Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

RETRACTED: Conceptual Paper: Organizational Learning and Its Practices

RETRACTED: Conceptual Paper: Organizational Learning and Its Practices In the current world of business and organizations, the role of organization learning is enormous as it is the learning ability and knowledge base of an organization that creates the distinctive competitive advantage. This article reviews the literature on organization learning. Organization theory, industrial economics, business history, management, and innovation studies have addressed the question of how organizations learn. It assesses these various literatures and tries to understand the goals of organization learning, the learning process in organizations, and some important variables on the concept of organization learning. In this article, seven major variables or focus of the concept and practice of organization learning have been studied. It reviews the conceptual framework of individual and organizational learning and tries to understand how organizations learn from direct experience, learning from others, encouraging and creating a learning environment, and how organizations develop conceptual frameworks for interpreting that experience. The idea of organization memory is also emphasized in this article to show how organizations program information and retrieve it in spite of the turnover of personnel and the passage of time. The final section discusses the limitations as well as the possibilities of creating new paradigm on organizational learning in the current business environment. Keywords learning organization , individual learning , knowledge management , organization memory , organization culture The biggest challenge which organizations face in today’s Introduction world is how learning can be used in knowledge assimilation During the past few decades, the marketplaces for organiza- resulting in fostering innovation faster than its competitors. tions have shifted from a market push – based strategy toward This article aims at investigating the main elements of the a market pull – based strategy. In comparison with an envi- process of organizational learning and identifies its main ronment years back, where the demand was high with supply characteristics resulting in creation of a learning environ- scarcity, today’s situation is characterized by an overflow of ment as strategic competitive advantage for organizations. It products and services whose amount is in abundant to satisfy focuses on how organizations learn and leverage from the the demand. The resulting customer expectations, as well as benefit of organization learning and also highlights areas of the intense global competition, depict an enormous chal- learning interventions which will help organizations to maxi- lenge for the flexibility of an organization which is operating mize the benefits of learning. in this scenario. As a consequence of the evolved threats, organizations are forced to adjust quickly and adopt new Review of Literature ways to remain competitive. The recent advances in the field of organization studies have shifted focus toward studying There is a need to review the existing literature of the con- the fit between organizations and its adoptability in an ever- cept of organizational learning to explicate the understand- changing environment. Hence, there is a need to study the ing of the organizational learning concepts and practices and concept of organizational learning to understand learning essentially upgrade the concept to conform to the current concepts and practices and essentially upgrade the concept requirements of organizations. The idea of organization to conform to the current requirements of organizations. The study of organization learning has been into existence for Academy of Human Resources Development, Ahmedabad, India long and has gained importance due to its ever-evolving Corresponding Author: characteristics and focus toward developing of the organiza- Mayuk Dasgupta, Academy of Human Resources Development—Fellow tion ecosystem. The growing importance of learning in orga- Program in H.R. and O.D., 2nd Floor Ayana Complex, Thaltej Hebatpur nizations and knowledge creation has been widely felt by Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059, India. organizations operating in diverse and multicultural societies. Email: dasgupta.mayuk@gmail.com Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). RETRACTED 2 SAGE Open learning and it’s in-depth process and development have delivery systems and materials procurement planning (MRP) been in existence for considerable time but their scientific intensifies the dire need for organizations to learn and do background and principles can be traced back to many per- new things in radically different ways. spectives of management. Organizational learning is attrib- Third, the concept of “learning” has a broad analytical uted to the creation of the “action learning” process (Revans, value and is shown in the breadth of academic disciplines 1982), which uses small groups, rigorous collection of sta- using it. Contemporarily, normative approaches such as tistical data, and the tapping of the group’s positive emo- those found in management literature on the subject seek to tional energies (B. Garratt, 1999). The technique is also a new language to deal with the changed circumstances fac- mirrored in Deming and Juran’s quality control system using ing firms. Apparently, academicians in economics has quality circles, statistical process control (SPC) and plan-do- attempted to progress beyond the existing static views of study-action (PDSA). A few other important works also organizations as “bundles of resources.” Learning is a positively contributed to spearhead the debate of organiza- dynamic concept and its use in theory emphasizes the evolv- tional learning and in later stage to the popularity of the con- ing nature of organizations. In addition, it is an integrative cept. Seminal studies like Argyris and Schon’s (1978) concept that can unify various levels of analysis: individual, double-loop learning notion, Senge’s (1990) the “Fifth group, corporate, and community nature of organizations Discipline,” and Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell’s (1991) learn- (Dodgson, 1993). ing company model and the idea of “learning curves” have been widely used by large management consulting firms. What Is Organization Learning? The study of organizational learning and learning organi- zations have flourished and been matched by a range of aca- The concept of learning is understood from various perspec- demic bodies studying it. Organization learning has been tives and mainly developed in the psychological field over a widely studied by economic historians to examine the impor- long evolutionary history (Wang & Ahmed, 2001); however, tance of learning in the development of new industries and there is rarely agreement within disciplines as to what learning technologies (Rosenberg, 1976) and the development of for- is and how it occurs (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Economists tend to mal research and development (R&D) as institutionalized view learning either as simple quantitative improvement in learning mechanisms (Mowery, 1981). Learning is debated activities or as some form of intangible and vaguely defined by industrial economists to effect productivity (Arrow, 1962) positive outcome. The management and business literatures and industrial structures (Dosi, 1982). Intrafirm learning has often equates learning with sustainable comparative competi- been an important characteristic of the theory of the firm tive efficiency (Dodgson, 1993), and the innovation literature since Cyert and March (1963), and learning plays a central usually sees learning as promoting comparative innovation role in Teece, Pisano, and Schuen’s (1990) “dynamic capa- efficiency (Hamel, 1991). Some works have considered the bilities” theory of strategic management. The relationship notion of learning organization culture as an attribute of entre- between learning and innovation has been examined at a preneurship and risk taking (Kanter, 1989; Naman & Slevin, strategic management level (Dodgson, 1991; Loveridge & 1993; Sykes & Block, 1989), facilitate leadership (Meen & Pitt, 1990) and at a tactical management level concerned Keough, 1992; Slater & Narver, 1995), organic structures with new product development (Imai, Nonaka, & Takeuchi, (Gupta & Govindrajan, 1991; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1985; Maidique & Zirger, 1985). There are a number of rea- 1993), decentralized strategic planning processes (Day, 1990; sons why the study of organization learning has gained Hart, 1992; Mintzberg, 1994), and individual development momentum among management researchers. First, large- (Garvin, 1993). These various literatures tend to investigate the sized corporations attempt to develop strategy, structure, and outcomes of learning, rather than delve into what learning systems which are more adaptable and responsive to internal originally is and how these outcomes are achieved and ulti- and external environmental stimulus. This concept has been mately enhance the organizational performance. In contrast, it described and influenced by the work of a number of is a major concern of psychology and organization theory to researchers like Peters and Waterman (1982), Kanter (1989), examine the process of learning. Learning, in this context, and Senge (1990). It is also widely considered that learning relates to the firms and includes both the processes and out- is a key to competitive advantage (R. Garratt, 1987; Porter, comes. It can be defined as the various means by which the 1985). Second, there is significant influence of technological firms build, complement, and organize knowledge and routines change on organizations. The turbulence engendered by around their activities and within their cultures, and adapt and technological change in products, markets, and processes is develop organizational efficiency by improving the use of the directly propagated to the organization’s strategy. The com- broad skills of their employees. This postulates a broad range plexity of new product development process (Rothwell, of characteristics of organization learning: 1992) and shortened product life cycles, the transformation of production processes toward “lean manufacturing” Learning has positive implications although the out- (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990), and the growing use of comes of learning’s are sometimes negative, that is, computer-aided organizational innovation such as just-in-time firms learn by committing errors. RETRACTED Dasgupta 3 Although learning is based on individuals in the work- their learning needs and those aligned to their career goals force, firms can learn in totality. While emphasiz- and corporate strategy. Organizations have also implemented ing the role of human agency in learning, corporate systems of incentives for improvement within organizations and group culture is also influenced by individual to encourage and stimulate employees to undertake initia- learning and can assist the direction and use of that tives and risks and collective problem solving (Hale, 1996). learning. Comparative analysis of various literature sources revealed Learning occurs across different activities of the firm, many different interpretations of the learning organization and it occurs at different levels and pace. Encour- concept that are presented in Table 1 with distinguished aging and coordinating the various interactions in characteristics. learning is a key organizational responsibility for Various authors based on findings of their studies have managers. defined organization learning by highlighting yet intercon- necting aspects, including the following: Firms that intentionally build strategies and structures to enhance and maximize the organizational learning experi- • learning is adaptation to changing environment ence have been labeled as “learning organizations.” The • there are various levels of learning within organiza- characteristics of the learning company are described by tions, that is, individual → group → organization Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne (1989) as “an organization • exploration of the experience gained which facilitates the learning of all its members and continu- • organizations encourage continuous learning and ally transforms itself,” and argue that it develop learning skills and processes of improvement • creation of knowledge cultivates a climate of encouragement where individu- • information and knowledge sharing within organi- als learn and develop their full potential zations. extends the learning culture to involve customers, sup- • speed of learning pliers, and other important stakeholders • value of organization culture in learning positions human resource strategy at the center of cor- porate strategy Learning is one of the main processes in a learning organi- constantly undergoes a process of organizational trans- zation, and it can influence organization behavior, culture, and formation. efficiency (Levitt & March, 1988). It has been established that different authors distinguish the aspect of learning when Although there is not much documentation available on describing learning organizations as it is emphasized in almost firms’ learning methodology, large Japanese corporations all the dimensions of a learning organization foundation. like Toyota, Sumitomo, Sony, Matsushita, and others have Literature analysis reveals the fact that while defining learning many characteristics resembling learning organizations in the organization context, knowledge is being created, skills (Dore, 1973; Dore & Sako, 1989; Sako, 1992) and there is and specific capabilities are formed, and experience is gained significant parity with smaller, entrepreneurial high-tech by working toward corporate goals of the organization. firms in the United Kingdom (Dodgson, 1991). The Japanese According to Dixon and Flood (1993), the following three philosophy of learning and knowledge management empha- levels of learning can be distinguished: individual learning, sizes “oneness of humanity and nature,” “oneness of body group learning, and organization learning (Figure 1). and mind,” and “oneness