Learning in Organizations (BG.L)

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

Resources: Main Page | Research Methods (A) | Major Theories (B) | Issues and Contemporary Topics (C) | Professional Community (D)

Rack BG (Org. Development & Change) — Work-Focused Change | People-Focused Change | Process and Context-Focused Change | Learning in Orgs. (BG.L)

Jump to: Importance | Foundational Works | Research Areas | Curated List of Articles | TAOP Resources | References

How do organizations learn — and what does “learning” mean in an organizational context, anyway? This has been an important subfield throughout the history of organization studies as the idea of how individuals learn has been brought to higher levels of analysis. Organizational learning has since evolved into its own major subfield.

This is another subfield that is challenge to put into one “bucket” of theories — we could have placed it in Rack BB2 for meso-level behavior or even Rack BQ on post-modern perspectives as some scholars use organizational learning as a critical tool. But we placed it here because of the common and logical association of learning with change and change management which resources in Rack BG cover.

Importance of Organizational Learning Research in Organization Studies

Organizational learning emerged as a distinct field in the mid-20th century, examining how organizations acquire, process, and use knowledge. The field fundamentally asks how organizations learn from experience and adapt their behaviors based on that learning. This includes studying both formal learning processes and informal ways organizations develop and share knowledge. The following are some of the constructs and ideas associated with the field, and we have covered several of them in our program (especially through our series on the Carnegie-Mellon School).

Learning Processes. Researchers examine how organizations detect and correct errors, how they acquire new knowledge, and how they transfer knowledge between different parts of the organization. This includes studying both individual learning within organizations and collective learning processes.

Knowledge Management. This focuses on how organizations create, retain, and transfer knowledge. It examines both explicit knowledge (that can be easily documented) and tacit knowledge (embedded in practice and experience). Knowledge management is a very active area of research in contemporary times as the ability to generate and analyze larger amounts of corporate data has become very important to managers. Some subtopics include: (a) Digital knowledge management systems and their effectiveness, (b) cross-cultural knowledge transfer in multinational organizations, (c) the role of social networks in knowledge sharing, and (d) How organizations balance knowledge protection with knowledge sharing. Also see Racks CD on Digitization and CR on Resource Management for more contemporary perspectives.

Organizational Memory. This area explores how organizations store and retrieve learning over time, including both formal systems (like databases and procedures) and informal mechanisms (like organizational culture and shared understanding).

Learning Barriers. Scholars are interested in what prevents organizations from learning effectively, including defensive routines, structural barriers, and cultural factors that can inhibit learning. For example, Chris Argyris’s work on defensive routines showed how organizations often protect themselves from threatening or embarrassing information, which has the by-product of preventing organizational and individual learning. His concept of “skilled incompetence” explains how people’s very competence in defending against threat can prevent organizational learning.

Single-, Double-, and Triple-loop Learning. These constructs represent different hierarchical levels of learning. Aston (2020) describes this as follows:

Single-loop = Are we doing things right? This is about whether the organization’s actions are being properly performed and achieve the desired results. Learning occurs with the changes that organization undertakes to get back on track.
Double-loop = Are we doing the right things? This is a deeper reflection about what the organization is doing and how to determine if some other activities should be done instead. This typically involves questioning assumptions, reviewing norms and practices, and examining policies.
Triple-loop = Is what we are doing right? This is the deepest, longest-term reflection about the values, mission, or vision of the organization. It comes about when questioning the overall direction and purpose of the organization, and learning comes with transformational change.

Learning Organization. This strand examines how organizations can structure themselves to promote continuous learning and adaptation. It looks at both the characteristics of learning organizations and how organizations can develop these capabilities. Learning in this area of research is seen as purposeful and desirable, and proper learning should not only lead to better performance but also avoiding the development of undesired habits.

Crisis Learning. This examines how organizations learn from failures, accidents, and crises, including both the immediate learning from specific incidents and longer-term organizational changes. Research goes beyond how crisis affects the organization itself, but also how organizations learn from others’ crises (which does not necessarily mean the learning is either good or correct — overreactions can happen. Contextual changes among crises or near-misses (that is, the looming threat of a crisis appears palpable but does not manifest and the threat subsides) and the intersection of learning from and preparation for crisis against the need to sustain sready-state operations are also potent areas of research.

Some Foundational Works on Organizational Learning in Organization Studies

The key word in the title is “some.” Organizational learning has been both a subject of scholarly works and popular business literature. We have focused more on the scholarly fare here but acknowledge that works like Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline remains very popular and influential today. We start with several classics that we covered in our Carnegie-Mellon Series.

