' Awiimy o/Mnnotameiil ftevtow. igss, VoJ, 10. No. 4, IK13-ei3.

Organizational LeamingC. MARLENE FIOL

MARJOKIE A. LYLSSUniversity of Illinois, Champaign

No theory or model of organizatiouai learning has (videspreudacceptance. This paper clarifies the distinction between organiza-tional ieaming and organizational adaptation and shows that changedoes not necessarily imply learning. There are different levels oflearning, each having a different impact on the strategic managementof the firm.

Systematic assessment of the stratagic manage-ment literature suggests an interesting dilemma:Although there exists widespread acceptance oftho notion of organizational learning and itshnportance to strategic pnrformance. no theoryor model of organizational learning is widelyaccepted. Major research (Chandler, 1962; Dun-cian, 1974; Jelinek, 1979; Miles and Snow, 1978;Miller & Friesen, 1980; Shrivastava, 19B1) alongwith more modest efforts provide the basis forinitial attempts to define, to deivalop, and to dif-ferentiate organizational learning and its com-ponents. Each has approached the subject fromdifferent perspectives, leading to more diver-gence.

The confusion stems as far back as two decadesago, when Simon (1969] defined organizationallearning an the growing insights and successfulrestructurings of organizational problems by indi-viduals reflected in the structural elements andoutcomes of the organization itself. In this de-finition, learning consists of the development ofinsights on the one hand and structural and otheraction outcomes on the other. One is a change instates of knowledge—^not clearly perceptible; theother often involves a change more easily visiblein terms of an organizational outcome. And, mostImportant, ths two often do not occur simul-

The assistance and helpful comments of Paul Shrivastava,lanet Near, Anna Huff, end Irerm Duhaime are gratsfully

Requests for reprints should bo sent to Marjorie A. Lyles,Department of Business Administration, University of Illinois-Champaign. 350 Contmsrca, 1206 South 6th Stteat, Cham-paign, IL 61820.

taneously, which makes the problem of distin-guishing between them all tlie more important.

As a result of thi? confusion, theorists havereferred to learning as (a) new insights or knowl-edge (Argyris & Schfin, 1978: Hedberg, 1981); or(b) new structures (Chandler, 1962); or (c) newsystems (Jelinek, 1979; Miles, 1982); or (d) mereactions (Cyert & March, 1983; Miller & Friesen,1980); or fe) some combination of the above(Bartunek, 1984; Shrivastava & Mitroff, 1982),These phenomena are referred to as learning(Cyart & March, 1963; Jelinek, 19/ 9); adaptation(Chskravarthy, 1982; Meyer, 1982); change (Dutton& Duncan, 1983; Mintzberg & Waters, 1982); orunlearning (Starbuck, Greve, & Hedberg, 1978).

In all instances the assumption that learningwill improve future performance exists. The prob-lem emerges around a clear definition of leam-ing and the measurement of it, Tho purpose hereis to clarify these issues of definition so that abetter theory cari be built. An initial definition ispresented: Organizational learning means the pro-cess of improving actions through. b'.<tter knowl-edge and understanding.

Areas of Consensus

There appears to bo some agreement or consen-sus regarding a theory for organizational leamingin several areas.

Environmental Alignment

Convergence exists on the importance of align-ment. Theorists such as Chandler (1962), Katzand Kahn (1966) and Thompson (1967) have

803

orguetl that tha ultimate cilterion of organiza-tional perfotmance Is long; term survival andgrowtli. To achieve this, orgitnizations align withtheir environments to remain competitive andInnovative (Barnard, 1938; Lawrence & Dyer,1983; Lawrence & Lorsch, lSd7; Thompson,1967), Henco a key promise of strategic miinage-nient ',s an alignment between the organizationand its environment that maintains the competi-tiveness and the survival of the firm over theInng iun (Hambiick, 1883; Summers. 1880),

Alignment implies that the firm must have thefiotentlal to learn, unlearn, or relearn based onits past behaviors. The works of Chakravarthy(1882), Chandler (1962), Cyert and March (1963]«Hambrick (1883), Miles and Snow (197e), aridMiller and Friesen (1980) recognize the wide-spread acceptance of this premise. In fact, Chak-ravarthy (1882) argues that oi^anizational adapta-tion is the es.$ence of strategic management be-cause it in the key activity for dealing withchang<3s occurring in the environment and in-volves thu continuous process of making strate-gic choices. Organizations have leeway andchcico in how they adjust to a changing environ-ment, and this leads to the capacity of organiza-tions to learn over time (Miles, 1982). Thus,organizational performance affects the organiza-tion's ability to learn and to adapt in a changingenvironment.

