Indian Journal of Industrial Relations: Economics & Social Dev.

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Organizational Learning: Trends in the Social Construction of a Field


Affiliations
1 Chandragupt Institute of Management, Patna 800001, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Organizational learning literature offers considerable choices to prospective researchers. Some of the choices are as fundamental as the 'what', 'how' and 'why' of learning. As there are little theories to anchor, it is left to the researchers to socially construct and reconstruct the fragmented field. This paper studies the empirical research published in the top 10 journals during 2000- 2010 and identifies the areas of convergence. Researchers considerably agree on using agentic perspective on learning and organization as the level of analysis. Much agreement exists on the use of exploration-exploitation framework of learning, quantitative methodologies, and longitudinal designs. Strategy has emerged as the most prolific contributor to the organizational learning research.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Alok, K. (2011), “Towards Realist Constructivism: Implications for Teaching and Training”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3): 523-35.

  • Argyris, C. (1976), “Single-loop and Double-loop Models in Research on Decision Making”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3): 363-75.

  • Bandura, A. (2001), “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1):1-26.

  • Bandura, A. (2007), “Social Cognitive Theory”, in S. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Industrial/ Organizational Psychology Vol. 2: 729-33,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Baum, J. A. C. & Dahlin, K. B. (2007), “Aspirations, Performance and Railroads’ Patterns of Learning from Train Wrecks and Crashes”, Organization Science, 18(3): 368- 85.

  • Baum, J. A. C., Xiao Li, S., & John, M. (2000), “Making the Next Move: How Experiential and Vicarious Learning Shape the Locations of Chains’ Acquisitions”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4): 766-801.

  • Benner, M. J. & Tushman, M. (2002), “Process Management and Technological Innovation: A Longitudinal Study of the Photography and Paint Industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4): 676-706.

  • Bercovitz, J. & Feldman, M. (2008), “Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level”, Organization Science, 19(1): 69-89.

  • Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003), “Re-embedding Situatedness: The Importance of Power Relations in Learning Theory”, Organization Science, 14(3): 283-96.

  • Cowan, D. A. (1995), “Rhythms of Learning: Patterns that Bridge Individuals and :Organizations”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(3): 222-46.

  • Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W. & White, R. E. (1999), “An Organizational Learning Framework: from Intution to Institution”, Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 522-37.

  • Crossan, M. M., Maurer, C. C. & White, R. E. (2011), “Reflections on the 2009 AMR Decade Award: Do We Have a Theory of Organizational Learning?” Academy of Management Review, 36(3): 446-60.

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  • Danneels, E. (2002), “The Dynamics of Product Innovation and Firm Competencies”, Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1095- 21.

  • Dodgson, M. (1993), “Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures”, Organization Studies, 14(3): 375-94.

  • Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. & Nicolini, D. (2000), “Organizational Learning: Debates Past, Present and Future”, Journal of Management Studies, 37(6): 783-96.

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2002), “The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Perspective”, Organization Science, 13(2): 128-46.

  • Fang, C., Lee, J. & Schilling, M. A. (2010), “Balancing Exploration and Exploitation through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning”, Organization Science, 21(3): 625-42.

  • Friedman, V. J., Lipshitz, R. & Popper, M. (2005), “The Mystification of Organizational Learning”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1): 19-30.

  • Gibson, C. & Vermeulen, F. (2003), A Healthy Divide: Subgroup as a Stimulus for Team Learning Behavior”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 202-39.

  • Haas, M. R. & Park, S. (2010), “To Share or Not to Share? Professional Norms, Reference Groups, and Information Withholding among Life Scientists”, Organization Science, 21(4): 873-91.

  • Kane, G. C. & Alavi, M. (2007), Information Technology and Organizational Learning: An Investigation of Exploration and Exploitation Processes”, Organization Science, 18(5): 796-813.

  • Katila, R. & Chen, E. L. (2008), “Effects of Search Timing on Innovation: The Value of Not Being in Sync with Rivals”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4): 593-625.

  • Kernochan, R. A., McCormick, D. W. & White, J. A. (2007), Spirituality and the Management Teacher: Reflections of Three Bud dhists on Compassion, Mindfulness and Selflessness in the Classroom”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(1): 61-75.

  • Kim, J., Kim, J. & Miner, A. S. (2009), “Organizational Learning from Extreme Performance Experience: The Impact of Success and Recovery Experience”, Organization Science, 20(6): 958-78.

  • Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Levinthal, D. & Rerup, C. (2006), “Crossing an Apparant Chasm: Bridging Mindful and Less-Mindful Perspectives on Organizational Learning”, Organization Science, 17(4): 502-13.

  • Madsen, P. M. & Desai, V. (2010), “Failing to Learn? The Effects of Failure and Success on Organizational Learning in the Global Orbital Launch Vehicle Industry”, Academy of Management Journal, 53(3): 451-76.

  • March, J. G. (1991), “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning”, Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87.

  • Miller, D. (1996), “A Preliminary Typology of Organizational Learning: Synthesizing the Literature”, Journal of Management, 22(3): 485-05.

  • Miller, K. D. & Lin, S. (2010), “Different Truths in Different Worlds”, Organization Science, 21(1): 97-114.

  • Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P. & Moorman, C. (2001), “Organizational Improvisation and Learning: A Field Study”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2): 304-37.

  • Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G. & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005), “The Influence of Management Journals in the 1980s and 1990s”, Strategic Management Journal, 26(5): 473-88.

  • Schulz, M. (2001), “The Uncertain Relevance of Newness: Organizational Learning and Knowledge Flows”, Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 661-81.

  • Scott, R. W. & Davis, G. F. (2007), Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open System Perspectives, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

  • Senge, P. M. (1994), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York: Currency Doubleday.

  • Simpson, B. & Marshall, N. (2010), “The Mutuality of Emotions and Learning in Organizations”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(4): 351-65.

  • Skinner, B. F. (2002), Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

  • Sørensen, J. B. & Stuart, T. E. (2000), “Aging, Obsolescence and Organizational Learning”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1): 81-112.

  • Tahai, A. & Meyer, M. J. (1999), “A Revealed Preference Study of Management Journals’ Direct Influences”, Strategic Management Journal, 20(3): 279-96.

  • Villalonga, B. & McGahan, A. M. (2005), “The Choice Among Acquisitions, Alliances and Divestitures”, Strategic Management Journal, 26(13): 1183-1208.

  • Weick, K. E. & Putnam, T. (2006), “Organizing Mindfulness: Eastern Wisdom and Western Knowledge”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3): 275-87.


Abstract Views: 416

PDF Views: 0




  • Organizational Learning: Trends in the Social Construction of a Field

Abstract Views: 416  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Kumar Alok
Chandragupt Institute of Management, Patna 800001, India

Abstract


Organizational learning literature offers considerable choices to prospective researchers. Some of the choices are as fundamental as the 'what', 'how' and 'why' of learning. As there are little theories to anchor, it is left to the researchers to socially construct and reconstruct the fragmented field. This paper studies the empirical research published in the top 10 journals during 2000- 2010 and identifies the areas of convergence. Researchers considerably agree on using agentic perspective on learning and organization as the level of analysis. Much agreement exists on the use of exploration-exploitation framework of learning, quantitative methodologies, and longitudinal designs. Strategy has emerged as the most prolific contributor to the organizational learning research.

References