Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managerial and Strategic Implications and Future Directions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Organizational Learning

  • 6770 Accesses

Abstract

This concluding chapter discusses the relationships across learning at different levels of analysis and across different dimensions of experience. Managerial and strategic implications of research findings on organizational learning are developed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of promising future research directions that are likely to advance our understanding of organizational learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Wayne, K. (1974). Limits of the learning curve. Harvard Business Review, 52(5), 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P. S., & Cole, R. E. (1993). Designed for learning: A tale of two auto plants. Sloan Management Review, 34(3), 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P. S., & Cole, R. E. (1994). Rejoinder. Sloan Management Review, 35(2), 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22, 1123–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Ren, Y. (2012). Transactive memory systems: A micro foundation of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01077.x.

  • Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science, 32, 1231–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berggen, C. (1994). Nummi vs. Uddevalla. Sloan Management Review, 35(2), 37–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, R. E. (1994). Measuring and managing technological knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 36(1), 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresman, H. (2010). External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organization Science, 21, 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carillo, J. E., & Gaimon, C. (2000). Improving manufacturing performance through process change and knowledge creation. Management Science, 46, 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G. R., Bigelow, L. S., Seidel, M. D., & Tsai, L. B. (1996). The fates of de novo and de alio producers in the American automobile industry 1885–1981. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 117–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, D., Kim, D., & Rhee, D. (1998). Latecomer strategies: Evidence from the semiconductor industry in Japan and Korea. Organization Science, 9, 489–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlin, K., & Casciaro, T. (1998, August). Radical or incremental? A new measure of novelty value in innovations. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meetings, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. M., & Lawrence, P. R. (1977). Matrix. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. (1979). What is the right organizational structure? Decision tree analysis provides the answer. Organizational Dynamics, 7(winter), 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feitzinger, E., & Lee, H. L. (1997). Mass customization at Hewlett-Packard: The power of postponement. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 116–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. (2012). Microfoundations of learning routines and capabilities: Individuals, process and structure. Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01052.x.

  • Fisher, M. L., & Ittner, C. D. (1999). The impact of product variety on automobile assembly operations. Management Science, 45, 771–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. (2010). First get your feet wet: When and why prior experience fosters team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R., & Hughson, T. (1988). Groups and productivity: Analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P. Campbell, R. S. Campbell, et al. (Eds.), Productivity in organizations (pp. 295–327). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986). Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review, 93, 216–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groysberg, B., & Lee, L. (2009). Hiring stars and their colleagues: Exploration and exploitation in professional service firms. Organization Science, 20, 740–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, M., & Hansen, M. T. (2005). When using knowledge can hurt performance: The value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haunschild, P., & Sullivan, B. (2002). Learning from complexity: Effects of airline accident/incident heterogeneity on subsequent accident/incident rates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 609–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, R. H., & Clark, K. B. (1986). Why some factories are more productive than others. Harvard Business Review, 64(5), 66–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huckman, R. S., & Pisano, G. P. (2006). The firm specificity of individual performance: Evidence from cardiac surgery. Management Science, 52(4), 473–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 675–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the diversity of dynamics in decision making teams. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, et al. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 56–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S., & Sleeper, S. (2005). Entry by spinoffs. Management Science, 51(8), 1291–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kush, J., Williamson, C. D., & Argote, L. (2012). Challenges and opportunities for group learning and group learning researchers. In E. A. Mannix & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Looking backward and moving forward (Vol. 15). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lant, T. K., & Mezias, S. J. (1990). Managing discontinuous change: A simulation study of organizational learning and entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11(summer special issue), 147–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, D. P. (1994, November 13). Compaq storms the PC heights from its factory floor. The New York Times, p. F5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, D. Z., Kurtzberg, T., Phillips, K. W., & Lount, R. B., Jr. (2010). The role of affect in knowledge transfer. Group Dynamics, 14(2), 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, S. S., & Prietula, M. J. (2012). How knowledge transfer affects performance: A multilevel model of benefits and liabilities. Organization Science. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0697.

