School of Business Although interest in organizational learning has grown dramatically in recent years, a general theory of organizational learning has remained elusive. We identify renewal of the overall enterprise as the underlying phenomenon of interest and organizational learning as a principal means to this end. With this perspective we develop a framework for the process of organizational learning, presenting organizational learning as four processes-intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing-linking the individual, group, and organizational levels.

This paper consolidates the state of academic research on "innovation". Based on a systematic review of literature published over the past 27 years, we synthesize various research perspectives into a comprehensive multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation - linking leadership, innovation as a process, and innovation as an outcome. We also suggest measures of determinants of organizational innovation and present implications for both research and managerial practice. Copyright (c) 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Review.Although interest in organizational learning has grown dramatically in recent years, a general theory of organizational learning has remained elusive. We identify renewal of the overall enterprise as the underlying phenomenon of interest and organizational learning as a principal means to this end. With this perspective we develop a framework for the process of organizational learning, presenting organizational learning as four processes-intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing-linking the individual, group, and organizational levels.

This paper considers the relationship between the stocks and flows of learning across levels in an overall organizational learning system. A survey instrument based on the Strategic Learning Assessment Map (SLAM) was administered to 15 individuals representing senior-, middle-and non-management levels from each of 32 organizations, resulting in a total sample of 480 respondents. This research supports the premise that there is a positive relationship between the stocks of learning at all levels and business performance. Furthermore, the proposition that the misalignment of stocks and flows in an overall organizational learning system is negatively associated with business performance is also supported.

This paper builds on the principles and insights from improvisational theater to unpack the nature of collective improvisation and to consider what it takes to do it well and to innovate. Furthermore, we discuss the role of training in enhancing the incidence and effectiveness of improvisation. We propose that two common misconceptions about improvisation have hindered managers’ understanding of how to develop the improvisational skill. First, the spontaneous facet of improvisation tends to be overemphasized, and second, there is a general assumption that improvisation always leads to positive performance. Our goal is to clear up the conceptual confusion about improvisation by laying out the various aspects of preparation that are required for effective improvisation. In our theoretical model, we delineate how the improvisational theater principles of “practice,” “collaboration,” “agree, accept, and add,” “be present in the moment,” and “draw on reincorporation and ready-mades” can be used to understand what it takes to improvise well in work teams and to create a context favoring these efforts. Our findings support a contingent view of the impact of improvisation on innovative performance. Improvisation is not inherently good or bad; however, improvisation has a positive effect on team innovation when combined with team and contextual moderating factors. We also provide initial evidence suggesting that the improvisational skill can be learned by organizational members through training. Our results shed light on the opportunities provided by training in improvisation and on the challenges of creating behavioral change going beyond the individual to the team and, ultimately, to the organization.