James March & Herb Simon, Organizations. Originally published in 1958, we covered the 1993 2nd edition in Episode 85. As a whole, the book constitutes an extensive research agenda emanating from several key questions about organizations that “classic” organization theory (such as in Rack BA) left unanswered. This book was among the first to consider organizations as information processing systems and therefore proposed a number of variables and relationships that researchers should explore to account for these behaviors. In total, there are over 200 variables named (and listed in an Appendix) from which several hundred propositions are argued, covering such topics as how decisions are made; how members decide to join, stay, or leave the organization; how conflict arises and is mitigated; and how organizations plan or innovate.

Richard Cyert and James March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. We covered this 1963 book in Episode 4 that discussed organizational routines. It showed how organizations learn through updating their standard operating procedures based on experience. They introduced concepts like problemistic search and organizational routines that remain central to understanding organizational learning.

Barbara Levitt & James March, “Organizational Learning”. We covered this 1988 paper in Episode 42 that synthesized much earlier work. Topics in the paper include learning from experience, organizational memory, ecologies of learning, and organizational intelligence. Of particular interest is how organizational learning was defined as not an outcome but a process of translating the cumulative experiences of individuals and codifying them as routines within the organization. From this, the authors applied the brain metaphor – such as memory and intelligence – to explain the phenomenon.

James March, “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning”. This 1991 article expanded on the idea that organizations learn in multiple ways. He showed how organizations must balance learning new possibilities (“exploration”) with improving existing capabilities (“exploitation”). We covered this paper in Episode 19.

Chris Argyris and Donald Schön, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. This 1978 book (along with other collaborative works of theirs) introduced the crucial distinction between single-loop learning and double-loop learning described above. They also developed the concept of defensive routines – ways organizations prevent themselves from learning.

Karl Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing. This 1979 book contributed important theoretical insights about how organizations make sense of their experiences and learn from them. His concepts of sensemaking and loose coupling help explain how organizations process and interpret information. His subsequent works in high-reliability organizations (Episode 20) and crisis response (Episode 64) elaborated on how organizations learn from crisis situations.

Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. This 1990 book remains very popular because it highlights some important organizational dysfunctions that get in the way of learning, such as overreactions to immediate events while ignoring slow evolutionary changes that in the long run can be more damaging. The aim of the book is to help teams and organizations adopt more effective participative habits that lead to better decisions and learning.

Contemporary Areas of Research

The study of learning in organizations has evolved to address contemporary challenges and incorporate new theoretical perspectives in several areas.

Roles of ethical leadership and ethical climates. To what extent do organizations learn better when their organizational cultures are driven by ethical climates and expectations of ethical leadership? Just how does ethical leadership foster an environment conducive to organizational learning? Some studies are indicating that leaders who display accountability, fairness, and concern for others, significantly enhance organizational learning by setting high ethical standards and promoting a culture of trust and openness (Usman & Hameed, 2017; Faradonbeh et al., 2013). This leadership style not only encourages employees to engage in continuous learning but also facilitates knowledge sharing and collaboration, which encourage organizational growth and adaptability in a competitive landscape (Usman et al., 2018).

Ethical climates’ impacts on learning outcomes. A related topic is the benefit of nurturing an ethical work climate, defined as the shared perceptions of what constitutes ethical behavior within an organization, plays a pivotal role in shaping employee attitudes and behaviors (Wang & Hsieh, 2012). Research has shown that a positive ethical climate can enhance organizational commitment and reduce turnover intentions among employees, thereby fostering a more stable and engaged workforce (Cai, 2024; Choi, 2015). It may also influence how employees approach learning and development opportunities, with ethical organizations encouraging a culture of inquiry and reflection that promotes continuous improvement (DeConinck et al., 2013).

Advancing learning in specific settings. Different types of organizations may experience learning differently due to various contextual factors. The study of learning in the healthcare industry, for example, is a prominent topic. Studies have highlighted ethical competence in healthcare governance leads to improved inter-organizational learning and ultimately to better patient care (Falkenström & Höglund, 2019). The ability to learn from ethical dilemmas and conflicts has been found to help healthcare professionals sustain the capacity to navigate complex moral landscapes and improve care delivery (Yazdimoghaddam et al., 2023; Pishgooie et al., 2018). Other scholars are interested in how healthcare organizations implement training programs that equip staff with the skills necessary to address these difficult challenges effectively (Cannaerts et al., 2014).

