Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations:
Trigger Events, Processes, and Structures
Soon Ang (Presenter)
Nanyang Business School
Nanyang Technological University
Nanyang Avenue 639798
Singapore
ASANG@NTUVAX.NTU.AC.SG
(65) 799-4717 (voice)
(65) 792-2313 (fax)
Damien Joseph
Nanyang Business School
Nanyang Technological University
Nanyang Avenue 639798
Singapore
ADJOSEPH@NTUVAX.NTU.AC.SG
(65) 799-4813 (voice)
(65) 792-2313 (fax)
Submitted for the Academy of Management Meetings, Ohio, Cincinnati, August 1996
Organizational Development and Change Division
Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations:
Trigger Events, Processes & Structures, and Learning Outcomes
Abstract
50 words
Organizational Learning and Learning Organization span many disciplines. Over 1000 abstracts in
management, economics, psychology, sociology, and other social sciences were content analyzed.
Analysis revealed a nomological network of (a) triggering events that render OL necessary; (b)
OL processes and LO designs; and (c) learning outcomes. Questions guiding future research and
practice ensue.
INTRODUCTION
Organizational Learning (OL) and Learning Organizations (LO) are alluring concepts in
the 1990s. Interest among organizational researchers and practitioners is evidenced in growing
numbers of books and research papers in the area; conferences on OL (e.g., Carnegie Mellon
University in 1989; INSEAD in 1990; Western Business School in 1992); special calls for papers
(e.g., International Journal of Organizational Analysis in 1995); and the establishment of research
centers (e.g., Peter Senge’s Center for Learning Organizations at MIT; Academy for Applied
Research in Organizational Learning in George Washington University).
Despite growing interests, the body of knowledge on organizational learning and learning
organizations remain disparate. There have been attempts at integrating the literatures (Duncan
and Weiss 1979; Fiol and Lyles 1985; Levitt and March 1988; Huber 1991; Dodgson 1993; and
more recently Barnett 1995 cited in Cohen and Sproull 1996). In each of these prior attempts,
researchers identified a single or few key OL concepts and examined them in depth. Duncan and
Weiss (1979) focused on process of creating knowledge about action-outcome relationships; Fiol
and Lyles (1985) distinguished the levels of learning within organizations; Levitt and March
(1988) emphasized experiential learning in organizations; Huber (1991) offered an information
processing view of organizational learning; while Dodgson (1993) elaborated on goals and
facilitators of OL and extended Fiol and Lyles (1985)’s levels of learning.
This study integrates the bodies of knowledge more broadly. First, unlike prior studies
where the focus has been on organizational learning, this study incorporates research in both
organizational learning and learning organizations. Second, rather than dovetailing to specific
learning concepts, this study embraces the eclectic nature of prior literature with the aim of
evolving the underlying nomological network on OL and LO. The network then serves to
converge our understanding on OL and LO and aid in developing mid-range propositions and
guiding subsequent empirical testing.
In the context of a nomological network, triggering events can be conceived as
antecedents to OL and LO (see Figure 1). We define triggering events as circumstances which act
as catalysts to OL. As with human beings, organizations do not learn proactively (Watkins and
Marsick 1993). Organizations learn only when the need arises or when some events trigger off the
need to learn. Especially given the tremendous pressures to perform and produce results,
organizations tend to overinvest in exploiting existing knowledge and underinvest in learning or in
developing new knowledge (Levinthal and March 1994).
2
Figure 1: Nomological Network of Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations
Nomological Network of
OL and LO
Antecedents
• Trigger events
Core Concepts
Consequences
• Processes of OL
• Structure of LO
• Learning outcomes
OL and LO form core concepts in the nomological network. Research in OL and LO are
distinguished by their relative emphases on learning processes and structures. The phrase
“organizational learning” suggests emphasis on process: a sequence of activities in which an
organization undertakes to learn. In contrast, “learning organization” emphasizes unique
structural characteristics of an organization that has the ability to learn. In LO, the focus is less
on actions that result in learning, but on attributes or structural dimensions that characterized the
organization as learning.
Learning outcomes are consequences in the nomological network. They represent major
effects of OL and LO on goals of the organizations.
With these concepts for a
nomological network in place, we will describe the methodology for bibliographic and content
analysis in the next section, followed by results of our analysis. We will then discuss the
implications of the nomological network for future research and practice.