of self and other” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). To exploit the maximum benefit out of the The Goals of Organization Learning learning activities and direct them for future benefits, such firms heavily bank on training and human resources devel- Organization learning practices involve diversified perspec- opment initiatives across all levels. A commonly expressed tives of organizational management and recognize a wide belief in the field of strategic management literature is that range of variables determining the learning outcomes, orga- organizations do learn and adapt and that this enhances the nizational learning retention capacity, problem-solving abil- organization’s ability to survive. According to Figgis et al. ity, employee participation, learning environment, rewards (2001), it is relevant to analyze a learning organization as linked to learning, encouragement, and so on. To reinforce learning environment as learning organization focuses on the the understanding of organization learning, seven variables process of learning at all the levels: individual, group, and or focus of the concept have been highlighted through an organizational level. Learning in such an organization is a exhaustive literature review: focus on collectivity of indi- spontaneous process which is cultivated and supported by vidual learning, focus on learning systems and processes, building learning cultures, ensuring conditions for everyone focus on culture and metaphor, focus on organizational to learn and share information, experience, and knowledge. memory to retrieve learning, focus on knowledge manage- In such an environment, the employees are trained by using ment, focus on continuous improvement, and focus on cre- innovative teaching—learning techniques that correspond to ativity and innovation (see Table 2). RETRACTED 4 SAGE Open Table 1. Main Characteristics of Learning Organization as Learning Environment Author Main characteristics Beck (1997) Organization facilitates learning and personal development for everybody; learning is associated with transformation of the organization. Senge (1990) A system of continuous learning with environment favorable for knowledge creation and generation. Handley (1991); Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell (1991) Every task gives an opportunity to learn in the organization. Every member of the organization sees learning as his or her right and duty. Pedler et al. (1991) Organization supports learning. Dixon (1994); Marquardt (2001) Learning within organization takes place at three different levels: Individual, team, and system. Those levels link learning environments. Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith, and Kleiner (1994) Possibility to reflect, continuous examination of own experience and practice. Argyris and Schon (1996) Practices, systems, and structures are established to enable metalearning. Argyris (1977) Analysis of solutions and correction of faulty decisions comprises a part of learning. Chakravarthy (1982); Chandler (1966); Cyert and March Firms must have the potential to learn, unlearn, or relearn based on (1963); Hambrick (1983); Miles and Snow (1978); and their past behaviors. Organizational adaptability is the essence of Miller and Friesen (1980) organization learning and its performance affect the organization’s ability to learn and adapt in a changing environment. bin Othman and bin Leman (2005) Organization adopts and maintains such a form of learning that enables its members to learn in such a way that leads to positively valuable outcomes such as innovations and organization effectiveness. Source: Table prepared with reference to Skuncikiene, Balvociute, and Balciunas (2009). Organization learning occurs when individuals within an organization experience a problematic situation and inquire into it on the organization’s behalf. They expe- rience a surprising mismatch between expected and actual results of action and respond to that mismatch through a process of thought and further action that leads them to modify their images of organization or their understandings of organizational phenomena and to restructure their activities so as to bring outcomes and expectations into line, thereby changing organiza- tional theory-in-use. (Argyris & Schon, 1996, p. 16) A learning organization evolves as a result of the learning and behavior of its people (Burgoyne, Pedler, & Boydell, Figure 1. Levels of learning 1994; Honey & Mumford, 1992; Marquardt & Reynolds, 1994; Senge, 1990). The capability of a workforce in an orga- nization to learn faster than those of the other organization constitutes the competitive advantage at the disposal of a Collectivity of Individual learning learning organization (De Gues, 1998). Collective learning Learning is a natural state. Organization learning is as natu- of individuals in organizations leads to development of the ral as learning in individuals as they attempt to adjust and core competencies of the organization becoming the distinc- survive in a turbulent and competitive world. The organiza- tive advantage in the long term (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). tion learning system is viewed as one that is totally depen- Organization learning should be where the individuals inter- dent on individual learning as against the practice of knowledge act with others through the process of education and as a sharing for all the organizational members (Shrivastava, result of experience (Honey & Mumford, 1992; Kolb, 1984). 1983). The mainstream within this focus of organizational Hence, a learning organization must focus on valuing, man- learning considers individuals as “agents” for organizations aging, and enhancing the individual development of its to learn (Argyris & Schon, 1978). employees (Scarbrough, Swan, & Preston, 1999). RETRACTED Dasgupta 5 Table 2. Summary of the Organization Learning Concept and Practices Focus Concept of organizational learning Practices Individual learning “Organizational learning occurs when individuals within Staff training and development an organization experience a problematic situation and inquire into it on the organizational behalf ” (Argyris & Schon, 1996, p. 16). Process or system Organizational learning is the process whereby Enhancement of information processing organizations understand and manage their and problem-solving capability experiences (Glynn et al., 1992). Individual and group learning is an interconnected system where learning takes place at all levels at the same time (Senge, 1990). Culture or metaphor “A learning organization should be viewed as a Creation and maintenance of learning metaphor rather than a distinct type of structure, culture: Collaborative team work, whose employees learn conscious communal employee empowerment and processes for continually generating, retaining, and involvement, etc. leveraging individual and collective learning to improve performance of the organizational system in ways important to all stakeholders and by monitoring and improving performance” (Drew & Smith, 1995). Organization memory Organization learning depends on features of individual Conservation and retrieval of experience memories (Hastie et al., 1984; M. K. Johnson & Hasher, through routine procedure and 1987). Rules, procedures, technologies, beliefs, and computer-aided information system cultures are conserved through systems of socialization and control. They are retrieved through mechanisms of attention within a memory structure (Levitt & March 1988). Knowledge management Organizational learning is the changes in the state Facilitation of interaction and strengthening of knowledge (Lyles, 1992). It involves knowledge of knowledge base acquisition, dissemination, refinement, creation, and implementation: The ability to acquire diverse information and to share common understanding so that this knowledge can be exploited (Fiol, 1994) and the ability to develop insights and knowledge, and to associate among past and future activities (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Continuous improvement “A learning organization should consciously and The adoption of Total Quality Management intentionally devote to the facilitation of individual (TQM) practices learning in order to continuously transform the entire organization and its context” (Pedler et al., 1991). Creativity and innovation In the tumultuous business scenario, organization Facilitation of triple-loop learning and learning is the process by which the organization knowledge creation; focus on creative constantly questions the existing products, processes, quality and value creation and systems, and identifies strategic position and applies various learning models to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Organization learning is the collection of individual learn- contributive to the organization because employees can also ing within the organization. Collective learning occurs along learn something which is negative to the organization or may with the learning process at the individual level and may also learn to improve their own skills rather than benefit the orga- occur independently of each individual. However, it cannot nization (Field, 1997). Juxtapose, the individual learning exist if the entire workforce in an organization is restricted activities, in turn, facilitated or inhibited by an ecological from learning (Kim, 1993; Romme & Dillen, 1997). Drawing system of factors may be called “organizational learning sys- a contrast out of these theories, it can be claimed that organi- tems” (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Thus, learning-based inter- zation learning can be defined as the accumulation of indi- action between individual employees and the organization vidual and collective learning. Several theories also postulates that employs them is emphasized (Hedberg, 1981; Morgon, the fact that individual learning is not necessarily positive or 1986). According to Matlay (2000), the relationship between RETRACTED 6 SAGE Open individual and collective learning is the most important However, the systems view has not emphasized on flexi- aspect that distinguishes learning organizations from one bility, interaction, innovativeness, and creativity although another. these are important aspects for an organization to survive and succeed in the current scenario. Focus on Process and System Focus on Culture or Metaphor One stream of research on organization learning refers to organizations as “learning systems” (Revans, 1982). Several researchers have highlighted the importance on the Organizational learning is the process whereby organiza- cultural perspective of learning organization. Culture serves tions understand and manage their experiences (Glynn, as a sense-making mechanism that guides and shapes the Milliken, & Lant, 1992). Different views are emphasized values, behaviors, and attitudes of employees (O’Reilly & within the learning process: leadership (Popper & Lipshitz, Chatman, 1996), and it is through values that behavior flows 2000; Revans, 1982); personal mastery, mental models, and guides (Simon, 1976). An organization’s culture imposes building shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking “coherent, order and meaning” and enables the institutional- (Senge, 1990); and various processes like intuiting and inter- ization of an appropriate sense-making structure to facilitate preting at the individual level, interpreting and integrating at interpretation of unfamiliar events (Weick, 1985). According the group level, and institutionalizing at the organization to Schein, it is the internal integration of the individuals level (Crossan, Lane, White, & Rush, 1994). within the shared culture that aids learning. Drew and Smith The systems view of organization learning has been adopted (1995) observed that a learning organization should be seen from the information processing perspective (Cyert & March, as a metaphor rather than a distinct type of structure. In this 1963). Organizations are termed as information processing scenario, the employees learn consciously on communal systems, acquiring, interpreting, distributing, and storing processes for continually generating, retaining, and leverag- information within the organization, and therefore four com- ing individual and collective learning to improve the perfor- ponents of the organizational learning process are proposed: mance of the organizational systems. knowledge acquisition, knowledge distribution, knowledge The traditional hierarchical cultures are antilearning and utilization, and organizational memory (Huber, 1991). antitraining, and weaken the potential of organizations to The three-stage model highlights the various aspects of match and survive increasing competition in the global mar- organization processes: ketplace (Jones, 1996). In the current economic scenario, knowledge is not a sacred cow and is not just preserved for 1. Knowledge acquisition—the development or cre- people in managerial or professional positions but every ation of skills, insights, and relationships. employee will need to be a knowledge worker. However, it is 2. Knowledge distribution—the dissemination of not sufficient to have more number of knowledge workers in what has been learned. the organization than that of competition because the culture 3. Knowledge utilization—the integration of learning to has to be right to enable the full potential of the individual make it available and generalized to new situations. talents. Organizations need to change to a collaborative team culture to escape the no-training and waste-training traps According to Nevis, DiBella, and Gould (1995), organi- (Jones, 1996) and focus on the process and involvement of zational learning is defined as the capacity or processes people within the organization (Mintzberg, 1994). According within an organization to maintain or improve performance to Jones (1996), based on experience. Learning is systems-level phenomenon because it remains within the organization, even if individu- In addition to the utilization of the technical skills and als change. A systems viewpoint comprises two substreams: knowledge workers, a team approach is essential for organizations as closed system or an open system. Under the the effective acquisition of new knowledge and skills. closed systems view, organizational