Individual versus Organizational LeBrning

Some agreement exists that distinctions mustbe made hetween individual and organizationalioaming. Though individual learning is impor-tant to organissationSi organizational leaming isnot simply the sum of each member's learning.Organizations, unlike individuals, develop andmaintain ieaming systems that not only iitflu-snce thoir immediate members, but are then trans-mitteti to others by way of organization histoiiesand norms (Lawrence & Dyer, 1983; Martin, 1982;Mitroi'f SE Kitmann, 1976). Hedherg states it thisway:

Aithough organizatiana) leaming occurs throughindividuals, it would be a mistake to concludethat organitea tional learning is nothing but thecumulative result of their members' learning. Orga-rtlimiions donot have brains, but they have cogni-tive systems and memories, As individuals de-volop their parsonalitiaa, personal habits, and

beliefs over time, organizations devalop worldviewa and idoolagiea. Members come, and go, andleadership changes, but organizations' memoriesprassrve certain behaviors, mental maps, norms,and values over time (1S81, p.B).Much of the individual learning theory that

deals with repetition of speech and motor skillsdoes not characterize organizatiortai learning, atleast at the strategic level, in situations that aremainly unique and nonrepetitive. Learning en-ables organizations to build an organizationalunderstanding and interpretation of their envi-ronment and to begin to assess viable strategies(Daft & Weick, 19B4; Donaldson & Lorsch, 1683;Starbuck et al,, 1978), It results in associations,cognitive systems, and memories that are devel-opad and shared by members of the organisation.

Contextual Factors

Four contextual fact<irs affect the probahilitythat learning will occur: corporate culture condu-cive to learning, strategy that allows flexibility,an organizational structure that allows both inno-vativeness and new insights, and the environ-ment. These havo a ciicular relationship withlearning in that they create and reinforce learn-ing and are created by learning.

Culture, An organization's culture manifestsitseif in the overriding ideologies and establishedpatterns of behavior (Martin, 1982; Schein, 1983),Thus, culture consists of the shared beliefs, theideologies, and the norms that influence organi-zational action-taking (Beyer, 1981; Pfeffer, 1981;Mitroff & Kilmann, 1876), In fact, Kets de Vriesand Miller (1984) suggest that the culture can heused to predict the actions taken. This is sup-ported by Miles and Snow (1978), who demon-strate that a firm's choice of strategic posture(defender, prospector, etc) is tied closely to itsGulture, that broad belief systems partially deter-mine strategy and tho direction of organizationalchange. Clearly, these norms will influence thebehavioral and cognitive development that theorganization can undergo. In turn, change and/orlearning in organizations often involves a restruc-turing of those broad norms and belief systems(Argyris & Schtin, 1978; Dutton & Duncan, 1982,1983; Jelinek, 1978; Shrivastava & Schneider,19B4).

StrategjcThe organization's strategic posturepartially determines its learning capacity. Strat-

804

egy determines the goals and ohjectivas and thebreadth of actions available for carrying out thostrategy. Thus strategy influences learning by pro-viding a boundary fo decision mekihg and a con-text for the perception and Interpretation of theenvironment (Chandler, 1£62; Cyert & March,1983i Daft & Weicfc, 1984), Similarly, the strate-gic options that are preceived are a function ofthe learning capacity within the organization(Burgelman, 1983).

The stratcigic posture also creates a momentumto organizational learning. Miller and Friesen(1980) stress that the firm's strategic directioncreates a momentum that is pervasive and highlyresistant to small adju.3tments. Reorientations andadjustments occur as widespread revolutions thataffect entire strategies.

Structure. Though often seen as an outcome oflearning, the organization's structure plays a cru-cial role in determining these processes, Duncan(1974) points out that different decision makingatructures are needed in the same organizationalunit, depending on tho degree of flexibility thatis required: A centralized, mechanistic structuretends to reinforco past behaviors, wherQas anorganic, more decentralized structure tends toallow shifts of beliefs and actions. By reducingthe information demands, the decentralized struc-ture reduces the cognitive workload of the indi-viduals, thereby facilitating the assimilation ofnew patterns and associations (Galbraith, 1973).Functional organizations may be efficient but areless likely to adapt; questions of adaptabilityemerge around issues of differentiation (Hre-biniak & Joyce, 19ii4; Starbuck et al., 1978; Vancii,1978). In fact, Meyer suggests that "formalizedand complex structures retard learning but thatlearning is enhanced by structures that diffusedecision infiuence" (1982, p. 533). Hence organi-zations can be designed to encourage learningand reflective action-taking, but this gonarallymeans moving away from mechanistic structures{Morgan & Ramirez, 1983),

Environments. If either the internal or extemalenvironment is too complex and dynamic for theorganization to handle, an overload may occur,and learning will not take place (Lawrence KcDyer, 1983), Hedberg (1981, p.S) suggests that"leaming requires both change and stability,.,between learners and their environments," Al-

though too much stability within an organiza-tion can bs dysfunctional (there U little induce-ment to learn and/or change if established behav-iors never grow obsolete), too much change andturbulence make it difficult for learners to maptheir environment (March & Olsen, 1975).

