Schools of Thought in Organizational Learning

Abstract

This article attempts to bring coherence to the diversity that characterizes organizational learning research. It argues that organizational learning is embedded in four schools of thought: an economic school, a managerial school, a developmental school, and a process school. The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the schools, describes how they differ from each other, and outlines how each of them can be employed effectively. To demonstrate the benefits of theoretical plurality, the four schools are applied to the key marketing topics of market orientation and new product development. Implications for future research in marketing are provided.

Organizational learning in construction supply chains

“…Each school of thought has an important contribution to make, however over-emphasis of a particular school of thought at the expense of alternative schools is argued to diminish the overall impact of organizational learning (Bell et al, 2002 …”

“…This approach to learning capitalizes on the "detection and correction of errors" (Argyris, 1977 p.120) Cognitive development is usually immediate and directly related to a set of specific circumstances. In terms of learning capacity, the majority of learning may be classified at the lower-end of the learning taxonomy (Bell et al, 2002).…”

“…In contrast to the economic school of thought, the managerial school of thought addresses higher order learning (Bell et al, 2002). However, the adhoc delivery of management-led training arguably dilutes the potential value of the learning experience.…”

“…In summary, Bell et al's (2002) schools of thought in organizational learning represent a pragmatic and holistic framework for the exploration of organizational learning in UK construction supply chains (see Table 1.). (Bell et al, 2002).…”

Innovation behaviour and the use of research and extension services in small-scale agricultural holdings

“…Trice & Beyer (1991) assert that MO and LO are entrepreneurial attributes that are very closely associated with innovation activities and culture. Extensive research also suggests a positive relationship or interdependence between LO and MO (Day, 1994;Slater & Narver, 1995;Sinkula et al, 1997;Baker & Sinkula, 2002;Bell et al, 2002;Lin et al, 2008). Grinstein (2008) also suggest that firms with lower learning capabilities have an inflexible construction of MO, which involves that market oriented effort of those firms could be associated to imitation rather than innovation.…”