organizational learning essay conclusion

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Business Education
• Business Law
• Business Policy and Strategy
• Entrepreneurship
• Human Resource Management
• Information Systems
• International Business
• Negotiations and Bargaining
• Operations Management
• Organization Theory
• Organizational Behavior
• Problem Solving and Creativity
• Research Methods
• Social Issues
• Technology and Innovation Management
• Share Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Organizational learning and adaptation.

• Henrich R. Greve Henrich R. Greve The John H. Loundon Chaired Professor of International Management, INSEAD
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.138
• Published online: 29 March 2017

Organizational learning theory is motivated by the observation that organizations learn by encoding inferences from experience into their behavior. It seeks to answer the questions of what kinds of experiences influence behaviors, how and under what circumstances behaviors change, and how new behaviors are stabilized and have consequences for organizations’ adaptation to their environment. Organizational learning research has as key mechanisms innovations and other triggering events that lead to major behavioral change, knowledge accumulation and experimentation that encourage incremental change, and interpretations that guide each of these processes. Organizational learning research has gained a central position in organizational theory because it has implications for organizational behaviors that also affect other theoretical perspectives such as institutional theory, organizational ecology, and resource dependence.

Key research topics in organizational learning and adaptation are (a) organizational routines and their stability and change, (b) performance feedback and its consequences for organizational search and change, (c) managerial goal formation and coalition building, (d) managerial attention to goals and organizational activities, and (e) adaptive consequences of learning procedures. Each of these topics has seen significant research, but they are far from completing their empirical agenda. Recently, organizational learning research has been very active, especially on the topics of routines, performance feedback, and attention, resulting in a strong increase in learning and adaptation research in management journals.

• Organizational routines
• organizational goals
• performance feedback
• aspiration levels
• institutions
• managerial attention
• organizational adaptation
• learning curves

Introduction

Organizational learning theory has its origins in the behavioral theory of the firm (Cyert & March, 1963 ) and related research in the Carnegie School (see review by Gavetti, Greve, Levinthal, & Ocasio, 2012 ). Its rise in management theory can be traced to the famous review by Levitt and March ( 1988 ), who laid out a research agenda composed by learning from direct experience, interpretation of experience, organizational memory, learning from the experience of others, ecologies of learning, and learning as a form of intelligence. Both the papers reviewed by Levitt and March ( 1988 ) and subsequent research have covered all these topics, but as organizational learning research crystallized further, some have become significantly more active than others. In this article, recent studies on the most active research traditions are discussed, followed by some remarks on the less active research traditions. Because there have been many reviews on organizational learning (Argote & Greve, 2007 ; Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011 ; Cohen & Sproull, 1995 ; Gavetti et al., 2012 ; Huber, 1991 ; Miner & Mezias, 1996 ), the reader can refer back to them for more detail on earlier work.

This review examines the research on organizational learning and adaptation in steps, while also paying close attention to the connections between the steps. First, organizational routines are intuitively thought of as what is learned and held stable in order for the organization to perform predictably and economically. Organizational routines have this function and thus should lead a discussion of organizational learning, but they are more flexible than this depiction suggests, and they have consequences for organizational learning both through generating clashes between routinized behaviors and immediate needs for response and through their potential for directing change (Feldman & Pentland, 2003 ).

Second, performance feedback is a major trigger for change through its signaling of performance below aspiration levels (Greve, 1998 ), and thus it is commonly thought of as examining when to learn . However, performance feedback can be obtained on multiple goals and can direct learning to the behaviors most closely associated with a specific goal, hence directing the learning. Performance feedback also has the potential to adjust aspiration levels and the choice and attention to goals, as managers seek to pursue goals and aspiration levels that have a reasonable chance of success.

Third, goal formation is a decision on for what purpose to learn , as it determines what outcomes the organization sees as valuable and directs efforts toward. Goal formation is seen as including both the explicit and constitutional goals that are specified when an organization is founded, and the more implicit and informal goals that a managerial team may set as a result of politics and negotiations. The negotiation in turn directs the attention of the top management team toward specific goals.

Fourth, managerial attention determines situated learning (Ocasio, 1997 ), or where to focus learning . Managerial attention is directed by goals and performance feedback, but it is also affected by events in the environment. It directs change efforts that in turn are oriented toward improving organizational adaptation to the environment.

Fifth, organizational adaptation is what learning accomplishes . Organizational adaptation is a goal-oriented process made dynamic by the potential for improvement, even in a stable environment, because the organization is not fully adapted to begin with (Levinthal & March, 1981 ). It is made even more dynamic by the ecologies of learning, which forces each organization to learn in the new environment created by the learning of organizations with which it interacts, such as competitors and suppliers. Finally, environmental discontinuities, such as technological changes or market changes, create discontinuities in organizational adaptation as the organization seeks to reorient its goals, choice of activities, aspiration levels, and choice and execution of routines.

Organizational Routines: Stability and Change

A central part of organizational learning theory is the view of organizational action as being guided by routines, defined as repeated interdependent behaviors by multiple people that emerge from and are adapted to recurring situations. Organizational routines give regularity and efficiency to organizational behaviors, as organizational members can quickly go through preset behaviors instead of engaging in joint improvisation. Organizational routines research grew from the work of Cyert and March ( 1963 ) and Nelson and Winter ( 1982 ), and thus has foundations in both management theory and economics. In management, important progress was made through research examining the flexibility of routines and the distinction between routines as described and prescribed ( ostentive ) and as actually executed ( performative ) (Feldman & Pentland, 2003 ). As research on routines has developed, an important tension has been discovered between routines as management-imposed forms of regularity and as flexible foundations of organizational problem-solving (e.g., Reynaud, 2005 ), which in turn informs work examining the stability or decay of routines and the resulting organizational capability differences (e.g., Knott, 2001 ).

Organizational routines have been reviewed thoroughly in a handbook (Becker, 2008 ). Also, a more recent review of routine research was written by Parmigiani and Howard-Grenville ( 2011 ), who noted that substantial theoretical progress has been made, but empirical work is still scarce. Additional empirical work has since been reported in a special issue on routine dynamics and the introduction and review of this issue (Feldman, Pentland, D’Adderio, & Lazaric, 2016 ). Given these recent and very informative reviews, the comments here will center on the role of routines as a part of organizational learning and adaptation research in general.

Empirical research on routines has by now thoroughly documented that (a) they are an important part of organizational capabilities, (b) they are altered to circumstances and change over time, and (c) their execution and alteration result from an interplay between individual agency and organizational context (Feldman et al., 2016 ; Parmigiani & Howard-Grenville, 2011 ). This research has been fruitful, but also sufficiently thoroughly done that it does not represent the greatest gap in our understanding of routines. Instead, the gaps are found in the interfaces between routines and other parts of organizational behavior. These gaps are significant because organizational routines research has seen significant fragmentation, both internally and in relation to other research (Parmigiani & Howard-Grenville, 2011 ).

An important interface is between the alteration (or stability) of routines and performance feedback. Because performance feedback triggers organizational search and change, it affects routines through multiple processes. To the extent that organizational search is localized and bottom up, performance below aspiration levels allows greater flexibility and experimentation in routines, and hence feeds the variation in performative routines. To the extent that a search is centralized, it may instead lead to changes in ostensive routines that in turn trigger top-down adjustment processes as the organizational units develop new performative routines. Such adjustment processes are beginning to be documented in recent research (Nigam, Huising, & Pentland, 2016 ), but it is far from enough.

Another interface is between organizational routines and rules. Organizational rules evolve in systematic ways through learning processes (March, Schulz, & Zhou, 2000 ), and they affect routines because they constitute a framework for executing routines but are not sufficiently complete to specify the routine (Reynaud, 2005 ). Reciprocally, routines affect rules because routine execution gives ground both to behaviors that are sought (and hence are made into rules for easy referral and repetition) and behaviors that are avoided (and hence are proscribed through rules). There is currently little work on the interdependence of rules and routines.

Performance Feedback: Organizational Search and Change

A central part of learning theory is the view of organizations as not being in constant search for improvement, but rather as starting searches and considering changes as a result of triggering events. The main theory on triggering events is problemistic search . In this theory, organizations set aspiration levels for goal variables based on social comparison and their own historical performance, compare the actual performance with aspiration levels, and initiate problemistic search when performance is below aspiration levels (Cyert & March, 1963 ). This theory has led to a strong research tradition on performance feedback that saw its first book-length review by Greve ( 2003b ), and has since grown to more than 100 empirical contributions.

