Organizational Learning: Debates Past, Present And Future

Abstract

In this paper we attempt to map the development of organizational learning as a field of academic study by examining the rise and fall of specific debates. This does not pretend to be a comprehensive review of the field since there is now far too much material available to allow full coverage in any single publication. Rather, we have identified some of the key debates, and these have been organized along the simplistic time-line of past, present and future. Our purpose is two-fold: first, to note how the nature and language of the key ideas in organizational learning have changed over time; and second, to locate the papers in this Special Issue within the context of the developing field. It is perhaps no accident that we see most of the papers as closely associated with new, and emerging, issues, but we also find it interesting to note that many of these current or emergent issues actually have roots within some of the earlier debates. Organizational learning is now an established field of study, and in this millennial year it is timely to review the state of this field. The papers published in this Special Issue of JMS represent important contributions to the field as currently constituted. They were selected from a collection of 102 papers submitted to the 3rd International Conference on Organizational Learning held at Lancaster University in June 1999. [4] From the original set, 48 papers were selected for presentation at the conference, and a sub-set of six were selected for this Special Issue.Our remarks will draw on the larger pool of papers, in addition to the six presented here. Our intent is to sketch a rough map, which will be both temporal and Address for reprints: Mark Easterby-Smith, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster LA1 4YX.

Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size?

“…In spite of the extensive literature on internal knowledge creation capability, the lack of consensus surrounding this construct has given rise to an insufficient debate about its measurement (Easterby- Smith et al, 2000). The majority of these studies measure internal knowledge creation capability through R&D spending (e.g., Bierly and Chakrabarti, 1996).…”

Leaving Behind What We are Not: Applying a Systems Thinking Perspective to Present Unlearning as an Enabler for Finding the Best Version of the Self

“…Furthermore, it is under debate what the difference between learning and unlearning is (Easterby-Smith, Crossan, and Nicolini 2000). In its broadest sense, learning involves the acquisition of new knowledge while unlearning means discarding old knowledge.…”

“…Using the term unlearning to describe phases of reflection seems redundant as it would highlight what learning theories already acknowledge. Learning and unlearning would be two sides of the same coin (Easterby-Smith, Crossan, and Nicolini 2000).…”

Method-based learning: a case in the asphalt construction industry

“…In our research, we take the view that learning takes place through interaction between people, rather than in the human mind only as social learning theory claims (Easterby-Smith et al, 2000). Kolb (1984) described experiential learning as a perspective on learning in which experience plays a central role.…”