Search results

The purpose of this paper is to challenge processes of organizational learning and innovation that are based on making use of, extrapolating, or adapting past experiences and knowledge, because such a strategy turns out to be incapable of dealing with the challenges of today’s volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environment. As a possible way out, a conceptual model is proposed that integrates organizational learning and innovation as a future-driven learning process and a future-making practice.

This work is conceptual in nature, drawing on (both theoretical/philosophical and empirical) interdisciplinary concepts and evidence from a variety of fields, including organizational studies, organizational learning, innovation studies, systems theory and systems biology, as well as cognitive science.

The author proposes a paradigm shift in organizational learning: from a future-oriented perspective, organizational learning can be viewed as an innovation process that is based on “learning from the future as it emerges.” A conceptual approach is presented that integrates future-oriented innovation and organizational learning as a future-making practice. It is based on learning from future potentials as a source for sustainable innovations. Both epistemological/ontological foundations and organizational implications are discussed.

This paper introduces a new perspective on the role of future-oriented innovation in the context of organizational learning. It shows how organizational learning and innovation can be integrated and how shortcomings of absorptive capacity can be overcome by assuming a future-driven perspective. Furthermore, an epistemology of future knowledge/potentials and its applications for organizations is developed.

This paper proposes a framework for understanding the concept of a learning organization from a normative perspective. A questionnaire was developed to operationally measure the described management practice attributes of a learning organization. Using a sample of four organizations and 612 subjects, support was found for three a priori predictive hypotheses derived from a conceptual framework. Implications of the results and further empirical research are discussed, especially for linking learning organization attributes to performance using larger samples and multiple measures.

Establishes our perspective for shared organizational learning processes, cycles, and systems. These learning phenomena are usually tacit, i.e. the organization is only dimly aware of them. These tacit phenomena drive both decision and action and, because they are tacit, they are self‐organizing and are normally not analysed. In order to develop effective learning systems, the organization must explicitly articulate and design these learning processes, cycles, and systems. The “learning unit” is introduced as the essential element where learning development must focus for improved organizational performance. Begins to develop the implications of this perspective for organization theory, organizational practice, and the art of management. Organizational learning can drive organizational transformation if these phenomena are properly planned, designed, and facilitated.

(Digital) servitization, referring to service-driven strategies and their increasing implementation in manufacturing, is one of the most rapidly growing areas in industrial service research. However, the cultural change involved in successful servitization is a phenomenon that is widely observed but poorly understood. This research aims to clarify the processes of social construction as manufacturers change their organizational culture to transform into industrial service providers.

This research takes a systematic approach to integrate disparate literature on servitization into a cohesive framework for cultural change, which is purposefully augmented by rationale culled from organizational learning and sensemaking literature.

The organizational learning framework for cultural change in servitization introduces a dynamic perspective on servitizing organizations by explaining social processes between organizational and member-level cultural properties. It identifies three major cultural orientations toward service, digital and learning that govern successful servitization.

This research contributes to the servitization literature by presenting a new approach to reframe and explore cultural change processes across multiple levels, thus providing a concrete starting point for further research in this area.

This contribution highlights opportunities for new insights into organizational learning processes through the use of practice-based innovative organizational learning technologies (iOLTs). The article explores the varied possibilities and application of learning technologies in terms of organizational learning perspectives.

Given this is a relatively new field of practice and research, the three organizational learning theoretical perspectives – behavioural, action and practice – form a base upon which we can conceptualise learning as mediated through iOLTs and how we can leverage these technologies, particularly for practice-based organizational learning, which focuses more on the intangibles of learning.

Due to the pervasive and ubiquitous potential of organizational learning technologies, new avenues for analysing the mediating effect of technologies on learning enable our research and practice attention to shift from formal learning to the informal; from top-down learning management to bottom-up learning creation; from cognitive and behavioural approaches to social, spontaneous and contextual learning – helping us decipher the “language” of learning in concrete ways.

The iOLTs are emerging and at an ever-increasing pace. Practice-based iOLTs can help trace and decipher the “language” of learning in concrete ways, which is a key aspect in our being able to leverage our organizational learning capacities.

In today’s digital age, technology is advancing at an unprecedented pace, and businesses that fail to keep up risk falling behind their competitors. This requires not only investing in technological resources but also creating a culture that values and encourages women in technological learning and innovation in the tourism and hospitality sector. This study aims to investigate the consequences of organizational learning on firm innovation directly and indirectly with cultural and technological perspectives.

The study carries out a quantitative approach, and data is collected from 398 women entrepreneurs from Thailand’s tourism and hospitality sectors. The statistical software Smart-PLS was used to analyze the data.

The findings revealed that organizational learning (the learning orientation and learning process) significantly influence firm innovation and organizational culture. Organizational culture also significantly mediates learning orientation, learning process and firm innovation, while learning leadership was found to be insignificant in relationship with organizational culture and firm innovation. However, technological knowledge has a significant moderating influence between organizational culture and firm innovation.

This study’s focus on the role of learning practices among women-owned small medium enterprises is a valuable contribution to the literature on innovation and entrepreneurship. These provided dimensions that can be helpful for women entrepreneurs to enhance firm innovation. The study shed light on the importance of diverse kinds of learning practices that change the patterns of innovation. This study also provides directions to practitioners to develop and implement business innovation strategies from women’s perspectives.

This paper argues that failing to grasp thoroughly the influence of power on the strategy‐making process can severely inhibit the potential of strategy making as a vehicle of organizational learning.

First the organizational learning perspective on strategic management is sketched and an attempt is made to show how it takes the social aspects of organizing more seriously than earlier perspectives on strategy. It is also noted how this iteration responds or at least has the potential to respond to some of the critiques directed at earlier thinking on strategy from critical management studies (CMS). Then CMS's critique of organizational learning theories is noted and the critiques to re‐conceptualize blockages to learning and knowledge creation are built on.

An attempt has been made to show that, as in earlier perspectives on strategy, there is still insufficient attention being paid to the role of power in strategic change. This places severe limitations on strategic learning that is possible.

Concludes by joining other writers in calling for a less managerialist research in strategy.

This conceptual paper looks at and discusses differences between the concepts of organizational learning and (the) learning organization. Since there still seems to be confusion regarding the meaning of the two concepts, aims to clarify the two main existing distinctions – that organizational learning is existing processes while learning organization is an ideal form of organization. Also distinguishes between a traditional and a social perspective of organizational learning, which the existing distinctions have not – at least not explicitly. Thus, distinctions are made between three concepts. In addition to the improvement of the existing distinctions, suggests two complementary ones – entities of learning and knowledge location. These two distinctions might make it easier to distinguish also between the two perspectives of organizational learning.

This is a comment for all those writers who claim that organizations cannot learn. The author consistently rejects this notion. Rather the author contends that organizations can learn, in at least two different ways.

The author reviews some of the common arguments against organizational learning, and tries to answer the opponents.

The main argument against the critics is that they are too busy to look for evidence that organizations are not like individuals and that organizations therefore cannot learn. Instead, the author argues that it is a question of level of analysis.

The author also suggests that theories as well as knowledge in general are metaphoric, implying that organizations as such of course are able to learn.

Argues that there is a close relationship between theories in organisational learning and the research methodologies utilised to verify such theories. Presents an evaluation of two distinct approaches to learning in the light of their methodological differences, strengths and weaknesses. For instance, research based on behavioural learning is generally conducted using the quantitative methodology, while researchers of cognitive learning are more likely to use the qualitative methodology. The former deals largely with the macro aspects of the organisation involving strategic directions, whereas the latter deals with micro practices within organisational or trans‐organisational settings. Most importantly, organisational learning should contribute to perceivable outcomes. Draws the conclusion that case study which embodies quantitative and qualitative methodology is a useful approach to dealing with both the behavioural and cognitive aspects of organisational learning theories.