learning is limited to Team skills are inextricably linked with effective an organization itself, which is a reflection of the classical learning and it is the learning and motivation which a approach to organizational management (Burnes, 2000). team approach enables to form the mainstream quality, Open systems view of organizations considers situational innovation, service, etc. factors and includes interorganizational learning as a vital part of the overall organizational learning system. However, Torbert (1991) names it “the liberating culture,” which is knowledge is acquired within and outside the organization. the means of overcoming barriers that limit organization In a learning organization, the highest stage incorporates learning. three aspects of learning: environmental adaptability, learn- The link between culture and organizational performance ing from their people, and contributing to the learning of the has been defined by researchers (Denison, 1990; Gordon & wider community of which they are a part (Pedler et al., DiTomaso, 1992). Culture has also become an important tool 1991). for design of organization structures and strategies and RETRACTED Dasgupta 7 enables an organization to utilize the knowledge and experi- 1987). The routines that record lessons of experience are ence optimally for achieving the set goals and objectives organized around organizational responsibilities and are (Bierly, Kessler, & Christensen, 2000). retrieved easily when actions are taken through regular chan- nels than when they occur outside those channels (Olsen, 1983). Large part of the routines can be stored using infor- Organization Memory mation technology, particularly where there are large num- Organization learning depends on features of individual bers of routines bearing on relatively specific actions like memories (Hastie, Park, & Weber, 1984; M. K. Johnson & design of structures and engineering systems, scheduling Hasher, 1987). Routine-based ideas of learning presume that and production or logistical support, or the analysis of finan- the lessons of experience are maintained and accumulated cial statements (Smith & Green, 1980). within routine activities despite the turnover of employees and period of time. Rules, procedures, technologies, beliefs, Focus on Knowledge Management and cultures are conserved in the organization through the systems of socialization and control (Levitt & March, 1988). Organizational learning and knowledge management are two Organization not only records information but also shapes parallely developed concepts resulting out of the plethora of its future path, and the details of that path are highly depen- research conducted in the last few decades on understanding dent on the processes by which memory is stored and con- the importance of learning in organizations. Organizational sulted internally. H. T. Johnson and Kaplan (1987) and learning is referred to the changes in the state of knowledge Rovik (1987) highlighted the accounting system of record- (Lyles, 1988, 1992). It involves knowledge acquisition, dis- ing and creation of history by an organization. semination, refinement, creation, and implementation: the ability to acquire diverse information and to share common understanding so that this knowledge can be exploited (Fiol, Experience Recording 1994) and the ability to develop insights and knowledge, and Organizations records experience in the form of documents, to associate among past and future activities (Fiol & Lyles, accounting files, standard operating procedures, and computer- 1985). According to Bierly et al. (2000), “learning is the generated spreadsheets and databases. These are retrieved in process of linking, expanding, and improving data, informa- the social and physical geography of organizational structures tion, knowledge and wisdom” (p. 597). Part of the knowl- and relationships, in standards of best practices, in the culture edge between an organization and individual is complementary of organizational stories, and in shared perceptions of the way and part of it is dissimilar to each other’s principles. In fact, things are done in the organization. organizational memory creates the knowledge base and acts However, it is not practically feasible for the organization as the foundation of knowledge accumulation and creation, to record routine information as it incurs cost. With the and reflects the absorptive capability of the organizations. advent of the information technology, organizations are Hence, the main task for management to create learning encouraged to automate the recording of the routines by sub- environment between the individual and organizations is to stantially reducing the cost. The recording of routines also facilitate interaction and strengthening of each other’s knowl- depends on the nature of the organization business. Skills- edge base (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999). driven organizations rely more heavily on tacit knowledge The popularity of knowledge management as a full- than do bureaucracies (Becker, 1982). Organizations that fledged discipline for study and practice is contemporary. face complex uncertainties rely on informally shared under- Off late, organization learning is linked to knowledge cre- standings more than organizations dealing with simpler, ation. The understanding of the impact of organizational more stable environments do (Ouchi, 1980). However, out- learning on knowledge management can be taken from the comes of experiences, if not transferred from the ones who “ontological dimension” of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995, experienced it to those who did not, will be lost due to p. 27) knowledge creation model. Knowledge creation model employee turnover. is the process of knowledge transfer among individual, group, and organizational and interorganizational levels. Retrieval of Experience Focus on Continuous Improvement It has been found that only part of an organization’s memory and Innovation is likely to be remembered at a particular point of time or in a particular part of the organization. Some parts of the orga- The current literature on organizational learning is having an nizational memory are more available for retrieval than the inclination toward continuous improvement (Buckler, 1996; others. Recently used and frequently used routines are more Pedler et al., 1991; Scarbrough et al., 1999). The learning easily evoked than those which are less frequently used. organization is a state which is continuously striven for and Thus, organizations have difficulty retrieving relatively old, is more an aspiration for a continuous process rather than a unused knowledge and skills (Argote, Beckman, & Epple, single product (B. Garratt, 1999). Learning organization as RETRACTED 8 SAGE Open stated by Senge (1990) is where the “people continuously to discard their current beliefs and methods as long as they expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, seem to produce reasonable results and until inconvertible where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, evidence, usually in form of failures, convinces them to accept where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are new paradigms (Petroski, 1992). The persistence on existing continually learning how to learn together” (p. 3). A similar beliefs and methods hold back learning, therefore, organiza- definition by Pedler et al. (1991) mentioned that “a learning tional learning is often accompanied with certain degree of organization should consciously and intentionally devote to organizational unlearning. Organizations have to discard the the facilitation of individual learning in order to continu- things they have learned previously. They need to dispose ously transform the entire organization and its context.” In their plan rather than try to extend the life cycle of a success- this context, the Total Quality Management (TQM) is a ful product, process, or organization policy (Drucker, 1993). landmark toward the learning organization philosophy. In a sense, organizational learning is all about organizational TQM’s main doctrine is continuous improvement and is unlearning. practiced as a technique and philosophy. TQM helps organi- This article is aimed to illustrate the potential and synergy zations to focus on managing customer satisfaction by between the various approaches of learning. The concept of improving the organizations’ processes, understanding inter- organizational learning has been developed from the indi- nal customer concept, involving every individual employee, vidual learning perspective and is commonly believed to implementing organization-wide training and development, involve all aspects of the human nature and the interaction and concentrating on improvement of cost, quality, and cus- with the environment. However, organizations are in a more tomer satisfaction (Evans & Lindsay, 1999; Flood, 1993; complicated context than an individual to the environment. Luthans, 1998). Barrow (1993) mentioned that organiza- To clarify, organizational learning is not simply the collectiv- tional learning is an intended outcome of TQM, and there is ity of individual learning processes but connects between the a correlation between process improvement and organiza- individual members in the organization and interaction tional learning. Incremental innovation is achieved only between organizations as an entity and interaction between through continuous learning and a learning organization can the organization and its contexts. The vast area of organiza- cultivate incremental innovation through effective learning tional learning field has created diversified understanding of mechanisms. the concept of organizational learning. To reinforce the understanding, seven constructs or focuses of the concept and the associated practices have been identified. Although Conclusions these focuses of organizational learning are evident, they The review of some of the organization learning literature overlap each other and does not essentially exclude from one has boundaries in the real world of organizations. First, another. The successful implementation of organization learning is based on systems thinking and stresses on the learning is a journey where all the focuses are used accord- process of linear-sequential thinking. Each and every single ing to organization situations. Organizational learning is an process follows a plan-do-study-check circle and follows a ever-evolving concept and includes all aspects that will facil- scientific problem-solving or information-process system. itate the organization to build and maintain competitive This classification contains a certain degree of dearth in advantage. It has been found that research on organizational terms of flexibility, proactivity, innovativeness, and energies learning needs to incorporate the perspective of creativity in the business environment attributed by hyper-dynamics, and radical innovation, as a strategic orientation to sustain uncertainty, and chaos. Second, there is little evidence of competitive advantage. creativity in the process of learning. Shortened product life Further research can be undertaken to understand the cycles due to dynamic changes in technology have become learning capabilities of organizations in dynamic environ- a major impediment to the overall organization strategy to ment where the change process is faster and radical. The make improvements in the existing product ranges, pro- challenge in this scenario for an organization will be to cesses, and systems. Holding to existing product ranges and develop the skills and proficiencies of the individuals, teams, systems may become counterproductive in the real business and larger communities which will enable people to consis- world. To succeed, organizations need to switch focus on tently enhance their capacity to produce results that are triple-loop learning. Triple-loop learning encourages ques- meeting their individual goals along with the organization tioning the existing products and systems by strategically objectives (Senge, 1999). In addition, measuring learning asking where and how the organization stands in the future effectiveness and the challenge to sustain the learning marketplace with distinct people competencies. Triple-loop momentum across time has been an interesting area to study. learning is also accompanied by organizational ambition, How an organization does over the passage of time develop wisdom, and courage, and involves knowledge creation. The and implement the learning experiences can be a stimulating triple-loop learning process registers a high degree of cre- area of research. In the article, the transfer of learning from ative input and organizational unlearning, and is an interac- one organization to the other has been highlighted where tive process. According to Kuhn (1962), people do not tend individuals move from company to company carrying the RETRACTED Dasgupta 9 knowledge which they have acquired or developed in the Burgoyne, J., Pedler, M., & Boydell, T. (1994). Towards the Learn- previous organization. How organizations transfer knowl- ing Company. London, England: McGraw-Hill. edge and learning experiences from one to the other through Burnes, B. (2000). Managing change: A strategic approach to the transfer of human resources can be widely studied across organizational dynamics. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. different cultures at a global context. Aligning organizational Chakravarthy, B. S. (1982). Adaptation: A promising metaphor for learning strategies to the core organization goals can lead to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 7, 35-44. knowledge development and encourage innovation of new Chandler, A. (1966). Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT product and services. Interestingly, research can be under- Press. taken to study the correlation between organization’s product Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E., & Rush, J. C. (1994). market strategies and learning ability in a dynamic business Learning within organization (Working Paper No. 94-96). environment. Innovation management resulting through Ontario, Canada: University of Western Ontario; Richard Ivey organization learning experiences can further contribute to School of Business. the field of organization learning. Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Declaration of Conflicting Interests Day, G. S. (1990). Mental driven strategy: Processes for creating The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with value. New York, NY: Free Press. respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this De Gues, A. (1998). Planning as learning. Harvard Business article. Review, 66, 70-74. Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effec- Funding tiveness. New York, NY: Wiley. The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or Dixon, N. (1994). The organizational learning cycle: How we can authorship of this article. learn collectively. London, England: McGraw-Hill. Dixon, N., & Flood, C. (1993). Questioning the learning organiza- References tion concept. In S. M. Scott, B. Spencer, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility ver- Learning for Life: Readings in Canadian Adult Education sus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota (pp. 140-152). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Thompson. Dodgson, M. (1991). Technology learning, technology strategy and production systems. Organization Science, 10, 43-68. competitive pressures. British Journal of Management, 2/3, Argote, L., Beckman, S., & Epple, D. (1987). The persistence and 132-149. transfer of learning in industrial settings. Paper presented at Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some the St. Louis meetings of the Institute of Management Sciences literatures. Dodgson Organization Studies, 375–394. (TIMS) and the Operations Research Society of America (ORSA). Dore, R. (1973). British factory-Japanese factory. Berkeley: Uni- St. Louis, MO. versity of California Press. Argyris, C. (1977). The double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Dore, R., & Sako, M. (1989). How the Japanese learn to work. Business Review, 55, 115-124. London, England: Routledge. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajec- of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. tories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and direc- Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: The- tions of technical change. Research Policy, 11, 147-162. ory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Drew, S. A. W., & Smith, P. A. C. (1995). The learning organiza- Arrow, K. (1962). The implications of learning by doing. Review of tion: Change proofing and strategy. Learning Organization, 2, Economic Studies, 29, 166-170. 4-14. Barrow, J. W. (1993). Does total quality management equal organi- Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. Oxford, UK: Butter- zational learning? Quality Progress, 26, 39-43. worth Heinemann. Beck, K. (1997). Organizational learning (Glossary 504). Retrieved Evans, J., & Lindsay, W. (1999). The management and control of from http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/glossary/orglearn.htm quality (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West. Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. Berkeley: University of Califor- Field, L. (1997). Impediments to empowerment and learning within nia Press. organizations. Learning Organization, 2, 4-14. Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organi- Figgis, J., Alderson, A., Blackwell, A., Butorac, A., Mitchell, K., zational learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Change & Zubrick, A. (2001). What convinces enterprises to value Management, 13, 595-618. training and learning and what does not? A study in using bin Othman, A., & bin Leman, A. (2005). A measure of the learning case studies to develop cultures of training and learning. organization: Kuittho’s experience. Retrieved from http: ickm. Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Educa- upm.edu.my tion Research. Buckler, B. (1996). A learning process model to achieve continu- Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity and learning in organiza- ous improvement and innovation. Learning Organization, 3, tions. Organization Science, 5, 403-420. 31-39. RETRACTED 10 SAGE Open Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy Jones, S. (1996). Developing a learning culture—Empowering of Management Review, 10, 803-813. people to deliver quality, innovation and long-term success. London, England: McGraw-Hill. Flood, C. (1993). The learning organization. Work Life Report, 9, Kanter, R. (1989). When giants learn to dance. London, England: 1-4. Simon & Schuster. Garratt, B. (1999). The learning organization 15 years on: Some Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational personal reflections. Learning Organization, 202-206. learning. Sloan Management Review, 35, 37-50. Garratt, R. (1987). The learning organization. London, England: Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of Fontana/Collins. learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, Business Review, 71, 78-91. IL: University of Chicago Press. Glynn, M., Milliken, F., & Lant, T. (1992). Learning about organi- Levitt, B., & March, G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual zational learning theory: An umbrella of organizing processes. Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Loveridge, R., & Pitt, M. (1990). The strategic management of Las Vegas, NV. technological innovation. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Gordon, G. G., & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate per- Luthans, F. (1998). Organizational behavior (8th ed.). Boston, MA: formance from organizational culture. Journal of Management Irwin McGraw-Hill. Studies, 29, 783-798. Lyles, M. (1988). Learning among joint venture sophisticated firms Gupta, A. K., & Govindrajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the [Special issue]. Management International Review, 28, 85-98. structure of control within multi-national corporations. Acad- Lyles, M. (1992). The impact of organizational learning on joint emy of Management Review, 16, 768-792. venture formations. Presented at the Academy of Management Hale, M. M. (1996). Learning organizations and mentoring: Two Meetings, Las Vegas, NV. ways to link learning and workforce development. Public Pro- Maidique, M., & Zirger, B. (1985). The new product learning cycle. ductivity & Management Review, 19, 422-433. Research Policy, 14, 299-313. Hambrick, D. C. (1983). High profit strategies in mature capital Marquardt, M. J. (2001). Action learning: The cornerstone for goods industries: A contingency approach. Academy of Man- building a learning organization. In Fuhrungsstarke oder agement Journal, 26, 687-707. Charisma. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang Press. Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner Marquardt, M., & Reynolds, A. (1994). The global learning organi- learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Man- zation. New York, NY: Irwin Professional Publishing. agement Journal, 12, 83-103. Matlay, H. (2000). Organizational learning in small learning orga- Handley, K. (1991). Within and beyond communities of practice: nizations. Education + Training, 42, 201-210. Making sense of learning through participation, identity and Meen, D. E., & Keough, M. (1992). Creating a learning organiza- practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 641-653. tion. Mckinsey Quarterly, 1, 58-81. Hart, S. L. (1992). An integrative framework for strategy-making Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, struc- processes. Academy of Management Review, 17, 327-351. ture, and process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hastie, R., Park, B., & Weber, R. (1984). Social memory. In R. S. Wyer Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1980). Archetypes of organizational tran- & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 2, sition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 268-299. pp. 151-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In New York, NY: Free Press. P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational Morgon, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: design (pp. 8-27). London, England: Routledge. SAGE. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Mowery, D. (1981). The emergence and growth of industrial Maidenhead, England: Peter Honey. research in American manufacturing, 1899-1946. Stanford, Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing pro- CA: Stanford University. cesses and the literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88-115. Naman, J. L., & Slevin, D. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the con- Imai, K.-I., Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1985). Managing the cept of fit: A model and empirical test. Strategic Management new product development process: How Japanese companies Journal, 14, 137-153. learn and unlearn. In K. Clark, R. Hayes, & C. Lorenz (Eds.), Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995, Winter). Under- The uneasy alliance: Managing the productivity-technology standing organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management dilemma (pp. 337-376). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review, 36, 73-85. School Press. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, K. (1995). The knowledge-creating com- Johnson, H. T., & Kaplan, R. S. (1987). Relevance lost: The rise pany: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innova- and fall of management accounting. Boston, MA: Harvard tion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Business School Press. Olsen, J. P. (1983). Organized democracy. Bergen, Norway: Johnson, M. K., & Hasher, L. (1987). Human learning and memory. Scandinavian University Press. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 631-668. RETRACTED Dasgupta 11 O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social con- Senge, P. (1999). The dance of change: Mastering the twelve chal- trol: Corporations, cults, and commitment. In B. M. Staw & lenges to change in a learning organization. New York, NY: L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior Doubleday. (pp. 157-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J., & Kleiner, A. Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Adminis- (1994). The fifth discipline field book: Strategies and Tools for trative Science Quarterly, 25, 129-141. Building a Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Pedler, M., Boydell, T., & Burgoyne, J. (1989). Towards the learn- Shrivastava, P. (1983). Typology of organizational learning sys- ing company. Management Education and Development, 20/1, tems. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 7-28. 1-8. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1991). The learning com- Macmillan. pany: A strategy for sustainable development. London, England: Skuncikiene, S., Balvociute, R., & Balciunas, S. (2009). Exploring McGraw-Hill. the characteristics of a learning organization as learning envi- Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons ronment. Socialiniai Tyrimai Social Research, 1(15), 64-76. from America’s best run companies. New York, NY: Harper & Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59, 63-74. Row. Smith, H. T., & Green, T. R. G. (Eds.). (1980). Human interaction Petroski, H. (1992). To engineer is human. New York, NY: Vintage. with computers. New York, NY: Academic. Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Installing mechanisms and Sykes, H. B., & Block, Z. (1989). Corporate venturing obstacles: instilling values: The role of leadership in organizational learn- Sources and solutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 159-167. ing. Learning Organization, 7, 135-144. Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Schuen, A. (1990). Firm capabilities, Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustain- resources, and the concept of strategy (CCC Working Paper ing superior performance. New York, NY: Free Press. No. 90-8), Berkeley, CA: University of Berkeley. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the Torbert, W. (1991). The power of balance: Transforming self, soci- corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 79-91. ety, and scientific enquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Revans, R. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2001, April). Creative quality and Bromley, England: Chartwell Bratt. value innovation: A platform for competitive success. Proceed- Romme, G., & Dillen, R. (1997). Mapping the landscape of orga- ings of the 6th Conference of ISO 9000 and TQM Scotland. nizational learning. European Management Journal, 15, 68-78. Retrieved from dc176.4shared.com/doc/zHfAiT9j/preview.html Rosenberg, N. (1976). Perspective of technology. Cambridge, UK: Weick, K. E. (1985). Cosmos vs. chaos: Sense and nonsense in Cambridge University Press. electronic contexts. Organizational Dynamics, 14(2), 50-64. Rothwell, R. (1992). The 5th generation innovation process. R&D Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that Management, 22, 221-239. changed the world. New York, NY: Rawson. Rovik, K.A (1987). Learning systems and Learning Behavior in Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. L., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Towards Public Policy: A study of the Management Knowledge Base. a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management University of Tromosø, Norway. Review, 18, 293-321. Sako, M. (1992). Prices, quality and trust: How the Japanese and British companies manage buyer-supplier relations. Cambridge, Bio UK: Cambridge University Press. Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., & Preston, P. (1999). Knowledge man- Mayuk Dasgupta is a doctoral scholar (PhD) in human resources agement: A literature review (Issues in People Management). and organization development at the Academy of Human Resources London, England: Institute of Personnel and Development. Development (AHRD), Ahmadabad, India. His research interests Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organi- are in the field of organization development, strategic HRM, and zations. Sloan Management Review, 32/1, 7-23. managing change in organizations. RETRACTED http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

RETRACTED: Conceptual Paper: Organizational Learning and Its Practices

SAGE Open , Volume 2 (1): 1 – Feb 1, 2012

