IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bcp/journl/v5y2021i08p562-575.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organisational Learning and Learning Organization: A Review of Theories

Author

Listed:
  • Akwaowo, Raphael Reuben

    (Department of Management, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria)

  • Kalio, Tamuno-Iduabia Sobie

    (Department of Management, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria)

Abstract

The paper critically examined organisational learning and learning organization as well as the review of theories underpinning the study. In essence this conceptual paper reviewed some extant literatures and related theories on organisational learning and learning organisations. The paper indicated that the survival of any organisation, particularly, a profit oriented organisation depends to a large extent, on how well it can adapt to environmental changes, accept changes and do better in terms of its operations. The study highlighted the ways to identify a learning organization. It also, revealed the conceptual differences between organisational learning and learning organization. The study revealed that organizational learning and learning organization are two constructs based on conceptual metaphors. Organizational learning is a process that occurs across individual, group, and organizational levels through intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing. It may be an adaptive process based on the single-loop learning, or a generative process based on the double-loop learning. Organizational learning implies organizational unlearning and a dynamic organizational memory. The organization that is capable of transforming organizational learning into the engine of knowledge creation aiming at building up a competitive advantage may become a learning organization. The paper discovered that the theory of organizational learning is defined in four premises namely: Premise 1: Organizational learning assumes a tension between knowledge exploitation and knowledge exploration. Premise 2: Organizational learning is a multilevel process (i.e. individual, group, organization). Premise 3: The three levels of organizational learning are linked through psychological and social processes: intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing (4Is) and Premise 4: Cognition influences action, and action influences cognition. The paper x-rayed cognitive learning theories, behavioural learning theories and social learning theories as the key philosophies underpinning the study. The paper revealed that learning should be engrained as part of the organization’s philosophy and core organisational value and culture. It is only by so doing that organisation will be able to face tomorrow when it actually comes. The study also, revealed that for effective double loop learning to occur at the organisational level, there is a need for organisational leaders to appreciate the value of learning as a panacea for organizational sustainability. The paper therefore, supports the proposition that organisation learning culture has direct influence on organisational innovativeness, which is directly tied to long-term organizational success. It is recommended, therefore, that all organisations that want to remain competitive should focus on becoming a learning organisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Akwaowo, Raphael Reuben & Kalio, Tamuno-Iduabia Sobie, 2021. "Organisational Learning and Learning Organization: A Review of Theories," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(08), pages 562-575, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bcp:journl:v:5:y:2021:i:08:p:562-575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/Digital-Library/volume-5-issue-8/562-575.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.rsisinternational.org/virtual-library/papers/organisational-learning-and-learning-organization-a-review-of-theories/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard A. Bettis & C. K. Prahalad, 1995. "The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14.
    2. Constantin BRÄ‚TIANU, 2013. "The Triple Helix of the Organizational Knowledge," Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 1(2), pages 207-220, August.
    3. Joachim Kimmerle & Ulrike Cress & Christoph Held, 2010. "The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: technologies for organisational learning and knowledge building," Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 33-44, March.
    4. Jerker Denrell & James G. March, 2001. "Adaptation as Information Restriction: The Hot Stove Effect," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(5), pages 523-538, October.
    5. C. K. Prahalad & Richard A. Bettis, 1986. "The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(6), pages 485-501, November.
    6. de Holan Pablo Martin & Philipps Nelson & Thomas B. Lawrence, 2004. "Managing Organizational Forgetting," Post-Print hal-02312938, HAL.
    7. Brix, Jacob, 2017. "Exploring knowledge creation processes as a source of organizational learning: A longitudinal case study of a public innovation project," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 113-127.
    8. Constantin Bratianu & Ivona Orzea, 2013. "The entropic intellectual capital model," Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 133-141, May.