The procoss of learning involves the creationand manipulation of this tension between con-stancy and change; in fact, a certain amount ofsti'ess Is a necessity if learning is to occur (Can-gelosi & Dill, 1965; Hedherg, Nystrom, & Star-buck, 1976), The level of stress and the degree ofuncertainty about past successes determine theeffectiveness of the conditions of learning dis-cussed, and they also influence how the environ-ment is perceived and interpreted (Daft & Weick,1984; Starbuck et al,, 1978; Weick, 1979).

Concept of LearningChange, leaming, and adaptation have all been

used to refer to the process by which organiza-tions adjust to their environment. The problemis that these terms have not been used consis-tently with the same meanings. As a result, theorganizational learning literature is full of multi-ple interpretations of the concept. The followingare examples of this,

Hedberg (l;'Bl) suggests that it is misleading toequate learning with adaptation. The formerinvolves the understanding of reasons beyondthe immediate event, the latter simply meansdefensive adjustment. Yet he emphasizes that inone form of learning, behavior requires no undor-standing. This implies that simple adaptation(with no understanding of causal relationships)may he a part of learning, but that learning caninvolve a great deal more.

On the other hand, Meyer (1982) usss the termodaptation to refer to two forms of organizationaladjustment that both involve spme underst&^^d-ing of action/outcome ciiusal links: Deviation-I'ectucing adaptation occurs when there is under-standing vtrithin a given framework, a given sot oforganizational norms; and deviation-amplifyingadaptation involves the creation of new causalrelationships built on a new base of assumptions.Both of those types of adaptation form part ofwhat Hadberg (1981) calls levels of learning.

Two basic dimensions appear with some con-sistency in the literature. One has to do with the

805

content of learning. Is the adjustment a processaffecting primarily an otganization's interpreta-tion of ovents (Daft & Woick, 1884), the develop-ment oi shared understanding and conceptualschemes among members of the organization(HedbiM , 1981)? Or does organizational leamingrefer to the new responses or actions that arebased on the interpretations (Daft & Woick, 1884)7For the framework developed in this paper, theformer is called cognWon development and thelatter, behavior development.

The other important dimension that emergesrefers to the extent of cognitive development, andit has io do with the levei at which this develop •menl lakes place. Does the process merely servoto adjust parameters in a fixed organizationalstructure, or does the development redefine therules and nhange the norms, values, and worldviews (Argyiis & Sch5n, 1878; Bateson, 1972)?This pjjper uses the typology introduced hy Bate-son (1«72) and Argyris and Schdn (1978) anddeveloped by Hedberg (1881) to address thisImportant dimension: lower-level and higher-level leiaming.

Content of Learning

Tho content produced by the process of organi-zational adjustment may be defined as the pat-terns of cognitive associations developed by theorganiziition's members (Duncan & Weiss, 19'/9;Hedberg, 1081; felinek, 1879; Pfeffer ik Salancik,1970; Weick. 1878), Alternatively, the contentmay be viewed as the behavioral outcomes thatreflect the patterns and/or cognitive associationsthat have devdoped (Daft & Weick, 1984), Thedistinction is similar to Schein (18(13) arguingfor three levels of culture: cognitive, behavioral,and artilBctual.

However, especially in the context of organiza-tional learning and adaptation, it is essential tonote the difference between cognition and be-havior, for not only do they represent two differ-ent phenomeita, but also one is not necessarilyan accurate reflection of the other. Changes inbehavior may occur without any cognitive asso-ciation development; similarly, knov/Iedge mayhe gained without any acccompanying changQ inbehavior. The links between changes In hehavior

and level of cognitive development may be de-picted as in Figure 1.

Small changes in behavior do not tend to bringabout major cognitive development—the chang,emay be too gradual for clear associations loomerge; nor do major changes in behavior implyequally large advances in cognitive development.In fact, nne school of thought suggests that action-taking creating change may not be caused hy cog-nitive growth but merely by a need to do some-thing. Creating change may be creating the illu-sion of learning such that management appearsto be in control (Salancik & Meii^dl, 1984; Star-buck, 1983).

Hedberg (1981) suggests that thti developmentof associations requires both change and stability.Although too much stability and unchangingbehavior within an organization can lead to stag-nation rather than cognitive growth, the oppositeextreme may prove to be an overload for organi-zational members,

A number of strategic implications may benoted when viewing a firm'3 position with regardto change and learning and with regard to fitwith the environment. For instance. Position Ais typical of many bureaucratic firms in whichsuccess programs have been firmly enpained:No new learning takes place, and no attempts aremade to change. Hie steel industry operated inthis position until recently. In fact. Position Amay be appropriate in a stable and predictableenvironment in which there is little incentive orneed for either change or learning. This may bedesirable to maintain strategies if little change isdesired, such as within a mature industry with adominant market share.

