Why Organizations Struggle to Learn: Insights from Argyris and Schön

In today’s world, almost every organization claims to value learning. And to be fair, most of them probably do recognize its importance since adapting to rapidly changing conditions and demands of today’s environment has become an absolute necessity in a competitive market. 

In line with this, we see more and more companies investing in training programs, running feedback cycles, conducting performance reviews, and constantly talking about continuous improvement.

But the real question is this: Do all these efforts actually make the organization more innovative, more resilient, more capable of reaching its strategic goals? Or do similar problems quietly resurface, while the same strategic miscalculations are repeated in slightly different forms?

More broadly, what does it actually mean for an organization to learn?

Even at the individual level, identifying the signs of learning and measuring change is already complex. When we shift to the collective level, to something as layered and dynamic as an organization, that complexity increases even further. 

In this article, we will try to unpack this question. As a starting point, we will go back several decades and revisit the influential theory of Organizational Learning developed by Argyris and Schön (1)

Organizational Learning: Argyris and Schön

In much of the literature on learning in organizations, the core challenge has been this: how do we translate something we usually understand as an individual process into a collective, organizational one?

Learning is typically seen as something that happens within a person. We think of individuals constructing knowledge, testing assumptions, and revising their understanding. Argyris and Schön tried to extend this logic to organizations. Drawing on what they call a “theory of action” perspective, they argued that both individuals and organizations operate based on underlying action logics that guide how knowledge is constructed, tested, and restructured.

In doing so, they distinguish between two types:

Espoused theories: what individuals or organizations say they believe.

Theories-in-use: the assumptions and norms that actually shape behavior.

However, as with people, the two do not always align.

For instance, an organization may declare that it encourages open dialogue. That is the espoused theory. But if employees who challenge decisions are subtly discouraged, the theory-in-use instead is: avoid questioning authority.

This gap is not necessarily intentional. Often, organizations genuinely believe in their stated values. But when routines, incentives, and informal reactions send a different message, theories-in-use tend to dominate. And it is within this gap that learning, or the lack of it, becomes visible.

Learning Through Error

According to Argyris and Schön, learning begins with error detection. An error signals a discrepancy between expected outcomes and actual results and members choose to investigate that gap rather than ignore it.

An error, in this sense, is not simply a mistake. It is a signal. It points to a mismatch between a strategy and its outcome. The crucial question then becomes: At what level do members of the organization respond to this mismatch?

Single-Loop Learning

Single-loop learning focuses on adjusting actions without questioning the underlying assumptions. The guiding question is: How can we fix this?

If a project fails, timelines are tightened. If performance drops, new metrics are introduced. The strategy is modified, but the logic behind it stays the same.

Double-Loop Learning

Double-loop learning goes further. 

Instead of asking only how to fix the action, the organization asks: Why were we doing it this way in the first place? This involves questioning underlying norms, values, and mental models. It is not just behavioral correction, but cognitive reconsideration. Because it challenges foundational assumptions, double-loop learning has the potential to create more fundamental and longer-lasting change.

Deutero-Learning

Finally, deutero-learning refers to “learning to learn.” It involves reflecting on how the organization typically responds to problems. Does it allow questioning? Does it encourage reflection? Or does it default to defensiveness?

Deutero-learning strengthens the skills and mindset required for ongoing self-directed learning, making both single- and double-loop learning more likely in the future.

This level strengthens the organization’s capacity for ongoing adaptation.

When Individual Insight Is Not Enough

Organizational learning is not simply the sum of individual insights. If lessons remain isolated within teams, the organization as a whole has not learned.

For learning to become organizational, insights must be shared, embedded, and integrated into routines and decision-making processes.

Organizational learning requires questioning not only actions, but assumptions.

Limitations and Critiques

Despite its influence, the framework has faced criticism. Some argue that it underestimates the role of hierarchy, power, and broader social context in shaping what is allowed to be learned.

Others suggest that focusing primarily on error detection narrows the concept of learning, overlooking spontaneous or informal forms of organizational development.

These critiques remind us that learning in organizations is rarely a purely rational process. It is shaped by culture, authority, and structural constraints.

Understanding organizational learning, therefore, is less about identifying a perfect model and more about recognizing the tensions between intention and practice.