Page 10 - Read Online

Schmidt et al. J Surveill Secur Saf 2020;1:1-15 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/jsss.2019.0 Page 3
[5]
Desai who defined organisational learning as “any modification of an organization’s knowledge occurring
as a result of its experience”. To take this definition a step further, it is argued that organisational learning
should not only focus on own experiences but also those of others. Learning from others’ experiences
[5]
is defined as vicarious learning or isomorphic learning . Both aspects of learning not only positively
[13]
influence organisational processes but also enhance organisational resilience and can be an important
[14]
catalyst in organisational change, as observed by Weinzimmer and Esken .
Whilst understanding of the concept developed, a desire to maximise learning for organisations began
and, from this, barriers to learning and enablers to learning started to be explored. Debate regarding
whether learning from failure or success offered greater benefit started to occupy some of the research
within organisational learning and, from this, the identification of second-order effects and ultimately
organisational unlearning evolved .
[15]
Definitions of organisational unlearning could be argued to revolve around “intentionality”, that is, whether
the organisation intentionally forgot existing knowledge or did so unintentionally. It is here that Tsang and
[16]
Zahra’s insight is useful for organisations, as they clearly defined organisational unlearning as “deliberate
[16]
discarding of routines” (p. 1437), arguably providing a more useful interpretation for organisations.
Within the context of organisational failures, the concept of learning and unlearning from events becomes
even more important, in order to try to prevent a recurrence of the negative incident or minimise the
chance for it to happen again. This paper now turns to the specific aspects of learning and unlearning from
failures.

2.2 Learning and unlearning from failures
[5]
In the work of Madsen and Desai , they argued that organisations tend to learn more from failures than
successes. However, they also stated that success commonly stabilises organisations, whereas failures
require a change of the status quo and challenge an organisation. This latter point was supported by Levitt
[12]
and March who identified that organisations tend to be more adaptable to learning from successful
[14]
outcomes than negative actions that should have been avoided. In the work of Weinzimmer and Esken ,
they identified the difference between learning from successes, which requires an organisation to “exploit”
this new knowledge, and learning from failures, which they argued requires organisations to engage in
deeper “exploration” of the learning opportunity and ultimately offers greater potential benefits, although
[17]
it is more painful for the organisation. Kunert (p. 19) suggested that “while success and orderliness will
arouse little drive to change existing routines, failure is more likely to foster the willingness and urgency to
[2]
change, and, thus, stimulate action”. Sitkin agreed by stating that failure improves learning and resilience.
[13]
In comparison, Toft and Reynolds identified that learning and respective decision making should address
both successes and failures.

[8]
Learning from failures mainly depends on the failure being detected and appropriately analysed . Further,
organisations often focus on evidence that supports their existing beliefs rather than accepting explanations
[6]
that challenge the status quo of their companies , something that can be a key driver in organisational
failure.

Thus, this discussion brings us to the following important questions: Under which conditions are
organisations reluctant to learn from failures? How should we motivate them to learn from failures? What
is organisational unlearning from failures and how can this help us to better support organisations?

2.2.1 Conditions potentially resulting in reluctance to learn from failure
When an organisational failure occurs due to poor conduct, omission or a need to accept responsibility,
organisations can sometimes be seen to engage less willingly in the learning process. Similarly, if a mistake-
[14]
intolerant culture exists, organisations will be unlikely to engage meaningfully in learning from failure . It