Initial work on performance feedback showed that performance below aspiration levels on profitability and closely linked goal variables led to strategic changes such as mergers and acquisitions (Haleblian, Kim, & Rajagopalan, 2006 ; Iyer & Miller, 2008 ), growth (Audia & Greve, 2006 ; Desai, 2008 ; Greve, 2008 ), diversification (McDonald & Westphal, 2003 ), market position change (Greve, 1998 ; Park, 2007 ), product introduction (Gaba & Joseph, 2013 ), alliance initiation (Baum, Rowley, Shipilov, & Chuang, 2005 ; Shipilov, Li, & Greve, 2011 ; Tyler & Caner, 2016 ), and resource acquisition (Greve, 2011b ). The findings strongly validate the role of performance below the aspiration level as a triggering event for organizational change, and also support the Cyert-March model of aspiration levels as adapting to the performance observed in both the focal organization and other comparable organizations.

Research has proceeded to broaden the scope of investigation by also examining (a) less strategic behaviors, (b) other goal variables than profitability, and (c) mechanisms that explain the link between low performance and organizational change. The mechanisms of change have seen the least research so far, but promising findings include a loss of chief executive officer (CEO) autonomy because boards monitor more when the performance is low (Tuggle, Sirmon, Reutzel, & Bierman, 2010 ), and clear career concerns in how individuals react to performance below the aspiration level (Kacperczyk, Beckman, & Moliterno, 2015 ). An early and especially promising study is the comprehensive examination of the sequence of organizational responses to low performance done in the “sharp bender” study in the United Kingdom (Grinyer & McKiernan, 1990 ), which showed that firms with performance significantly below aspiration levels engaged in a wide range of changes from operational improvements, through adjustment of the business scope, to fundamental rethinking of the strategy. These changes were in turn mediated by internal processes such as leadership change, information collection, and change in goals and incentives.

Among the less strategic behaviors, there has been an older line of research on adapting research and development (R&D) expenditures to performance (Antonelli, 1989 ) that has since been extended to show that performance below aspiration levels increases both R&D and innovation launches (Greve, 2003a ). The role of low performance in driving innovations has also been shown by later studies (e.g., Gaba & Bhattacharya, 2012 ; Giachetti & Lampel, 2010 ; Salge, 2011 ). Similarly, operational changes such as managerial procedures occur more often when performance is below aspiration levels (Massini, Lewin, & Greve, 2005 ).

In addition to profitability, a number of other goals have been shown to affect organizational change. Accidents relative to aspiration levels influence organizational safety procedures (Baum & Dahlin, 2007 ; Madsen & Desai, 2010 ), quality problems lead to improved product quality (Rhee, 2009 ), growth below aspiration levels increases growth (Greve, 2008 ), status relative to aspiration levels leads to network changes that increase status (Baum et al., 2005 ), and social ventures increase their attention to social goals when they perform below aspiration levels (Stevens, Moray, Bruneel, & Clarysse, 2015 ). These findings are particularly interesting because they are in support of the theory of myopic search (Cyert & March, 1963 ) for solutions close to the problem indicated by low performance on a given goal variable, unlike studies of the effects of profitability, which show that organizations are willing to reach wide for solutions to profitability goals. Given the key role of problemistic search in learning theory and the plethora of goals in organizations, we should expect to see much more research on specific goals and solutions that are proximate to these goals.

There has also been significant recent work on the determinants of aspiration levels, which represents a renewal of such research since the first work examining how aspiration levels were set (Lant, 1992 ). Key issues in current research include whether the simplification of averaging historical and social aspiration levels is correct (Bromiley & Harris, 2014 ), whether there are circumstances that shift focus to social or historical aspiration levels (Kacperczyk et al., 2015 ; Rowley, Shipilov, & Greve, 2016 ), and whether reference groups for social aspiration levels should be made heterogeneous (Moliterno, Beck, Beckman, & Meyer, 2014 ). These studies represent methodological improvements, but also give insights into managerial cognitions and social proximity.

Like routine theory, performance feedback theory also has unresolved work in relation to other theoretical topics. A key part of performance feedback theory is the idea that the multiplicity of goals means that which performance measure gains attention at any specific time is far from a trivial question. Early and strong evidence shows that self-enhancement occurs, as managers place less emphasis on goal variables with performance below aspiration levels (Audia & Brion, 2007 ; Audia, Brion, & Greve, 2015 ). This matters because organizations are often exposed to goals that external actors seek to impose, and they tend to accept these when their performance is high but reject them when their performance is low (Rowley et al., 2016 ). The result is a shifting attention to goals that is highly relevant to the research on goal formation and goal attention and is a fundamental issue that remains unresolved despite having a long history in research on organizations (Selznick, 1948 ).

Managerial Goal Formation

Goal formation during the decision process was an important part of the early behavioral theory of the firm, as seen through its emphasis on the dominant coalition in decision-making, and so was the view of organizations following a set of basic business goals (profitability, market share, etc.… ) (Cyert & March, 1963 ). Interestingly, while the most influential later statement of the theory has been interpreted to omit managerial goal formation from the discussion, it actually examined goal formation and especially shifting goals under the title “ambiguity of success” (Levitt & March, 1988 , p. 325). The main barrier to progress is that there has been little empirical evidence on managerial goal formation taking a learning perspective. As a result, there has been an increased emphasis on examining learning processes while taking organizational goals for granted (Argote & Greve, 2007 ; Levinthal & March, 1993 ).

Some research has provided clues to what an examination of the learning processes involved in managerial goal formation would yield. Early learning ideas on goal formation saw managerial power as an important determinant of goal formation by firms (Cyert & March, 1963 ), and this idea was expanded to include external actors as sources of power (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978 ), along with internal resolution of uncertainty (Hickson, Hinings, Lee, Schneck, & Pennings, 1971 ). An important integration of these concerns was done by Fligstein ( 1987 ), who examined how different organizational subunits dominated the recruitment of chief executive officers (CEOs) in different time periods. His explanation of the rise of subunit dominance started with legal structures directing strategic choices, which in turn favored some searches for solutions over others, leading to subunits learning which strategies worked best and organizations making overall changes to the power distribution in response to the discovery that some subunits were better placed to solve organizational problems and set organizational goals. This process involves responses to institutional conditions (notably the state), along with learning from experiments with strategy and structure, and integrates multiple theories to examine goal formation.

Other research on goal setting has examined more specific processes. A key issue has been the degree to which external influence on organizations, as modeled in institutional theory (Scott, 2001 ), can alter organizational goals or just lead to compliance without real goal adoption. An important finding in this research is the interaction between the external influences from institutions and employees and managers who act as internal promoters of institutions. Together, these act to orient the organization more strongly toward new institutions (Briscoe, Chin, & Hambrick, 2014 ; Lounsbury, 2001 ). This finding is consistent with the theory of intraorganizational formation of dominant coalitions, as the external pressure is exactly what an executive would use to promote his or her own goals (Greve & Zhang, 2016 ). A more subtle effect, and a possible one with a shorter time horizon, is that organizations that do well in external evaluations in the form of publicized rankings subsequently invest heavily in compliance, suggesting that ranking placement has actually become a goal (Espeland & Sauder, 2007 ; Rowley et al., 2016 ). This finding could be responsible for observed overinvestment (relative to financial returns) in behaviors that lead to high rankings (e.g., Bermiss, Zajac, & King, 2014 ; Rossman & Schilke, 2014 ).

The main suggestion for extending research on learning of managerial goals is simple: do more of it. Research on goal formation is a part of management theory with little descriptive behavioral theory in general, as opposed to an abundance of prescriptive and applied theory (e.g., Kaplan & Norton, 1996 ), and there also is insufficient work on the contributing processes of organizational power dynamics (Wry, Cobb, & Aldrich, 2013 ) and institutions leading to organizational goals (Greve & Teh, 2016 ). The current state of the field is that we do not have sufficient empirical evidence to know the speed of goal formation and the duration of the goals driven by these processes, nor their strength relative to simple goal inertia or competing sources of organizational goals.

The interfaces of learning theory of goal formation to other theories are also important to understand. As noted earlier, performance feedback already has a documented effect on goal formation (Rowley et al., 2016 ), and we should expect goal formation and organizational attention to be closely related as well. Looking at the phenomenon more broadly, as Fligstein ( 1987 ) did, we also should examine links to other features of the top management dynamics. Clearly, there is potential for examining the effects of both top management teams and boards of directors, combined with learning (e.g., Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2011 ; McDonald & Westphal, 2003 ; Zhu & Chen, 2015 ).

Managerial Attention: Multiple Sources

Whereas goal formation is a theory of organizational determination of enduring goals, attention theory looks at how organizations allocate attention to different issues (including goals) (Ocasio, 1997 ). Organizational attention matters because it determines the collection and interpretation of information, the search for alternatives, and the direction of change efforts. Organizational attention is influenced by performance feedback as a triggering device, and hence also by organizational goal selection. In addition, it is affected by organizational structure for both information distribution and decision-making, and it is affected by the agendas and decision-making procedures (Ocasio & Joseph, 2005 ). Research on organizational attention has recently been reviewed (Ocasio, 2011 ), so next are given a few main insights and pending research questions.

