Chapter 2 outlined the meaning of organizational learning, the three perspectives of organizational learning and the levels of organizational learning. This chapter adopts a traditional cognitive perspective which treats organizational learning as an information process and helps with the operationalization of the concept.
The diverse ways of interpreting organizational learning creates a challenge to generalize the results and select the “appropriate” method - qualitative, quantitative, or both - that the study should adopt in studying organizational learning (Miner & Mezias, 1996). Over the past decade, one of the models that has been empirically tested frequently is Huber's (1991) perspective (e.g. Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2011; Pérez López, Peón, & Ordás, 2005; Pérez López, Peón, & Ordás, 2004). The model also maintains a broad view of organizational learning that is capable of capturing the multifaceted characteristics and inter-linked processes across levels. Huber (1991) approaches learning from a cognitive perspective and suggests that an organization learns “through its processing of information” and, for this reason, “the
149
range of its potential behaviors has changed” (Huber, 1991, p.89). Huber perceived organizational learning as an information generating process that happens among individuals, groups and organizations as a whole. Four components are used to describe the learning process: knowledge acquisition, information distribution,
information interpretation and organizational memory.
Knowledge acquisition is the first step towards organizational learning. In order to
serve organizational development needs knowledge needs to be acquired. Sources of knowledge can come from inside and outside the organization. For example, internally, some of the knowledge is inherited from those already working in the organization at the time of the assessment. Additionally, some knowledge can be created by research and development and some knowledge is accumulated from experience during the organizational production process (Huber, 1991). One example for gaining knowledge externally is to hire new employees with the knowledge in demand. Knowledge can also be acquired through mergers and acquisitions. More recent views on learning based on cognition consider these clear- cut distinctions is challenging to divide when explaining how knowledge works in practice (Clark, 2008). In fact, any distinction between internal and external is arbitrary and the knowledge acquisition process is more a cognitive exchange where internal and external resources ‘interplay’ (e.g. Clark & Chalmers, 1998). Despite the way ‘acquisition’ is intended, this aspect can be considered a key of learning.
Information distribution concerns how to spread information among individuals and
departments in organizations. Information distribution leads to “more broadly based organizational learning” (Huber, 1991, p. 101). Good information dissemination
150
among departments helps organizational members to understand needs of other departments (Huber, 1991). It also improves organizational efficiency when projects require coordination among multiple departments (Hansen, 2002). Tacit and explicit knowledge has been reviewed extensively in the literature of knowledge management (Matzler et al., 2011a). Explicit knowledge is about rules and procedures that can be documented in organizations to guide employees’ behavior. This kind of knowledge is easily replicated and distributed in organizations. However, according to the proponents of this approach, the majority of the organizations’ knowledge is ‘stored’ in individuals’ heads and it is tacit (Kim, 1993). Tacit knowledge is challenging for organizations because it is difficult to locate its source and to initiate knowledge sharing. This is because, in a very traditional view based on neoclassic economics, people who share knowledge could face the risk of losing their competitive advantage over other people (Borges, 2013). Instead, a more prosocial view of individual knowledge sharing can be based on a more distributed or systemic view of cognition (e.g. Hutchins, 1995). Individuals in an organization share ‘information’ because they treat each other and the external artifacts as external cognitive resources (Hutchins, 1995). This leads them to behave prosocially when leaning on each other’s information; in short cooperation and altruistic behavior are more likely to emerge (Secchi, 2011) provided the appropriate cognitive abilities develop (Hutchins, 2014).
Information interpretation concerns people in organizations giving one or more
commonly understood meanings to information. Reaching a certain extent of common interpretation on information is necessary for organizations to make the right strategic decisions (Sinkula, Baker, & Noordewier, 1997) and achieve efficient
151
cooperation between departments (Huber, 1991). Knowledge interpretation mostly depends on a series of factors in between organizational and individual characteristics. An example of how interpretation of ideas, thinking, behavior, practices, processes or anything else occurs is given by studies of intra- organizational diffusion processes. These studies point out how organizational routines, culture, peer social identity, individual attitudes and cognition are particularly relevant for information interpretation to emerge (e.g. Abrahamson & Rosenkopf, 1997; Fiol & O’Connor, 2003; Secchi & Gullekson, 2015).
Organizational memory is about retaining information in organizations in forms of
standard operating procedures, structural artefacts and mental models (Walsh & Ungson, 1991). Not all memory is explicit; instead, some memory is covert, tacit, and difficult to observe (Becker, 2004). This nature of being unobservable creates difficulties to interpret information (Sinkula et al., 1997). The effect of organizational memory can be understood from two dimensions. On the one hand, it increases organizational efficiency by automatically retrieving past successful experience and conducting behavior repetitively when a known situation triggers a standard response. Routines as organizational memory have been studied substantially and are credited as a source of stability and change (e.g. Nelson & Winter, 1982; Feldman, 2000; Feldman and Pentland, 2008). On the other hand, organizational memories are often ‘condemned’ as being an enemy to organizational development, especially when routines become incompatible with a changed environment (Walsh & Ungson, 1991) or like organizational defensive routines, become regular behavior to avoid organizational issues which may elicit embarrassment and threat. This avoidance behavior is considered to have negative
152 effects on organizational learning (Argyirs, 1990).