METHODOLOGY
Defining a Universe and Appropriate Databases
We collected data at end of first quarter of 1995. The initial task was to identify a suitable
universe of publications on OL and LO. The universe should consist of all manuscripts on
organizational learning and learning organizations published in periodicals, collections and books.
OL and LO span numerous disciplines in both academic and practitioner journals.
Disciplines include business and management, economics, education, political science,
psychology, sociology and other social sciences. Because of the wide span, we identified
databases that cover these disciplines. The seven databases accessed via Dialog Online
Information Services were ABI/INFORM, Management Contents for business and management;
EconLit for economics; PsycInfo for education and psychology; Sociological Abstracts for
sociology; Social SciSearch for social sciences; and Dissertation Abstracts. Table 1 presents the
reach and range of databases that defined our universe of publications.
3
Table 1: Reach and Range of Databases
Database
Period Covered
ABI/INFORM
1971-1995
Dissertation Abstracts
1861-1995
EconLit
1969-1994
Management Contents 1974-1995
PsycInfo
1967-1995
Social SciSearch
1972-1995
Sociological Abstracts
1963-1995
Although OL and LO have generated a lot of interest in the last five years, the phrase
“organizational learning” had existed in our lexicon for as far back as 30 years ago when
Cangelosi and Dill discussed the concept (Cangelosi and Dill 1965). As the data collection was
conducted in the first quarter of 1995, it was agreed that we would restrict our dataset from 1994
to as far back as possible limited only by the coverage of respective databases.
Search Strategy
We used phrases “organizational learning” and “learning organizations” to search the
titles, abstracts, identifies, and descriptors of publications in each database. No attempt was made
to identify synonyms for OL and LO as the field of inquiry is too immature for a stable set of
synonyms.
In the search strategy, each database was first searched using a Dialog search string,
“(organizational) (1w) (learning)” followed by “(learning) (1w) (organization).” The use of (1w),
meaning 1 word between the search words, allows us to cast the search wider to include
publications containing phrases such as “organization that learns” to “learning in organizations.”
The search yielded 1381 publications. Hits without accompanying abstracts were removed
as abstracts were necessary for subsequent content analyses. Cursory and irrelevant publications
were also removed. Cursory publications were defined as publications which mentioned
“organizational learning” or “learning organization” in passing as one of several themes of the
paper or as one of many independent or dependent variables in the studies. Irrelevant publications
included interviews and reviews of books on OL or LO. Other publications were also considered
irrelevant when phrases “organizational learning” or “learning organizations” exist but do not
relate to concepts of OL or LO. For example, publications dealing with “organization of learning
passages,” or abstracts in publications where the words “learning” and “organization” appear
consecutively in the abstract, as in “ ... learning. Organization of ...” were removed. The final
working sample of 425 publications1 was obtained after eliminating duplicates across all seven
databases.
1
A list of the 425 publications is available from the first author.
4
Table 2: Towards to final sample
Publications
Total abstracts obtained
1361
Irrelevant publications
Cursory publications
Book reviews
Duplicates
Total discarded
346
259
14
317
936
425
Total working sample
Growth and Span of publications
Figure 2 shows the growth of publications in OL and LO. The 425 publications were also
categorized into three search term groups. The first group was designated “OL”, meaning the
term “organizational (1w) learning “ was used to obtain the publications. The next group was
designated “LO” to mean that the term “learning (1w) organization” was used to capture these
publications. Finally, the third group was labeled as “Both” to mean that the publication was
found to contain both terms in the basic index and therefore was captured under two previous
terms.
Figure 2. Growth of Publications
120
Legend
All
425
LO
111
OL
251
1970
100
1968
Both 63
60
40
20
Year
5
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
0
1966
No of Publications
80
From the graph, we note a sudden spurt in publications in the last five years, particularly in
1994, suggesting the growing interest in the area. The oldest known publication on OL was
published in 1965 (Cangelosi and Dill 1965). The concept of LO only took off after 1990,
probably spurred by the Senge’s best-selling book on the learning organization (Senge 1990).
To examine the span of publications of OL and LO, the 425 publications were clustered
into three broad categories (see figure 3). The “Business/Management” cluster contained 249
publications from ABI/INFORM, EconLit and Management Contents. The “Soc/Psy” cluster
contained 90 publications from PsycInfo and Sociological Abstracts while the third cluster,
“Others,” contained 170 publications from Dissertation Abstracts and Social SciSearch. The
“Others” cluster represented areas as diverse as anthropology to political sciences, and other
social sciences.