Identifying and overcoming barriers to learning. Chris Argyris’ works in organizational learning has led to a robust research area seeking to root out and mitigate various barriers to learning. The different types of barriers include cultural barriers (e.g., blame cultures), structural (e.g., departmental silos), and interpersonal or political (e.g., where learning threatens existing power structures). Studies have highlighted that organizational culture plays a crucial role in shaping learning behaviors, such that a culture that lacks support for knowledge sharing and collaboration can create significant barriers to learning (Poor et al., 2014). Organizational structures that act as rigid hierarchies overrun with formal procedures can impede the flow of information and hinder collaborative learning (Ingvaldsen & Engesbak, 2020). Studies suggest that organizations should consider adopting more flexible and decentralized structures that promote agility and responsiveness, thereby facilitating better knowledge sharing and learning (Torgalöz et al., 2022; Alhamad & Aladwan, 2019). Barriers to learning can also be cognitive, as factors such as burnout, job satisfaction, and workplace incivility can impact employees’ willingness to engage in learning activities (Chan et al., 2022; Clercq et al., 2019).

Curated List of Articles from the Management Learning Journal

This is a curated list of resources originated provided by the Management Learning Journal for the TAOP website. Many thanks to Jarryd Daymond and Cara Reed for assembling this.

**Hawkins, B., Pye, A. and Correia, F. (2017). Boundary objects, power, and learning: The matter of developing sustainable practice in organizations. Management Learning, 48(3), 292–310, doi: 10.1177/1350507616677199**.

This article develops an understanding of the agential role of boundary objects in generating and politicizing learning in organizations, as it emerges from the entangled actions of humans and non-humans. We offer two empirical vignettes in which middle managers seek to develop more sustainable ways of working. Informed by Foucault’s writing on power, our work highlights how power relations enable and foreclose the affordances, or possibilities for action, associated with boundary objects. Our data demonstrate how this impacts the learning that emerges as boundary objects are configured and unraveled over time. In so doing, we illustrate how boundary objects are not fixed entities, but are mutable, relational, and politicized in nature. Connecting boundary objects to affordances within a Foucauldian perspective on power offers a more nuanced understanding of how ‘the material’ plays an agential role in consolidating and disrupting understandings in the accomplishment of learning.

**Izak, M. (2016). Nothing left to learn: Translation and the Groundhog Day of bureaucracy, Management Learning, 47(5), 543–562, doi: 10.1177/1350507616629330**.

Beyond the existing theorizing of translation as a creative disruption in both occupational and semantic terms, this study explores it critically in the experiential framework of professional translators and as a meaning-making process. Acknowledging the role of translation in creating dialogic and radical climates for learning, the article proposes to explore the other side of this relationship by studying how the limiting of space for translation delimits the possibilities for meaning-creation, thus precluding dialogue. In addition to this general point, it ponders the specific aporia of organizationally embedded adversity of translation in the occupational context (apparently) devoted to semantic labour, namely that of translator’s work. It demonstrates that the rigidity of meaning-making and the inexorableness of partaking in the uncanny déjà vu are the reflections of specific organizational (bureaucratic) frame and posits that they may be used as experiential and semantic heuristics for better understanding learning and non-learning in organizations.

**Grenier, R. S. et al. (2022). Advancing book clubs as non-formal learning to facilitate critical public pedagogy in organizations. Management Learning, 53(3), 483–501, doi: 10.1177/13505076211029823**.

Book clubs are a well-known form of social engagement and are beneficial for those who take part, yet book clubs are not fully realized within management as a site for learning. This is unfortunate because book clubs that read fiction can foster social processes and help employees in search of more critical and emancipatory forms of learning. We theoretically synthesize the literature to advance current thinking with regard to book clubs as critical public pedagogy in organizations. We begin by introducing book clubs as non-formal adult learning. Then, book clubs that employ fiction as a cultural artifact are presented as a way for members to build relationships, learn together, and to engage in cultural change work. Next, the traditional notions of book clubs are made pedagogically complex through the lens of critical public pedagogy. Finally, we offer two implications: (1) as public pedagogy, book clubs can act as an alternative to traditional learning structures in organizations; and (2) book clubs, when valued as public pedagogy, can be fostered by those in management learning and HRD for consciousness raising and challenging existing mental models in their organizations.

**Bristow, A., Tomkins, L. and Hartley, J. (2022). A dialectical approach to the politics of learning in a major city police organization. Management Learning, 53(2), 223–248, doi: 10.1177/1350507621991996**.

In this paper we develop a dialectical approach to the organizational politics of learning, exploring complexity, tensions and asymmetries. Turning this kaleidoscopic lens on our empirical setting, a major city police organization, we mix the blue light of police vehicles into Driver’s (2002) ‘fluorescent’ light of office workplaces, fragmenting the brightness of ‘Utopian sunshine’ and the darkness of ‘Foucauldian gloom’ perspectives on organizational learning, and making visible a wider spectrum of political colours of learning. We identify four interdependent political modalities of learning: empowering, coercive, insurgent and palliative and explore how they interplay in complex and contradictory ways. We note that, whilst mainstream and critical literatures tend to focus on organizational learning as, respectively, empowering and coercive, and to a lesser extent insurgent, much of the politics of learning in our study converges in the palliative modality, where the emphasis is on learning-to-cope (rather than learning-to-thrive, learning-to-comply or learning-to-resist). We show that the palliative modality of learning is in many ways an outcome of the dynamic and complex engagement between the other three modalities. We discuss the implications of our findings for a more nuanced understanding of learning as political, and of the relationship between organizational learning and power.

Vince, R. et al. (2018). Finding critical action learning through paradox: The role of action learning in the suppression and stimulation of critical reflection. Management Learning, 49(1), 86–106, doi: 10.1177/1350507617706832.

In this article, we highlight paradoxical tensions generated by in-company action learning. We consider the implications of these tensions for critical action learning, which has critical reflection as a core element of its theory and practice. Using paradox theory as a lens, we analyze data from two in-company action learning programs and build a model relating to critical action learning that has four interlinked features. The model can help evaluate in-company action learning with a view to identifying emotional and political dynamics that are open (or closed) to critical reflection. Such identification assists in making judgements about the appropriateness of critical action learning within a specific organizational context. Our broader contribution is to frame action learning and critical action learning not only as separate approaches but also as potentially interlinked stages in an ongoing process of individual and organizational learning.

**Vitry, C., Sage, D. and Dainty, A. (2020). Affective atmospheres of sensemaking and learning: Workplace meetings as aesthetic and anaesthetic. Management Learning, 51(3), 274–292, doi: 10.1177/1350507619893930**.

The aim of this article is to explore sensemaking and learning processes with and through affective atmospheres. We engage with recent research within the ‘affective turn’ across the social sciences and humanities to conceptualize the significance of quasi-autonomous affective atmospheres that emanate from, and also condition, collectives of humans and non-humans. Drawing on this atmospheric scholarship, we propose and elaborate an atmospheric analysis of sensemaking and learning processes to examine how such atmospheres aesthetically transform, and anaesthetically constrain, the potential of bodies, including our own as researchers, to affect and be affected to sense and learn. Through empirical engagement with workplace meetings in a UK housebuilding firm, our analysis contributes by explaining how such atmospheres condition sensemaking that both registers the disorganizing novelty of events and reduces such ambiguity and equivocality to enable purposeful action. While extant research has suggested how the interplay of these two dimensions of sensemaking enables learning, our analysis contributes by drawing attention to how the production, maintenance and transformation of specific atmospheres in workplace meetings imbues affects that condition these two dimensions of sensemaking. Such atmospheres thus constitute vital, yet seldom discussed, phenomena in conditioning learning within organizational life.

**Collien, I. (2018). Critical–reflexive–political: Dismantling the reproduction of dominance in organisational learning processes. Management Learning, 49(2), 131–149, doi: 10.1177/1350507617724882**.

This article identifies and addresses the need for a stronger engagement of power-sensitive organisational learning research with societal power relations and related issues of persisting dominance. Based on Bourdieu’s theory of practice, I lay a theoretical foundation to explain the reproduction of dominance structures in micro-level learning processes. Departing from this foundation, I define a conceptual triad as necessary elements to identify and dismantle the subtle workings of group dominance in organisational learning processes. Each of the triad’s elements – being critical, being reflexive and being political – expands currently underexposed issues in organisational learning research regarding understandings of context, reflexivity and practice-oriented responsibility.

Related Episodes from the Talking About Organizations Podcast

121: Rhetoric vs. Reality — Mark Zbaracki

This month we explore a renowned multiple-case study commonly assigned as foundational readings in organization studies programs. Mark Zbaracki’s “The rhetoric and reality of Total Quality Management” chronicled the development and introduction of Total Quality Management (TQM) into the corporate environment, only to find that in many cases its implementation did not align with the promises made by leaders about process improvements nor did firms fully exercise all the practices and activities that TQM required. The question that Zbaracki posed was more than to what extent did this rhetoric-reality unfold, but why? …

114: Sociotechnical Systems — Trist & Bamforth (revisited)

With over 110 episodes in our catalogue, we decided it was time to take a step back and revisit one of our earlier episodes that continues to come up time and again. Episode 34, covering Trist & Bamforth’s study on the longwall method of coal-getting, was referenced in sixteen (16) episodes since its release. That is more than any other episode! This re-release includes a new supplement further the conversation to contemporary issues and a sidecast on the use of this study as a cautionary tale for professional education …

