Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organization Learning: A Theoretical Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Organizational Learning

Abstract

This chapter presents a theoretical framework for analyzing organizational learning that was developed in Argote and Miron-Spektor (2011). According to the framework, organizational experience is theorized to interact with the organizational context to create knowledge. The chapter discusses components of the framework, including experience, the organizational context, and knowledge. The organizational learning processes that translate experience into knowledge are also characterized. The chapter uses the framework to provide an overview of research on factors affecting organizational learning. Factors affecting knowledge retention and knowledge transfer are reviewed in subsequent chapters.

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

  • Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2004). Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 887–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcacer, J., & Gittleman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. The Review of Economic Statistics, 88(4), 774–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning and knowledge management. In S. Kozlowski (Ed.), Oxford handbook of organizational psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., Beckman, S., & Epple, D. (1990). The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science, 36, 140–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., Denomme, C., & Fuchs, E. (2011). Organizational learning across boundaries: The effect of geographic distribution on organizational learning and knowledge transfer. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (pp. 656–684). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Epple, D. (1990). Learning curves in manufacturing. Science, 247, 920–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Greve, H. R. (2007). A behavioral theory of the firm—40 years and counting: Introduction and impact. Organization Science, 18(3), 337–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the experiences of others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49, 571–582.

    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., & Todorova, G. (2007). Organizational learning: Review and future directions. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 193–234). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, P. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, M., Mukhopadhyay, T., & Argote, L. (2004, December). Information technology and organizational learning: An empirical analysis (pp. 11–21). Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Charlottesville, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, W. P., Greve, H. R., & Park, D. Y. (1994). An evolutionary model of organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15(winter special issue), 11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, F. J. (1998). Coda—creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 605–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C., & Dahlin, K. B. (2007). Aspiration performance and railroads’ patterns of learning from train wrecks and crashes. Organization Science, 18(3), 368–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benkard, C. L. (2000). Learning and forgetting: The dynamics of aircraft production. American Economic Review, 90(4), 1034–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boh, W. F., Slaughter, S. A., & Espinosa, J. A. (2007). Learning from experience in software development: A multi-level analysis. Management Science, 53(8), 1315–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R. J., Tenkasi, R. V., & Te’eni, D. (1994). Designing information technology to support distributed cognition. Organization Science, 5(3), 456–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2004). Transactive memory systems in organizations: Matching tasks, expertise and people. Organization Science, 15, 633–644.

    Article  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(1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21, 609–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Reagans, R. E. (2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22, 1182–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 552–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 349–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K., & Lin, Z. (1997). Theoretical study of organizational performance under information distortion. Management Science, 43, 976–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christianson, M. K., Farkas, M. T., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (2009). Learning through rare events: Significant interruptions at the Baltimore & Ohio railroad museum. Organization Science, 20, 846–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang, Y. T., & Baum, J. A. C. (2003). It’s all in the name: Failure-induced learning by multiunit chains. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 33–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14, 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 382–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darr, E., Argote, L., & Epple, D. (1995). The acquisition, transfer and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science, 41, 1750–1762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Levinthal, D. A. (2004). From t-mazes to labyrinths: Learning from model-based feedback. Management Science, 50(10), 1366–1378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J., & March, J. G. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5), 523–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, V. M. (2008). Constrained growth: How experience, legitimacy, and age influence risk taking in organizations. Organization Science, 19, 594–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, E., & Sterman, J. D. (1995). Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 198–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. M., & Thomas, A. (1984). Treating progress functions as a managerial opportunity. Academy of Management Review, 9, 235–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learning: Debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 783–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13(2), 128–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C., Winslow, A. B., Bohmer, R. M. J., & Pisano, G. P. (2003). Learning how and learning what: Effects of tacit and codified knowledge on performance improvement following technology adoption. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 84–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 857–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethiraj, S., & Levinthal, D. (2004). Bounded rationality and the search for organizational architecture: An evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolvability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M. A. (2010). Balancing exploration and exploitation through ­structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science, 21, 625–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1996). Improving training effectiveness in work organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1992). Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speakers’ assumptions about what others know. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, C. S. (1990). Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high-technology firms. California Management Review, 32, 56–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structured mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, F. P. (2000). Feedback delays: How can decision makers learn not to buy a new car every time the garage is empty? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. (2010). First get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 102–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, M. A., Lant, T. K., & Milliken, F. J. (1994). Mapping learning processes in organizations: A multi-level framework for linking learning and organizing. Advances in Managerial Cognition and Organizational Information Processing, 5, 43–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E., & Hendrickx, M. (2004). Feedback specificity, exploration and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 248–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. (2003). Organizational learning from performance feedback. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What matters. International Journal of Training and Development, 15, 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1245–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, M. R., & 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 

  • Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.

    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 

  • He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2000). Product sequencing: Co-evolution of knowledge, ­capabilities and products. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 961–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herriott, S. R., Levinthal, D., & March, J. G. (1985). Learning from experience in organizations. American Economic Review, 75(2), 298–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson, G., & Sparrow, P. R. (2002). The competent organization: A psychological analysis of the strategic management process. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 659–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., & Upton, D. M. (2009). Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 55(1), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, A., & Jenkins, M. (Eds.). (2002). Mapping strategic knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, P., & Baum, J. A. C. (1997). Opportunity and constraint: Organizations’ learning from the operating and competitive experiences of industries. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 75–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. P. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, A. A. (2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organization Science, 21(3), 643–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, G. C., & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational learning: An investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science, 18(5), 796–812.