    9. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    10. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    11. Constantin Bratianu & Ionela Jianu & Simona Vasilache, 2011. "Integrators for organisational intellectual capital," International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(1), pages 5-17.
    12. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    13. Renate E. Meyer & Markus A. Höllerer, 2014. "Does Institutional Theory Need Redirecting?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(7), pages 1221-1233, November.
    14. Jerker Denrell, 2003. "Vicarious Learning, Undersampling of Failure, and the Myths of Management," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 227-243, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ko, Young Jin & O'Neill, Hugh & Xie, Xuanli, 2021. "Strategic intent as a contingency of the relationship between external knowledge and firm innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Strobl, Andreas & Bauer, Florian & Degischer, Daniel, 2022. "Contextualizing deliberate learning from acquisitions: The role of organizational and target contexts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 194-207.
    3. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Richard Peter, 2017. "Experiential Learning, Competitive Selection, and Downside Risk: A New Perspective on Managerial Risk Taking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 915-930, October.
    4. Jesse Shore & Ethan Bernstein & David Lazer, 2014. "Facts and Figuring: An Experimental Investigation of Network Structure and Performance in Information and Solution Spaces," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-075, Harvard Business School, revised Jun 2014.
    5. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    6. Shubham Sharma & Usha Lenka, 2022. "On the shoulders of giants: uncovering key themes of organizational unlearning research in mainstream management journals," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 1599-1695, August.
    7. Mooweon Rhee & Tohyun Kim, 2015. "Great Vessels Take a Long Time to Mature: Early Success Traps and Competences in Exploitation and Exploration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 180-197, February.
    8. Sunkee Lee, 2019. "Learning-by-Moving: Can Reconfiguring Spatial Proximity Between Organizational Members Promote Individual-level Exploration?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 467-488, May.
    9. Ganotakis, Panagiotis & Konara, Palitha & Kafouros, Mario & Love, James H., 2022. "Taking a time-out from exporting: Implications for the likelihood of export re-entry and re-entry export performance," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(5).
    10. Jacobs, Sofie & Cambré, Bart & Huysentruyt, Marieke & Schramme, Annick, 2016. "Unraveling Belgian fashion designers' high perceived success: A set-theoretic approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1407-1411.
    11. Marios Kokkodis, 2023. "Adjusting Skillset Cohesion in Online Labor Markets: Reputation Gains and Opportunity Losses," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 1245-1258, September.
    12. Daniella Laureiro-Martínez & Stefano Brusoni & Nicola Canessa & Maurizio Zollo, 2015. "Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 319-338, March.
    13. François Constant & Richard Calvi & Thomas Johnsen, 2020. "Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing function ambidexterity Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing functio," Post-Print hal-02891790, HAL.
    14. Schön, Benjamin & Pyka, Andreas, 2013. "The success factors of technology-sourcing through mergers & acquisitions: An intuitive meta-analysis," FZID Discussion Papers 78-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    15. Matsuo, Kenji, 2022. "When a dominant CEO hinders exploration in a firm: A longitudinal case study from Japan," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 143-154.
    16. B. Westbrock & K.S. Muehlfeld & Utz Weitzel, 2017. "Selecting Legal Advisor in M&A’s: Organizational Learning and the Role of Multiplicity of Mental Models," Working Papers 17-19, Utrecht School of Economics.
    17. Åkesson, Maria & Sørensen, Carsten & Eriksson, Carina Ihlström, 2018. "Ambidexterity under digitalization: A tale of two decades of new media at a Swedish newspaper," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 276-288.
    18. Shinjinee Chattopadhyay & Janet Bercovitz, 2020. "When one door closes, another door opens … for some: Evidence from the post‐TRIPS Indian pharmaceutical industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 988-1022, June.
    19. Pamela R. Haunschild & Francisco Polidoro & David Chandler, 2015. "Organizational Oscillation Between Learning and Forgetting: The Dual Role of Serious Errors," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1682-1701, December.
    20. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda, 2017. "Inferring final organizational outcomes from intermediate outcomes of exploration and exploitation: the complexity link," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 61-93, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bcp:journl:v:5:y:2021:i:08:p:562-575. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dr. Pawan Verma (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.