A central feature of this research is a focus on internal and external mechanisms that draw the attention of managers, and especially how they work in combination. The classical focus on managerial cognition (e.g., Porac & Rosa, 1996 ) is in this research combined with examination of how cognition leads to the discovery of environmental cues, which in turn direct competitive responses (Marcel, Barr, & Duhaime, 2010 ). Work on power in organizations (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978 ) is extended by examining how subunit power interacts with influence and attention-seeking behavior to shape corporate behaviors (Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008 ). Performance feedback theory is combined with examination of shifting board monitoring to examine how firms have reduced chief executive officer (CEO) discretion following performance below aspiration levels (Tuggle et al., 2010 ).

This work has been particularly strong in reminding learning theory that the environment is also a source of information that drives learning. This topic was earlier covered extensively in work on learning from the behaviors of others, often through imitation (Baum & Ingram, 1998 ; Greve, 1996 ; Haveman, 1993 ), but attention research examines a wider scope of learning processes. Major institutional changes can drive organizational attention and change processes (Thornton, 2004 ; Thornton & Ocasio, 1999 ), but they require some degree of matching with the decision-makers’ cognitive patterns (Jonsson, 2009 ). Consistent with the literature on social movements, influence efforts directed at organizations also draw attention and often lead to changes (e.g., Hoffman, 1999 ; Ingram, Yue, & Rao, 2010 ; King, 2008 ).

Attention theory has focused on how organizational changes are directed by contextual and time-dependent factors, such as performance feedback, and environmental change, such as institutional change or competitor behaviors. This has made it one of the branches of organizational learning theory that is most engaged in interaction with other theoretical perspectives. Interestingly, it has also led to some shortfalls in the research into foundational questions such as how organizational structure and procedures, including decision-making routines, stabilize organizational attention patterns. This is an area in which much more work can be done, and it is particularly promising because it would accumulate more findings on how organizations build stable responses to routine change and performance feedback. It would also offer insights that could be applied to research on the adaptive consequences of learning, discussed next.

Adaptive Consequences of Learning

Organizational learning has consequences on the adaptation of the organization to its environment, and important topics in studying these adaptive consequences include the degree (and the speed) of finding the best behaviors in a given environment, as well as the ability to discover environmental change and adapt to it. A number of classical simulation studies have examined these questions. Cohen, March, and Olsen ( 1972 ) examined how different organizational structures searched for problems and solutions, showing that decision-making took the forms of problem resolution, oversight, and flight. They showed that each of the organizational structures had distinct behavioral patterns, but randomness was also a significant factor in their behaviors.

Subsequent work took a more macro-approach, examining the organization as a unitary decision-maker, showing important tradeoffs in adaptation. Organizations can halt learning by change of either strategies or goals, giving adaptive outcomes at multiple levels of performance (Levinthal & March, 1981 ). When organizations also accumulate expertise through learning, a final source of adaptive outcomes below top levels of performance is the competence trap, in which the organization becomes so adept at an inferior alternative that it rejects the better one (Levinthal & March, 1981 ). A similar tradeoff is seen in the balance between exploration (innovative changes) and exploitation (incremental changes), where rapid socialization of individuals to the organizational code helps them perform, but also prevents the organization from learning from them (March, 1991 ). An important conclusion from this paper was that organizations will typically be biased toward excessive exploitation and less exploration, a proposal that since has seen substantial empirical research with supportive findings (Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006 ).

A series of simulation studies have also examined the difficulties in organizational adaptation that follow from environments that have multiple suboptimal adaptation opportunities that can lead to prematurely halted searches (local peaks), or interdependence among organizational actions that confuse the interpretation of search feedback. The difficulty of learning under such conditions is well documented, and the efficacy of various solutions to it has been explored (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000 ; Levinthal & Marino, 2015 ; Rivkin, 2001 ). The results typically suggest that search processes are improved by the presence of an irregular element such as managerial cognition or learning from others, though the design of organizational structures can also improve search processes (Rivkin & Siggelkow, 2003 ).

Research in organizational adaptation has a very solid foundation of learning models that apply classic frameworks for searching on continuous surfaces (hill-climbing) and discrete spaces (NK models), and these general models have been adapted well to answer questions on organizational learning and adaptation. There have also been research efforts using models with lower generalizability, and they have typically been too specialized to gain impact. What have seen less research are models that closely mimic learning patterns with strong empirical support and examine their consequences. Although such models also have some degree of specialization, their close relation to empirical findings would give them significant practical value in assessing the adaptive consequences of observed organizational learning patterns.

Other Topics in Learning Research

There are other branches of organizational learning theory that have seen less treatment here but have future research opportunities that seem promising. An important branch is learning curve research, which examines how the efficiency of producing goods increases as a function of accumulative production. This research tradition was established long ago (see review by Yelle, 1979 ), but it was significantly improved by learning scholars who used it as a tool to examine how organizational learning involves transfer across shifts and across organizational units, and it is forgotten when a production process is halted (Argote, 1999 ; Argote, Beckman, & Epple, 1990 ). This research tradition has a very strong foundation of empirical work, and the main opportunities for progress lie in interfaces with other parts of learning theory, such as in examining the effect of performance feedback on learning curves and the effect of learning curves on organizational adaptation. For example, recent work has combined formal modeling and experiments to explain learning curve effects in complex information environments (Fang, 2012 ).

Organizational memory was marked as an important research topic early on (Levitt & March, 1988 ; Walsh & Ungson, 1991 ), and it is important because many other learning mechanisms rely on assumptions about how organizations change and retain memory. It seems fair to say that until recently, this topic has seen less research than its importance suggests, although important contributions have been made through knowledge decay in learning curves (Benkard, 2000 ; Darr, Argote, & Epple, 1995 ). This work has recently been supplemented by research on the different forms of organizational forgetting (de Holan & Phillips, 2004 ), which has seen a special issue and a review (Martin de Holan, 2011 ). A key lesson from this research is that forgetting is not just limited to loss of effective routines, as most research has established (e.g., Argote, 1999 ; Madsen & Desai, 2010 ); it also acts as a form of unlearning that helps organizations adapt (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011 ). Clearly, there is substantial room for additional progress on the forms of memory change, retention, and forgetting, and their effects on organizational learning processes and adaptation.

There is much research on organizational learning at the micro- and meso-levels of analysis. Some of this has already been reviewed, as the research on routines often examines the meso-level of behaviors done by organizational groups or departments. In addition, research on performance feedback has gained a rich research stream, using experiments to examine the mechanisms mediating organizational resistance to change (Audia, Locke, & Smith, 2000 ), as well as specific mechanisms such as self-enhancement (Audia & Brion, 2007 ; Audia et al., 2015 ). Recent research on performance feedback effects in economics has also followed an experimental approach (Selten, Pittnauer, & Hohnisch, 2012 ). The emphasis on field studies in most branches of organizational learning research means that the potential to use experiments to validate findings and gain additional information about the contributing mechanisms is very high.

Future Learning and Adaptation Research

An important feature of organizational learning is that it currently has an odd position of being used as a set of assumptions in important theories, while being poorly integrated with them. Institutional theory has a baseline assumption of bounded rationality and a central process of learning from others that mirror those of earlier statements in learning theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983 ). Organizational ecology often seeks minimal assumptions on organizational behavior, but when these are made explicit, they typically involve bounded rationality and learning and adaptation processes that are familiar in learning theory (Barnett, Greve, & Park, 1994 ; Barnett & Hansen, 1996 ). In spite of this common ground, integration of these theories is less common than one might expect (but see Greve & Rao, 2006 ; Sauder & Espeland, 2009 ; Vasudeva, Alexander, & Jones, 2015 ; Wezel & Saka-Helmhout, 2006 ).

It seems clear that there is much to learn by examining each of these interfaces. For example, the question of how learning is initiated by institutional change is beginning to see answers, but the question of how learning by an organization and across the organization add up to institutional change has seen only a few contributions (Holm, 1995 ). Similarly, in organizational ecology there is a clear contribution from learning theory to the construction of Red Queen theory on how interorganizational learning becomes specialized as a result of competitor homogeneity (Barnett, 2008 ), consistent with the discussion of ecologies of learners in Levitt and March ( 1988 ). However, the processes of legitimation and competition discussed in population ecology should leave a trace in the organizational learning that distinguishes early and late entrants to the population, but such effects have not been investigated thoroughly.

