Introduction Early conceptualizations of organizational learning as the aggregation of individual learning in an organizational context now appear to have been superseded by conceptualizations that see organ- izations as collective entities. In some versions, organizations are seen as exhibiting similar learn- ing characteristics to those of individuals. Although a metaphor (Morgan, 1997), the notion of organ- izations as learning collectivities has prompted a great deal of recent interest amongst academics (Crossan and Guatto, 1996), popular management writers and organizational practitioners. In most cases, at the core of the metaphor, however, is some notion of consensus and unitarism (Fox, 1974). Indeed, this is particularly marked in the more normative approaches to learning that are usually included under the rubric of the ‘learning organiza- tion’ (Garratt, 1987; Marquardt, 1996; Pedler et al., 1997; Senge, 1990; Watkins and Marsick, 1993). The unitarism of the ‘learning organization’ expresses itself through various underlying assumptions such as a shared vision (Pearn et al., 1995; Senge, 1990; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) and shared values (Handy, 1995). Inclinations towards some notion of consensus are also detect- able in many descriptive accounts of organizational learning: the prerequisite of organizational learn- ing is seen, for example, as shared identities (Nonaka, 1996), shared conceptions (Müllern and Östergren, 1995) or a shared culture (Cook and Yanow, 1993). The issue of learning in organ- izations that do not have homogenous conceptions 1 and where organizational identities, goals and British Journal of Management, Vol. 13, S47–S59 (2002) © 2002 British Academy of Management When Norms Collide: Learning under Organizational Hypocrisy Tony Huzzard and Katarina Östergren* Programme for Organisational Development and Learning, National Institute for Working Life, 112 79 Stockholm, Sweden, and *Rokkan Centret, University of Bergen, PO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Corresponding author email: tony.huzzard@niwl.se Most conceptualizations of organizational learning are generally underpinned by some notion of unitarism. Theories typically assume shared visions, values, conceptions or identities. This paper, however, considers the dilemmas faced in organizations where identities and visions are not shared, and where conceptions and ideologies are diverse and possibly in conflict. Such organizations, here called hypocrisies, are characterized by divergent norms and stakeholder identities. Seeing learning as changes in shared conceptions between actors at different levels, a case is presented of change in a multi- norm white-collar trade union. This shows the difficulty of promoting unitaristically conceived notions of organizational learning from the centre and that learning is prob- lematic where power is dispersed within the organization. This challenges the view that learning organizations can be associated with empowerment. The paper concludes by arguing for the setting-aside of unitaristic assumptions of organizational learning and, instead, conceiving interventions in terms of local learning arenas for democratic dialogue in a context of organizational diversity. 1 The term conception is used throughout the paper to denote a mental design, plan or idea. In biological contexts, ‘conception’ also means the fertilization of an egg; extending this idea (concept), conception also means a start or beginning. In other words ‘conception’ also suggests the potential initialization of certain action sequences.