104: Social Structure & Organizations — Stinchcombe

In a famous chapter in James G. March’s 1965 book, Handbook of Organizations, Arthur L. Stinchcombe laid out a case for expanding the study of organizations outward to include social structure bringing attention to innovation as well as imprinting and inertia. He posited that societies had significant effects on how organizations emerge and operate and that organizations, in turn, impact relations among groups in society. He presented his arguments in three parts. First, that social structures had an imprinting effect on the formation of new organizations, such that these initial forms often persisted despite efforts to change them. Thus, to …

98: Managing Innovation — Burns & Stalker

Why do firms seemingly have difficulties converting new ideas into goods or services? The answer is in the classic book The Management of Innovation from Tom Burns and G. M. Stalker that explored the difficulties that firms, industries, and even nations had in innovating due to the disruptions that it brings to power structures and social fabric in organizations. They also explored key misunderstandings about innovation (such as that the false narrative that bureaucratic structures inherently cannot innovate) and the source of of conflicts across different departments and work groups trying to innovate …

94: Situated Learning – Lave & Wenger

This month, we discuss Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger’s Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, published in 1991. This short but powerful book presents a new way of thinking about adult learning as a social activity in which experienced members of a group or community of practice share their knowledge with new members to perpetuate the group identity. They present five case studies – one by Lave herself with four from other researchers – to help broaden the perspective of how situated learning works social involvement in which newer members are initiated through the exercise of low-risk or controlled tasks …

73: Organizing Innovation — Michael Tushman

Discusses an important work from Michael Tushman about how innovation benefits from individuals who communicate across boundaries. With special guest Hila Lifshitz-Assaf who has collaborated with Tushman and did her own dissertation on boundary spanning in the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) …

72: Organizational Diagnosis — Marvin Weisbord

Business literature is now loaded with models and frameworks designed to help organizations identify, analyze, and fix their problems. But it wasn’t always this way, and in fact a half century ago there were few general-purpose models available that were well-suited for the task. Enter Marvin Weisbord who in the 1970s developed and promoted a simple framework and associated suite of tools designed for anyone to investigate what was going wrong. In this episode, we discuss one of his articles — “Organizational Diagnosis: Six Places to Look for Trouble With or Without a Theory,” published in 1976 in the journal …

55: Group Dynamics and Foundations of Organizational Change – Kurt Lewin

We discuss Kurt Lewin’s article, “Frontiers in Group Dynamics,” that makes a strong case for treating the social sciences on the same level with the natural sciences–previously, social science was considered neither rigorous nor valid. Using metaphors from physics, Lewin explains social phenomena in tangible, physical terms and explains how individuals within a social space interact in ways that could be measured similarly to physical or chemical phenomenon …

42: Carnegie Mellon Series #5 – Organizational Learning

We discuss Barbara Levitt and James G. March’s article “Organizational Learning,” published in the 1988 edition of the Annual Review of Sociology. Although the authors hailed from Stanford University in California, we have included this episode in our Carnegie-Mellon Series because of James March’s involvement and perspectives on organization that clearly influenced the article. This work was a literature review across various streams in organizational learning up through the 1980s. Topics include learning from experience, organizational memory, ecologies of learning, and organizational intelligence. Of particular interest is how organizational learning was defined as not an outcome but a process of …

41: Images of Organization – Gareth Morgan

We tackle Gareth Morgan’s classic book Images of Organization, originally published in 1986. This lengthy and detailed volume synthesizes an incredible range of organization theories and concepts over the previous century and presents them under the umbrella of eight distinct metaphors. Each metaphor represents a different way of understanding the existence and dynamics of organizations, their members, and their interactions with the environment …

39: Carnegie Mellon Series #4 – Organizational Choice

The podcasters discuss a fascinating article, “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice,” published in Administrative Science Quarterly back in 1972 by Michael Cohen, James March, and Johan Olsen. This is another episode from the Carnegie-Mellon University tradition, alongside Episode 4 on Organizational Routines and Episode 19 on Organizational Learning. This installment addresses organizational decision making and choice and, like the others in this series, it changed the way people think about organizations and organizational behavior …

34: Sociotechnical Systems – Trist and Bamforth

We discuss important article by Eric Trist and Ken Bamforth, “Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting,” published in the journal Human Relations in 1951. Eric Trist was a British social scientist best known for his contributions to the field of organization development and one of the founders of the Tavistock Institute. Ken Bamforth was a miner and industrial fellow of the Tavistock Institute. The article’s subtitle is an examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system, and explores how …

24: Learning by Knowledge-Intensive Firms — Bill Starbuck

We discuss another of the classics from the Journal of Management Studies, a paper from 1992 by William Starbuck, entitled “Learning by knowledge-intensive firms”. This time, we are very happy to be joined by the author of the work, Professor William Starbuck, one of the leading experts in Organization Theory, whose research covers an incredible number of areas of expertise, as shown in his biography. This paper is the first to discuss knowledge intensive firms, concept based on the economists’ notions of capital and labour intensive firms, and which are defined as those firms where “knowledge has more importance than …