A current interface of special interest is research on institutional environments in which multiple institutional logics are in conflict (Greenwood et al., 2011 ). Learning processes in such environments must involve either compromise between conflicting logics, and hence internal inconsistency (Battilana & Dorado, 2010 ; Battilana & Lee, 2014 ; D’Aunno, Sutton, & Price, 1991 ; Dunn & Jones, 2010 ); increased commitment to the logic that is gaining influence (Briscoe & Safford, 2008 ; Davis, Diekmann, & Tinsley, 1994 ; Greve & Zhang, 2016 ); or selecting one logic that matches the organizational identity (Negro, Hannan, & Rao, 2011 ; Pedersen & Dobbin, 2006 ). Because all these patterns have been observed, how organizations choose one or the other is an open question ready for theoretical and empirical contributions. It is likely that learning theory can be applied to explain the behaviors through an emphasis on myopic search and feedback from each adaptive step (Levinthal & March, 1993 ).

An interesting and potentially challenging question is whether organizations even have the control over goals and aspiration levels that learning theory assumes (Gavetti et al., 2012 ). With the increasing rise of market logics, securities analyst scrutiny, and shareholder value orientations (Davis, 2009 ), organizations may be primarily accountable to externally observable and shareholder-relevant goals such as profitability, and may see their aspiration levels pushed upward through external pressures. There is already comparative evidence on such influences gained from examining organizations that are affiliated with business groups or have family ownership, and as a result are less responsive to shareholder goals (Khanna & Palepu, 2000 ; Lincoln, Gerlach, & Ahmadjian, 1996 ; Luo & Chung, 2005 ). This tension deserves further examination, especially because a simple test of examining whether aspiration levels show upward pressure, as one would expect from shareholder influence, found that no such pressure was discernible (Bromiley & Harris, 2014 ). Thus, the degree of managerial control over goals and aspiration levels is uncertain.

Organizational learning theory could also benefit from better connections with network theory, especially because learning from the experience of others clearly is accelerated by observability and communications (e.g., Greve, 2011a ; Greve & Seidel, 2014 ; Ingram & Baum, 2001 ; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996 ). It is already well established that interpersonal ties facilitate learning across organizations (Beckman & Haunschild, 2002 ; Darr et al., 1995 ; Davis & Greve, 1997 ; Tuschke, Sanders, & Hernandez, 2014 ), but many studies do not go beyond showing the diffusion of practices across organizations. From a learning theory perspective, additional insights could be gained by examining how network learning interacts with own learning (e.g., Tuschke et al., 2014 ; Zhu & Chen, 2015 ). Learning theory could also contribute to network theory by helping further develop theory on network change. Although there is substantial evidence on how factors such as social similarity promote the establishment of network ties (Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999 ; Mitsuhashi & Greve, 2009 ; Powell, White, Koput, & Owen-Smith, 2005 ), a natural next step is to examine the effects of learning from the experience of prior tie establishment (e.g., Schwab & Miner, 2008 ). Work on this topic is so scarce that there are significant opportunities to make progress.

Organizational learning research has a remarkable history, ranging from one of the earliest management theories dating back to the Carnegie School (Cyert & March, 1963 ; Simon, 1947 ) to its current status as a very active stream of research showing youthful exuberance in activity level and experimentation with new topics. As noted throughout this review, a result of the great recent increase in research is that future research opportunities have come more clearly into view. Many of these are not further elaborations of the core theory (which at this point is becoming well specified theoretically and supported empirically), but rather examinations of how learning processes work jointly with each other and with adjacent theories. Because learning is a fundamental feature of organizations, any organizational theory is in principle adjacent to learning theory, but the initial progress has been greatest with respect to institutional theory, population ecology, and network theory, with significant potential for new work in power theory, top management team theory, and mesotheories of organizational behavior as well. Each of these theories either has a learning component already or can be reasonably rephrased to include one, so there is a theoretical interface that can be explored further and provide new theoretical and empirical contributions.

Because so much of this article has focused on showing the gaps in our knowledge and suggesting promising approaches for filling them, it is unnecessary to elaborate on the idea that learning theory is ready for new contributions. The key issue that should be kept in mind is that the division into topics and research traditions used here (or in any review of the literature) should not be taken too seriously. First, many papers gain leverage from crossing such boundaries. Second, one of the key features of learning theory is the capacity of scholars to find new and promising ideas, so any division into topics and identification of future areas of activity is prone to obsolescence (Greve, 2015 ). Thus, although this review helps map out the field in its current state, it is only a temporary description of the research on organizational learning and adaptation. More research will come and will bring new and exciting insights.

• Antonelli, C. (1989). A failure-inducement model of research and development expenditure: Italian evidence from the early 1980s. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , 12 (2), 159–180.
• Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge . Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Argote, L. , Beckman, S. L. , & Epple, D. (1990). The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science , 36 , 140–154.
• 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.
• Argote, L. , & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science , 22 (5), 1123–1137.
• Audia, P. G. , & Brion, S. (2007). Reluctant to change: Self-enhancing responses to diverging performance measures. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes , 102 (2), 255–269.
• Audia, P. G. , Brion, S. , & Greve, H. R. (2015). Self-assessment, self-enhancement, and the choice of comparison organizations for evaluating organizational performance, Advances in Strategic Management: Cognition and Strategy , 32 , 89–118.
• Audia, P. G. , & Greve, H. R. (2006). Less likely to fail? Low performance, firm size, and factory expansion in the shipbuilding industry. Management Science , 52 (1), 83–94.
• Audia, P. G. , Locke, E. A. , & Smith, K. G. (2000). The paradox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following a radical environmental change. Academy of Management Journal , 43 (5), 837–853.
• Barnett, W. P. (2008). The Red Queen among organizations: How competitiveness evolves . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Barnett, W. P. , Greve, H. R. , & Park, D. Y. (1994). An evolutionary model of organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal , 15 (S2), 11–28.
• Barnett, W. P. , & Hansen, M. T. (1996). The Red Queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management Journal , 17 (Summer Special Issue), 139–157.
• Battilana, J. , & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal , 53 (6), 1419–1440.
• Battilana, J. , & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals , 8 (1), 397–441.
• 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.
• Baum, J. A. C. , & Ingram, P. (1998). Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1980. Management Science , 44 (7), 996–1016.
• Baum, J. A. C. , Rowley, T. J. , Shipilov, A. V. , & Chuang, Y.-T. (2005). Dancing with strangers: Aspiration performance and the search for underwriting syndicate partners. Administrative Science Quarterly , 50 (4), 536–575.
• Becker, M. C. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of organizational routines . Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
• Beckman, C. M. , & Haunschild, P. R. (2002). Network learning: The effects of partners’ heterogeneity of experience on corporate acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly , 47 (1), 92–124.
• Benkard, C. L. (2000). Learning and forgetting: The dynamics of aircraft production. American Economic Review , 90 (4), 1034–1054.
• Bermiss, Y. S. , Zajac, E. J. , & King, B. G. (2014). Under construction: How commensuration and management fashion affect corporate reputation rankings. Organization Science , 25 (2), 591–608.
• Bouquet, C. , & Birkinshaw, J. M. (2008). Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal , 51 (3), 577–601.
• Briscoe, F. , Chin, M. K. , & Hambrick, D. C. (2014). CEO ideology as an element of the corporate opportunity structure for social activists. Academy of Management Journal , 57 (6), 1786–1809.
• Briscoe, F. , & Safford, S. (2008). The Nixon-in-China effect: Activism, imitation, and the institutionalization of contentious practices. Administrative Science Quarterly , 53 (3), 460–491.
• Bromiley, P. , & Harris, J. D. (2014). A comparison of alternative measures of organizational aspirations. Strategic Management Journal , 35 (3), 338–357.
• Chatterjee, A. , & Hambrick, D. C. (2011. Executive personality, capability cues, and risk taking: How narcissistic CEOs react to their successes and stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly , 56 (2), 202–237.
• Cohen, M. D. , March, J. G. , & Olsen, J. P. (1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly , 17 , 1–25.
• Cohen, M. D. , & Sproull, L. S. (1995). Organizational learning . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Cyert, R. M. , & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm (chap. 6). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• D’Aunno, T. , Sutton, R. I. , & Price, R. H. (1991). Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy of Management Journal , 34 (3), 636–661.
• Darr, E. D. , Argote, L. , & Epple, D. (1995). The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science , 41 (11), 1750–1762.
• Davis, G. F. (2009). The rise and fall of finance and the end of the society of organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives , 23 (3), 27–44.
• Davis, G. F. , Diekmann, K. A. , & Tinsley, C. H. (1994). The decline and fall of the conglomerate firm in the 1980s: The deinstitutionalization of an organizational form. American Sociological Review , 59 (August), 547–570.
• Davis, G. F. , & Greve, H. R. (1997). Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology , 103 (July), 1–37.
• de Holan, P. M. , & Phillips, N. (2004). Remembrance of things past? The dynamics of organizational forgetting. Management Science , 50 (11), 1603–1613.
• Desai, V. M. (2008). Constrained growth: How experience, legitimacy, and age influence risk taking in organizations. Organization Science , 19 (4), 594–608.
• DiMaggio, P. J. , & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review , 48 , 147–160.
• Dunn, M. B. , & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly , 55 (1), 114–149.
• Easterby-Smith, M. , & Lyles, M. A. (2011). In praise of organizational forgetting. Journal of Management Inquiry , 20 (3), 311–316.
• Espeland, W. N. , & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology , 113 (1), 1–40.
• Fang, C. (2012). Organizational learning as credit assignment: A model and two experiments. Organization Science , 23 (6), 1717–1732.
• Feldman, M. S. , & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly , 48 (1), 94–118.
• Feldman, M. S. , Pentland, B. T. , D’Adderio, L. , & Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science , 27 (3), 505–513.
• Fligstein, N. (1987). The intraorganizational power struggle: Rise of finance personnel to top leadership in large corporations, 1919–1979. American Sociological Review , 52 (February), 44–58.
• Gaba, V. , & Bhattacharya, S. (2012). Aspirations, innovation, and corporate venture capital: A behavioral perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal , 6 (2), 178–199.
• Gaba, V. , & Joseph, J. (2013). Corporate structure and performance feedback: Aspirations and adaptation in M-form firms. Organization Science , 24 (4), 1102–1119.
• Gavetti, G. , Greve, H. R. , Levinthal, D. A. , & Ocasio, W. (2012). The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. Academy of Management Annals , 6 , 1–40.
• Gavetti, G. , & Levinthal, D. A. (2000). Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly , 45 (March), 113–137.
• Giachetti, C. , & Lampel, J. (2010). Keeping both eyes on the competition: Strategic adjustment to multiple targets in the UK mobile phone industry. Strategic Organization , 8 (4), 347–376.
• Greenwood, R. , Raynard, M. , Kodeih, F. , Micelotta, E. R. , & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. Academy of Management Annals , 5 , 317–371.
• Greve, H. R. (1996). Patterns of competition: The diffusion of a market position in radio broadcasting. Administrative Science Quarterly , 41 (March), 29–60.
• Greve, H. R. (1998). Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly , 44 (March), 58–86.
• Greve, H. R. (2003a). A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovation: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal , 46 (6), 685–702.
• Greve, H. R. (2003b). Organizational learning from performance feedback: A behavioral perspective on innovation and change . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Greve, H. R. (2008). A behavioral theory of firm growth: Sequential attention to size and performance goals. Academy of Management Journal , 51 (3), 476–494.
• Greve, H. R. (2011a). Fast and expensive: The diffusion of a disappointing innovation. Strategic Management Journal , 32 (9), 949–968.
• Greve, H. R. (2011b). Positional rigidity: Low performance and resource acquisition in large and small firms. Strategic Management Journal , 32 (1), 103–114.
• Greve, H. R. (2015). The building of the behavioral theory of the firm continues. Journal of Management Inquiry , 24 (3), 334–335.
• Greve, H. R. , & Rao, H. (2006). If it doesn’t kill you: Learning from ecological competition. In J. A. C. Baum , S. D. Dobrev , & A. v. Witteloostuijn (Eds.), Ecology and strategy: Advances in strategic management (Vol. 23, pp. 243–271). Oxford: Elsevier.
• Greve, H. R. , & Seidel, M.-D. L. (2014). The thin red line between success and failure: Path dependence in the diffusion of innovative production technologies. Strategic Management Journal , 36 (4), 475–496.
• Greve, H. R. , & Teh, D. (2016). Goal selection internally and externally: A behavioral theory of institutionalization. Manuscript . INSEAD.
• Greve, H. R. , & Zhang, C. M. (2016). Institutional logics and power sources: Merger and acquisition decisions. Academy of Management Journal .
• Grinyer, P. , & McKiernan, P. (1990). Generating major change in stagnating companies. Strategic Management Journal , 11 (4), 131–146.
• Gulati, R. , & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology , 104 (5), 1439–1493.
• Gupta, A. K. , Smith, K. G. , & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal , 49 (4), 693–706.
• Haleblian, J. , Kim, J.-Y. J. , & Rajagopalan, N. (2006). The influence of acquisition experience and performance on acquisition behavior: Evidence from the U.S. commercial banking industry. Academy of Management Journal , 49 (2), 357–370.
• Haveman, H. A. (1993). Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly , 38 (4), 593–627.
• Hickson, D. J. , Hinings, R. C. , Lee, C. A. , Schneck, R. E. , & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic contingencies theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly , 16 , 216–227.
• Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal , 42 (4), 351–371.
• Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly , 40 (September), 398–422.
• Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science , 2 (1), 88–115.
• Ingram, P. , & Baum, J. A. C. (2001). Interorganizational learning and the dynamics of chain relationships. In J. A. C. Baum & H. R. Greve (Eds.), Multiunit organization and multimarket strategy (pp. 109–139). Oxford: Elsevier.
• Ingram, P. , Yue, L. Q. , & Rao, H. (2010). Trouble in store: Probes, protests, and store openings by Wal-Mart, 1998–2007. American Journal of Sociology , 116 (1), 53–92.
• Iyer, D. N. , & Miller, K. D. (2008). Performance feedback, slack, and the timing of acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal , 51 (4), 808–822.
• Jonsson, S. (2009). Refraining from imitation: Professional resistance and limited diffusion in a financial market. Organization Science , 20 (1), 172–186.
• Kacperczyk, A. , Beckman, C. M. , & Moliterno, T. P. (2015). Disentangling risk and change: Internal and external social comparison in the mutual fund industry. Administrative Science Quarterly , 60 (2), 228–262.
• Kaplan, R. S. , & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action . Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Khanna, T. , & Palepu, K. (2000). Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business. Journal of Finance , 55 (2), 867–891.
• King, B. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly , 53 (3), 395–421.
• Knott, A. M. (2001). The dynamic value of hierarchy. Management Science , 47 (3), 430–448.
• Lant, T. K. (1992). Aspiration level adaptation: An empirical exploration. Management Science , 38 (5), 623–644.
• Levinthal, D. A. , & March, J. G. (1981). A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , 2 , 307–333.
• Levinthal, D. A. , & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal , 14 (Winter), 95–112.
• Levinthal, D. A. , & Marino, A. (2015). Three facets of organizational adaptation: Selection, variety, and plasticity. Organization Science , 26 (3), 743–755.
• Levitt, B. , & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. In W. R. Scott , & J. Blake (Eds.), Annual Review of Sociology (Vol. 14, pp. 319–340). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
• Lincoln, J. R. , Gerlach, M. L. , & Ahmadjian, C. L. (1996). Keiretsu networks and corporate performance in Japan. American Sociological Review , 61 (February), 67–88.
• Lounsbury, M. (2001). Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly , 46 (March), 29–56.
• Luo, X. , & Chung, C.-N. (2005). Keeping it all in the family: The role of particularistic relationships in business group performance during institutional transition. Administrative Science Quarterly , 50 (3), 404–439.
• Madsen, P. M. , & Desai, V. M. (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.
• Marcel, J. J. , Barr, P. S. , & Duhaime, I. M. (2010). The influence of executive cognition on competitive dynamics. Strategic Management Journal , 32 (1), 115–138.
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science , 2 , 71–87.
• March, J. G. , Schulz, M. , & Zhou, X. (2000). The dynamics of rules: Change in written organizational codes . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Martin de Holan, P. (2011). Organizational forgetting, unlearning, and memory systems. Journal of Management Inquiry , 20 (3), 302–304.
• Massini, S. , Lewin, A. Y. , & Greve, H. R. (2005). Innovators and imitators: Organizational reference groups and adoption of organizational routines. Research Policy , 34 (10), 1550–1569.
• McDonald, M. L. , & Westphal, J. D. (2003). Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEOs’ advice networks and firms’ strategic responses to poor performance. Administrative Science Quarterly , 48 (1), 1–32.
• Miner, A. S. , & Mezias, S. J. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: Pasts and futures of organizational learning research. Organization Science , 7 (1), 88–99.
• Mitsuhashi, H. , & Greve, H. R. (2009). A matching theory of alliance formation and organizational success: Complementarity and compatibility. Academy of Management Journal , 52 (5), 975–995.
• Moliterno, T. P. , Beck, N. , Beckman, C. M. , & Meyer, M. (2014). Knowing your place: Social performance feedback in good times and bad times. Organization Science , 25 (6), 1684–1702.
• Negro, G. , Hannan, M. T. , & Rao, H. (2011). Category reinterpretation and defection: Modernism and tradition in Italian winemaking. Organization Science , 22 (6), 1449–1463.
• Nelson, R. R. , & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change . Boston: Belknap.
• Nigam, A. , Huising, R. , & Pentland, B. T. (2016). Towards a search-based theory of routines: Explaining the selection of routines for change. Administrative Science Quarterly , 61 , 551–583.
• Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal , 18 (Summer), 187–206.
• Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization Science , 22 (5), 1286–1296.
• Ocasio, W. , & Joseph, J. (2005). An attention-based theory of strategy formulation: Linking micro- and macroperspectives in strategy processes, Strategy Process , 22 , 39–61.
• Park, K. M. (2007). Antecedents of convergence and divergence in strategic positioning: The effects of performance and aspiration on the direction of strategic change. Organization Science , 18 (3), 386–402.
• Parmigiani, A. , & Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals , 5 , 413–453.
• Pedersen, J. S. , & Dobbin, F. (2006). In search of identity and legitimation: Bridging organizational culture and neoinstitutionalism. American Behavioral Scientist , 49 (7), 897–907.
• Pfeffer, J. , & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations . New York: Harper and Row.
• Porac, J. F. , & Rosa, J. A. (1996). Rivalry, industry models, and the cognitive embeddedness of the comparable firm. Advances in Strategic Management , 13 , 363–388.
• Powell, W. W. , Koput, K. W. , & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly , 41 (March), 116–145.
• Powell, W. W. , White, D. R. , Koput, K. W. , & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology , 110 (4), 1132–1205.
• Reynaud, B. (2005). The void at the heart of rules: Routines in the context of rule-following. The case of the Paris Metro Workshop. Industrial and Corporate Change , 14 (5), 847–871.
• Rhee, M. (2009). Does reputation contribute to reducing organizational errors? A learning approach. Journal of Management Studies , 46 (4), 676–703.
• Rivkin, J. W. (2001). Reproducing knowledge: Replication without imitation at moderate complexity. Organization Science , 12 (3), 274–293.
• Rivkin, J. W. , & Siggelkow, N. (2003). Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science , 49 (3), 290–311.
• Rossman, G. , & Schilke, O. (2014). Close, but no cigar: The bimodal rewards to prize-seeking. American Sociological Review , 79 (1), 86–108.
• Rowley, T. I. , Shipilov, A. V. , & Greve, H. R. (2016). Board reform versus profits: The effect of rankings on the adoption of governance practices. Strategic Management Journal .
• Salge, T. O. (2011). A behavioral model of innovative search: Evidence from public hospital services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 21 (1), 181–210.
• Sauder, M. , & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review , 74 (1), 63–82.
• Schwab, A. , & Miner, A. S. (2008). Learning in hybrid-project systems: The effects of project performance on repeated collaboration. Academy of Management Journal , 51 (6), 1117–1149.
• Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Selten, R. , Pittnauer, S. , & Hohnisch, M. (2012). Dealing with dynamic decision problems when knowledge of the environment is limited: An approach based on goal systems. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 25 (5), 443–457.
• Selznick, P. (1948). TVA and the grass roots . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Shipilov, A. V. , Li, S. X. , & Greve, H. R. (2011). The prince and the pauper: Search and brokerage in the initiation of status-heterophilous ties. Organization Science , 22 (6), 1418–1434.
• Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior . New York: Macmillan.
• Stevens, R. , Moray, N. , Bruneel, J. , & Clarysse, B. (2015). Attention allocation to multiple goals: The case of for-profit social enterprises. Strategic Management Journal , 36 (7), 1006–1016.
• Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Thornton, P. H. , & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry. American Journal of Sociology , 105 (3), 801–843.
• Tuggle, C. S. , Sirmon, D. G. , Reutzel, C. R. , & Bierman, L. (2010). Commanding board of director attention: Investigating how organizational performance and CEO duality affect board members’ attention to monitoring. Strategic Management Journal , 31 (9), 946–968.
• Tuschke, A. , Sanders, W. M. G. , & Hernandez, E. (2014). Whose experience matters in the boardroom? The effects of experiential and vicarious learning on emerging market entry. Strategic Management Journal , 35 (3), 398–418.
• Tyler, B. B. , & Caner, T. (2016). New product introductions below aspirations, slack, and R&D alliances: A behavioral perspective. Strategic Management Journal , 37 (5), 896–910.
• Vasudeva, G. , Alexander, E. A. , & Jones, S. L. (2015). Institutional logics and interorganizational learning in technological arenas: Evidence from standard-setting organizations in the mobile handset industry. Organization Science , 26 (3), 830–846.
• Walsh, J. P. , & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review , 16 (1), 57–91.
• Wezel, F. C. , & Saka-Helmhout, A. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of organizational change: “Institutionalizing” the behavioral theory of the firm. Organization Studies , 27 (2), 265–286.
• Wry, T. , Cobb, J. A. , & Aldrich, H. E. (2013). More than a metaphor: Assessing the historical legacy of resource dependence and its contemporary promise as a theory of environmental complexity. Academy of Management Annals , 7 (1), 441–488.
• Yelle, L. E. (1979). The learning curve: Historical review and comprehensive survey. Decision Science , 10 , 302–328.
• Zhu, D. H. , & Chen, G. (2015). CEO narcissism and the impact of prior board experience on corporate strategy. Administrative Science Quarterly , 60 (1), 31–65.