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/retracted-conceptual-paper-organizational-learning-and-its-practices-yfaRZjoiFG

References (102)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244011432198
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In the current world of business and organizations, the role of organization learning is enormous as it is the learning ability and knowledge base of an organization that creates the distinctive competitive advantage. This article reviews the literature on organization learning. Organization theory, industrial economics, business history, management, and innovation studies have addressed the question of how organizations learn. It assesses these various literatures and tries to understand the goals of organization learning, the learning process in organizations, and some important variables on the concept of organization learning. In this article, seven major variables or focus of the concept and practice of organization learning have been studied. It reviews the conceptual framework of individual and organizational learning and tries to understand how organizations learn from direct experience, learning from others, encouraging and creating a learning environment, and how organizations develop conceptual frameworks for interpreting that experience. The idea of organization memory is also emphasized in this article to show how organizations program information and retrieve it in spite of the turnover of personnel and the passage of time. The final section discusses the limitations as well as the possibilities of creating new paradigm on organizational learning in the current business environment. Keywords learning organization , individual learning , knowledge management , organization memory , organization culture The biggest challenge which organizations face in today’s Introduction world is how learning can be used in knowledge assimilation During the past few decades, the marketplaces for organiza- resulting in fostering innovation faster than its competitors. tions have shifted from a market push – based strategy toward This article aims at investigating the main elements of the a market pull – based strategy. In comparison with an envi- process of organizational learning and identifies its main ronment years back, where the demand was high with supply characteristics resulting in creation of a learning environ- scarcity, today’s situation is characterized by an overflow of ment as strategic competitive advantage for organizations. It products and services whose amount is in abundant to satisfy focuses on how organizations learn and leverage from the the demand. The resulting customer expectations, as well as benefit of organization learning and also highlights areas of the intense global competition, depict an enormous chal- learning interventions which will help organizations to maxi- lenge for the flexibility of an organization which is operating mize the benefits of learning. in this scenario. As a consequence of the evolved threats, organizations are forced to adjust quickly and adopt new Review of Literature ways to remain competitive. The recent advances in the field of organization studies have shifted focus toward studying There is a need to review the existing literature of the con- the fit between organizations and its adoptability in an ever- cept of organizational learning to explicate the understand- changing environment. Hence, there is a need to study the ing of the organizational learning concepts and practices and concept of organizational learning to understand learning essentially upgrade the concept to conform to the current concepts and practices and essentially upgrade the concept requirements of organizations. The idea of organization to conform to the current requirements of organizations. The study of organization learning has been into existence for Academy of Human Resources Development, Ahmedabad, India long and has gained importance due to its ever-evolving Corresponding Author: characteristics and focus toward developing of the organiza- Mayuk Dasgupta, Academy of Human Resources Development—Fellow tion ecosystem. The growing importance of learning in orga- Program in H.R. and O.D., 2nd Floor Ayana Complex, Thaltej Hebatpur nizations and knowledge creation has been widely felt by Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059, India. organizations operating in diverse and multicultural societies. Email: dasgupta.mayuk@gmail.com Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). RETRACTED 2 SAGE Open learning and it’s in-depth process and development have delivery systems and materials procurement planning (MRP) been in existence for considerable time but their scientific intensifies the dire need for organizations to learn and do background and principles can be traced back to many per- new things in radically different ways. spectives of management. Organizational learning is attrib- Third, the concept of “learning” has a broad analytical uted to the creation of the “action learning” process (Revans, value and is shown in the breadth of academic disciplines 1982), which uses small groups, rigorous collection of sta- using it. Contemporarily, normative approaches such as tistical data, and the tapping of the group’s positive emo- those found in management literature on the subject seek to tional energies (B. Garratt, 1999). The technique is also a new language to deal with the changed circumstances fac- mirrored in Deming and Juran’s quality control system using ing firms. Apparently, academicians in economics has quality circles, statistical process control (SPC) and plan-do- attempted to progress beyond the existing static views of study-action (PDSA). A few other important works also organizations as “bundles of resources.” Learning is a positively contributed to spearhead the debate of organiza- dynamic concept and its use in theory emphasizes the evolv- tional learning and in later stage to the popularity of the con- ing nature of organizations. In addition, it is an integrative cept. Seminal studies like Argyris and Schon’s (1978) concept that can unify various levels of analysis: individual, double-loop learning notion, Senge’s (1990) the “Fifth group, corporate, and community nature of organizations Discipline,” and Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell’s (1991) learn- (Dodgson, 1993). ing company model and the idea of “learning curves” have been widely used by large management consulting firms. What Is Organization Learning? The study of organizational learning and learning organi- zations have flourished and been matched by a range of aca- The concept of learning is understood from various perspec- demic bodies studying it. Organization learning has been tives and mainly developed in the psychological field over a widely studied by economic historians to examine the impor- long evolutionary history (Wang & Ahmed, 2001); however, tance of learning in the development of new industries and there is rarely agreement within disciplines as to what learning technologies (Rosenberg, 1976) and the development of for- is and how it occurs (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Economists tend to mal research and development (R&D) as institutionalized view learning either as simple quantitative improvement in learning mechanisms (Mowery, 1981). Learning is debated activities or as some form of intangible and vaguely defined by industrial economists to effect productivity (Arrow, 1962) positive outcome. The management and business literatures and industrial structures (Dosi, 1982). Intrafirm learning has often equates learning with sustainable comparative competi- been an important characteristic of the theory of the firm tive efficiency (Dodgson, 1993), and the innovation literature since Cyert and March (1963), and learning plays a central usually sees learning as promoting comparative innovation role in Teece, Pisano, and Schuen’s (1990) “dynamic capa- efficiency (Hamel, 1991). Some works have considered the bilities” theory of strategic management. The relationship notion of learning organization culture as an attribute of entre- between learning and innovation has been examined at a preneurship and risk taking (Kanter, 1989; Naman & Slevin, strategic management level (Dodgson, 1991; Loveridge & 1993; Sykes & Block, 1989), facilitate leadership (Meen & Pitt, 1990) and at a tactical management level concerned Keough, 1992; Slater & Narver, 1995), organic structures with new product development (Imai, Nonaka, & Takeuchi, (Gupta & Govindrajan, 1991; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1985; Maidique & Zirger, 1985). There are a number of rea- 1993), decentralized strategic planning processes (Day, 1990; sons why the study of organization learning has gained Hart, 1992; Mintzberg, 1994), and individual development momentum among management researchers. First, large- (Garvin, 1993). These various literatures tend to investigate the sized corporations attempt to develop strategy, structure, and outcomes of learning, rather than delve into what learning systems which are more adaptable and responsive to internal originally is and how these outcomes are achieved and ulti- and external environmental stimulus. This concept has been mately enhance the organizational performance. In contrast, it described and influenced by the work of a number of is a major concern of psychology and organization theory to researchers like Peters and Waterman (1982), Kanter (1989), examine the process of learning. Learning, in this context, and Senge (1990). It is also widely considered that learning relates to the firms and includes both the processes and out- is a key to competitive advantage (R. Garratt, 1987; Porter, comes. It can be defined as the various means by which the 1985). Second, there is significant influence of technological firms build, complement, and organize knowledge and routines change on organizations. The turbulence engendered by around their activities and within their cultures, and adapt and technological change in products, markets, and processes is develop organizational efficiency by improving the use of the directly propagated to the organization’s strategy. The com- broad skills of their employees. This postulates a broad range plexity of new product development process (Rothwell, of characteristics of organization learning: 1992) and shortened product life cycles, the transformation of production processes toward “lean manufacturing” Learning has positive implications although the out- (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990), and the growing use of comes of learning’s are sometimes negative, that is, computer-aided organizational innovation such as just-in-time firms learn by committing errors. RETRACTED Dasgupta 3 Although learning is based on individuals in the work- their learning needs and those aligned to their career goals force, firms can learn in totality. While emphasiz- and corporate strategy. Organizations have also implemented ing the role of human agency in learning, corporate systems of incentives for improvement within organizations and group culture is also influenced by individual to encourage and stimulate employees to undertake initia- learning and can assist the direction and use of that tives and risks and collective problem solving (Hale, 1996). learning. Comparative analysis of various literature sources revealed Learning occurs across different activities of the firm, many different interpretations of the learning organization and it occurs at different levels and pace. Encour- concept that are presented in Table 1 with distinguished aging and coordinating the various interactions in characteristics. learning is a key organizational responsibility for Various authors based on findings of their studies have managers. defined organization learning by highlighting yet intercon- necting aspects, including the following: Firms that intentionally build strategies and structures to enhance and maximize the organizational learning experi- • learning is adaptation to changing environment ence have been labeled as “learning organizations.” The • there are various levels of learning within organiza- characteristics of the learning company are described by tions, that is, individual → group → organization Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne (1989) as “an organization • exploration of the experience gained which facilitates the learning of all its members and continu- • organizations encourage continuous learning and ally transforms itself,” and argue that it develop learning skills and processes of improvement • creation of knowledge cultivates a climate of encouragement where individu- • information and knowledge sharing within organi- als learn and develop their full potential zations. extends the learning culture to involve customers, sup- • speed of learning pliers, and other important stakeholders • value of organization culture in learning positions human resource strategy at the center of cor- porate strategy Learning is one of the main processes in a learning organi- constantly undergoes a process of organizational trans- zation, and it can influence organization behavior, culture, and formation. efficiency (Levitt & March, 1988). It has been established that different authors distinguish the aspect of learning when Although there is not much documentation available on describing learning organizations as it is emphasized in almost firms’ learning methodology, large Japanese corporations all the dimensions of a learning organization foundation. like Toyota, Sumitomo, Sony, Matsushita, and others have Literature analysis reveals the fact that while defining learning many characteristics resembling learning organizations in the organization context, knowledge is being created, skills (Dore, 1973; Dore & Sako, 1989; Sako, 1992) and there is and specific capabilities are formed, and experience is gained significant parity with smaller, entrepreneurial high-tech by working toward corporate goals of the organization. firms in the United Kingdom (Dodgson, 1991). The Japanese According to Dixon and Flood (1993), the following three philosophy of learning and knowledge management empha- levels of learning can be distinguished: individual learning, sizes “oneness of humanity and nature,” “oneness of body