Overview
Organisations do not fail to learn because they lack information.
They fail because learning is constrained by what they are able—or willing—to see, say, and act upon.
Even when evidence is available, decision-making becomes distorted when cause–and–effect relationships are unclear, filtered, or selectively interpreted. This leaves decisions “open to misinterpretation of cause–and–effect relationships.”
The result is not simply poor learning.
It is systematically constrained learning.
The Learning Constraint Stack
Organisational responses are constrained by meta-level interpretations and embedded practices, limiting what can be learned and how it is interpreted (Murray, 2002).
Murray discusses how organisational learning is shaped—and limited—by three reinforcing layers:
- SOPs (Procedural Constraint)
Standard operating procedures define:
- what actions are allowed
- what data is considered valid
- what processes must be followed
👉 Effect: constrains behaviour
- Norms (Social Constraint)
Norms determine:
- what can be said
- what is rewarded or punished
- what is ignored
👉 Effect: constrains expression
- Culture (Cognitive Constraint)
Culture shapes:
- how situations are interpreted
- what is considered “normal”
- what is perceived as risk or opportunity
👉 Effect: constrains perception
The Missing Layer: Ethics
Ethics does not sit alongside these constraints.
It is the only force capable of countering them.
Ethics as Counterforce
Ethics expands:
- what must be considered,
- what consequences matter,
- and what is no longer acceptable.
However, in practice:
- Ethical considerations are often subordinated to performance goals.
- Evidence that threatens exploitation is discounted.
- Harmful outcomes are reframed as “externalities”.
The Mechanism of Suppression
Organisations do not reject learning randomly.
They filter it.
- Learning that enhances performance is adopted.
- Learning that constrains exploitation is resisted.
This creates a structural bias:
- environmental impacts ignored,
- social harms externalised,
- and long-term risks discounted.
For example:
Despite clear evidence of social harm, platforms driven by engagement metrics continue to reinforce polarisation.
👉 The learning exists. But people choose not to act on it.
Decision-Making and Ethical Style
Ethical behaviour is not just situational—it is shaped by how decisions are made.
Decision-making style influences ethical outcomes (Berisha, Oliveira, & Humolli, 2023):
- Rational, systematic approaches are associated with more ethical behaviour.
- Avoidant or impulsive approaches correlate with poorer ethical outcomes.
Ethical behaviour is therefore not separate from decision-making—it is embedded within it. As Berisha et al. highlight:
- Every decision consists of ethical components.
- Ethics is not an occasional activity—it is expressed through how managers consistently make decisions.
This reinforces that:
Ethics is not applied to decisions—it is revealed through them.
The Pattern: Permitted Reality
These dynamics produce a consistent pattern. Organisations do not respond to reality. They respond to the version of reality they permit themselves to see.
This manifests through:
- Filtering inconvenient evidence.
- Narrowing interpretation of outcomes.
- Reinforcing existing beliefs through selective learning .
This is not a random error. It is a structured distortion.
Organisational responses are constrained by meta-level interpretations and embedded practices, limiting what can be learned and how it is interpreted (Murray, 2002).
Decision-making further shapes this constraint.
- Rational, systematic approaches are associated with more ethical behaviour.
- Avoidant or impulsive approaches correlate with poorer ethical outcomes.
Ethical behaviour is not separate from decision-making—it is embedded within it.
Every decision contains ethical components
Ethics is expressed through how decisions are consistently made (Berisha, Oliveira, & Humolli, 2023).
🧭 In the Guidelines from Adapt, Survive and Flourish:
The Three Eye Diseases. In Adapt, Survive and Flourish, this condition is made explicit through three recurring failure modes:
The combined ills of wilful blindness and echo chambers heavily impact decision-making
- Myopia—short-sightedness. I notice only what affects me in my immediate time horizon only. I cannot and will not look beyond the current financial reporting period or the next election cycle.
- Tunnel vision. I’m concerned with only my ‘patch’—i.e., my team, project, business unit and company.
- Scotoma—Blind spots. Some things are too painful for me to see. Recognising these is an existential threat, as they threaten and challenge my core beliefs. Alternatively, I see only one thing—money, power, or status—as important; I refuse to recognise or acknowledge anything else. If I do, expect passionate lip service!
Together, these do not simply impair judgement. They define what is considered real.
Wilful blindness leads to denial, neglect and failure.
The Antipattern: Ethical Suppression
When ethical considerations threaten performance:
- they are minimised,
- reframed,
- or excluded entirely,
This results in:
- Incomplete learning cycles.
- Persistent misinterpretation of cause–and–effect.
- Systemic drift away from reality.
Implications for Adaptive Capacity
Without ethical constraint:
- Learning optimises exploitation; anything that may inhibit it is avoided or ignored.
- The way the organisation is set up to operate reinforces whatever assumptions it already holds.
- Systems become more efficient—but responsibility and accountability are displaced from the people who should hold them.
As March shows, organisations tend to favour exploitation over exploration, reinforcing existing competencies and reducing variation over time (March, 1991).
Without ethical interruption, this dynamic narrows what is explored, reinforces existing assumptions, and progressively constrains learning.
Adaptive Capacity without Ethics becomes the ability to exploit more effectively.
Practical Application
To counter constrained learning:
- Reintroduce Gemba
- Test assumptions against real-world outcomes.
- Surface consequences directly.
- Strengthen Ethical Interruption
- Explicitly examine who is impacted.
- Challenge what is being excluded.
- Expose Permitted Reality
- Ask: What are we not allowed to see?
- Identify suppressed signals.
- Link Ethics to Decision Practice
- Embed ethical questioning into everyday decisions.
- Develop awareness of decision-making styles.
Closing Insight
The problem is not that organisations misinterpret reality.
The problem is that they are structurally constrained from seeing it in the first place.
Berisha, G., Oliveira, L., & Humolli, E. (2023). To behave or not to behave ethically: A question of style? Business and Society Review, 128(1), 23–50.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71–87.
Murray, P. (2002). Cycles of organisational learning: a conceptual approach. Management Decision, 40(3), 239–247.