Figure 3: Span of Publications
Span of Publications
Biz (ABI/Mgmt content/
Econlit)
195
Others (Dissertation/
Social Scisearch)
106
34
1
2
8
22
48
Soc/Psy (PsyInfo/
SocioAbs)
Relatively few publications span across clusters suggesting the importance of casting the
searching over a wide range of databases. Of the 425 publications, only 8 publications represent
common hits in all three clusters; 12 between the “Business/Management” and “Soc/Psy” clusters;
34 between “Business/Management” and “Others” clusters, and 22 between “Others” and
“Soc/Psy” clusters. The remaining 349 publications resided within independent clusters.
Coding Process and Reliability
Based on the idea of a nomological network for OL and LO, we developed a template
comprising publication descriptors such as author(s), title, year, journal of publication, database;
trigger events; OL processes; LO structures; and learning outcomes.
Publications extracted from ABI/INFORM and Management Contents in the first quarter
of 1995 were used by three coders (the two primary investigators and a graduate research
assistant) to ensure sufficient internal consistency and reliability. A search at the end of the first
6
quarter of 1995 yielded 45 abstracts from Management Contents and 50 abstracts from
ABI/INFORM.
Initially, all three coders were involved in coded the 45 abstracts from the 1995
Management Contents abstracts. The coding resulted in 40% agreement among the coders.
Subsequent intense debates helped resolve disagreements. Explicit coding rules were developed
and consensus reached. After resolving differences and reaching consensus on the 45 abstracts
from Management Contents, the 50 abstracts from the 1995 ABI publications were again coded
by all three coders. This second round of coding resulted in 70% agreement, and subsequent
differences resolved through consensus building and greater refinement of coding rules.
With reasonable confidence about coding rules, the coders subsequently coded 425
publications independently. Each coder was responsible for coding abstracts from at least two
databases. Abstracts were analyzed for trigger events, learning processes, LO structures, and
learning outcomes. During the process of individual coding, ambiguous abstracts were
highlighted for group discussion. Abstracts highlighted for closer scrutiny were read by all coders
and consensus achieved through intense group discussion..
RESULTS
Results are organized along the nomological network: (1) trigger events; (2) processes
and structures of OL and LO; and (3) learning outcomes.
Trigger Events
Of the 425 publications, about 35% (150) mentioned trigger events for OL or for creating
LO. Trigger events can be characterized as internal or external triggers (Table 2). Internal
triggers are events arising from within an organization. Major internal triggers include (1) human
resource issues of executive succession, expatriation, personnel turnover; (2) project
implementation issues such as IT, TQM or innovations; and (3) creating new inter-organizational
interdependencies and collaborations in the form of joint-ventures, franchise agreements,
strategic alliances, etc.
External triggers are environmental jolts that occur external of the organizations. They
refer to changes in various dimensions in the environment that require organizations to change
existing routines and rules. These external triggers include (1) rapid changes in business
environment such as demographic changes, and changes in consumer tastes and market demands;
(2) rapid changes in technological environment such as pace of change in IT; (3) redefinition of
economic environment such as new trade zones, and switch from planned to market economies;
and (4) changes in legislation resulting from changes in ecological environments or political
regimes.
7
Table 2: Trigger Events
Issues (with sample triggers)
Internal
Human Resource Issues
•
executive succession
•
expatriation
•
personnel turnover
Implementation Issues
•
implementation of IT
•
implementation of innovations; TQM
•
implementation of R&D
Inter-organizational relations
•
joint ventures, franchise agreements
•
diversification
•
strategic alliances
External Business Environment Issues
•
unstable markets
•
rapidly changing customer demands
Technological Environment Issues
•
rapid technological changes
Economic Environment Issues
•
globalization
•
recessionary pressures
•
economic reforms
Ecological & Political Environment Issues
•
new “green” legislation
•
crises (e.g. Bhopal disaster)
•
political changes
Total
Occurrences
16
% of Total
10.7
19
12.7
16
10.7
32
21.3
35
23.3
9
6.0
23
15.3
150
100
Internal Triggers
Human Resource Issues
Organizational learning requires humans as agents. Accordingly, changes in human
resources within any organization pose major impetus for OL. In Virany, Tushman, and
Romanelli (1992), the researchers examines how changes in the chief executive officer triggered
off necessary organizational learning among members in the top management team. In a study on
expatriation, Vink and Schapink (1994) argued that organizations must learn to work beyond
Western ethnocentric theories of behavior. Effective intercultural managers are those who have
acquired and shared their collective experiences on unfamiliar and different cultures. On the
relationship between personnel turnover and organizational learning, Carley (1992) showed that
hierarchies were less affected by high turnover rates than teams, particularly when the task is
nondecomposable.
