The 4I Framework of Organizational Learning
See more Change Theories »Summary written by Lucas B. Hill, University of Wisconsin-Madison, lhill6@wisc.edu
Summary
The primary argument of the 4I Framework is that learning within an organization is a dynamic process that occurs at multiple levels and is in constant motion (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999). This premise relies on several factors, including: (a) individuals are internally engaged at a subconscious and conscious level, (b) individuals must engage other members of the organization in the learning process, (c) organizations must constantly balance the tension between acquiring new knowledge ("feed forward") to guide organizational operations and utilizing existing knowledge (feedback), and (d) the levels involved in organizational learning are not linear nor exclusive to distinct and separate buckets. The four key elements of the framework are described below, and their interrelationship is shown in Figure 1.
Intuiting
Individuals are the building blocks of any organization, as the organization itself is not an anthropomorphic entity that can act for itself; instead, it relies on individual senses to intuit potential learning from the environment, whether internal or external to the organization. This intuition is initially at the subconscious level and is heavily influenced by prior experiences and learning of the individual.
Interpreting
Once an individual intuits potential learning from the environment, they must then consciously interpret what they found, mainly to determine if and how they might want to share it with other organizational members. They interpret by naming what they intuited and compare it against their previous knowledge. Overall, at this level of the framework, individuals engage in sensemaking about the relevancy of the new learning within their world view and experience.
Integrating
Whereas the intuiting and interpreting components of the framework are situated at the individual level, integration is at the intersection of individual's thinking and the mutual sense-making that occurs at the group level. Such group-based integration can lead to shared understandings and mutual decisions to adjust practice. Integration occurs in pockets across the organization with the potential for individual groups to engage with each other.
Institutionalizing
If integration is successful in penetrating a large enough percentage of the organization (i.e., wide-spread integration), institutionalization can occur. This consists of creating concrete structures, routines, policies, and diagnostics to formally adopt and implement the learning that took place in the previous three aspects of the 4I framework. While organizational learning is reliant upon individual- and group-level learning processes, it ultimately must also be institutionalized in order to persist despite individual-level turnover.
![[creative commons]](/images/creativecommons_16.png)
Figure 1. Organizational learning as a dynamic process, recreated from Crossan, Lane, & White (1999).
Example of Use
The 4I framework was used to undergird a conceptual framework for understanding individuals who span the boundary between a STEM reform network (the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning [CIRTL]) and their home institutions and help to advance local STEM reform efforts via their connection to a rich implicit and explicit knowledge sharing source (Hill, 2020). The four elements of the framework mapped onto four key boundary spanning activities: finding (intuiting), translating (interpreting), diffusing (integration), and gaining support (institutionalization). The framework provided an effective way to understand how change agents must simultaneously intuit and interpret what they gain from network participation and engage stakeholders at their institution to advance best practices and garner support to more thoroughly institutionalize STEM reform measures.
Assumptions & Limitations
While effective at explaining organizational learning behaviors, the 4I framework does have limitations and only represents a small (albeit important) facet of the organizational learning literature (see example references below for other conceptualizations of organizational learning). In particular, the framework is not directly an organizational change theory but rather a lens by which to understand layered learning mechanisms. However, one could also argue that organizational change is accomplished by members of the organization learning new mental models and ways of being. Still, the two (organizational learning and change) are not completely synonymous and are more appropriately viewed as complementary.
Another limitation of the 4I framework lies within the recent trend of STEM higher education reform to become much more multi-institutional and multi-sector than it has been in previous decades. Each of the four elements of the framework are arguably still applicable to a networked reform world, but the theory cannot fully accommodate the complexity inherent in organizational overlaps. More recent authors have likewise found limitations of the 4I framework as applied to more current conceptualizations of organizational theory and have largely added to it (e.g., Jenkin, 2013), rather than replace it, thus demonstrating its enduring appeal.
Application in STEM Higher Education
Hill, L. B. (2020). Understanding the impact of a multi-institutional STEM reform network through key boundary-spanning individuals. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(3), 455-482.
Original Publication of Theory
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of management review, 24(3), 522-537.
Other References
Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Management learning, 42(4), 439-446.
Argyris, C., Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50(9), 1085-1113.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of management review, 10(4), 803-813.
Jenkin, T. A. (2013). Extending the 4I organizational learning model: Information sources, foraging processes and tools. Administrative Sciences, 3(3), 96-109.
Senge, P.M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (2nd edition). New York: Currency-Doubleday.