Human Resources, I have analyzed the organization’s movement from individual learning toward a robust organizational learning capability. Literature consistently shows that organizations succeed in learning when psychological safety, shared mental models, and systemic processes align with strategy (Edmondson, 1999; Senge, 1990). The core issue observed is a persistent mystification that keeps learning at the level of individuals rather than elevating it to organizational practice, leading to fragmented knowledge and inconsistent application across business units (Argyris & Schön, 1996). This memorandum outlines the problems uncovered, the barriers that hinder learning within the culture, a recommended learning configuration (OLM) for the transition, and two concrete actions to increase trust and psychological safety. The aim is to gain permission to deepen research into future solutions that will enable scalable, durable organizational learning (Senge, 1990; Brown & Duguid, 2000). (Edmondson, 1999; Argote & Miron-Seshadri, 2011).

Issue Description

The predominant issue is the organization’s mystification of learning, where insights from individual experiences do not consistently translate into organizational knowledge. This gap is evident in limited cross-functional knowledge sharing, weak communities of practice, and inconsistent application of best practices across units (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Without a system that captures tacit and explicit knowledge, the organization fails to convert experience into organizational capability (Argyris & Schön, 1996). Psychological safety deficits further suppress candid dialogue, experimentation, and the airing of errors necessary for double-loop learning (Edmondson, 1999).

Key drivers include silos that discourage collaboration, leadership behaviors that emphasize individual performance over collective learning, and insufficient mechanisms for documenting and distributing knowledge (Argote & Miron-Seshadri, 2011). The result is a culture that values short-term results over long-term capability, undermining the organization’s ability to adapt and innovate in a dynamic environment (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Brown & Duguid, 2000).

These issues align with established theories of organizational learning which emphasize the need for boundary-spanning structures, shared language, and learning-rich leadership practices to move from personal to organizational learning (Senge, 1990; Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

Barriers to Learning

Structural and cultural barriers are the primary impediments. Silos and weak cross-functional ties limit knowledge diffusion, while punitive responses to mistakes suppress experimentation and feedback loops (Edmondson, 1999; Argyris & Schön, 1996). Leadership practices that reward individual heroics rather than collective learning perpetuate competing mental models and slow coordinated action (Senge, 1990).

Technological barriers also play a role. Inadequate knowledge management systems and insufficient platforms for capturing tacit knowledge hinder the transfer of learnings across teams. Without robust KM practices, tacit knowledge remains inaccessible to others who could apply it in new contexts (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Social networks within the organization may not be leveraged effectively to facilitate informal knowledge exchange, further constraining organizational learning (Cross & Parker, 2004).

Finally, cultural norms and incentives may discourage knowledge sharing. If employees perceive that sharing knowledge diminishes their performance metrics or job security, they will hoard information, obstructing the flow of learning (Brown & Duguid, 2000). These dynamics collectively impede the transformation from individual know-how to organizational capability (Argote & Miron-Seshadri, 2011).

Selected OLM and Rationale

I recommend adopting an Online/Internal OLM (Online/Internal) to support the transition from individual to organizational learning. This model leverages a centralized, internal learning platform that combines asynchronous content (recorded lectures, case studies, best practices) with synchronous discussions (webinars, live Q&A, communities of practice). An Online/Internal approach aligns with modern knowledge-management theory, which emphasizes codification, dissemination, and social interaction within a secure internal boundary (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

Justification includes: (1) scalability and accessibility across units, enabling rapid diffusion of knowledge and standardization of practices (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995); (2) support for communities of practice and social learning, which foster shared language and practices critical to organizational learning (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002); (3) capability to measure engagement, learning progress, and knowledge flows through analytics, aiding in management oversight and continuous improvement (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). The platform can host knowledge repositories, after-action reviews, and collaborative spaces that reduce silos and improve knowledge retention (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Brown & Duguid, 2000).

References to theory include the creation of knowledge through social interaction (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) and the role of communities of practice in sustaining learning beyond individual expertise (Wenger et al., 2002). A digital internal environment also supports psychological safety by providing private channels for feedback and non-punitive sharing, which are essential for double-loop learning (Edmondson, 1999).

Two Actions to Raise Trust and Psychological Safety

Action 1: Leadership development and modeling of psychological safety. Implement targeted leadership training that emphasizes vulnerability, listening, and inclusive decision-making. Leaders should publicly acknowledge mistakes, solicit diverse viewpoints, and demonstrate curiosity about others’ knowledge. This aligns with Edmondson’s findings that psychological safety is a precursor to learning behavior in teams and organizations (Edmondson, 1999). By modeling safe dialogue, leaders can create an environment where employees feel comfortable sharing concerns and ideas, which is essential for organizational learning (Senge, 1990).

Action 2: Structured knowledge-sharing rituals and non-punitive practices. Establish formal mechanisms such as after-action reviews, post-implementation debriefs, and cross-functional communities of practice. Encourage voluntary contribution through recognition and incentives tied to knowledge sharing rather than solely to individual performance. These rituals promote social learning and help build trust across boundaries (Cross & Parker, 2004; Wenger et al., 2002). Coupling these rituals with a non-punitive error reporting framework supports double-loop learning and accelerates the diffusion of best practices (Argyris & Schön, 1996).

Conclusion

Moving from individual to organizational learning requires a deliberate design that aligns culture, structure, and technology. An Online/Internal OLM provides a scalable, secure, and collaborative ecosystem that supports knowledge capture, sharing, and application while enabling measurement of learning progress. The two proposed actions—leadership development that models psychological safety and formal knowledge-sharing rituals—address core barriers by increasing trust, reducing fear, and fostering continuous reflection. Collectively, these steps can transform tacit, siloed knowledge into an organizational asset that sustains adaptive performance (Senge, 1990; Edmondson, 1999; Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

References

• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
• Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Cross, R., & Parker, A. (2004). The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Gets Done in Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
• Argote, L., & Miron-Seshadri, S. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 40(4), 223-232.