group learning, and organization learning (Figure 1). and mind,” and “oneness of self and other” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). To exploit the maximum benefit out of the The Goals of Organization Learning learning activities and direct them for future benefits, such firms heavily bank on training and human resources devel- Organization learning practices involve diversified perspec- opment initiatives across all levels. A commonly expressed tives of organizational management and recognize a wide belief in the field of strategic management literature is that range of variables determining the learning outcomes, orga- organizations do learn and adapt and that this enhances the nizational learning retention capacity, problem-solving abil- organization’s ability to survive. According to Figgis et al. ity, employee participation, learning environment, rewards (2001), it is relevant to analyze a learning organization as linked to learning, encouragement, and so on. To reinforce learning environment as learning organization focuses on the the understanding of organization learning, seven variables process of learning at all the levels: individual, group, and or focus of the concept have been highlighted through an organizational level. Learning in such an organization is a exhaustive literature review: focus on collectivity of indi- spontaneous process which is cultivated and supported by vidual learning, focus on learning systems and processes, building learning cultures, ensuring conditions for everyone focus on culture and metaphor, focus on organizational to learn and share information, experience, and knowledge. memory to retrieve learning, focus on knowledge manage- In such an environment, the employees are trained by using ment, focus on continuous improvement, and focus on cre- innovative teaching—learning techniques that correspond to ativity and innovation (see Table 2). RETRACTED 4 SAGE Open Table 1. Main Characteristics of Learning Organization as Learning Environment Author Main characteristics Beck (1997) Organization facilitates learning and personal development for everybody; learning is associated with transformation of the organization. Senge (1990) A system of continuous learning with environment favorable for knowledge creation and generation. Handley (1991); Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell (1991) Every task gives an opportunity to learn in the organization. Every member of the organization sees learning as his or her right and duty. Pedler et al. (1991) Organization supports learning. Dixon (1994); Marquardt (2001) Learning within organization takes place at three different levels: Individual, team, and system. Those levels link learning environments. Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith, and Kleiner (1994) Possibility to reflect, continuous examination of own experience and practice. Argyris and Schon (1996) Practices, systems, and structures are established to enable metalearning. Argyris (1977) Analysis of solutions and correction of faulty decisions comprises a part of learning. Chakravarthy (1982); Chandler (1966); Cyert and March Firms must have the potential to learn, unlearn, or relearn based on (1963); Hambrick (1983); Miles and Snow (1978); and their past behaviors. Organizational adaptability is the essence of Miller and Friesen (1980) organization learning and its performance affect the organization’s ability to learn and adapt in a changing environment. bin Othman and bin Leman (2005) Organization adopts and maintains such a form of learning that enables its members to learn in such a way that leads to positively valuable outcomes such as innovations and organization effectiveness. Source: Table prepared with reference to Skuncikiene, Balvociute, and Balciunas (2009). Organization learning occurs when individuals within an organization experience a problematic situation and inquire into it on the organization’s behalf. They expe- rience a surprising mismatch between expected and actual results of action and respond to that mismatch through a process of thought and further action that leads them to modify their images of organization or their understandings of organizational phenomena and to restructure their activities so as to bring outcomes and expectations into line, thereby changing organiza- tional theory-in-use. (Argyris & Schon, 1996, p. 16) A learning organization evolves as a result of the learning and behavior of its people (Burgoyne, Pedler, & Boydell, Figure 1. Levels of learning 1994; Honey & Mumford, 1992; Marquardt & Reynolds, 1994; Senge, 1990). The capability of a workforce in an orga- nization to learn faster than those of the other organization constitutes the competitive advantage at the disposal of a Collectivity of Individual learning learning organization (De Gues, 1998). Collective learning Learning is a natural state. Organization learning is as natu- of individuals in organizations leads to development of the ral as learning in individuals as they attempt to adjust and core competencies of the organization becoming the distinc- survive in a turbulent and competitive world. The organiza- tive advantage in the long term (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). tion learning system is viewed as one that is totally depen- Organization learning should be where the individuals inter- dent on individual learning as against the practice of knowledge act with others through the process of education and as a sharing for all the organizational members (Shrivastava, result of experience (Honey & Mumford, 1992; Kolb, 1984). 1983). The mainstream within this focus of organizational Hence, a learning organization must focus on valuing, man- learning considers individuals as “agents” for organizations aging, and enhancing the individual development of its to learn (Argyris & Schon, 1978). employees (Scarbrough, Swan, & Preston, 1999). RETRACTED Dasgupta 5 Table 2. Summary of the Organization Learning Concept and Practices Focus Concept of organizational learning Practices Individual learning “Organizational learning occurs when individuals within Staff training and development an organization experience a problematic situation and inquire into it on the organizational behalf ” (Argyris & Schon, 1996, p. 16). Process or system Organizational learning is the process whereby Enhancement of information processing organizations understand and manage their and problem-solving capability experiences (Glynn et al., 1992). Individual and group learning is an interconnected system where learning takes place at all levels at the same time (Senge, 1990). Culture or metaphor “A learning organization should be viewed as a Creation and maintenance of learning metaphor rather than a distinct type of structure, culture: Collaborative team work, whose employees learn conscious communal employee empowerment and processes for continually generating, retaining, and involvement, etc. leveraging individual and collective learning to improve performance of the organizational system in ways important to all stakeholders and by monitoring and improving performance” (Drew & Smith, 1995). Organization memory Organization learning depends on features of individual Conservation and retrieval of experience memories (Hastie et al., 1984; M. K. Johnson & Hasher, through routine procedure and 1987). Rules, procedures, technologies, beliefs, and computer-aided information system cultures are conserved through systems of socialization and control. They are retrieved through mechanisms of attention within a memory structure (Levitt & March 1988). Knowledge management Organizational learning is the changes in the state Facilitation of interaction and strengthening of knowledge (Lyles, 1992). It involves knowledge of knowledge base acquisition, dissemination, refinement, creation, and implementation: The ability to acquire diverse information and to share common understanding so that this knowledge can be exploited (Fiol, 1994) and the ability to develop insights and knowledge, and to associate among past and future activities (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Continuous improvement “A learning organization should consciously and The adoption of Total Quality Management intentionally devote to the facilitation of individual (TQM) practices learning in order to continuously transform the entire organization and its context” (Pedler et al., 1991). Creativity and innovation In the tumultuous business scenario, organization Facilitation of triple-loop learning and learning is the process by which the organization knowledge creation; focus on creative constantly questions the existing products, processes, quality and value creation and systems, and identifies strategic position and applies various learning models to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Organization learning is the collection of individual learn- contributive to the organization because employees can also ing within the organization. Collective learning occurs along learn something which is negative to the organization or may with the learning process at the individual level and may also learn to improve their own skills rather than benefit the orga- occur independently of each individual. However, it cannot nization (Field, 1997). Juxtapose, the individual learning exist if the entire workforce in an organization is restricted activities, in turn, facilitated or inhibited by an ecological from learning (Kim, 1993; Romme & Dillen, 1997). Drawing system of factors may be called “organizational learning sys- a contrast out of these theories, it can be claimed that organi- tems” (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Thus, learning-based inter- zation learning can be defined as the accumulation of indi- action between individual employees and the organization vidual and collective learning. Several theories also postulates that employs them is emphasized (Hedberg, 1981; Morgon, the fact that individual learning is not necessarily positive or 1986). According to Matlay (2000), the relationship between RETRACTED 6 SAGE Open individual and collective learning is the most important However, the systems view has not emphasized on flexi- aspect that distinguishes learning organizations from one bility, interaction, innovativeness, and creativity although another. these are important aspects for an organization to survive and succeed in the current scenario. Focus on Process and System Focus on Culture or Metaphor One stream of research on organization learning refers to organizations as “learning systems” (Revans, 1982). Several researchers have highlighted the importance on the Organizational learning is the process whereby organiza- cultural perspective of learning organization. Culture serves tions understand and manage their experiences (Glynn, as a sense-making mechanism that guides and shapes the Milliken, & Lant, 1992). Different views are emphasized values, behaviors, and attitudes of employees (O’Reilly & within the learning process: leadership (Popper & Lipshitz, Chatman, 1996), and it is through values that behavior flows 2000; Revans, 1982); personal mastery, mental models, and guides (Simon, 1976). An organization’s culture imposes building shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking “coherent, order and meaning” and enables the institutional- (Senge, 1990); and various processes like intuiting and inter- ization of an appropriate sense-making structure to facilitate preting at the individual level, interpreting and integrating at interpretation of unfamiliar events (Weick, 1985). According the group level, and institutionalizing at the organization to Schein, it is the internal integration of the individuals level (Crossan, Lane, White, & Rush, 1994). within the shared culture that aids learning. Drew and Smith The systems view of organization learning has been adopted (1995) observed that a learning organization should be seen from the information processing perspective (Cyert & March, as a metaphor rather than a distinct type of structure. In this 1963). Organizations are termed as information processing scenario, the employees learn consciously on communal systems, acquiring, interpreting, distributing, and storing processes for continually generating, retaining, and leverag- information within the organization, and therefore four com- ing individual and collective learning to improve the perfor- ponents of the organizational learning process are proposed: mance of the organizational systems. knowledge acquisition, knowledge distribution, knowledge The traditional hierarchical cultures are antilearning and utilization, and organizational memory (Huber, 1991). antitraining, and weaken the potential of organizations to The three-stage model highlights the various aspects of match and survive increasing competition in the global mar- organization processes: ketplace (Jones, 1996). In the current economic scenario, knowledge is not a sacred cow and is not just preserved for 1. Knowledge acquisition—the development or cre- people in managerial or professional positions but every ation of skills, insights, and relationships. employee will need to be a knowledge worker. However, it is 2. Knowledge distribution—the dissemination of not sufficient to have more number of knowledge workers in what has been learned. the organization than that of competition because the culture 3. Knowledge utilization—the integration of learning to has to be right to enable the full potential of the individual make it available and generalized to new situations. talents. Organizations need to change to a collaborative team culture to escape the no-training and waste-training traps According to Nevis, DiBella, and Gould (1995), organi- (Jones, 1996) and focus on the process and involvement of zational learning is defined as the capacity or processes people within the organization (Mintzberg, 1994). According within an organization to maintain or improve performance to Jones (1996), based on experience. Learning is systems-level phenomenon because it remains within the organization, even if individu- In addition to the utilization of the technical skills and als change. A systems viewpoint comprises two substreams: knowledge workers, a team approach is essential for organizations as closed system or an open system. Under the the effective