Reflections on the “Process and Practice Perspectives” Workshop at the University of Queensland Business School

This reflection by Ella Hafermalz follows a 2017 workshop conducted at the UQ Business School on process and practice perspectives. Practice theories in particular emphasise everyday life – what activities are practitioners involved in, and how is meaning exercised through these routines and collectivities? Process philosophy offers a related perspective, with a greater emphasis on how temporality frames and arises from our experiences of everyday life. Are they two different perspectives or really two sides of the same coin? …

22: Human-Machine Reconfigurations – Lucy Suchman

We discuss Lucy Suchman’s book “Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Action” that studied the interaction of humans with a state-of-art photocopier designed to be more user friendly and more helpful in solving user problems. Yet videos showed that people found it complicated and difficult. Suchman shows that these interaction problems are greatly due to the underpinning assumptions about users’ behavior, more specifically, due to the idea that humans’ actions are based on the following of plans, which she refutes …

18: Gig Economy, Labor Relations and Algorithmic Management

We discuss an article by Sarah O’Connor exploring the impact of gig economy and algorithmic management on the employees – what their experience is like, how their work is structured, and whether being a gig economy employee is everything it panned out to be. Gig economy, as well as its benefits and limitations, has been subject to much debate in social policy and labour relations …

6: Bureaucracy – Max Weber

We discuss two chapters of Max Weber’s 1922 book Economy and Society. Weber was most interested in bureaucracy. He believed that bureaucratic coordination of activities is a hallmark of the modern and civilized society. This was not least because bureaucracies are organized according to rational principles, and rationality is an ongoing intellectual effort that is subject to education and discipline. In a bureaucratic organization offices are ranked in a hierarchical order and their operations are characterized by impersonal rules …

4: Carnegie Mellon Series #1 – Organizational Routines

In our first episode on the Carnegie-Mellon School, we examine selected passages from March & Simon’s book Organizations and Cyert & March’s book A Behavioral Theory of the Firm to address the rise of scholarly thought on matters of organizational routines …

Rack BA — Classic Organization and Management Theory

Curated list of resources regarding the major “classical” theories that initiated the field of organization studies, beginning with Taylorism and scientific management and continuing with the theories Fayol, Weber, and others …

Rack BB1 – Organizational Behavior (Micro-Individual)

Curated list of resources regarding the major theories of organization behavior such as emotions, sensemaking, socialization and organizational climate, and many others …

Rack BB2 — Organizational Behavior (Meso-Groups and Teams)

Curated list of resources regarding theories on groups, teams, and other small collections of individuals within an organizational context, from the worker level to top management teams …

Rack BB3 — Organizational Behavior (Macro-Org/System)

Curated list of resources on open systems theory and its many descendents such as general systems theory, cybernetics, and organizational ecology …

Rack BC — Contingency Theory

Curated list of resources regarding the major theories regarding the organizational context and how particular situations influence organizational structures, behaviors, and so on. Includes classic contingency theories and pragmatism …

Rack BD — Organizational Design

Curated list of resources on theories related to organizational structures and design, including control structures, power, and job design …

Rack BG — Organizational Development and Change

Curated list of resources regarding various theories regarding the external environment in organizations, such as labor relations, resource dependence theory, and others …

Rack BH – Human Dimension – Culture, Climate, Identity

Curated list of resources regarding sustainability and corporate social responsibility such as sustainable business practices, responses to climate change, sociomateriality, and ethical considerations …

Rack BI — Institution Theory

Curated list of resources on institution theory as exercised in organization studies …

Rack BL — Leadership Theories

Curated list of resources on theories related to leadership in organizations including classic trait theory, behavioral theories of leadership, and transactional / transformational leadership …

Rack BM – Modern Management Theories

Curated list of resources regarding the major schools of thought and the theoretical perspectives they established. Includes the Carnegie-Mellon School, Aston School, and others …

Rack BQ — Postmodern and Critical Theories

Curated list of resources on postmodernist views of organizations and organizing and contrasting them with the modernist view. Includes critical management studies and complexity theory …

Rack BS — Sociology & Anthropology

Curated list of resources on postmodernist views of organizations and organizing and contrasting them with the modernist view. Includes critical management studies and complexity theory …

References

Anthropic. (2024). What is the subfield of scholarship into organizational learning about; What are the foundational theories and theoretical approaches in the scholarship of organizational learning; What are contemporary areas of research into organizational learning; Please elaborate on the research into knowledge management, learning barriers, and crisis learning in organizational studies. Claude (March 2024 version) [Large Language Model].

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.

