No theory or model of organizational learning has widespread acceptance.This paper clarifies the distinction between organizational learning and organizational adaptation and shews that change does not necessarily imply learning.There are different levels of learning, each having a different impact on the strategic management of the firm. (Chandler ,1962 ; Duncan, 197^;Jelinek, 1979; iwiles and Snow, 197'-; filler and Friesen, 1950;Shrivastava, 1981) ( Starbuck, Greve, ana Kedberg, 1978 Areas of ConsensusThere are several areas where there appears to be some agreement or consensus regarding a theory for organizational learning.We will address these first in order to lay the groundwork ana the foundation for our discussion of areas where there is still divergence.We intend to focus on major concepts rather than to attempt an exhaustive literature review for each of these areas. Environmental AlignmentConvergence exists on the importance of alignment.Theorists such as Chandler (1962), Katz and Kahn (I966) and Thompson (19c?) (1978) and i-iiller and Friesen (1980) recognize the widespread acceptance of this premise. In fact, Chakravarthy (1982) argues that organizational adaptation is the essence of strategic management because it is the key activity for dealing with changes occurring in the environment and involves the continuous process of making strategic choices.Organizations have leeway and choice in how they adjust to a changing environment and this leads to the capacity of organizations to learn over time (Miles, 1982 Culture . An organization's culture manifests itself in the overriding ideologies and established patterns of behavior (Lartin, 1952;Schein, 1933).Thus, culture consists cf the shared beliefs, the ideologies, and the norms that influence organizational actiontaking (Beyer, 1981; Pfeffer, 1979; I-.itrcff and hilmann, 19?c).In fact, PCets de Tries and filler (1984) (Argyris and Schon, 1973; Duncan, 1952, 1933;Jelinek, 1979; Shrivastava and Schneider, 1964 Structure . Though often seen as an outcome of learning, the organization's structure plays a crucial role in determining these processes. Duncan (1974) points out that different decision-making structures are needed in the same organizational unit, depending on the degree of flexibility that is required: a centralized, mechanistic structure tends to reinforce past behaviors whereas an organic, more decentralized structure tends to allow shifts of beliefs ana actions.By reducing the information demands, the decentralized structure reduces the cognitive workload of the individuals, thereby facilitating the assimilation of new patters and associations

This paper proposes and tests a model of IJV learning and performance that segments absorptive capacity into the three components originally proposed by Cohen and Levinthal (1990). First, trust between an IJV's parents and the IJV's relative absorptive capacity with its foreign parent are suggested to influence its ability to understand new knowledge held by foreign parents. Second, an IJV's learning structures and processes are proposed to influence its ability to assimilate new knowledge from those parents. Third, the IJV's strategy and training competence are suggested to shape its ability to apply the assimilated knowledge. Revisiting the Hungarian IJVs studied by Lyles and Salk (1996) 3 years later, we find support for the knowledge understanding and application predictions, and partial support for the knowledge assimilation prediction. Unexpectedly, our results suggest that trust and management support from foreign parents are associated with IJV performance but not learning. Our model and results offer a new perspective on IJV learning and performance as well as initial insights into how those relationships change over time. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

We are grateful to Linda Argote for her support throughout the process of writing this paper. We also want to thank Bas Warmerhoven for his assistance, Ed Noyons for his support in the bibliometric analysis, and to Kirsten Foss for comments on an earlier version of this paper.

No theory or model of organizational learning has widespread acceptance.This paper clarifies the distinction between organizational learning and organizational adaptation and shews that change does not necessarily imply learning.There are different levels of learning, each having a different impact on the strategic management of the firm. (Chandler ,1962 ; Duncan, 197^;Jelinek, 1979; iwiles and Snow, 197'-; filler and Friesen, 1950;Shrivastava, 1981) ( Starbuck, Greve, ana Kedberg, 1978 Areas of ConsensusThere are several areas where there appears to be some agreement or consensus regarding a theory for organizational learning.We will address these first in order to lay the groundwork ana the foundation for our discussion of areas where there is still divergence.We intend to focus on major concepts rather than to attempt an exhaustive literature review for each of these areas. Environmental AlignmentConvergence exists on the importance of alignment.Theorists such as Chandler (1962), Katz and Kahn (I966) and Thompson (19c?) (1978) and i-iiller and Friesen (1980) recognize the widespread acceptance of this premise. In fact, Chakravarthy (1982) argues that organizational adaptation is the essence of strategic management because it is the key activity for dealing with changes occurring in the environment and involves the continuous process of making strategic choices.Organizations have leeway and choice in how they adjust to a changing environment and this leads to the capacity of organizations to learn over time (Miles, 1982 Culture . An organization's culture manifests itself in the overriding ideologies and established patterns of behavior (Lartin, 1952;Schein, 1933).Thus, culture consists cf the shared beliefs, the ideologies, and the norms that influence organizational actiontaking (Beyer, 1981; Pfeffer, 1979; I-.itrcff and hilmann, 19?c).In fact, PCets de Tries and filler (1984) (Argyris and Schon, 1973; Duncan, 1952, 1933;Jelinek, 1979; Shrivastava and Schneider, 1964 Structure . Though often seen as an outcome of learning, the organization's structure plays a crucial role in determining these processes. Duncan (1974) points out that different decision-making structures are needed in the same organizational unit, depending on the degree of flexibility that is required: a centralized, mechanistic structure tends to reinforce past behaviors whereas an organic, more decentralized structure tends to allow shifts of beliefs ana actions.By reducing the information demands, the decentralized structure reduces the cognitive workload of the individuals, thereby facilitating the assimilation of new patters and associations

Research on organizational knowledge transfer is burgeoning, and yet our understanding of its antecedents and consequences remains rather unclear. Although conceptual and qualitative reviews of the organizational knowledge transfer literature have emerged, no study has attempted to summarize previous quantitative empirical findings. As a first step towards that goal, we use meta-analytic techniques to examine how knowledge, organization and network level antecedents differentially impact organizational knowledge transfer. Additionally, we consolidate research on the relationship between knowledge transfer and its consequences. We also demonstrate how the intra- and inter-organizational context, the directionality of knowledge transfers, and measurement characteristics moderate the relationships studied. By aggregating and consolidating existing research, our study not only reveals new insights into the levers and outcomes of organizational knowledge transfer, but also provides meaningful directions for future research. Copyright (c) Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2008.