The Literature on Organizational Learning

In the area of organizational learning and from the early stages of its de-velopment process, the efforts to combine different theoretical approaches into a useful unity and the efforts to make use of the plenitude of perspec-tives presented by different approaches have gone hand in hand. Although there is a deep interest in the concept of learning and a common accep-tance of the positive impact of organizational learning on strategic perfor-mance, a consensus has not been reached among researchers on the defi-nition of organizational learning. The difficulty of distinguishing between the outcomes of organizational learning and the process of learning it-self makes it hard to come up with a useful and comprehensive definition.

In the early efforts of finding a definition, more attention was given to the contribution made by organizational learning to organizational ef-fectiveness. Fiol et al. described organizational learning as “the

improve-60 6. f ou rt h fact o r:

ment of organizational effectiveness through having better knowledge and comprehension.” They considered organizational learning as “broadening of the potential area of action of an organization by way of processing in-formation.” According to this approach, learning does not necessarily lead to an increase in the effectiveness of the learner. Learning does not nec-essarily occur consciously in any case, nor does it need to result in observ-able behavioral changes.

Huber (1991) supported his main theses on the nature of organizational learning with results obtained in different disciplines by making an extensive literature search. Organizational learning is an information processing proce-dure which can be divided into categories as the acquisition, dissemination, and interpretation of knowledge and storing it in the organizational mem-ory to be reused and revalued. This approach, which rejects the inevitable positive relationship that is assumed to exist between learning and improv-ing organizational effectiveness, which attributes importance to knowledge and organizational memory and which deals with organizational learning as a process, has served as a foundation for many studies to come.

In this context, a more developed and comprehensive definition came from Robey et al. They defined organizational learning as an organiza-tional process to differentiate it from various other learning levels. When the literature is reviewed as a whole, it can be seen that a modification of this definition enhanced with the inclusion of the knowledge concept will make it possible to reach an improved and operational version of the def-inition. Organizational learning in this context should be evaluated as “an organizational process, which involves both conscious and unconscious spontaneous elements, which manifests through the activation of organi-zational memory using knowledge acquisition, access to knowledge, and assessment of knowledge and which affects organizational action” (Kal-kan, 2004: 401-402).

Learning within an organization has a multi-stage structure. When persons who deal with learning encounter a knowledge gap, they analyze the problems and solve them. By its nature, organizational learning is nei-ther micro nor macro in its full sense, but involves a complex interaction between the whole organization and its business units. According to Kim (1997), learning as a group and at the organizational level is “a process in-tegrated with knowledge creation, dissemination within the organization, communication among organization staff, and organization management and strategy” (Kim, 1997: 53-60).

61

g en erat i n g o rg a n i z at i o n a l i n t el l i g en c e

Learning has significant outcomes for an organization. Senge (1993) states that learning serves as a foundation for strategic competition struc-turing and organizational learning means in general “continuous testing of experience and transferring this experience to knowledge that is accept-able by the whole organization and that conforms with the actual objec-tive of the organization” (Kazanjian et al., 2000: 273-274).

Within the general conditions of organization theory, previous studies made on organizational learning had focused, in a quite important way, on describing the learning processes in an organizational environment (Senge, 1993: 121-125).

As an organizational activity, learning is understood to be a “combi-nation of in-group interaction and individual efforts.” Therefore, orga-nizational learning becomes a process embedded with the relationships among individuals. According to some scientists, organizational culture is an “output of shared learning experiences.” Some scientists use the de-scriptive term “learning organizations” to define the ways of raising nizational performance, which suggests that firms that are good at orga-nizational learning will show better performance in the market compared to others (Carayannis and Alexander, 2002: 626).

Knowledge and individuals have an important role in organizational learning. Organizational learning is expressed as “acquisition of new knowledge from actors who wish to implement the knowledge in the organization, which affects others and is used in decision making.”

Thus, learning requires acquisition of knowledge in addition to the knowledge that is used in some way. This intimates that there are two types of organizational learning, acquired and experimental (Miller, 1996: 484-505).

Acquired learning occurs through internalization and acquisition of knowledge from outside its boundaries. Experimental learning, on the other hand, mostly occurs within the firm and produces the new knowl-edge which distinguishes organizations from one another. In relative terms, individuals and groups play a more active role in experimental learning than in acquired learning. With effective experience and processes that support such experience, individuals and groups learn how to utilize or-ganizational learning to create competitive advantage and value. There are also other types of learning:

• Learning at a lower level (unilateral learning and learning at the job level)

62 6. f ou rt h fact o r:

• Learning at an upper level (bilateral and strategic learning)

• Top level learning (a unified dynamic property)

Learning at a lower level involves improvement of undeveloped miss-ing ties between behaviors and outcomes within the firm structure. It focuses on the learning effect present in some organizational services.

Learning at a lower level is transitional and influences only one part of the organization. Known as the knowledge at job level in organizations (knowledge on the causal relationship in special problem areas), the job learning idea of Kuwada (1998) is similar to learning at a lower level or unilateral learning.

Learning at an upper level involves a heuristic use. Thus, learning at an upper level or bilateral learning occurs in complex and uncertain situa-tions. The strategic learning idea of Kuwada (1998), which involves basic assumptions related to the exchange of knowledge at the job level. While learning at a lower level lasts short-term, learning at an upper level is gen-erally long-lasting. Although both types of learning contribute to organi-zational success, learning at an upper level is comparatively more impor-tant for a firm to create a competitive advantage and value. For this reason, organizations must understand and accept a number of factors leading to learning at an upper level (Kuwada, 1998: 719-736).

Lei et al. (1996) argue that learning contributes to the dynamic funda-mental skills of a firm. They allege that firms can succeed in learning at an upper level depending on three basic factors (Lei et al., 1996: 549-569).

• The knowledge transfer that shapes the rules of both universal and tacit knowledge base of a firm

• Experience which allows firms to be concerned with continual de-velopment and to define their heuristics

• Firms need to feed their dynamic routines to develop their specific skills and competencies

These learning processes should be interconnected to achieve top level learning in a systematic way. The ability to learn at the top level is impor-tant for a firm that wishes to define a new competition field especially in a dynamic, uncertain, and rapidly changing environment. Creation of a new competition field is usually a product of innovative and entrepreneur-ial behavior. Four conditions are necessary for an organization to achieve successful and top level learning:

63

g en erat i n g o rg a n i z at i o n a l i n t el l i g en c e

1. A firm should acquire explicit knowledge as much as tacit knowl-edge from both internal and external sources.

2. A firm should constantly be occupied with experience that results in development.

3. Organizations should maintain the balance between examination and using for their own interests in order to survive and succeed.

This means that organizations should innovate and get the bene-fits of that innovation.

4. Firms should develop routines to have an effective connection with technological knowledge within the whole organization. This as-sociation first emerges from the division of individuals and groups (Hitt et al., 2000: 236-237).

6.3. Interconnected Learning, Knowledge, and Organizational