Implementation Issues
The introduction of a new technology, innovation, or R&D often triggers need for
organizational learning (see George 1983; Bessant and Buckingham 1993; Carlsson and Kean
1976). Implementing a new innovation often alters existing work routines, reward structures, or
communication patterns to the extent that organizations must ensure sufficient slack resources to
8
support learning activities to incorporate the innovations successfully and to obtain full benefits of
the innovation.
Inter-organizational Relations
Organizational learning is an emerging paradigm for the study of strategy making when
firms diversify into new practices, products or services and collaborate with other firms in creating
new interorganizational relationships or IOR (Alaharkonen and Rutenberg 1990) (Kazanjian and
Drazin 1987). The need for close collaboration and cooperation with others in IOR such as
strategic alliances imposes an unprecedented emphasis on organizational learning as parties to the
relationship need to institutionalize and amalgamate distinct organizational practices, new job
definitions, new ways of managing and even redefining the nature of the firm (Lewis 1991).
External Triggers
Business Environment Issues
Business turbulence comprises one of the most significant environmental jolts faced by
firms. Rapidly changing dynamics of industries and competitive forces require firms to learn faster
than competitors to order to achieve sustainable competitive advantage.
To survive,
organizations must learn to shift from managing and producing in the world of stable markets to
one with short product lifecycles, continual innovation, and rapid changes in customer demands.
Organizations must build a capacity to learn: to conduct quick studies and tackle novel problems
(Maccoby 1993; Hosley, Lau, Levy, and Tan, 1994).
Technological Environment Issues
The greatest jolt from the environment is the unprecedented pace of change in
technologies. Because of the high rate of technological change, formal education in schools will
never be able to totally prepare workers for their lifetime’s technological work demands. It is
thus paramount that firms create a learning environment within their organizations to promote onthe-job learning and growth. Continual learning and investing in the full spectrum of employee
talents with teamwork are cornerstones for coping with relentless pace of change in technology
(Benett and O’Brien 1994; Atkinson 1994).
Economic Environment Issues
Economic environment issues take on many forms. With globalization of markets,
organizations must learn to break the limited mindsets of national markets to compete on a
worldwide basis (Ghoshal and Butler 1992). Firms in economic recessionary regimes must learn
new survival skills to re-vitalize the organization, steering the organization from danger to
opportunity (Hollingworth 1992). Organizations in East European economies and other
communist regimes face great challenges when reforms coverted centrally planned markets to
free, open markets (Swiderski and Seiderski 1986). Firms had to erase old organizational
memories and routines of a socialist economy and generate new rules, standard operating
procedures to compete in a new open market economy.
Ecological & Political Environment Issues
9
Occasionally, organizations learned from natural disasters (e.g., Bhopal disaster).
Disasters make explicit organizational policies on safety measures (Bowman and Kunreuther
1988). As nations become more concerned with the ecological environment, and as new laws
and statutes are enacted to protect the natural environment, organizations need to develop new
rules, behaviors and business practices to abide by the “green” laws (Mylonadis 1994).
Organizations also need to learn to cope with new regulation following changes in political
leadership and regimes (Godkin and Montano 1991).
Processes of Organizational Learning
Due to its eclectic origin, the OL & LO literature offers divergent knowledge about the
processes of organizational learning. Literature on the processes can best be distinguished by
their emphases on three different focal points to the learning process: the assumptions underlying
organizational actions; the concrete experiences on which learning is based, or information
processing cycle of knowledge acquisition, interpretation and codification. Table 3 provides a
breakdown of the three processes together with the number of occurrences in the literature.
Learning processes that emphasize assumption-surfacing and experiential learning represent the
bulk of the discussion on processes.
Table 3: Major Processes of Organizational Learning
Occurrences
Assumption-surfacing learning
•
single- versus double-loop learning
•
triple-loop learning
•
deutero learning
•
unfreeze-change-refreeze
Experiential learning
•
Kolb’s experiential learning model
•
Learning from histories
•
others
Information processing model
•
Huber’s model
•
Amponsem’s 5 stage model
•
others
Total
46
Percentage of
Total
38.3
48
40.0
26
21.7
120
100
Assumption surfacing learning
In assumption surfacing processes such as double-loop (Argyris 1980), triple-loop (Isaacs
1993), and deutero learning (Schon 1975), the focus is on surfacing tacit assumptions,
propositions, premises, and theories-in-use that underlie everyday actions. The assumptionsurfacing models emphasize collection observation of patterns in real world phenomena and
requires that individuals within the organization develop the competence for continuing shared
inquiry into theories of organizational action. Assumptions are questioned by intense dialog and
interaction among team members.