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 1(winter special issue), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. B. (1987). The learning curve, diffusion, and competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 441–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1998). First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1111–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (1992). Demand uncertainty and investment in industry-specific capital. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1, 235–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1985). How rapidly does industrial technology leak out? The Journal of Industrial Economics, 34, 217–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (2010). The ambiguities of experiences. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., Sproull, L. S., & Tamuz, M. (1991). Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organization Science, 2(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E., & Argote, L. (2001). Group processes in organizational contexts. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology (Group processes, Vol. 3, pp. 603–627). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezias, S. J., & Lant, T. K. (1994). Mimetic learning and the evolution of organizational populations. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 179–198). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. D., Pentland, B. T., & Choi, S. (2012). Dynamics of performing and remembering organizational routines. Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01062.x.

  • Miner, A. S., & Haunschild, P. R. (1995). Population level learning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 115–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory in new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(February), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, D., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1998). Training people to work in groups. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posvac, F. B. Byant, Y. Sharez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & R. Myers (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups (pp. 37–60). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, D., & Neale, M. (1998, June). The dubious benefit of group heterogeneity in highly uncertain tasks: Too much of a good thing? Paper presented at Carnegie-Wisconsin Conference on Knowledge Transfer and Levels of Learning, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. (2002). A genealogical approach to organizational life chances: The parent-progeny transfer among Silicon Valley law firms, 1946–1996. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 474–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pine, B. J., II, Victor, B., & Boynton, A. C. (1993). Making mass customization work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 108–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. P. (1994). Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: An empirical analysis of process development. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. P., Bohmer, R. M. J., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Organizational differences in rates of learning: Evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Management Science, 47(6), 752–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, N. R., Tesluk, P. E., Locke, E. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance. Organization Science, 18(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, R. D., & Argote, L. (2006). Organizational learning and forgetting: The effects of turnover and structure. European Management Review, 3, 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren, Y., Carley, K. M., & Argote, L. (2006). The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science, 52, 671–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin, J. W. (2000). Imitation of complex systems. Management Science, 46(6), 824–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin, J. (2001). Reproducing knowledge: Replication without imitation at moderate complexity. Organization Science, 12, 274–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20, 384–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A., Vidal, P., Ployhart, R. E., & Marangoni, A. (2003). Learning by doing something else: Variation, relatedness, and the learning curve. Management Science, 49(1), 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senior, C., Lee, N., & Butler, M. (2011). Perspective: Organizational cognitive neuroscience. Organization Science, 22(3), 804–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, J. B., & Fassiotto, M. A. (2011). Organizations as fonts of entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22(5), 1322–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: The key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review, 30(3), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the Fantastic Four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ton, Z., & Huckman, R. S. (2008). Managing the impact of employee turnover on performance: The role of process conformance. Organization Science, 19, 56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E., & Tyre, M. J. (1995). How learning by doing is done: Problem identification in novel process equipment. Research Policy, 24, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, M. M., & Anderson, J. R. (2011). Modulation of the feedback-related negativity by instruction and experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science United States of America, 108(47), 19048–19053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt, C., & Sarkar, M. (2009). Learning from supply-side agents: The impact of technology solution providers’ experiential diversity on clients’ innovation adoption. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wezel, F. C., Cattani, G., & Pennings, J. M. (2006). Competitive implications of interfirm mobility. Organization Science, 17(6), 691–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersma, E. (2007). Conditions that shape the learning curve: Factors that increase the ability and opportunity to learn. Management Science, 53(12), 1903–1915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. (1994, October 24). Some plants tear out long assembly lines, switch to craft work. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A6.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Schenley Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Linda Argote

Authors
  1. Linda Argote
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Argote, L. (2013). Managerial and Strategic Implications and Future Directions. In: Organizational Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5251-5_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation