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.

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.

Organizational learning (OL) is receiving increasing attention from researchers and practitioners alike. In fact, some have suggested that the only sustainable competitive advantage is a firm's ability to learn faster than its competitors. In spite of OL's promise, the field has been slow to evolve. The primary impediments to the development of OL theory are that inconsistent terminology is used for comparable concepts and that different definitions are used to describe the phenomenon. Furthermore, many theorists have neglected to make explicit their underlying assumptions about the phenomenon. Employing an inductive approach, this review surfaces the implicit and explicit assumptions of OL researchers, identifying three key dimensions that differentiate perspectives: (1) unit of analysis—individual, group, organizational, and inter organizational; (2) cognitive/behavioral emphasis; and (3) the learning‐performance relationship.

No abstract

Some of the common organizational requirements prescribed for generic business strategies of cost leadership and differentiation are empirically examined in a study consisting of 69 business units. The results suggest the fit between business unit strategy and the internal organization of multi‐business companies does have an effect upon business unit performance.

Twenty‐five years of empirical research has failed to resolve a basic strategy question. Does strategic purity pay? Most theorists believe strategic purity—the extent to which a business pursues one type of generic strategy over another—contributes to better performance. By defining the strategy space consistent with the theory, and employing improved design and methods, our study of 2,351 businesses finds a significant relationship between strategic purity and performance. Purity does appear to pay. Some variations in strategic purity and performance relationship were observed across four major industry sectors: manufacturing, construction, retail, and business services. But in all instances pure strategies never did less well, and often did better than hybrid strategies. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

c Increasingly the makeup of the top management group is believed to affect the development, identification and exploitation of strategic opportunities. This paper explains a creative management model, which goes beyond conventional strategic management, and ident$es the behaviors of top managers needed for the ongoing renewal of their business. It is proposed these behaviors cluster and can be aligned with different and distinct cognitive styles or types. The implication is that top management groups should be composed of a mix of types. This paper posits a mix of Jungian types, Intuitives, Feelers, Thinkers and Sensors. This diversity can yield great strength if the differences can be focused and unified.Propositions and suggestions for further empirical research are developed.