The Tipping Points of Organizations: Why They Are Not Fed Correctly

  • Ivan HilliardEmail author


This chapter looks at the way that knowledge is created, managed, and transferred, and its importance for generating responsible behavior. It looks at different types of learning and explains why some of them support a coherent approach and others don’t. It outlines the characteristics of learning organizations and highlights the limitations of current attitudes that block learning including short-term thinking, heuristic response processes, and cultural resistance to criticism. It finishes by considering complexity levels in the management of broad and diverse responsibilities, and the need for a more coherent approach to learning to manage such complexity.


Knowledge society Organizational learning Tacit knowledge Explicit knowledge Single-loop learning Double-loop learning Triple-loop learning 


  1. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 107–136. Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational learning: The psychosocial filter. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 797–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antal, A. B., Dierkes, M., MacMillan, K., & Marz, L. (2002). Corporate social reporting revisited. Journal of General Management, 28(2), 22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antal, A. B., & Sobczak, A. (2004). Beyond CSR: Organisational learning for global responsibility. Journal of General Management, 30(2), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.Google Scholar
  7. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action approach. Reading, MA: Addision Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organisational learning II. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley. Google Scholar
  9. Ashby, W. R. (1991). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. In Facets of systems science (pp. 405–417). New York, NY: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ashmos, D. P., Duchon, D., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (2000). Organizational responses to complexity: The effect on organizational performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(6), 577–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review ARCHIVE, 32(3), 946–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collison, C., & Parcell, G. (2005). Ten steps to build a “knowledge asset”. Knowledge Management Review, 3, 24–27.Google Scholar
  13. Davenport, T. H., & Klahr, P. (1998). Managing customer support knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denrell, J. (2003). Vicarious learning, undersampling of failure, and the myths of management. Organization Science, 14(3), 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dooley, K. J. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 1(1), 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drucker, P. (2017). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines to our changing society. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
  17. Echeverri-Carroll, E. L. (1999). Knowledge flows in innovation networks: A comparative analysis of Japanese and US high-technology firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4), 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gephart, M. A., Marsick, V. J., Van Buren, M. E., Spiro, M. S., & Senge, P. (1996). Learning organizations come alive. Training & Development, 50(12), 34–46.Google Scholar
  19. Glisby, M., & Holden, N. (2003). Contextual constraints in knowledge management theory: The cultural embeddedness of Nonaka’s knowledge-creating company. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(1), 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hackbarth, G. (1998). The impact of organizational memory on IT systems. AMCIS 1998 Proceedings, 197.Google Scholar
  23. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources, knowledge and influence: The organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 321–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Strategic planning as if ethics mattered. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Inge Jenssen, J., & Greve, A. (2002). Does the degree of redundancy in social networks influence the success of business start-ups? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 8(5), 254–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Isaacs, W., & Senge, P. (1992). Overcoming limits to learning in computer-based learning environments. European Journal of Operational Research, 59(1), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lozano, R. (2014). Creativity and organizational learning as means to foster sustainability. Sustainable Development, 22(3), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mosca, F., & Civera, C. (2017). The evolution of CSR: An integrated approach. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, 1, 16–35.Google Scholar
  31. Müller, M., & Siebenhüner, B. (2007). Policy instruments for sustainability-oriented organizational learning. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(3), 232–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 57–64.Google Scholar
  33. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Novozymes Annual Report, 2017. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2018, from
  36. O’dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review, 40(3), 154–174.Google Scholar
  37. Pedersen, E. R. (2006). Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: How companies translate stakeholder dialogue into practice. Business and Society Review, 111(2), 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rerup, C. (2006). Success, failure and the gray zone: How organizations learn or don’t from ambiguous experience. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2006, pp. BB1–BB6). New York: Academy of Management.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Savino, D. M. (2009). The role of technology as an enabler in job redesign. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 4(3), 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seidl, D., & Becker, K. H. (2010). Organizations as distinction generating and processing systems: Niklas Luhmann’s contribution to organization studies. Directions in Organization Studies (pp. 205–228). SAGE Library in Business and Management. Google Scholar
  41. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Random House. Google Scholar
  42. Senge, P. M., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York, NY: Crown Business. Google Scholar
  43. Spender, J.-C., & Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 713–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Swieringa, J., Wierdsma, A., & Swieringa, J. (1992). Becoming a learning organization: Beyond the learning curve. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  46. Terzieva, M. (2014). Project knowledge management: How organizations learn from experience. Procedia Technology, 16, 1086–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Toffier, A. (1990). Power shift (p. 5). New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  48. Tosey, P., Visser, M., & Saunders, M. N. K. (2012). The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ learning: A critical review. Management Learning, 43(3), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsang, E. W. K., & Zahra, S. A. (2008). Organizational unlearning. Human Relations, 61(10), 1435–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. von Weltzien Hoivik, H. (2011). Embedding CSR as a learning and knowledge creating process: The case for SMEs in Norway. Journal of Management Development, 30(10), 1067–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. World Wildlife Fund. (n.d.). How many species are we losing? | WWF. Retrieved February 13, 2019, from
  53. Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References for Case Study

  1. Beske, P., & Seuring, S. (2014). Putting sustainability into supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(3), 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Casadesus-Masanell, R., Crooke, M., Reinhardt, F., & Vasishth, V. (2009). Households’ willingness to pay for “green” goods: Evidence from Patagonia’s introduction of organic cotton sportswear. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandler, M. (2011). Patagonia’s secret is in its supply chain | Stanford Graduate School of Business. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from
  4. Ecocert. (n.d.). Global Organic Textile Standard. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from
  5. Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2009). Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Petrie, K. (2016). Patagonia Inc.’s sustainable supply chain initiatives and their contribution to company brand (Doctoral Dissertation). Baylor University, Waco. Google Scholar
  7. Pongtratic, M. (2007). Greening the supply chain: A case analysis of Patagonia. IR/PS CSR, Case, 7–22. San Diego: University of California. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesUniversidad Europea de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations