Organizational learning as the creation of corporate competencies

Abstract

Literature on the learning organization There have been a number of reviews of the field of organizational learning. Most of these reviews make the point that the existing literature falls readily into two categories: popular works directed to managers and academic works designed to make a more theoretical contribution. The reviews also point to differences in system levels addressed; for example, some authors argue strongly that only individuals can learn, while others (a minority) adopt a more sociological view, arguing that organizations are systems which can also learn[4-9]. However the most obvious point to emerge from reading the literature in the field is that organizational learning is a tag applied to a divergent set of organizational phenomena which have little in common other than that they could be loosely described as "change for the better". The term organizational learning, like the negative pole of a magnet, seems to attract almost anything with a positive charge. Various authors, for example, have described the following phenomena as organizational learning: (1) training and development[6]; (2) the reduction of defensive routines[7]; (3) a "total learning system" where "the activities of the organization as a whole are more or less continuously monitored to provide feedback which is then used as a basis for learning how to improve performance"[10]; (4) management innovation[11]; and (5) increasing an organization's capacity to take effective action[12]. One of the basic requirements for making advances in science is that concepts acquire agreed meanings; on this criterion the concept of the learning organization ranks more on the level of an ideological slogan than a meaningful scientific term. Some critical issues in defining organizational learning Another approach to developing a meaningful definition of organizational learning is to examine the meaning given it by some of the most quoted authorities in the field. It is not difficult to choose-few articles these days fail to mention the contributions of Argyris and Schon[13-15], and of Senge[16-18]. Central to Argyris and Schon's treatment are the concepts of single-and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning is defined as "instrumental learning that changes strategies of action or assumptions underlying strategies in ways that leave the values of a theory of action unchanged"[7, p. 20]. An example given is quality control inspectors who identify a defective product, convey the information to production engineers, who modify production procedures to eliminate the defect. Such feedback loops do not challenge basic system assumptions and lead to minor incremental change.

Corporate Exploration Competence and the Entrepreneurial Enterprise

“…The dynamic capability [37] of firm's management in being proactive in exploration for external IP is in itself a resource. Indeed, unless top management provides vision and leadership in the pursuit of exploration, the organizational learning [34,64] required to achieve exploration competence will not happen. Besides bringing in new ideas and intellectual assets, such capability will also serve to enhance the leadership of management in the eyes of employees, which in turn will provide positive feedback to exploration and exploitation, as discussed later.…”

Do senior management development programmes enhance strategic management capabilities?

“…The achievement of such objectives is likely to contribute to the development of organizational competencies, particularly the 'engagement competencies' defined by Dunphy et al (1997), which were found to be positively correlated with effective change in organizations.…”

Acting in a Globalized World: Marketing Perspective

“…A firm is seen to be embedded in a network of exchange relationships, which enables the firm to have access to complementary resources and activities of other actors in the firm's network (Awuah, 2008;Gummesson, 2002;Håkansson and Snehota, 1995). In interaction with other actors in a firm's network, the firm and the interacting partners engage in mutual learning, which will among other things, enhance the firm's ability to perform better (Tzokas and Saren, 2004;Dunphy et al, 1997). According to Cavusgil, et al, (2012) a firm, which engages in international businesses stands the better chance to learn much about world market than those that are focused only in the domestic market.…”

“…As Anderson and Narus (2004) assert, a firm designs, produces and delivers goods and services by sharing knowledge and experiences with some significant actors in the marketplace. According to Dunphy et al, (1997), organizations are concerned with learning if it helps them to perform better. However, learning cannot be a sole internal activity.…”