Aston, T. (2020, December 29). Assumptions and triple loop learning. Medium. https://thomasmtaston.medium.com/assumptions-and-triple-loop-learning-c9699dacbeab

Bristow, A., Tomkins, L. and Hartley, J. (2022). A dialectical approach to the politics of learning in a major city police organization. Management Learning, 53(2), 223–248, doi: 10.1177/1350507621991996.

Cai, H. (2024). Construed organizational ethical climate and whistleblowing behavior: the moderated mediation effect of person–organization value congruence and ethical leader behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 14(4), 293. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14040293

Cannaerts, N., Gastmans, C., & Casterlé, B. (2014). Contribution of ethics education to the ethical competence of nursing students. Nursing Ethics, 21(8), 861-878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733014523166

Chan, S., Chan, K., & Chan, Y. (2022). Burnout in learning organizations: the roles of organizational respect, job satisfaction and job insecurity. The Learning Organization, 29(5), 506-526. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-01-2022-0014

Choi, S. Y. (2015). The effects of ethical management on social Workers Organizational commitment and turnover intention. Advanced and Technology Letters, 91(6), 32-38.

Clercq, D., Haq, I., & Azeem, M. (2019). The relationship between workplace incivility and depersonalization towards co-workers: Roles of job-related anxiety, gender, and education. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(2), 219-240. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.76

Collien, I. (2018). Critical–reflexive–political: Dismantling the reproduction of dominance in organisational learning processes. Management Learning, 49(2), 131–149, doi: 10.1177/1350507617724882.

Cyert, R. & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Eastford, CT: Martino Fine.

DeConinck, J., DeConinck, M., & Banerjee, D. (2013). Outcomes of an ethical work climate among salespeople. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijba.v4n4p1

Falkenström, E., & Höglund, A. T. (2020). “There is total silence here:” Ethical competence and inter-organizational learning in healthcare governance. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 34(1), 53-70.

Faradonbeh, M., Faradonbeh, F., Semiromi, M., Sedeian, S., & Rostami, A. (2013). A study on relationship between ethical leadership style and organizational learning based on Northouse model: H case study of governmental organizations in province of Charmahal-Bakhtiari in Iran. Management Science Letters, 3(5), 1479-1484. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2013.03.027

Grenier, R. S. et al. (2022). Advancing book clubs as non-formal learning to facilitate critical public pedagogy in organizations. Management Learning, 53(3), 483–501, doi: 10.1177/13505076211029823.

Hawkins, B., Pye, A. and Correia, F. (2017). Boundary objects, power, and learning: The matter of developing sustainable practice in organizations. Management Learning, 48(3), 292–310, doi: 10.1177/1350507616677199.

Ingvaldsen, J. and Engesbak, V. (2020). Organizational learning and bureaucracy: an alternative view. The Learning Organization, 27(5), 403-415. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-11-2019-0168

Izak, M. (2016). Nothing left to learn: Translation and the Groundhog Day of bureaucracy, Management Learning, 47(5), 543–562, doi: 10.1177/1350507616629330.

Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 14(1), 319-338.

March, J. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.

March, J. & Simon, H. (1993). Organizations, 2^nd ed. Blackwell.

Pishgooie, A., Barkhordari-Sharifabad, M., Atashzadeh‐Shoorideh, F., & Falcó‐Pegueroles, A. (2018). Ethical conflict among nurses working in the intensive care units. Nursing Ethics, 26(7-8), 2225-2238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733018796686

Poor, M., Babaahmadi, A., & Poor, M. (2014). Survey role of cultural barriers in the relationship between learning organization and innovation in market. \Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(9), 165-176. https://doi.org/10.12816/0018339

Scite. (2024). What are contemporary areas of research into organizational learning. Scite (April 2024 version) [Large Language Model].

Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

Torgalöz, A., Açar, M., & Kuzey, C. (2022). The effects of organizational learning culture and decentralization upon supply chain collaboration: Analysis of COVID-19 period. Operations Management Research, 16(1), 511-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-022-00316-1

Usman, M. and Hameed, A. (2017). The effect of ethical leadership on organizational learning: Evidence from a petroleum company. Business & Economic Review, 9(4), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.22547/ber/9.4.1

Usman, M., Hameed, A., & Manzoor, S. (2018). Exploring the links between ethical leadership and organizational unlearning: a case study of a european multinational company. Business & Economic Review, 10(2), 29-54. https://doi.org/10.22547/ber/10.2.2

Vince, R. et al. (2018). Finding critical action learning through paradox: The role of action learning in the suppression and stimulation of critical reflection. Management Learning, 49(1), 86–106, doi: 10.1177/1350507617706832.