acquisition of new knowledge and skills. closed systems view, organizational learning is limited to Team skills are inextricably linked with effective an organization itself, which is a reflection of the classical learning and it is the learning and motivation which a approach to organizational management (Burnes, 2000). team approach enables to form the mainstream quality, Open systems view of organizations considers situational innovation, service, etc. factors and includes interorganizational learning as a vital part of the overall organizational learning system. However, Torbert (1991) names it “the liberating culture,” which is knowledge is acquired within and outside the organization. the means of overcoming barriers that limit organization In a learning organization, the highest stage incorporates learning. three aspects of learning: environmental adaptability, learn- The link between culture and organizational performance ing from their people, and contributing to the learning of the has been defined by researchers (Denison, 1990; Gordon & wider community of which they are a part (Pedler et al., DiTomaso, 1992). Culture has also become an important tool 1991). for design of organization structures and strategies and RETRACTED Dasgupta 7 enables an organization to utilize the knowledge and experi- 1987). The routines that record lessons of experience are ence optimally for achieving the set goals and objectives organized around organizational responsibilities and are (Bierly, Kessler, & Christensen, 2000). retrieved easily when actions are taken through regular chan- nels than when they occur outside those channels (Olsen, 1983). Large part of the routines can be stored using infor- Organization Memory mation technology, particularly where there are large num- Organization learning depends on features of individual bers of routines bearing on relatively specific actions like memories (Hastie, Park, & Weber, 1984; M. K. Johnson & design of structures and engineering systems, scheduling Hasher, 1987). Routine-based ideas of learning presume that and production or logistical support, or the analysis of finan- the lessons of experience are maintained and accumulated cial statements (Smith & Green, 1980). within routine activities despite the turnover of employees and period of time. Rules, procedures, technologies, beliefs, Focus on Knowledge Management and cultures are conserved in the organization through the systems of socialization and control (Levitt & March, 1988). Organizational learning and knowledge management are two Organization not only records information but also shapes parallely developed concepts resulting out of the plethora of its future path, and the details of that path are highly depen- research conducted in the last few decades on understanding dent on the processes by which memory is stored and con- the importance of learning in organizations. Organizational sulted internally. H. T. Johnson and Kaplan (1987) and learning is referred to the changes in the state of knowledge Rovik (1987) highlighted the accounting system of record- (Lyles, 1988, 1992). It involves knowledge acquisition, dis- ing and creation of history by an organization. semination, refinement, creation, and implementation: the ability to acquire diverse information and to share common understanding so that this knowledge can be exploited (Fiol, Experience Recording 1994) and the ability to develop insights and knowledge, and Organizations records experience in the form of documents, to associate among past and future activities (Fiol & Lyles, accounting files, standard operating procedures, and computer- 1985). According to Bierly et al. (2000), “learning is the generated spreadsheets and databases. These are retrieved in process of linking, expanding, and improving data, informa- the social and physical geography of organizational structures tion, knowledge and wisdom” (p. 597). Part of the knowl- and relationships, in standards of best practices, in the culture edge between an organization and individual is complementary of organizational stories, and in shared perceptions of the way and part of it is dissimilar to each other’s principles. In fact, things are done in the organization. organizational memory creates the knowledge base and acts However, it is not practically feasible for the organization as the foundation of knowledge accumulation and creation, to record routine information as it incurs cost. With the and reflects the absorptive capability of the organizations. advent of the information technology, organizations are Hence, the main task for management to create learning encouraged to automate the recording of the routines by sub- environment between the individual and organizations is to stantially reducing the cost. The recording of routines also facilitate interaction and strengthening of each other’s knowl- depends on the nature of the organization business. Skills- edge base (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999). driven organizations rely more heavily on tacit knowledge The popularity of knowledge management as a full- than do bureaucracies (Becker, 1982). Organizations that fledged discipline for study and practice is contemporary. face complex uncertainties rely on informally shared under- Off late, organization learning is linked to knowledge cre- standings more than organizations dealing with simpler, ation. The understanding of the impact of organizational more stable environments do (Ouchi, 1980). However, out- learning on knowledge management can be taken from the comes of experiences, if not transferred from the ones who “ontological dimension” of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995, experienced it to those who did not, will be lost due to p. 27) knowledge creation model. Knowledge creation model employee turnover. is the process of knowledge transfer among individual, group, and organizational and interorganizational levels. Retrieval of Experience Focus on Continuous Improvement It has been found that only part of an organization’s memory and Innovation is likely to be remembered at a particular point of time or in a particular part of the organization. Some parts of the orga- The current literature on organizational learning is having an nizational memory are more available for retrieval than the inclination toward continuous improvement (Buckler, 1996; others. Recently used and frequently used routines are more Pedler et al., 1991; Scarbrough et al., 1999). The learning easily evoked than those which are less frequently used. organization is a state which is continuously striven for and Thus, organizations have difficulty retrieving relatively old, is more an aspiration for a continuous process rather than a unused knowledge and skills (Argote, Beckman, & Epple, single product (B. Garratt, 1999). Learning organization as RETRACTED 8 SAGE Open stated by Senge (1990) is where the “people continuously to discard their current beliefs and methods as long as they expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, seem to produce reasonable results and until inconvertible where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, evidence, usually in form of failures, convinces them to accept where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are new paradigms (Petroski, 1992). The persistence on existing continually learning how to learn together” (p. 3). A similar beliefs and methods hold back learning, therefore, organiza- definition by Pedler et al. (1991) mentioned that “a learning tional learning is often accompanied with certain degree of organization should consciously and intentionally devote to organizational unlearning. Organizations have to discard the the facilitation of individual learning in order to continu- things they have learned previously. They need to dispose ously transform the entire organization and its context.” In their plan rather than try to extend the life cycle of a success- this context, the Total Quality Management (TQM) is a ful product, process, or organization policy (Drucker, 1993). landmark toward the learning organization philosophy. In a sense, organizational learning is all about organizational TQM’s main doctrine is continuous improvement and is unlearning. practiced as a technique and philosophy. TQM helps organi- This article is aimed to illustrate the potential and synergy zations to focus on managing customer satisfaction by between the various approaches of learning. The concept of improving the organizations’ processes, understanding inter- organizational learning has been developed from the indi- nal customer concept, involving every individual employee, vidual learning perspective and is commonly believed to implementing organization-wide training and development, involve all aspects of the human nature and the interaction and concentrating on improvement of cost, quality, and cus- with the environment. However, organizations are in a more tomer satisfaction (Evans & Lindsay, 1999; Flood, 1993; complicated context than an individual to the environment. Luthans, 1998). Barrow (1993) mentioned that organiza- To clarify, organizational learning is not simply the collectiv- tional learning is an intended outcome of TQM, and there is ity of individual learning processes but connects between the a correlation between process improvement and organiza- individual members in the organization and interaction tional learning. Incremental innovation is achieved only between organizations as an entity and interaction between through continuous learning and a learning organization can the organization and its contexts. The vast area of organiza- cultivate incremental innovation through effective learning tional learning field has created diversified understanding of mechanisms. the concept of organizational learning. To reinforce the understanding, seven constructs or focuses of the concept and the associated practices have been identified. Although Conclusions these focuses of organizational learning are evident, they The review of some of the organization learning literature overlap each other and does not essentially exclude from one has boundaries in the real world of organizations. First, another. The successful implementation of organization learning is based on systems thinking and stresses on the learning is a journey where all the focuses are used accord- process of linear-sequential thinking. Each and every single ing to organization situations. Organizational learning is an process follows a plan-do-study-check circle and follows a ever-evolving concept and includes all aspects that will facil- scientific problem-solving or information-process system. itate the organization to build and maintain competitive This classification contains a certain degree of dearth in advantage. It has been found that research on organizational terms of flexibility, proactivity, innovativeness, and energies learning needs to incorporate the perspective of creativity in the business environment attributed by hyper-dynamics, and radical innovation, as a strategic orientation to sustain uncertainty, and chaos. Second, there is little evidence of competitive advantage. creativity in the process of learning. Shortened product life Further research can be undertaken to understand the cycles due to dynamic changes in technology have become learning capabilities of organizations in dynamic environ- a major impediment to the overall organization strategy to ment where the change process is faster and radical. The make improvements in the existing product ranges, pro- challenge in this scenario for an organization will be to cesses, and systems. Holding to existing product ranges and develop the skills and proficiencies of the individuals, teams, systems may become counterproductive in the real business and larger communities which will enable people to consis- world. To succeed, organizations need to switch focus on tently enhance their capacity to produce results that are triple-loop learning. Triple-loop learning encourages ques- meeting their individual goals along with the organization tioning the existing products and systems by strategically objectives (Senge, 1999). In addition, measuring learning asking where and how the organization stands in the future effectiveness and the challenge to sustain the learning marketplace with distinct people competencies. Triple-loop momentum across time has been an interesting area to study. learning is also accompanied by organizational ambition, How an organization does over the passage of time develop wisdom, and courage, and involves knowledge creation. The and implement the learning experiences can be a stimulating triple-loop learning process registers a high degree of cre- area of research. In the article, the transfer of learning from ative input and organizational unlearning, and is an interac- one organization to the other has been highlighted where tive process. According to Kuhn (1962), people do not tend individuals move from company to company carrying the RETRACTED Dasgupta 9 knowledge which they have acquired or developed in the Burgoyne, J., Pedler, M., & Boydell, T. (1994). Towards the Learn- previous organization. How organizations transfer knowl- ing Company. London, England: McGraw-Hill. edge and learning experiences from one to the other through Burnes, B. (2000). Managing change: A strategic approach to the transfer of human resources can be widely studied across organizational dynamics. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. different cultures at a global context. Aligning organizational Chakravarthy, B. S. (1982). Adaptation: A promising metaphor for learning strategies to the core organization goals can lead to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 7, 35-44. knowledge development and encourage innovation of new Chandler, A. (1966). Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT product and services. Interestingly, research can be under- Press. taken to study the correlation between organization’s product Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E., & Rush, J. C. (1994). market strategies and learning ability in a dynamic business Learning within organization (Working Paper No. 94-96). environment. Innovation management resulting through Ontario, Canada: University of Western Ontario; Richard Ivey organization learning experiences can further contribute to School of Business. the field of organization learning. Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Declaration of Conflicting Interests Day, G. S. (1990). Mental driven strategy: Processes for creating The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with value. New York, NY: Free Press. respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this De Gues, A. (1998). Planning as learning. Harvard Business article. Review, 66, 70-74. Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effec- Funding tiveness. New York, NY: Wiley. The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or Dixon, N. (1994). The organizational learning cycle: How we can authorship of this article. learn collectively. London, England: McGraw-Hill. Dixon, N., & Flood, C. (1993). Questioning the learning organiza- References tion concept. In S. M. Scott, B. Spencer, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility ver- Learning for Life: Readings in Canadian Adult Education sus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota (pp. 140-152). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Thompson. Dodgson, M. (1991). Technology learning, technology strategy and production systems. Organization Science, 10, 43-68. competitive pressures. British Journal of Management, 2/3, Argote, L., Beckman, S., & Epple, D. (1987). The persistence and 132-149. transfer of learning in industrial settings. Paper presented at Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some the St. Louis meetings of the Institute of Management Sciences literatures. Dodgson Organization Studies, 375–394. (TIMS) and the Operations Research Society of America (ORSA). Dore, R. (1973). British factory-Japanese factory. Berkeley: Uni- St. Louis, MO. versity of California Press. Argyris, C. (1977). The double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Dore, R., & Sako, M. (1989). How the Japanese learn to work. Business Review, 55, 115-124. London, England: Routledge. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajec- of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. tories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and direc- Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: The- tions of technical change. Research Policy, 11, 147-162. ory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Drew, S. A. W., & Smith, P. A. C. (1995). The learning organiza- Arrow, K. (1962). The implications of learning by doing. Review of tion: Change proofing and strategy. Learning Organization, 2, Economic Studies, 29, 166-170. 4-14. Barrow, J. W. (1993). Does total quality management equal organi- Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. Oxford, UK: Butter- zational learning? Quality Progress, 26, 39-43. worth Heinemann. Beck, K. (1997). Organizational learning (Glossary 504). Retrieved Evans, J., & Lindsay, W. (1999). The management and control of from http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/glossary/orglearn.htm quality (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West. Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. Berkeley: University of Califor- Field, L. (1997). Impediments to empowerment and learning within nia Press. organizations. Learning Organization, 2, 4-14. Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organi- Figgis, J., Alderson, A., Blackwell, A., Butorac, A., Mitchell, K., zational learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Change & Zubrick, A. (2001). What convinces enterprises to value Management, 13, 595-618. training and learning and what does not? A study in using bin Othman, A., & bin Leman, A. (2005). A measure of the learning case studies to develop cultures of training and learning. organization: Kuittho’s experience. Retrieved from http: ickm. Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Educa- upm.edu.my tion Research. Buckler, B. (1996). A learning process model to achieve continu- Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity and learning in organiza- ous improvement and innovation. Learning Organization, 3, tions. Organization Science, 5, 403-420. 31-39. RETRACTED 10 SAGE Open Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy Jones, S. (1996). Developing a learning culture—Empowering of Management Review, 10, 803-813. people to deliver quality, innovation and long-term success. London, England: McGraw-Hill. Flood, C. (1993). The learning organization. Work Life Report, 9, Kanter, R. (1989). When giants learn to dance. London, England: 1-4. Simon & Schuster. Garratt, B. (1999). The learning organization 15 years on: Some Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational personal reflections. Learning Organization, 202-206. learning. Sloan Management Review, 35, 37-50. Garratt, R. (1987). The learning organization. London, England: Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of Fontana/Collins. learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, Business Review, 71, 78-91. IL: University of Chicago Press. Glynn, M., Milliken, F., & Lant, T. (1992). Learning about organi- Levitt, B., & March, G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual zational learning theory: An umbrella of organizing processes. Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Loveridge, R., & Pitt, M. (1990). The strategic management of Las Vegas, NV. technological innovation. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Gordon, G. G., & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate per- Luthans, F. (1998). Organizational behavior (8th ed.). Boston, MA: formance from organizational culture. Journal of Management Irwin McGraw-Hill. Studies, 29, 783-798. Lyles, M. (1988). Learning among joint venture sophisticated firms Gupta, A. K., & Govindrajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the [Special issue]. Management International Review, 28, 85-98. structure of control within multi-national corporations. Acad- Lyles, M. (1992). The impact of organizational learning on joint emy of Management Review, 16, 768-792. venture formations. Presented at the Academy of Management Hale, M. M. (1996). Learning organizations and mentoring: Two Meetings, Las Vegas, NV. ways to link learning and workforce development. Public Pro- Maidique, M., & Zirger, B. (1985). The new product learning cycle. ductivity & Management Review, 19, 422-433. Research Policy, 14, 299-313. Hambrick, D. C. (1983). High profit strategies in mature capital Marquardt, M. J. (2001). Action learning: The cornerstone for goods industries: A contingency approach. Academy of Man- building a learning organization. In Fuhrungsstarke oder agement Journal, 26, 687-707. Charisma. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang Press. Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner Marquardt, M., & Reynolds, A. (1994). The global learning organi- learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Man- zation. New York, NY: Irwin Professional Publishing. agement Journal, 12, 83-103. Matlay, H. (2000). Organizational learning in small learning orga- Handley, K. (1991). Within and beyond communities of practice: nizations. Education + Training, 42, 201-210. Making sense of learning through participation, identity and Meen, D. E., & Keough, M. (1992). Creating a learning organiza- practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 641-653. tion. Mckinsey Quarterly, 1, 58-81. Hart, S. L. (1992). An integrative framework for strategy-making Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, struc- processes. Academy of Management Review, 17, 327-351. ture, and process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hastie, R., Park, B., & Weber, R. (1984). Social memory. In R. S. Wyer Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1980). Archetypes of organizational tran- & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 2, sition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 268-299. pp. 151-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In New York, NY: Free Press. P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational Morgon, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: design (pp. 8-27). London, England: Routledge. SAGE. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Mowery, D. (1981). The emergence and growth of industrial Maidenhead, England: Peter Honey. research in American manufacturing, 1899-1946. Stanford, Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing pro- CA: Stanford University. cesses and the literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88-115. Naman, J. L., & Slevin, D. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the con- Imai, K.-I., Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1985). Managing the cept of fit: A model and empirical test. Strategic Management new product development process: How Japanese companies Journal, 14, 137-153. learn and unlearn. In K. Clark, R. Hayes, & C. Lorenz (Eds.), Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995, Winter). Under- The uneasy alliance: Managing the productivity-technology standing organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management dilemma (pp. 337-376). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review, 36, 73-85. School Press. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, K. (1995). The knowledge-creating com- Johnson, H. T., & Kaplan, R. S. (1987). Relevance lost: The rise pany: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innova- and fall of management accounting. Boston, MA: Harvard tion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Business School Press. Olsen, J. P. (1983). Organized democracy. Bergen, Norway: Johnson, M. K., & Hasher, L. (1987). Human learning and memory. Scandinavian University Press. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 631-668. RETRACTED Dasgupta 11 O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social con- Senge, P. (1999). The dance of change: Mastering the twelve chal- trol: Corporations, cults, and commitment. In B. M. Staw & lenges to change in a learning organization. New York, NY: L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior Doubleday. (pp. 157-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J., & Kleiner, A. Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Adminis- (1994). The fifth discipline field book: Strategies and Tools for trative Science Quarterly, 25, 129-141. Building a Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Pedler, M., Boydell, T., & Burgoyne, J. (1989). Towards the learn- Shrivastava, P. (1983). Typology of organizational learning sys- ing company. Management Education and Development, 20/1, tems. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 7-28. 1-8. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1991). The learning com- Macmillan. pany: A strategy for sustainable development. London, England: Skuncikiene, S., Balvociute, R., & Balciunas, S. (2009). Exploring McGraw-Hill. the characteristics of a learning organization as learning envi- Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons ronment. Socialiniai Tyrimai Social Research, 1(15), 64-76. from America’s best run companies. New York, NY: Harper & Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59, 63-74. Row. Smith, H. T., & Green, T. R. G. (Eds.). (1980). Human interaction Petroski, H. (1992). To engineer is human. New York, NY: Vintage. with computers. New York, NY: Academic. Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Installing mechanisms and Sykes, H. B., & Block, Z. (1989). Corporate venturing obstacles: instilling values: The role of leadership in organizational learn- Sources and solutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 159-167. ing. Learning Organization, 7, 135-144. Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Schuen, A. (1990). Firm capabilities, Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustain- resources, and the concept of strategy (CCC Working Paper ing superior performance. New York, NY: Free Press. No. 90-8), Berkeley, CA: University of Berkeley. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the Torbert, W. (1991). The power of balance: Transforming self, soci- corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 79-91. ety, and scientific enquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Revans, R. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2001, April). Creative quality and Bromley, England: Chartwell Bratt. value innovation: A platform for competitive success. Proceed- Romme, G., & Dillen, R. (1997). Mapping the landscape of orga- ings of the 6th Conference of ISO 9000 and TQM Scotland. nizational learning. European Management Journal, 15, 68-78. Retrieved from dc176.4shared.com/doc/zHfAiT9j/preview.html Rosenberg, N. (1976). Perspective of technology. Cambridge, UK: Weick, K. E. (1985). Cosmos vs. chaos: Sense and nonsense in Cambridge University Press. electronic contexts. Organizational Dynamics, 14(2), 50-64. Rothwell, R. (1992). The 5th generation innovation process. R&D Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that Management, 22, 221-239. changed the world. New York, NY: Rawson. Rovik, K.A (1987). Learning systems and Learning Behavior in Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. L., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Towards Public Policy: A study of the Management Knowledge Base. a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management University of Tromosø, Norway. Review, 18, 293-321. Sako, M. (1992). Prices, quality and trust: How the Japanese and British companies manage buyer-supplier relations. Cambridge, Bio UK: Cambridge University Press. Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., & Preston, P. (1999). Knowledge man- Mayuk Dasgupta is a doctoral scholar (PhD) in human resources agement: A literature review (Issues in People Management). and organization development at the Academy of Human Resources London, England: Institute of Personnel and Development. Development (AHRD), Ahmadabad, India. His research interests Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organi- are in the field of organization development, strategic HRM, and zations. Sloan Management Review, 32/1, 7-23. managing change in organizations. RETRACTED

Journal

SAGE OpenSAGE

Published: Feb 1, 2012

There are no references for this article.