Experiential learning
10
In experiential learning, the focus is on learning from prior actions. Historical concrete
experience, either direct or vicarious, forms the basis for observation, interpretation and
reflection. From the observations, new implications for actions can be deduced. These
implications then serve as guides in acting to create new experiences (Kolb 1976 cited in Carlsson
and Kean 1976; March, Sproull, and Tamuz 1991)
Information processing models
In information processing models of OL, the focus is on acquisition, distribution and
interpretation of knowledge. The most important step in the information processing model is
knowledge acquisition (Huber 1991). To facilitate learning organizational knowledge must be
accessible to all relevant organizational members With new knowledge acquired, organizational
members unlearn old practices and discard old ways of processing experience (McGill, Slocum,
and Lei 1992). Organizational learning then becomes the processes of codification and
communication through which individual knowledge becomes organizational knowledge
(Amponsem 1991).
Structures of Learning Organizations
Team Based Organizations
Prior research argued that the fundamental organizational redesign necessary for creating
learning organizations is the reconfiguration of a hierarchical-based organization to a team-based
organization (see Figure 4a). Team-based organizations rely dominantly on professionals who
possess high analytical skills and self-management competences in systematic problem solving,
team learning, scenario planning, mental modeling, vision creation and sharing (Senge 1990;
Garvin 1993; Wills 1992).
Team-based learning organizations possess two crucial characteristics: self-direction, and
cross-functional (see Table 4). Team-based organizations possess very flat structures thereby
avoiding entrenched bureaucracy and rigid lines of authority. Flat structures also aid team
members in developing creative dialog (Schein 1993; Marsick and Watkins 1994) and in
formulating and implementing strategy at the work team levels (Lundberg 1991). Multi-functional
teams facilitate horizontal work flows, team-oriented action learning, and creating shared
knowledge and experiences that transcend traditional functional boundaries (Goldhar and Lei
1994).
11
Figure 4a
Structural Redesign
Teams
- self directed
- cross functional
hierarchy
Facilitators
Culture
• experimenting
• reflective
Leadership
• visionary
• mentors; coaches
Learning infrastructure
• technological aids
(Practice fields, GSS, ESS, EPSS, HRIS)
• learning labs
Teams
• self directed
• cross functional
Figure 4b
Figures 4a & b Structure of Learning Organizations
Prior research also alluded that team-based organizations require three facilitating factors:
(1) a leadership that is widely-shared, visionary and mentoring; (2) an organization culture that
encourages experimentation and reflection; and (3) the presence of a learning infrastructure in the
form of learning resources and technological aids (Figure 4b).
12
Table 4 Structures of Learning Organization
Occurrences
Teams
68
•
self-directed
•
cross-functional
•
competent professionals
Leadership
•
•
% of Total
23.0
50
16.9
visionary
mentor/coaches
Culture
74
25.0
experimenting
•
reflective
Infrastructure
•
technology aids
•
learning labs
104
35.1
Total
296
100
•
Leadership
OL is facilitated by top executives who act as teachers, designers, mentors and stewards
rather than as directors of actions and managers making top-down executive decisions. OL can
only be sustained when leadership is widely distributed and widely shared, and when leadership
emphasizes on continually building a shared vision of the organization, surfacing and challenging
individual mental models, and engaging in systems thinking and future scenario planning (Burdett
1993; Senge 1990b).
Culture
Organizations nurture learning by focusing members’ attention not only on the external
environment but inwardly on their own behaviors. Members are encouraged to reflect critically
on their own behaviors and identify ways they often inadvertently contribute to organizations’
problems, and change how they act (Argyris 1991). Learning capability is also improved by
encouraging active experimentation: the ability of members to voice out new ideas, and carry out
action research, and embark upon innovative programs and work activities without fear of being
penalized for failure (Richards 1994).