On the other hand. Position B represents firmsthat keep taking actions, changing strategies, andrestructuring but with very little learning takingplace, Ths wave of merger activity during the1860s represented rapid changes in the form ofacquisitions as firms diversified with little learn-ing taking place (Salter & Weinhold, 1979). Also,Starbuck et al,(1978) describe organizations incrisis as reaching a point at vvhiich actions aretaken in hopes that one will just happen to reducethe crisis. The actions are not basod on learningor knowledge of what will work. Position B pro-duces shocks for the organization with little

806

High

-CognitiveDevelopment

orLearning

Level

I.OJV

Low

BehavioralDovelopment

orChrnge

Level

Figure 1. Learning and change.

msultin|{ senso of direction. In an environni, itIn which accurate prediction is impossible. Posi-tion B may bo a desirable temporary style suggest-ing a retrenchment strategy to minimize losses.

Position C produces few changes, but these re-present meaningful learning tools. Bartunek'^11984) description of the fundamental changesin the interpretive schemes and in the structuresof a religious order illustrate Position C, Changocreated meaningful modifications in the cogni-tive development of the organization. New beliefsand interpretive schemes developed. Position Cmay bo most approjwiate in a turbulent environ-ment in which renewal and innovation (forms oflearning and change) are crucial for survival buttoo much change would cause the organizationto lose its sense of direction.

Finally, Position D, with its high propensity tochange and to iearn, may be appropriate in amoderately turbulent environment. The internalcomplexity and dynamism of such an organiza-tion make it difficult to support a large amountof stress from the extornal environment. It sug-gests an invest strategy that producos slack withinthe organization. Morgan and Ramirez's (1883)descriptions of holographic organizations fit fii-ms

High

at Position D. They describe organizations thatare designed to be constantly changing with fewwell-defined rules, such that the organizationsare better at learning, problem formulation, and,hence, problem solving.

Levels of Learning

Within the category of cognition developmentit is possible to identify a hierarchy based on thelevel of insight and association building. Twogeneral levels are referred to as lower- and higher-level learning.

Lower-ievel learning occurs within a givenorganizational structure, a given set of rules. Itleads to the development of some rudimentaryassociations nf behavior and outcomes, but theseusually are of short duration and impact, onlypart of what the organization does. It i;, a resultof repetition and routine and involves associa-tion building. Cyert and March (1963) identifysuccess programs, goals, and decision rules asillustrative of learning based on routine.

Because of this reliance on routine, lower-levallearning tends to take place in organizational con-texts that are well understood and in which man-agement thinks it can control situations (Duncan,

807

1974). This apparent control over the environ-ment is more characteristic of lower and middlelevels oi management than of upper levels, butlower-level learning should not be confused withlower levels ivithin the organisation. Any organi-zation level may he involved with this process oflearning, Ths desired consequence of lower>levelleaming is a particular behavioral outcome orlevel of performance. Though there may be far-reaching effects, the focus of this learning is onthe immediate effect on a particular activity orfacet of the organization, Morgan and Ramirez(.1903) describe this ao "functional rationality"—mtionality that is based on leaming what hasworked in the past with simple, clenr-cut prob-lems,

Duncan (1974) speaks of a pi oces j similar toInwar-level leerning which he calls "behavioral-level learning," that level of learning that is con-cerned with controlling the firm as it adjusts totha environment—the des.\red level of leaming forroutine decisions, Argyris and SchOn (1878) referto it as "single-loop learning," that process thatmaintains the central features of an organization's"theory-in-use" or set of rules and restricts itselfto detecting and correcting errors within thatgiven system of rules,

lilgher-levol learning, on the other hand, aimsat adjusting overall rules and norms rather thanspecific activities or behaviors. The associationsthat result ftom higher-level learning have longtorm effects and impacts on the organization as awhole. This type of learning occurs through theuse of heuristics, skill development, acid insights.It therefore is a more cognitive process than istower-Ievsl learning, which often is the rasult ofrepetitive behavior.

The context for higher-level leaming typicallyiii ambiguous and ill-defined, making purelyrepetitive behavior rather moaningle.Hs. Thisambiguity and environmental complexity charac-torizes upper managemunt levels of the organiza-tion where decision making norms are at leastpartially detorminedi that is, where higher-levellaarning usually occurs. Considerable evidencesuggests that acme type of crisis is nncessary forchanges in highor-levcil leaming-~for example, anew strategy, a new leader, or a dramaticallyaltered market (Miilor & Friesen, 1980; Starbucket al., 1878).

The desired consequence of this type of leam-ing often is not: any particular behavioral out-come, but rather the development of frames ofreference (Shrivastava & Mitroff, 1882), or inter-pretive schemes (Bartunek, 1884), new cognitiveframeworks within which to mako decisions. Infact, "unlearning" may be one of tho most impor-tant consequences (Nystrom & Starbuck, 1884;Starbuck, 1883).