Related Articles

• The Adaptive Organization and Fast-Slow Systems
• Organizational Innovation

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.194.105.172]
• 185.194.105.172

Character limit 500 /500

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

108 Organizational Behavior Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Organizational behavior is a fascinating field that examines how individuals, groups, and organizations interact within a work environment. It encompasses a wide range of topics, from leadership and communication to motivation and decision-making. If you're studying organizational behavior and need some inspiration for your next essay, look no further. Here are 108 organizational behavior essay topic ideas and examples to get you started:

• The impact of organizational culture on employee satisfaction
• The role of leadership in shaping organizational behavior
• How diversity and inclusion influence team dynamics
• The importance of emotional intelligence in the workplace
• Strategies for managing conflict in organizations
• The effects of job design on employee motivation
• The relationship between organizational justice and employee performance
• The role of power and politics in organizational behavior
• The impact of technology on organizational communication
• The influence of organizational structure on decision-making processes
• The role of trust in building effective teams
• The effects of stress and burnout on employee well-being
• The impact of organizational change on employee morale
• The relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover
• Strategies for promoting work-life balance in organizations
• The role of ethics in organizational behavior
• The effects of group dynamics on team performance
• The relationship between personality and organizational behavior
• The impact of globalization on organizational culture
• The role of feedback in employee development
• The effects of job insecurity on employee motivation
• The relationship between leadership style and organizational performance
• The influence of organizational climate on employee engagement
• The role of mentoring in organizational development
• The effects of social media on organizational communication
• The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on team effectiveness
• The relationship between job crafting and employee well-being
• The role of emotional labor in customer service
• The effects of organizational learning on innovation
• The influence of organizational justice on employee trust
• The impact of job characteristics on employee engagement
• The relationship between organizational commitment and job performance
• The role of resilience in overcoming workplace challenges
• The effects of job insecurity on employee productivity
• The importance of psychological safety in team dynamics
• The impact of organizational politics on decision-making processes
• The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior
• The role of transformational leadership in driving organizational change
• The effects of work-life balance on employee retention
• The influence of organizational culture on employee motivation
• The impact of emotional intelligence on leadership effectiveness
• The relationship between job design and job satisfaction
• The role of organizational justice in shaping employee attitudes
• The effects of diversity and inclusion on team performance
• The importance of communication in building trust within teams
• The impact of job insecurity on employee well-being
• The relationship between leadership style and employee engagement
• The role of feedback in promoting employee development
• The effects of job crafting on job satisfaction
• The influence of organizational climate on team effectiveness
• The impact of organizational learning on innovation
• The relationship between job characteristics and employee motivation
• The role of emotional labor in customer satisfaction
• The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance
• The importance of psychological safety in team collaboration
• The impact of organizational politics on decision-making effectiveness
• The role of transformational leadership in organizational development
• The effects of work-life balance on employee engagement
• The influence of organizational culture on team dynamics
• The impact of emotional intelligence on employee well-being
• The relationship between job design and team performance
• The role of organizational justice in shaping organizational behavior
• The effects of diversity and inclusion on employee satisfaction
• The importance of communication in building effective teams
• The impact of job insecurity on job performance
• The relationship between leadership style and organizational culture
• The role of feedback in promoting team cohesion
• The effects of job crafting on team dynamics
• The influence of organizational climate on employee morale
• The impact of organizational learning on team innovation
• The relationship between job characteristics and organizational performance
• The role of emotional labor in employee engagement
• The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on employee motivation
• The importance of psychological safety in team effectiveness
• The impact of organizational politics on employee well-being
• The relationship between job satisfaction and team collaboration
• The role of transformational leadership in building trust within teams
• The effects of work-life balance on organizational performance
• The influence of organizational culture on employee retention
• The impact of emotional intelligence on team dynamics
• The relationship between job design and organizational communication
• The role of organizational justice in shaping team effectiveness
• The effects of diversity and inclusion on organizational culture
• The importance of communication in promoting employee satisfaction
• The impact of job insecurity on team performance
• The relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction
• The role of feedback in driving organizational change
• The effects of job crafting on organizational development
• The impact of organizational learning on team collaboration
• The relationship between job characteristics and team performance
• The role of emotional labor in organizational performance
• The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on team dynamics
• The importance of psychological safety in promoting team cohesion
• The impact of organizational politics on team effectiveness
• The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational communication
• The role of transformational leadership in shaping organizational culture
• The effects of work-life balance on employee morale
• The influence of organizational culture on team collaboration
• The impact of emotional intelligence on organizational performance
• The relationship between job design and employee engagement
• The role of organizational justice in promoting team effectiveness
• The effects of diversity and inclusion on team dynamics
• The importance of communication in building trust within organizations
• The impact of job insecurity on employee satisfaction
• The relationship between leadership style and team performance
• The role of feedback in driving team innovation

These organizational behavior essay topic ideas and examples cover a wide range of issues and concepts within the field. Whether you're interested in exploring the impact of leadership on organizational culture or the effects of job insecurity on employee well-being, there's something here for everyone. So, pick a topic that interests you, conduct some research, and start writing your next organizational behavior essay today!