Learning Infrastructure
The literature emphasizes heavily on investing in creating learning infrastructures:
technological tools, practice fields, and learning laboratories to promote active research, dialog,
experimentation and learning within organizations (Cohen and Austin 1994). Technological aids
such as employee performance support systems (EPSS) or human resource information systems
(HRIS) can track history of skills and competences of members within the organizations so that
ad hoc teams can be formed with members possessing appropriate mix of relevant skills. A
competence-based HRIS also aids organizations in tracking members who may require re-tooling
or training before their skills erode.
13
Decision aids such as executive support systems (ESS) and group support systems (GSS)
enable organizational members to simulate models of reality, re-frame existing mental models, and
facilitate shared mental-modeling. These IT decision aids also possess storage capabilities that
enable organizations to design, develop and retain institutional memory that will resilient of
personnel turnover.
Learning Outcomes
Overall, there is relatively sparse empirical literature on learning outcomes.
Organizational theorists have tended to regard OL and LO positively. Significant number of
publications highlight, theorize and predict that OL and LO will nudge organizations towards
greater competitiveness and sustained survival. Very few studies probe potential negative
consequences of OL and LO (see Table 5).
Table 5 : Learning Outcomes
Competitiveness
•
agility
•
greater anticipatory power
•
productivity and quality enhancements
Organizational Survival (2)
•
alliance longevity
•
organization rule change
•
grow in intelligence
Negative Outcomes
•
decline in initial assets
•
obstructing innovation adoption
•
trade-off between hierarchy and teams
Occurrences
56
% of Total
44.8
62
49.6
7
5.6
125
100
Total
Competitiveness
Organizations with learning ability have been argued to become more competitive because
they are more agile. Agile enterprises thrive by responding quickly to changing markets and
flourish by their turning unpredictable changes into opportunities for improved performances
(Ward 1994). Learning organizations are also deemed to possess greater anticipatory power in
developing new products and making quality enhancements (Antal, Dierkes, and Hahner (1994).
They are able to predict trends and concerns of the economy in which they operate and recognize
the need to discard old competencies and develop new ways of doing things.
Organizational Survival
Organizational theorists have also argued that OL is critical in sustaining the longevity of
strategic alliances. LO survive longer because that they dynamically monitor interfirm diversity
and continually change internal organizational rules, routines, and procedures (Parkhe 1991;
Schulz 1991). LO also survive longer by proactively using analytical and creating learning
14
techniques to increase capacities for differentiation, integration, and reflective thought (Etheredge
and Short 1983).
Negative Outcomes
Relatively few studies examine negative outcomes of OL and LO. In one simulation
study,
Schulz (1992) showed how inefficient experiences in organizational learning incur
substantial search costs and setbacks and consequently deplete initial assets of a firm. In another
simulation study, Carley (1992) demonstrated the tradeoff between team-based and hierarchical
based organizations. Although team-based organizations learn faster and better, hierarchical-based
organizations possess greater institutional memory and are therefore more resilient of personnel
turnover.
Other researchers cautioned that OL can obstruct rapid diffusion of innovation adoption.
Where organizational firms do not possess the requisite technical know-how, firms need to spend
inordinate amounts of time and effort building a knowledge base before innovation can be
implemented and operated effectively (Attewell 1992).
CONCLUSION
Organizations increasingly face pressures to rejuvenate, change and learn to assure
themselves of short term high performance, and long-term survival. Concepts of organizational
learning and learning organizations offer useful strategies and actions in promoting organizational
adaptation. This paper synthesizes past research in both OL and LO and proposes a nomological
network framework for guiding future research in the area. Trigger events, processes of OL,
structural characteristics of LO, and learning outcomes offer core theoretical and practical hooks
for fruitful avenues in future research and practice. Sample of research questions are:
(1) Can some trigger events be “induced” by organizations to enable organizations to
learn strategically?
(2) Is there an association between type of trigger events and processes of OL?
(3) Is there an association between type of trigger events and structural redesign of
LO?
(4) Are there unfavorable or unintended learning outcomes?
(5) Are there strategic contingencies or cross-situational similarities of differences in how
LO are created?
Research questions above are not exhaustive. For example, prior research has adopted
primarily a Western ethnocentric view of organizational learning. The generalizability of OL and
LO concepts to an Eastern or other societies remain under-researched. To illustrate, prescriptions
from existing literature on teams with distributed leadership and decentralized decision making
power collide with national cultures characterized high power distances where top-down decision
making is revered (Hofstede 1991). Exploration of these and other research questions will be the
next step in integrating and advancing our knowledge on OL and LO.
15