The Impact of Organisational Learning on the Creation and Communication of Knowledge - Coursework Example

? The impact of organizational learning on the creation and communication of knowledge Table of Contents The impact of organizational learning on thecreation and communication of knowledge 1 Background of the study 3 Purpose of the study 3 Nature and extent of the issues 4 Role of communication in business 6 The social network 8 Learning through experience 8 Conclusion 11 Reference List 12 Critical review Background of the study Organizational learning refers to the change that occurs in an organization due to the knowledge acquired by the members of the organization through experience gathered with passage of time. Although this is the most common explanation of the term, ‘organizational learning’ is defined in various ways by researchers. These definitions are affected by the mission and vision of the organizations that have been considered for the research and also the perspectives and pre-accumulated views of the scholars. Hence organizational learning has essentially become an interdisciplinary topic. Research on this topic draws elements from a number of fields and also outcome of this research makes extensive contribution to these fields leading to development of these fields, such as, theory of organizational behaviour, sociology and social psychology, cognitive psychology, information systems, engineering, economics, and strategic management. The paper by Argote and Spektor (2011) provides a theoretical framework that helps to analyze the process of organizational learning and the level of knowledge gained on performance by employees. Purpose of the study The interdisciplinary nature of the study related to organizational learning makes it a topic of interest for research scholars. The paper selected for critical reviewing deals with this topic and presents an elaborate framework of study on organizational learning, covering the variations in the definitions of the term, the existing theory on this topic and analysis of this theory, importance of organizational experience in creating organizational learning and the process of organizational learning that includes creation, retention and transfer of knowledge. This purpose fits the paper very well since it has been published in the journal named Organization Science. This is because the journal aims at bridging the gap that exists between different disciplines and advancing the knowledge that evolves from this process (Argote and Spektor, 2011). This paper has been presented with the view that the results would stimulate further research in future on this topic. Since it is a broad topic, there is wide scope of future research and researchers might find out new avenues to link the study of this topic with disciplines that have not been studied before with regard to organizational learning. Nature and extent of the issues Studies on “organizational learning and knowledge” (Argote and Spektor, 2011, p. 1124) are getting diversified due to the inclusion of a wide variety of ways in which knowledge is being created in present times and is being communicated. The authors of “Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge” have identified the themes that are currently emerging in this field. This paper sets the scope for further research on these themes and develops the platform that would enrich the researchers’ understanding of the core topic. In this paper, it has been emphasised that creation of new knowledge and its smooth transfer across all levels of the organization is as important as proper retention of knowledge. In this paper transfer of knowledge is used synonymously with the notion of communication of knowledge. Proper learning through experiences is central to organizational prosperity (Taylor and Greve, 2006). It leads to greater understanding of the vision of the organization, fulfilment of the promises it has made towards its shareholders and the society and an overall improvement in organizational practice (Greve, 2003). Communication of knowledge within an organization is important due to various reasons. It allows knowledge to be dissipated from the ones that already possess the knowledge to those employees that are new in the organization. When employees retire, their positions are taken up by new recruits. Almost all organizations are concerned about the issue of retention of knowledge within the organization after their valuable and most experienced employees retire. It is crucial that the level of knowledge with which work was done by the previous employees, should not deteriorate on their replacement. This purpose can be fulfilled only if there is smooth flow of knowledge with the organization. Also, when employees change their job, companies hire new employees and the existing knowledge needs to be properly communicated to the new employees so that they might become the most appropriate replacement for the position. Besides, flow of knowledge is also important for development of healthy work atmosphere, elegance with which managerial practices are continued, proper distribution of work responsibilities and development of healthy employee relationship. This can only happen when there are good communication channels within the organization. The paper by Argote and Spektor demonstrates a framework consisting of a number of networks that enable good communication at the organizational level. Knowledge transfer is also an important factor in organizations because it allows the organization to update their knowledge base constantly through discussions and communication. On the other side of the coin, similarity in knowledge level of the employees enhances interaction among them. In this era of globalization, organizations are not a single unit but are complex multiunit forms. Inter-organizational relationships, such as, acquisitions, alliances and mergers, play an important role in this business environment. For the most profitable business activities, organizational leaders take the initiative to make alliances with other firms. This is not possible without the possession of significant knowledge about the current market as well as deep insights about the future circumstances. Role of communication in business The current business world is highly interlinked with the help of complex networks of different institutions, such as, business organizations, the social media, national governments and the international agencies, the shareholders and the general stakeholders. All these elements are integrated into the common business platform. This implies that the business world can sustain itself only if there is transparency of communication amongst these elements. Communication is crucial to any growth oriented business organisation. Therefore, businesses need to maintain