    Article  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 

  • Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introductions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, T. A., & Just, M. A. (2009). Altering cortical connectivity: Remediation-induced changes in the white matter of poor readers. Neuron, 64(5), 624–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. H. (2008). An empirical assessment of knowledge management systems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Kim, J., & Miner, A. S. (2009). Organizational learning from extreme performance experience: The impact of success and recovery experience. Organization Science, 20(6), 958–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knott, A. M. (2001). The dynamic value of hierarchy. Management Science, 47(3), 430–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampel, J., Shamsie, J., & Shapira, Z. (2009). Experiencing the improbable: Rare events and organizational learning. Organization Science, 20, 835–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lant, T. K. (1992). Aspiration level adaptation: An empirical exploration. Management Science, 38, 623–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapré, M. A., Mukherjee, A. S., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2000). Behind the learning curve: Linking learning activities to waste reduction. Management Science, 46(5), 597–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1981). A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2(4), 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17, 502–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16(6), 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. B. (1984). The learning curve and pricing in the chemical processing industries. The Rand Journal of Economics, 15, 213–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlepage, G., Robison, W., & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macher, J. T., & Mowery, D. C. (2003). Managing learning by doing: An empirical study in ­semiconductor manufacturing. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(5), 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, P. M. (2009). These lives will not be lost in vain: Organizational learning from disaster in U.S. coal mining. Organization Science, 20, 861–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, P., & Desai, V. (2010). Failing to learn? The effects of failure and success on organizational learning in the global orbital launch vehicle industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 451–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1985). How rapidly does new industrial technology leak out? Journal of Industrial Economics, 34(2), 217–223.

    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 experience. 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, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., & Cardinal, L. B. (2007). The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 308–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 304–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miner, A. S., & Haunschild, P. R. (1995). Population level learning. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 115–166). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. W., & Moore, P. C. (2000). The lessons we don’t learn: Counterfactual thinking and organizational accountability after close call. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 737–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, J., Thompson, L., & Van Boven, L. (2003). Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge creation and transfer. Management Science, 49(4), 529–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective-tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20, 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22, 1286–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ophir, R., Ingram, P., & Argote, L. (1998, October). The impact of demographic composition on organizational learning: An empirical investigation. Paper presented at the INFORMS National Fall Conference, Seattle, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B. (1992). Organizing moves in software support hot lines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 527–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks and knowledge networks: A Review and research agenda. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206311432640.

  • 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 

  • Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahmandad, H. (2008). Effects of delays on complexity of organizational learning. Management Science, 54(7), 1297–1312.

    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, 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing what to do and knowing who knows what. Management Science, 51, 869–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12, 502–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren, Y., & Argote, L. (2011). Transactive memory systems: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 189–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repenning, N., & Sterman, J. (2002). Capability traps and self-confirming attribution errors in the dynamics of process improvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 265–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rerup, C. (2009). Attentional triangulation: Learning from unexpected rare crises. Organization Science, 20, 876–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rick, S., & Weber, R. A. (2010). Meaningful learning and transfer of learning in games played repeatedly without feedback. Games and Economic Behavior, 68, 716–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (1995). Outcomes controllability and counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 620–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Almedia, P. (2003). Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6), 751–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution knowledge, group network structure, and group performance. Management Science, 46, 612–625.

    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 

  • Schwab, A. (2007). Incremental organizational learning from multilevel information sources: Evidence for cross-level interactions. Organization Science, 18, 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18, 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14, 650–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16, 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, G., Klepper, S., & Cohen, W. (2000). What’s experience got to do with it? Sources of cost reduction in a large specialty chemicals producer. Management Science, 46, 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skills. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research on Organizational Behavior, 14, 231–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, O. (2003). Interdependence and adaptability: Organizational learning and the long-term effect of integration. Management Science, 49(4), 446–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W. H. (2009). Perspective—cognitive reactions to rare events: Perceptions, uncertainty and learning. Organization Sciences, 20, 925–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.

    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 

  • Tortoriello, M., & Krackhardt, D. (2010). Activating cross-boundary knowledge: Simmelian ties and the generation of innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20, 941–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, A. L. (2007). An empirical study of system improvement by frontline employees in hospital units. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 9(4), 492–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaast, E., & Levina, N. (2006). Multiple faces of codification: Organizational redesign in an IT organization. Organization Science, 17(2), 190–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vegt, G. S., de Jong, S. B., Bunderson, J. S., & Molleman, E. (2010). Power asymmetry and learning in teams: The moderating role of performance feedback. Organization Science, 21, 347–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organization Science, 16(3), 203–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21, 931–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. A., & Camerer, C. F. (2003). Cultural conflict and merger failure: An experimental approach. Management Science, 49(4), 400–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of group mind. In B. Millen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–205). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Organization Science, 17(4), 514–524.

    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, C. (2007). Transfer in context: Replication and adaptation in knowledge transfer relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 867–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. (2004). Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organization Science, 15, 645–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yelle, L. E. (1979). The learning curve: Historical review and comprehensive survey. Decision Sciences, 10, 302–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zammuto, R. F., Griffith, T. L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D. J., & Faraj, S. (2007). Information technology and the fabric of organization. Organization Science, 18(5), 749–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6, 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2003). Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 49(4), 514–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M. (2009). Superstitious learning with rare strategic decisions: Theory and evidence from corporate acquisitions. Organization Science, 20, 894–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Winter, S. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13, 339–351.

    Article  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). Organization Learning: A Theoretical Framework. In: Organizational Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5251-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation