Where does organizational learning collide?

Learning framed as the detection and correction of error in an organization's theory of action. Argyris and Schön's 1978 Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective split it in two: single-loop learning adjusts behavior to fix an error while leaving the governing values in place, and double-loop learning questions those governing values themselves and changes them. The referent here is a cycle of noticing a mismatch and correcting it, and the interesting case is when members revise the goals and assumptions behind their actions rather than only their moves. This differs from the other frameworks below in that it centers on error and on the values that guide action, not on a balance of activities, a flow across levels, or the intake of outside knowledge.[1]

Unit

One cycle of detecting and correcting a mismatch in the organization's theory of action

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Traced qualitatively through cases of how members notice and correct error, and whether they also revise governing values

Learning framed as how an organization divides its limited attention and resources between finding new knowledge and using what it already knows. March's 1991 Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning set exploration (search, variation, experiment, risk) against exploitation (refinement, efficiency, execution) and argued that the two compete for the same scarce means, so a firm that leans too far either way pays for it. The referent is this allocation problem and its long-run consequences, studied in models of how members and the organization learn from each other. Unlike the action-theory framework it is not about error and values, and unlike the process and knowledge frameworks below it is fundamentally about a trade-off between two modes of activity.[2]

Unit

The distribution of effort between exploring new possibilities and exploiting known routines

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Modeled in simulations of mutual learning, and gauged in firms by the mix of exploratory and exploitative activity

Learning framed as a set of linked processes that carry it across levels of an organization. Crossan, Lane, and White's 1999 An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution named four: intuiting and interpreting at the individual level, integrating at the group level, and institutionalizing at the organizational level, with learning feeding forward from person to firm and feeding back from firm to person. The referent is this flow and the tension between exploring new learning and exploiting what is already embedded in the organization. It differs from the action and behavioral frameworks by making the level of analysis the central problem: learning is neither purely individual nor purely organizational but the movement between the two.[3]

Unit

The flow of learning across three levels through four linked processes

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Set out conceptually, and later operationalized by survey instruments that rate the four processes at each level

Learning framed as a firm's ability to take in knowledge from outside and put it to use. Cohen and Levinthal's 1990 Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation defined that ability as recognizing the value of new external information, assimilating it, and applying it to commercial ends, and argued it depends on the related knowledge the firm already holds. The referent is the intake and use of external knowledge, treated as a firm-level capacity built up over time. This framework points outward, unlike the action-theory focus on internal error correction, and it treats learning as a stock the firm carries rather than as March's balance of activities or Crossan's flow across levels. For the term treated on its own, see the absorptive capacity page.[4]

Unit

A firm's ability to value, assimilate, and apply new external knowledge

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Proxied by research and development intensity, and later by scaled measures of potential and realized absorptive capacity