Sometimes the results of higher-level leamingbecome dysfunctional if it creates the develop-ment of superstitions, associations, or norms thatsupport dysfunctional behaviors, ,Superstitionsor organizational "success" storioH can create theinability or unwillingness to change (March kOlsen, 1975; Pfeffer, 1981), The leaming can focuson identifying ways of not changing, not experi-menting, game-playing, maintaining the statusquo, and avoiding problems (Cyert & March, 18S3;lories & Mitroff, 1880; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1884).This may become very engrained aud requireshocks, jolts, or crises for unleaming, new higher-level leaming, and readaptation to take place(Lawrence & Dyer, 1883; Meyer, 1882; Nystrom& Starbuck, 1884),

Discussion

A commonly expressed belief in the strategicmanagement literature is that organizations dolearn and adapt and that this enhances the or-ganization's ability to survive. Consequently onewould assume that there is a theoretical frame-work for looking at learning and determining if itexists and, if so, how to improve it. Unfortunately,there still oxists confusion regarding what isleaming and how to distinguish it from unreflec-tive change, A U.«ting of the major works in thestream of research dealing with organizationallearning and adaptation (Table 1) further demon-strates this. Next to each author is listed the labol(learning or adaptation) that the author has at-tached to the particular type of organizationalphenomenon in terms of tha two underlyingdimensions discussBd above (content aud level).

Of this list of 15 works on leaming and adap-tation, 12 use the label "learning." Df these 12, 7look at both behavioral and cognitive develop-ment; a look only at cognitive and 2 only at behav-ioral phenomena. The three works that use the

808

Table 1A Review of Organizational Learning

Author

Arg}'ris ft SchCn

Canijelosl & Ollt(19&5;

Chakravarthy(10821

QyCTt fit March(I9ti3|

Daft & Weluk11984]

Duncan(ie?4J

Duncan & Weiss(tS781

Hedberg(lBEll

Isliuak(18791

Miirch & Olsen(18751

Mayer{19821

Mile.i(1SB2)

Mil«s & Riindolph11980)

Miller k Friesen(ISBO)

ShrivB&tava BeMilroff

(ISBZj

r^bal

LearningSingle-loopDouble-loop

Loarnlngintoraction between individual &group adaptation

Adaptation

LoomingAdaptation of goals, attention rulesand search rules

LearningAction after interpretation

LeorningBehavioral taveiStrategy laveii

LearningAction-outcome ralaiionshipe

learningHabit-formingDiscovery

LearningOST-hallef sharing

LearningRational adGp'.ationInterpretation

AdaptationDeviation-reduclnftDevialion-amplifying

LearningDiversiiicatlon outcoiimsPlanning foirmnlization

LearningKeactivs learningProactive iaarning

AdaptationActions

Learning (SystemslEvolulionaryDesigned

Meaning

Lower-levsl cognitionHigher-level cognition

Behaviurai developmentCognitive davelopinent

Cognitive development

Behavioral development

Behavioral development

Behavioral developmentCognitive development

Cognitive development

Behavioral developmentCognitive development

Cognitive development

Cogaitive development

Lower-level cognitionHigher-level cognition

Behavioral developmentCogniiive development

Behavioral davelopmentCognitive development

Behavioral development

Behavioral developmentCognitive development

term "adaptation" range from dealing only v/itJibehuvioral phenomena (Miller & Fri^sen, 1980)to the "highest" level of cognitive development(Meyer, 1982),

This brief review of the literatiue confirms thatthere is little consistency in the applicetion of

terms to the concepts being examined. The onlypatterns that can be detected are (a) the preva-lence of the term "learning" over "adaptation,"and (b) the tendency to look at both behavioraland cognitive development regardless of the label.

Theories of higher-level learning are rere. Few

S08

telancos of it have biten observed (Hedbeig,ShiivastavB, 1961). It ia uncloar whelJisr this isbecause It Is a rare occurrence or becausa theo-rists have not developed ways of descdbing andmeasuring it. nuncan (1974) conUasts what hecalls "strategy-level leaming" with "behavioral-level loaming." Tha former has more to do withthe development of learning rules, but he deter-mines the level largely un the basis of formalityof thti learning process, Argyiis and Schfin (1978)refec to this higher level as "double-loop learn-ing": resolving incompatible orgnnizationainorms by setting new priorities and weighing ofn :rms or by restricting norma altogether. Bar-tunek (1984) provided some Insights in tho mea-surement of hi^er-level learning by demonstrat-ing the process by which changes in higher-levelteaming are intertwined with structural changeand tiy demonstrating the depth of aixatysis thatis nectissary to observe higher-ordor learning.

I'abie 2 summarizes the preceding discussionof the levels of organisational leaming and iden-tifies a number of activities that may be catego-rized according to whether they represent lower*or higher-level learning processe'i.

s: Fncuaed learning that maybeinorerepatltlonofpBBlbehaviors—usually ahoitt«ni, surface, temporiaiy, but with associationsbeing formed. Gaptuies oniy a certain elemont—adjustments in part of what the organiKation doas.Single-loop. Routine level.Hlgher-ieveJ /.earning; The development of com-plex rules and assodations legarding new acttonB.Davelopment of an undarstandtng of causntion.Learning that affects tha entire organization.Double-loop learning. Central normsi framos oftefarance, and assurnptions changdd.

One difficulty is that when an incrementalchange has been made in tho organizationalstructure, it is difficuU to detormine whether it ismerely a changa or it is a response based onunderstanding the relationship of that responseto environmental events and/or past actions. Mak-ing organizational changes or adjustments doesnot and should not automatically assume the exis-tence of learning. Another difficulty is that organi-isational learning relies on the people and groupsas the agency for thtt tiansferral of associations,meanings, worldviews, and ideologies (Hedberg,1981). In order to determine learning, one mustrely on the statemonts or actions of individuals

Table 2Levels of Leorning

Lower-ievel Highar-Jeval

ChatacimlsUca

Consequence

Sxampiss

<• Occurs through rapeUlion

• Routine< Control over immeijliate Issk,

rales & slructures

• Well-undorstood context» Occurs at ali ievub ir:

organization.

s Bshaviorai outcome.i

« Institutionatkes formai ruies

• Adjustmenis in managemsnlsystemi!

K Problam-solvlng skilis

• Occurs through use of houristlcsund insights

• Nonroutino• Davaiopmont of differenilated

slructures. tuios, otc. to deai withlack of control

• Ambiguous context• Occuris niostiy In uppsr laveis

• insights, houristtcs, and coilactivaconsclouanDss

• New missions and new definitionsof direction

• Agenda salting

• Probiom-defininig siciiis• DBvolopmont of nevf myths,

stories, and cuituro

810

or groups rsprasenting the otganlzBtlon, end onemust separate behavioral and cognitivo develop-snenl from each other ond from mere action-takingor change.

These are difficuUias that must be overcome ifthere is to ba further development of a theory oforganizationat learning. Certainly a first step isthe recognition of their existence. The secondstep is reaching agreemont about the meanings ofthe words used. To aid in resolving this dilemma,the following definitions for learning end adap-tation are suggested:

Learning: The development of insights, know-ledge, and associations between past actions, theeffectiveness ol thaso acttons, and future actions.

Adafitatton.' The ability to make incremsntaladjustiTients as a result of envlronmBntal changes,goal structure changes, or other changes.

ConclusionsOrganizational adjustment, whatever its form,

is a critical element of strategic management.Recent longitudinal studies (Lawrence & Dyer,1983; Mintzberg & Waters, 1982) demonstrate theimportance of analyzing the adjustment decisionsa firm makes over time, it also is important toanalyze whether these decisions demonstrateunref lective action-taking or in-depth understand-ing of past actions.

The literature survey above suggests that thisdistinction has been observed—7 of the IS worksrofer to (versions of) both behavioral and cogni-tive developmeni:. The survey does indicate,however, that there is considerable inconsistencyin what is being observed and how it is beingmeasured. What is called "learning'* in one is"adaptation" in another and "action" in yet athird.

Once one accepts that organizational learningand change may be two different processes, thodilemma becomes a measurement problem. Be-havioral adaptation can be measured by changesIn management systems, decisions, and the allo-cation of resources. Organizational learning thatrepresents changing associations, frames of re-

fetenco, and programs begs a methodology thatdemands a more in-depth look at the functioningof the organization. In order to measure lower-level learning, one can look at changes in thesystfiiris and so on, but to distinguish it frompurely behavioral adaptation one needs to knowif association development has occurred.

The area of research focusing on higher-levelleaming is particularly relevant to strategic man-agement because it is this level of leaming thatwill impact a firm's long term survival. Someresearch questions that might be proposed are:

1. Are certain activities, such as experimentation,unlearning, and strategic problam formulatiuncharacteristic of organizations with more davnl-oped higher-level laarning?

2. How do organizations develop disciiminattonskills that distinguish whether a past successprograin (lower-order learning) is appropriateand when it is not?

3. Is momentum characteriatic of higher-levellearning as weli as lower-level lsaming?

4. Do diversified firms have batter skills forhigher-level leaming than de single businessfirms? Or vice versa?

5. Is higher-level learning more characteristic ofglobal nrniB that operate in a multifaceted, com-plex environment?

Application of the concepts developed in thispaper means developing methods for measuringlearning that are more than mere observations ofchanges taking place. This is particularly essen-tial for learning involving strategic management,when situations are frequently unique, am-biguous, and have different interpretations.Learning necessitates experimentation, unlearn-ing of past methods, and encouraging multipleviewpoints and debate (Nystrom & Starbuck,1884). The guidance of this process is an essen-tial element of the executive function (Andrews,1980}— to ensure that learning is occurring and toassure the organization's long term survival. Themeasuremnnt and analysis of this prgcess is anessential element of the researcher's function.Researchers can help to guide organizations andexecutives by developing better methods for dis-tinguishing between types and levels of organiza-tional learning.