Vitry, C., Sage, D. and Dainty, A. (2020). Affective atmospheres of sensemaking and learning: Workplace meetings as aesthetic and anaesthetic. Management Learning, 51(3), 274–292, doi: 10.1177/1350507619893930.

Wang, Y. and Hsieh, H. (2012). Organizational ethical climate, perceived organizational support, and employee silence: a cross-level investigation. Human Relations, 66(6), 783-802. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712460706

Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing, 2^nd ed. McGraw-Hill.

Yazdimoghaddam, H., Tabrizi, Z., & Zardosht, R. (2023). Ethical care: nurses’ experience of moral judgment in intensive care units. Journal of Qualitative Research in Health Sciences, 12(1), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.34172/jqr.2023.03.

The inclusion of external links is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute endorsement by TAOP or any of its members.

Jump to: Importance | Foundational Works | Research Areas | Curated List of Articles | TAOP Resources | References

Rack BG (Org. Development & Change) — Work-Focused Change | People-Focused Change | Process and Context-Focused Change | Learning in Orgs. (BG.L)

Resources: Main Page | Research Methods (A) | Major Theories (B) | Issues and Contemporary Topics (C) | Professional Community (D)

TAOP Resources Center -- Aisle B (Major Theoretical Perspectives) -- Rack BG (Org. Development & Change)

Jump to: Importance | Foundational Works | Research Areas | Curated List of Articles | TAOP Resources | References

Importance of Organizational Learning Research in Organization Studies

Some Foundational Works on Organizational Learning in Organization Studies

Contemporary Areas of Research

Curated List of Articles from the Management Learning Journal

Hawkins, B., Pye, A. and Correia, F. (2017). Boundary objects, power, and learning: The matter of developing sustainable practice in organizations. Management Learning, 48(3), 292–310, doi: 10.1177/1350507616677199.

Izak, M. (2016). Nothing left to learn: Translation and the Groundhog Day of bureaucracy, Management Learning, 47(5), 543–562, doi: 10.1177/1350507616629330.

Grenier, R. S. et al. (2022). Advancing book clubs as non-formal learning to facilitate critical public pedagogy in organizations. Management Learning, 53(3), 483–501, doi: 10.1177/13505076211029823.

Bristow, A., Tomkins, L. and Hartley, J. (2022). A dialectical approach to the politics of learning in a major city police organization. Management Learning, 53(2), 223–248, doi: 10.1177/1350507621991996.

Vince, R. et al. (2018). Finding critical action learning through paradox: The role of action learning in the suppression and stimulation of critical reflection. Management Learning, 49(1), 86–106, doi: 10.1177/1350507617706832.

Vitry, C., Sage, D. and Dainty, A. (2020). Affective atmospheres of sensemaking and learning: Workplace meetings as aesthetic and anaesthetic. Management Learning, 51(3), 274–292, doi: 10.1177/1350507619893930.

Collien, I. (2018). Critical–reflexive–political: Dismantling the reproduction of dominance in organisational learning processes. Management Learning, 49(2), 131–149, doi: 10.1177/1350507617724882.

Related Episodes from the Talking About Organizations Podcast

Related Resource Pages

References

Jump to: Importance | Foundational Works | Research Areas | Curated List of Articles | TAOP Resources | References

Do you enjoy Talking About Organizations? Please consider contributing through Buymeacoffee.com/taop!

Follow us on LinkedIn

Do you have a suggestion for us? Click here to access our suggestion page!

TAOP Resource Center (NEW!)

**Hawkins, B., Pye, A. and Correia, F. (2017). Boundary objects, power, and learning: The matter of developing sustainable practice in organizations. Management Learning, 48(3), 292–310, doi: 10.1177/1350507616677199**.

**Izak, M. (2016). Nothing left to learn: Translation and the Groundhog Day of bureaucracy, Management Learning, 47(5), 543–562, doi: 10.1177/1350507616629330**.

**Grenier, R. S. et al. (2022). Advancing book clubs as non-formal learning to facilitate critical public pedagogy in organizations. Management Learning, 53(3), 483–501, doi: 10.1177/13505076211029823**.

**Bristow, A., Tomkins, L. and Hartley, J. (2022). A dialectical approach to the politics of learning in a major city police organization. Management Learning, 53(2), 223–248, doi: 10.1177/1350507621991996**.

**Vitry, C., Sage, D. and Dainty, A. (2020). Affective atmospheres of sensemaking and learning: Workplace meetings as aesthetic and anaesthetic. Management Learning, 51(3), 274–292, doi: 10.1177/1350507619893930**.

**Collien, I. (2018). Critical–reflexive–political: Dismantling the reproduction of dominance in organisational learning processes. Management Learning, 49(2), 131–149, doi: 10.1177/1350507617724882**.