The Plural of Goal: Learning in a World of Ambiguity

In the Carnegie School tradition of experiential learning, learning processes are driven by the encoding of performance outcomes as a success or failure relative to a goal. We expand this line of inquiry by highlighting how conflicting and thus ambiguous outcomes across multiple goals make interpretation a critical aspect of organizational learning processes. In early work in the Carnegie tradition, interpretation played a role in the demarcation between what constituted success or failure on a given outcome metric. However, in March’s latter writings, learning and decision making produce an arena or even an opportunity for generating interpretations and broader meanings regarding roles, values, and identities. We explore how the two interpretive approaches in March’s work play out across three modes of responses to ambiguity. First, the process of self-enhancement whereby participants interpret conflictual outcomes so that they, the participants, appear in a positive light. Second, an explicit political process regarding the contestation of how to interpret conflicting outcomes. Third, from the perspective of the organizations’ literature on wisdom, participants may embrace ambiguity either to enhance learning or simply to enrich individuals’ interpretation of their experiences. Although these three modes of response do not offer a complete set of responses for learning in a world of ambiguity, they constitute valuable touchstones for the perspective we wish to put forward and, collectively, help enrich our understanding of the role of learning, ambiguity and interpretation within the Carnegie School.