proper communication among all the actors in the organization; recruiters, executives, researchers (in R&D departments) and the management. The objectives of all these actors have to be synchronized with one another for the determination of the best strategy that should be adopted by the organization. The short term goals of the employees working at different verticals and also in different units of the same organization might be different. However, all these employees are working for the same organization and therefore, they must share the common objective of maximising the organization’s benefit (Lesikar, 2005). In order to be able to achieve this objective, all the employees need to work coherently and the individual outcomes of the employees’ efforts have to be combined effectively so that it might contribute to the development of the whole. This would not be possible without the existence of proper communication channels. There are various channels though which communication might occur within the organization. However, the paper provides a theoretical framework that is the basic intention of all business communication, although the immediate purpose of communication is diverse. This framework depicts a continuous cycle in which the experience accumulated through various kinds of task performances is transformed into knowledge. This knowledge in turn changes the current performance related context in the present times which affects the future experience of employees (Argote and Spektor, 2011). Hence, the basic principles of communication are vital for any organization. Three basic principles have been identified that mostly concern business organizations while they are engaged in the process of communication and knowledge transfer (Kumar, 2010). Adequacy of information is the first principle of communication. This principle guides the organization to assess their state of affairs in terms of management of shareholders, employees and the customers. All relevant information has to be made available to these elements of the organization in order to make sure that they make fully informed decisions and that these decisions are optimal. Secondly, transparency in the operations of the organization is highly desirable. Openness in the operations keep the shareholder in the light of the events through which the organizations are passing, thereby involving their participation in the decision making process of the organization (Becerra-Fernandez and Leidner, 2008). It ensures that the organization can support on the trust of its shareholders and the stakeholders in times of difficulty. Proper communication alleviates much risk for the organization. Finally, organizational leaders emphasise on consistency of the decisions made and the activities conducted within the organization. Consistency is an outcome of stringent following of the core organizational philosophy and the principles, which have been laid as the cornerstone of all company activities. Although the objectives of the organization might be adapted according to the immediate requirements of the general and internal business environment, the leaders face the responsibility of creating such functionaries that follow the same wavelength in the long run. The social network The theoretical framework that has been described in the paper has been founded on the idea that there are three networks that are formed within a business organization; the member-member network, the tool-tool network and the task-task network. Members of the organization are the elements in the network developed by the maintaining communication. This network represents the organization’s social network. The task to task network and the tool to tool network respectively represents the inter-relationships between these two elements. There is also a composite ‘member to task to tool’ network that runs through all levels in the organization. It is the primary mechanism that generates new knowledge and channelizes it across the entire organization. It must also be noted that this member to task to tool network plays a significant role in the current as well as future activities of the organization, by retaining the knowledge that has been created. Since members of the organization are part of the social network in which the organization belongs, they are the social “media through which learning generally occurs in organizations” (Argote and Spektor, 2011, p. 1125). Individual members act as knowledge repositories in these organizations. Flexibility of individual members is high and they therefore act as the tool for transferring firsthand knowledge. Tools also help in movement of knowledge since knowledge can be implanted in these tools which aid in the work of employees. Tasks represent the routine followed by the employees throughout the organization. These help in creation of knowledge in an organized manner and also act as a mechanism for transferring it (Argote and Spektor, 2011). Learning through experience A critical study of the paper by Argote and Spektor (2011) reveals that the authors have emphasised on the fact that the knowledge created by the organization is embedded in the products and services offered by the company. These products and services flow out of the organization and enter the society. In a broader sense, employees of the organizations are also customers. Hence, the organizational members represent the elements of the social network (Helfat and Raubitchek, 2000). There are different dimensions in which the characteristics of knowledge might be classified. Knowledge can of two types, explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is difficult to be easily articulated (Nonaka and Krogh, 2009). Tacit knowledge is implicit in the different operations and tools of work. It is therefore easy to transfer tacit knowledge. But, explicit knowledge can be gained only by proper policies developed for knowledge transfer and retaining it within the organization. Advancement of technology also helps in creation of knowledge and the new tools developed for work represent the new knowledge. Hence, the tools itself represent the knowledge and transfer of knowledge is possible by moving these tools of work and involving the workers to use these tools. When a new technology is developed for the treatment of a new type of disease, the doctors update their knowledge to treat patients that report this kind of disease. Hence it leads to knowledge gain for the staff in the hospital. This can happen only when there is a strong network of ‘member to task to tool’ involving all levels in the organization. Knowledge begins with the acquiring of experience (Argote, McEvily and Reagans, 2003; Argote and Todorova, 2007). Experience that the employees gain through their work might be found to be ambiguous or might be considered easy and interpretable in a transparent manner (Repenning and Sterman, 2002). Flexibility of transfer of the knowledge imbibed in the experience of the employees depends on the nature of the knowledge and it determines whether the experience might be geographically dispersed or would remain concentrated within the geographic boundaries of the units of the organization in which the knowledge has been created (Cummings, 2004; Gibson and Gibbs, 2006). The social media acts in this situation in communicating knowledge from the place of creation of knowledge to the other units of the organization. Learning might happen in both ways; through direct experience of the phenomenon of knowledge creation (learning through acquisition) or through learning the knowledge created by the experience of the others and applying it to the work of their own (learning through alliances) (Hayward, 2002). In this context it has been mentioned that the level of rarity of the experience often determines the level of intensity and importance of the knowledge involved in the experience (Zollo and Winter, 2002). This paper focuses on the notion that rare events are those events that do not occur frequently, these experiences are not often made by the employees. Therefore the knowledge involved in these experiences is new for the organization as a whole and commands enough importance in terms of interpretation of the experience. In many cases these events cast significant impact on the operations of the organization; in a positive or negative way (Lavie and Miller, 2008; Zollo and Reuer, 2010). It has been found from this study that one fine-grained characteristic of experience is it promotes organizational learning. The importance of experience lies in the type of the experience and also the contextual condition in which the experience is gained affects the evaluation of the experience. These conditions support the fact that the experience is an outcome of the certain specific course of actions that have been undertaken in these contexts and hence signifies that the members should learn from these actions and replicate or evade them in future similar contexts. Such knowledge offers prescriptions for certain contexts and helps to sponsor organizational learning (Katila and Ahuja, 2002; Rosenkopf and Almedia, 2003; Rosenkopf and McGrath, 2011; Sidhu, Commandeur and Volberda, 2007). Conclusion This paper has presented the results of research works that have been conducted for the understanding of the organizational conditions that value the system of knowledge transfer via human members of the organization (this system is named “transactive memory systems”) (Argote and Spektor, 2011, p. 1130). This theory has also been supported by other scholars such as Ren, Carley and Argote (2006), Lewis, Lange, and Gillis (2005), Majchrzak, Cooper and Neece (2007) and Lewis, Belliveau, Herndon and Keller (2007). This paper has articulated ideas presented in their papers and has presented the effectiveness and usefulness of “transactive memory systems” (Argote and Spektor, 2011, p. 1130). However, this research paper presents a more theoretical framework on the concept of knowledge transfer within the organization. It leaves the scope for further research on practical application of this framework and how it would affect the performance of the employees in the organization. It would help to evaluate the performance of the organization as a whole and develop the platform for better communication of knowledge in the future. Reference List Argote, L. and Spektor, E., 2011. Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22 (5), pp. 1123–1137. Argote, L. and Todorova, G., 2007. Organizational learning: Review and future directions. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Argote, L., McEvily, B. and Reagans, R., 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), pp. 571–582. Becerra-Fernandez, I. and Leidner, D. E., 2008. Knowledge management: An evolutionary view. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Cummings, J. N., 2004. Work groups, structural diversity and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), pp. 352–364. Gibson, C. B. and Gibbs, J. L., 2006. Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administration Science Quarterly, 51(3), pp. 451–495. Greve, H. R., 2003. Organizational learning from performance feedback: A behavioral perspective on innovation and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hayward, M. L. A., 2002. When do firms learn from their acquisition experience? Evidence from 1990–1995. Strategic Management Journal, 23(1), pp. 21–39. Helfat, C. E. and Raubitchek, R. S., 2000. Product sequencing: Co evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), pp. 961–979. Katila, R. and Ahuja, G., 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academic Management Journal, 45(6), pp. 1183–1194. Kumar, R., 2010. Basic business communication. New Delhi: Excel Books India. Lavie, D. and Miller, S., 2008. Alliance portfolio internationalization and firm performance. Organization Science, 19(4), pp. 623–646. Lesikar, 2005. Basic business communication: Skills for empowering the internet generation. Noida: Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B. and Keller, J., 2007. Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), pp. 159–178. Lewis, K., Lange, D. and Gillis, L., 2005. Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16(6), pp. 581–598. Majchrzak, A. Jarvenpaa, S. L. and Hollingshead, A. B., 2007. Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization Science, 18(1), pp. 147–161. Nonaka, I., and Krogh, G., 2009. Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), pp. 635–652. Ren, Y., Carley, K. M. and Argote, L., 2006. The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science, 52(5), pp. 671–682. Repenning, N. P. and Sterman, J. D., 2002. Capability traps and self-confirming attribution errors in the dynamics of process improvement. Administration Science Quarterly, 47(2), pp. 265–295. Rosenkopf, L. and Almedia, P., 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6), pp. 751–765. Rosenkopf, L. and McGrath, P., 2011. Advancing the conceptualization and operationalization of novelty in organizational research. Organization Science, 22(5), pp. 1297–1311. Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R. and Volberda, H. W., 2007. The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18(1), pp. 20–38. Taylor, A. and Greve, H. R., 2006. Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academic Management Journal, 49(4), pp. 723–740. Zollo, M. and Reuer, J. J., 2010. Experience spillovers across corporate development activities. Organization Science, 21(6), pp. 1195–1212. Zollo, M. and Winter, S. G., 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), pp. 339–351. Read More