811

ReferencesI, K. K. (1960) The comcopt of corporatti

1, IL; Irwin

Atgyrla, C, & Schftn, D. A, {1976} Organizational learning.Readlni. KM: Addlion-Weiiley.

Barnard, C. I. {1B3S) Fiuictions of tha 8X6Cu!fv». Camteldge,MA: Hiivard Untvortily.

Bariunsk, I. M. (19B4) C'Jiinglng interpretive schimes aadorganiaitlonsl reslniccurlng: The example of« teltglousOlder. Administrative ScJBiica Qumterty, 29,3SS-372.

Beteson, G, (1972) Steps loan acology of mind. NY: Btllantlns.

Bayer, J, M. (tsai) Idsologlei, values and dsclslon making in(HgaaluUDEiB. In Paul C. Nystrom & William H. Staibuck(Eda.), Handbook of organisation dufgn (Vol. 2, pp, 16S-202). NY.- Oxford UnlveisHy Eress.

Burgalmaa, R. A. (1883) A ptocass modal of Internal corpoiatevanturlDg io the divert Iliad major fltra. Administrative Set-snce Quarterly, 2S, 2<!3-224.

Cangetosi, V. B., ft Dill, W. R. ([1B65] Organisational le«rn-ing: Ob.'servations (aW4rd a theoiy. Administratii'O SciencaQmrietly, 10.178-203.

Chafcravarthy, B. S. (19Q2) Adaptiition; A promising meta-phor for stiatBglc managenent. Acadam)' of ManagemsntReview, 1982. 73.?-744.

Chandlar, A. (1S62) Strategy and structure. Canibridga, MA;M.I.T. Press.

Cyan, R. M., & March, J. G. (1863) A behavioral theoiy o/tti6firm. Bnglawood atilx, N).- Prantice-Hall.

l>{i, R. h., & Waick, X. E. (lSiH) Toward a model of organiza-tions as Interpretation syitnma. Academy ofidanagementRBVIOW, 9, ZS4-29S.

Uonsldaon, G., & lorsch, ]. W. (1S83) Oecfsion-nioklngat iliatop: The shaping of strategic direatlon. Naw York: BasicBooks.

Duncan, R. B. (1S74) Modifications in decision structure inadaptinji lo lhe environment: Some implications for organi-zational leuning. Decision Sciencas, 70S-726.

Ounnan. K. B., & Weiss, A. (1979) Organkatlonal ieaming:Itnp31cat<ans {or organizational design. In B. Staw (Ed.),Researoh in oiganizotionai behavior (pp. 7S-123). Grean-wlnh, CT: JAI Piess.

Uutton, J., & Duncan, R. (1982, Mait:h] Sense-malclng andorganizational adaptation. Worlcing papac, NorthwestemUnivDmity, j , IU. Kellogg Gmduate School of Management

Outton, J., & Duncan, S. fl9S3, MayJ Thettrention ofmomm-tum for Changs through the process o,f organizationalsenssmufcing. Unpublishad manuscript, Graduote Schoolof Business Administration, Naw York Uuiveisity.

Galbraith, J. H. {1073} Designing complex.Resiling, MA: Addison-Wssley.

Hambrick, D. C. (1933) Some testa of the effectivenesi andfunctional attributes of Miles and Snow's strategic types.Academy of Management Journal, 28, 5-26.

Hedberg, B. (19S1) How organizations learn and unlearn? InP. C. Nystrom & W. H. Rtarbuck (Eds.), Handbook o/oigoni-zational design (pp. H-27). London: Oxford UniversilyPress.

Hadbsig, B., Nystrom, P., & Starbuck, W. H. (1976) Campingon seesaws: Proscriptions fora self desllgnitig organization.Administrative Scinnce Quarterly, 21, 41-85.

Hrebinlak, L. G., & Joyce, W. F. (1984) [mpJomenting strat-egy. Hew York: Macmillan.

lehnok, M. |197S) Institutionuljzing innovatfons; A study ofIsarning syeioma. New York: Ptaeger.

D., & Kahn, R. L. (196B) Social psychology of orggni-20 tions. New York: Wiloy.

Kets de Vrles, M., & Miller, D. (1984) Neur^itio style and organi-zational pathology. .Strategic MnnagemEint/Qurnol, S, 3S-5S.

Iiiwr<}nce, P. R., &. Oyer, D. (19B3) fieneiving American indus-fry. New York: Free Press.

tawnmco, P. R., & Lorsch, }. W. (19B7| Organization andenvironment: Managing di/ferentiotfon and integration.Boston: Harvard University.

Lyios, M. A., & Mitroff, i. i. (19B0) Organizational problemformulation: An empirical study. Adminislrotive ScienceQuortarly, 25,102-119.

March, J. G., & Olson,). P. (197S) The uncertainty of the past:Org.inizational laarning under ambiguity. ISuropeon /our-nai o/Pol(tic0l Hosearch. 3,147-171.

Martin, J. (1982} Stories and scripts in organizational sattingn.In A. Hastori & A. isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology(pp. 225-305). Naw York: Elsevler-North Holland.

Mayer, A. (1982) Adapting to environmental folt.s. Admin-{strotive Scionca Quarterly, 27, 515-537.

MUas, S. H. (1082) Co//in nails and corporate stratagios.Bngiswood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Milas R. H., Sc Randolph. W. A flRBO) Influence of orgsnlza-tional learninB styles on eariy development. In }. H.Kimbtrrly and Robnrt H. Miles and Associates, (Eds.). ,Theorganizationaj life cycle, (pp. 44-63!). Ran Francisco:Jossciy-Bass.

MUos, R. E., & Snow, 0. G. (1976) OisanizationaJ strategy,structure imd process. Now York: McGraw-Hill.

MUler, a , & Friesen, P. H. (1980) Momentum and revolutionin organization adaptation. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 23, 591-814.

fcllntzburg, H.. & Waters, J. (1982) Traclking strategy in anentreprenaurla! firm. Academy of Monagoment Journal.7.5, 4B5-499.

812

MU(M, 1.1.,« Kilmrmn. Vs.. H. (1079) On oigioinUon (toiriei:An apittoacb io tha datlgn and antlyilt of oisiiiiiseitttonsihraui^ mythi Bnd8tt)it««.InR.H. KllmBim. L. R. Fondy. ftU, P. SleWn (Ed«.), Management of oisanizalion dsalgn(Vol. t. pp. ias-S!07). New Yoiki Blievlsi'-Notth Holluid.

Mo^an, G., & Ramirez, R. (1683) Action teaming: A holo-grrphic metapar for giiidtng social change, Humun Rsla<toi 37,1-2B.

y , P. C, & Starbuck, W. H. (t9B4) To avoid organlza-ttongl crliies, unSeam. Oiiganizatlonal Dynamics, 12H)S3-S9.

FfsKar, ]. (test) Masagemsnt as aymboUc aetton: lits cre-ation and maintanance of organizational pamdliimi. InL. L. Cunminga and B. M. Shaw (Eds.), Reteaich in oigani-zaHonoi behavior (Vol. 3, pp.J-8Z) Greanwich, CT: JAIPresa.

Pfeffer, J,, 8i Salancik,!. (197B) fhe external control o/organ-izations. New York: Harper and Row.

Salancik, G. R., & Meindl, {. R (1904) Corporate attributionsas strategic illusions of mana^ment control. Admin*tstrative Scienc« Quarterly, 28, 238-254.

Saltejf. M. S.. & Weinhold, W. A. (19785through acquisiUon.- Sinitegiesforcniflting economic value.New York: Free Press.

Schaln, S. H. ClSB3t Organizational culture).Dynamics, 12,13-28.

i P. (1961) Stratagic decision malting pracass: TheSnfimnee of organizational learning and experience.Uiapubllihiid dootoral dissertation, University ot Pitts-buigh, Pittsburgh.

ShfSvattava, P., h Mttroff, 1.1. (1982) Frames of referencenumagra* use: A study in applied sociology of knowledge.In R. Lamb (Rd.), Advonces in strategic management (pp.161-182). Grsenwich, CV: JAI Press.

Shrivastava, P., & Schneider, S. (1984, October)Organizationalframes of retereiice. Human Relations, 317, 795-807.

Simon, H. A. (1S69) Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge,MA: M.I.T. Pmss.

Stsrbuck, W. K. (1983) Organizations as action generators.American Sociological Review. 4S, 9l-if)Z.

Stacbuck, W. H., Grove, A., h Hedberg, B. (1970; Respondingto crisis, /oumoio/Business Administration, 9(2), 112-137.

Summers, E. (1980) Strategic behavior in business and gov-ernment. Boston; Uttle, Brown,

Thompson, J. 0. (1967) Oiganizations in action. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Vancil, R. F. (1978) i ecentrolization.- Managerial ambiguityiiiy design. Homewood, IL: Dow Jone$-Ir ivin.

Wsick. K. E. (1979) .'focial psychology of organizing. Reading,MA; Addison-Wdsley.

C, Marlene Fioi is a doctoral candidate in StrategicManagement, University of Illinois-Chompaign.

Marjarie A. t.yls!i is Assistant Ptofsssor of StrategicManagement, University o/ illinois-Ghanipaign.

813