Want to research companies faster?

Instantly access industry insights

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Leverage powerful AI research capabilities

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2024 Pitchgrade

jisoop1_Tepper_2-23.pdf

Reason: Publisher Requirement

until file(s) become available

Essays on Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes in Healthcare

In my dissertation, consisting of three chapters, I investigate how various mechanisms jointly affect organizational learning in the healthcare sector. The first chapter provides a review of the literature on organizational learning, focusing on how different factors impact four distinct organizational learning processes: search, knowledge creation, retention, and transfer. By categorizing past findings, I identify how the same factor may promote or hinder different organizational learning processes and encourage a more detailed examination of how multiple mechanisms interact to affect organizational learning. 

In the second chapter, I examine the relationship between individuals' repeated failures and learning. Through a theoretical framework and empirical analysis of cardiothoracic surgeons in U.S. hospitals, I demonstrate an inverted U-shaped relationship between the number of failures and learning. I find that individuals give up learning after a certain number of failures because their motivation to learn decreases despite increasing learning opportunities. This research aims to reconcile inconsistent findings from the literature on individual failure learning and provides insights into the non-monotonic relationship between failure experiences and individual learning. 

In the third chapter, I explore the impact of contractor employment on organizational learning in terms of adopting an industry's new best practices. Using archival data on heart disease patients in U.S. hospitals, where physicians worked as contractors or full-time employees, I find evidence that organizational learning peaks at a moderate proportion of contractors. I theorize that the integration of diverse knowledge held by contractors and firm-specific knowledge held by full-time employees is most effective at this point. This research contributes to the understanding of how a firm's human capital resource composition affects knowledge transfer and organizational learning—an important topic in light of the rising population of contingent workers. 

Overall, this dissertation contributes to the literature on organizational learning and the microfoundations of organizational capabilities. 

Degree Type

• Dissertation
• Tepper School of Business

Degree Name

• Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Usage metrics

• Organisation and Management Theory

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

In summation, the role of leadership and management can work in different capacities, yet be the same when developing an organization. Leadership is nothing if it doesn’t build a systems’ based management structure, and management would have no support without the work of leadership as the backbone of ideals.

A review of this chapter’s major conclusions, include:

• Being ethically sound and sacrificing comforts for goals and objectives (classical ideals) make leaders strive for innovation and the improvement of society (contemporary ideals).
• Developing and systematically organizing hiring philosophies, institutional policies, budgeting processes, rewards, and decision-making styles are effective measures for managing organizations into the future.
• Leadership and management are both the same and different.
• Using the iceberg analogy and the five disciplines, leadership and management are both independent and dependent from each other, especially when achieving goals in a learning organization.

To offer parting words after this journey, it is important to understand that whatever leadership or management style chosen, it has to relate to inherent beliefs. Essentially, the iceberg below the surface is not just made in one day, it is shaped and cultivated throughout life through natural and social occurrences, assumptions, and inherent beliefs. It is very important for leaders to find their own icebergs and self-reflect on what their beliefs mean to their leadership styles and how they develop their management strategies. As prospective leaders and managers in society, it is highly important to locate and cultivate a personal leadership style to become successful in a future society.

Leadership and Management in Learning Organizations Copyright © by Clayton Smith; Carson Babich; and Mark Lubrick is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Home Depot Topics Topics: 60
• Toyota Research Topics Topics: 77
• IKEA Topics Topics: 72
• Exxon Topics Topics: 51
• Marks & Spencer Essay Topics Topics: 60
• Nintendo Research Topics Topics: 50
• Alibaba Topics Topics: 60
• Competitive Strategy Research Topics Topics: 55
• Unilever Research Topics Topics: 70
• Nokia Research Topics Topics: 75
• Growth Strategy Paper Topics Topics: 54
• Red Bull Research Topics Topics: 55
• Kodak Essay Topics Topics: 49
• BMW Paper Topics Topics: 51
• Dell Topics Topics: 76

56 Organizational Learning Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on organizational learning, 👍 good organizational learning research topics & essay examples, 🎓 most interesting organizational learning research titles, 💡 simple organizational learning essay ideas.

• Learning Organization: Senge’s “The Fifth Discipline”
• The Netflix Firm’s Learning Organization Concept
• Toyota Company: Organizational Learning and Solving Problems
• DME Sports Academy as a Learning Organization
• The Importance of Organizational Learning
• Key Characteristics of Learning Organizations
• Enhancing Organizational Learning and Development at the Home Depot
• Aspects of Learning Organizations Learning organizations are organizations that can create, acquire, and transfer knowledge. They are known to modify their behavior to reflect novel insights.
• Senge’s Five Disciplines of a Learning Organization My organization is a learning organization since it has the capability to create, acquire, and transfer knowledge and can modify behavior to reflect novel insights.
• Organizational Learning and Leadership Organizations establish learning cultures to capitalize on departing employees. Learning cultures ensure employees possess proper competencies.
• Examining a Learning Organization The essay examines the company Wahl Clippers, an American company that specializes in grooming products for people and animals.
• Learning Organizational Processes in Business Addressing mechanisms that stimulate the learning of business processes plays a significant role in maintaining the sustainable operation of companies of different profiles.
• Evaluation of Concept of Learning Organization The paper evaluates the concept of a learning organization and the way it can be implemented successfully in an organization and discuss Senge’s model of learning organization.
• Characteristics of a Learning Organization A learning organization is a term used in reference to a company that is able to undergo a transformation in its activities and mindsets as a result of experience.
• Developing Learning and Reflective Practice: Structured Interviews and Tools Companies use structured questionnaires to analyze work, while the organizational structure is hierarchical, where senior management can make important decisions.
• Learning Disabilities in Organizations This paper describes an organization affected by issues of learning disabilities. It defines its system archetypes and presents an action plan to address the issues.
• Concept and Its Importance of Organizational Learning
• Theories of Organizational Learning: Key Thinkers and Models
• Single-Loop vs. Double-Loop Learning: Understanding the Difference
• The Role of Knowledge Management in Organizational Learning
• How Organizations Learn from Failure: Turning Mistakes into Opportunities
• The Learning Organization: Characteristics and How to Build One
• Aspect of Organizational Learning on Innovation
• Tacit vs. Explicit Knowledge in Organizational Learning
• Role of Leadership in Fostering a Learning Culture
• Success of Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage
• The Influence of Organizational Culture on Learning Processes
• Learning from Experience: Reflection in Organizational Learning
• Concept of Knowledge Sharing in Organizational Learning
• Organizational Learning and Change Management: Adapting to Evolving Environments
• Technology in Facilitating Organizational Learning
• Understanding How to Create a Culture of Continuous Learning in the Workplace
• Barriers to Organizational Learning: Overcoming Resistance to Change
• Organizational Learning in Small Businesses and Large Corporations
• Communities of Practice in Enhancing Organizational Learning
• Organization Learning from Competitors: The Role of Benchmarking
• Organizational Learning and Employee Development: Skills and Knowledge
• Conception of Feedback Loops in Organizational Learning
• Organizational Learning and Risk Management: Learning from Uncertainty
• Organizational Learning and Knowledge Retention: Preventing Brain Drain
• Tools and Metrics How to Measure Organizational Learning
• Aspect of Crisis Management in Organizational Learning
• Learning Through Collaboration: Teams in Organizational Learning
• The Impact of Organizational Learning on Decision-Making
• Organizational Learning and Sustainability: Long-Term Success
• Learning Organizations in the Digital Age: Adapting to Technological Change
• Understanding How Organizational Learning Supports Employee Engagement
• Relationship Between Organizational Learning and Employee Well-Being
• Organizational Learning and Talent Management: Developing Future Leaders
• The Role of Mentorship in Organizational Learning
• Organizational Learning and Diversity/Inclusion Initiatives
• Explaining of Experimentation in Organizational Learning
• Learning from Data: Analytics in Organizational Learning
• How Organizational Learning Contributes to Knowledge-Intensive Industries
• Organizational Learning and Globalization: Learning in a Multinational Context
• Trends and Emerging Practices in Organizational Learning

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2024, September 1). 56 Organizational Learning Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/organizational-learning-essay-topics/

"56 Organizational Learning Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 1 Sept. 2024, studycorgi.com/ideas/organizational-learning-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2024) '56 Organizational Learning Essay Topics'. 1 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "56 Organizational Learning Essay Topics." September 1, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/organizational-learning-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "56 Organizational Learning Essay Topics." September 1, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/organizational-learning-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2024. "56 Organizational Learning Essay Topics." September 1, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/organizational-learning-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Organizational Learning were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on September 17, 2024 .

Module 6: The Writing Process

Essay organization, learning objectives.

• Examine the basic organization of traditional essays

What are some ways that you can organize your essays in college. One standard structure for expository essays is to offer the main idea or assertion early in the essay, and then offer categories of support.

One way to think about this standard structure is to compare it to a courtroom argument in a television drama. The lawyer asserts, “My client is not guilty.” Then the lawyer provides different reasons for lack of guilt: no physical evidence placing the client at the crime scene, client had no motive for the crime, and more.

In writing terms, the assertion is the  thesis sentence , and the different reasons are the  topic sentences . Consider this following example:

• Topic Sentence (reason) #1:  Workers need to learn how to deal with change.
• Topic Sentence (reason) #2:  Because of dealing with such a rapidly changing work environment, 21st-century workers need to learn how to learn.
• Topic Sentence (reason) #3:  Most of all, in order to negotiate rapid change and learning, workers in the 21st century need good communication skills.

As you can see, the supporting ideas in an essay develop out of the main assertion or argument in the thesis sentence.

The structural organization of an essay will vary, depending on the type of writing task you’ve been assigned, but they generally follow this basic structure: The thesis and the topic sentences are all concerned with workers and what they need for the workforce.

Introduction

The introduction provides the reader with context about your topic. You may be familiar with the cliché about how first impressions are important. This is true in writing as well, and you can think of your introduction as that first impression. The goal is to engage the readers, so they want to read on. Sometimes this involves giving an example, telling a story or narrative, asking a question, or building up the situation. The introduction should almost always include the thesis statement.

Body Paragraphs

The body of the essay is separated into paragraphs. Each paragraph usually covers a single claim or argues a single point, expanding on what was introduced in the thesis statement. For example, according to the National Institute of Mental Health, the two main causes of schizophrenia are genetic and environmental. Thus, if you were writing about the causes of schizophrenia, then you would have a body paragraph on genetic causes of schizophrenia and a body paragraph on the environmental causes.

A body paragraph usually includes the following:

• Topic sentence that identifies the topic for the paragraph
• Several sentences that describe and support the topic sentence

Figure 1 . College instructors require more than just “the end” at the close of a paper. Take the time to revisit your thesis statement, bringing all of your claims and evidences together in your conclusion.

• Remember that information from outside sources should be placed in the middle of the paragraph and not at the beginning or the end of the paragraph so that you have time to introduce and explain the outside content
• Quotation marks placed around any information taken verbatim (word for word) from the source
• Summary sentence(s) that draws conclusions from the evidence
• Transitions or bridge sentences between paragraphs.

If you began with a story, draw final conclusions from that story in your conclusion. If you began with a question, refer back to the question and be sure to provide the answer.

A concluding paragraph:

• summarizes final conclusions from the key points
• provides a brief comment on the evidence provided in the paper
• ties in the introduction
• Revision and Adaptation. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Writing an Essay. Provided by : QUT Cite Write. Located at : http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/essay.jsp . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of Choosing Paragraph Patterns. Authored by : GrinnPidgeon. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/a9oiLS . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Essay Structure. Authored by : Marianne Botos, Lynn McClelland, Stephanie Polliard, Pamela Osback . Located at : https://pvccenglish.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/eng-101-inside-pages-proof2-no-pro.pdf . Project : Horse of a Different Color: English Composition and Rhetoric . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Traditional Structure. Provided by : Excelsior OWL. Located at : https://owl.excelsior.edu/writing-process/essay-writing/essay-writing-traditional-structure-activity/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image of writing in the sand. Authored by : Michitogo. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/photos/the-end-sand-end-beach-text-1544913/ . License : Other . License Terms : https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

Organizational Learning and Strategy Differences Analytical Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Review of literature, characteristics of chinese based firms, learning strategies and processes, government support, barriers to organizational learning, reference list.

The purpose of this study is to critically analyze organizational learning and strategy differences in the Chinese Based firms in Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Many writers have provided information focusing on the Asian Policy Makers. Focus is given to the new strategic developmental strategies resulting from the economic Downturn that was been prevalent in the Asian countries for the last three decades.

Economic success of the Chinese based Firms is used as a Benchmark of these developmental strategies due to their Economic success despite economic downturn in the region. Unlike their regional competitors such as Japan and South Korea, with big Firms operating on a large scale, the Chinese firms have resilience (Dierkes et al, 2003, p 716).

There is a new focus shift from the Large Firms to small and medium sized ones on Market.

At present, the firms are mainly found in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. In the first place, these firms are small and medium in sizes. (Yeung, et al, 2011, p. 34.). Additionally, they are viewed as late comers to technology, thus they lack access to modern and advanced technology of large Western based firms. The firms have a high tendency of integration into global and local production networks.

Despite the economic down turn in the region, the firms remained a success. They have become a central focus due to their, economic progress. Chinese Firms uses adoptive and imitational forms of knowledge transfer (Yu, 2007, p.18). Imitations resulted to drastic growth, instead of using an innovative process despising the western concept of product life cycle. This is coupled with creation of learning in networks

Learning in networks

The firms are incorporated into regional as well as the global corporations networks based in the western enterprises of Japan Europe and the USA. The Chinese based firms have a characteristic of incorporating other highly developed western based firms in their technology and management systems unlike Japanese and other western based enterprises whose allied enterprises are centrally attached only to their mother companies/firms. Interfirm cooperation thus takes their center in learning.

Interfirm cooperation

The firms in this region of the world being late comers to the technological world of production strive to make their products better through knowledge accumulation and internalization leading to knowledge of producing goods already on market (Dierkes et al. 2003, p.721). There exist also strategic alliances.

Strategic alliances

Forming strategic alliances is also another learning strategy employed by Chinese firms as their Learning process. They target brand name leaders of through formation of joint ventures with these innovative Firms. Their governments also give them some support.

It is also characteristic of the Governments in these regions to provide and create favorable organizational learning conditions through provision of basic human resource training, provision and spreading required production and marketing knowledge and giving subsides to research and development targeting majorly, strategic industries and Firms for knowledge transfer. Despite this, these firms still face some barriers to organizational learning

These firms have are vulnerable to under financing due to lack of technological underdevelopment thus they are exposed market fluctuations as compared to large enterprises found in Japan and South Korea.

On the overseas perspective, Chinese firms In Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore lack access to advanced technology used by large western enterprises, as well as large advanced markets of enjoyed by the western based models of organizational learning. The conclusion is therefore made at last as:

Chinese based firms are small and medium sized enterprises. Organizational learning characteristic to the through imitation of already existing technology in production and market conquest

Dierkes, et al., 2003. Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowledge. NY: Oxford Publishers.

Yeung, et al., 2011. The Globalization of Chinese Companies: Strategies for Conquering International Markets. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.

Yu, F.T., 2007. Taiwan’s economic transformation in evolutionary perspective: Entrepreneurship, innovation systems and government. NY: Nova Publishers.

• Value Innovation Strategy
• Service Adhesives Strategic Change
• Rhetoric and Philosophy of Socrates and Gorgias
• The Business Environment of Hong Kong
• HRM in Singapore and Hong Kong
• The Strategy of ‘Localizing’ HR Practices From the Perspective of Multinational Corporation
• Tesco Strategic Decisions
• Walmart Global Strategy – International Expansion Case Study
• Exelon Company Strategic Plan
• Refurbishment of the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 27). Organizational Learning and Strategy Differences. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizational-learning-and-strategy-differences/

"Organizational Learning and Strategy Differences." IvyPanda , 27 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/organizational-learning-and-strategy-differences/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Organizational Learning and Strategy Differences'. 27 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Organizational Learning and Strategy Differences." June 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizational-learning-and-strategy-differences/.

1. IvyPanda . "Organizational Learning and Strategy Differences." June 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizational-learning-and-strategy-differences/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Organizational Learning and Strategy Differences." June 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizational-learning-and-strategy-differences/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .