Organizational Learning and Individual Learning Bibliography

Anonymous (1995): "Never too old (or too big) to learn", International Journal of Career Management, Vol 7, No. 4: 9-10.

An in-depth investigation was conducted into BT to highlight a learning organization. Organizational learning (OL) is a set of processes to help people create new knowledge, share understanding, and continuously improve themselves and the company. More forward-thinking companies see OL as a core competence necessary to survive in the marketplace. The primary applications of OL focus on corporate-wide functions such as strategic planning, quality improvement, organization and management development, and structural design. Two key factors in BT's success were the communication of the work throughout the organization and the perseverance of the team.[Abstract from bpo 21/9/96]
 

Anonymous (1995): "The learning organization", Chief Executive No. 101: 57-64.

Summary of roundtable discussion among senior U.S business executives of their experiences and observations on transforming OL from a concept to a reality. One key finding: "What separates companies that sustain learning from those that do not is ; purposeful intent - a plan to create, store, and act upon knowledge at the procedural or institutional level.

Anonymous (1995): "Overcoming organizational learning disabilities" Chief Executive July- Aug. CEO Brief: 18

Anonymous (1996): "Competitive Advantage Through Diversity: Organizational Learning from Difference", Organization-Studies. Vol 17, No. 2,354-355

Next to efficiency and productivity, competitive organizations must follow a new set of priorities: the need to innovate and to learn. In this context, organizational diversity is a key resource facilitating creativity and learning. The authors argue that innovation can only bring competitive advantage if the issue is addressed at the individual, team, and organizational levels. Part 1 focuses on people. It explores the variety of mental frameworks of those in different organizational roles and the contributions they bring to organizations. Part 2 is concerned with joint practices within a teamworking model, where the principles of effective teamworking are examined as well as the interaction of context, tasks, team roles and processes. Only if diverse individuals work together in teams in a context where they can learn from the outcomes of their actions will successful innovation occur. Part 3 finally describes the knowledge process model, including the role of information technology. From this view, the organization is seen as repeated circles of knowledge processes on every level of activity. (Extracted from BPO on CDROM 21/9/96)

Abbott, J. and Dahmus, S. (1992): "Assessing the Appropriateness of Self-Managed Learning", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 11, no. 1: 50-60.

Adler, P. S. (1990): "Shared learning, Management Science, Vol 36, No. 8: 938-57.

Adler, P. S. and Cole, R. E. (1993): "Designed for Learning: A tale of two auto plants" Sloan Management Review, Spring: 85-94.

Addleson, M. (1996): "Resolving the spirit and substance of organizational learning", Special issue of Journal of Organizational Change Management -

Organizational Learning: Past, Present, and Future, Journal of Organizational Change Management , Volume 9 Number 1.

There are two strands in the organizational learning (OL) literature marked by incompatible world views. The dominant substance is modernist while the spirit is interpretive. The focus on systems, in form of learning loops and systems archetypes, identifies an acceptance of the tenets of modernism. The spirit offers an innovative view of management and contradicts the modernist substance. Drawing on contemporary hermeneutics, the spirit leads to a different conception of the organization, the role of management, and OL. Organizations comprise communities with different interests and understandings. Both organizational problems and solutions reflect people's understanding. Cooperation involves establishing mutual interests and is achieved through discourse that builds communities of understanding. (Abstract from special issue)

Agor,.W. H. (1996): "Brain skill management", Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 16, No. 3 : 14-22.

Akin, G. (1987): "Varieties of managerial learning", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16, No. 2: 36-48.

Alavi, M. (1994): "Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2: 159-74.

Albright, R. C. and Post, P. E. (1993): "The challenges of electronic learning", Training and Development, Vol. 47, No. 8: 27-9.

Alexandra, K. (1996): "Six paths to knowing", Executive Excellence, Vol. 13, No. 8: 8.

Ambrosini, V. (1996): "Tacit knowledge", International Federation of Scholarly Associations in Management 3rd World Conference: Management of Intangibles, Paris., 8-11 July: 59.

Anderson, R. and Davidson, D. (1996): "A systems approach to competency-based learning systems," Employment Relations Today, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer): 21- 31.

Angehrn, A. A. and Manzoni, J. F. (1996): 'A high-tech spin on organizational learning" Chief Executive. Apr , No. 112, 66-67

Araujo, L. (1996): 'Knowing and learning as Collective Work", paper presented for the Symposium on Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation : Theoretical and Research Developments, The Management School. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 1 - 3 September.

Argyris, C. (1975): "Double-Loop Learning in Organizations", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55, No. 5: 115-125.

Argyris, C. (1976): "Leadership, Learning, and Changing the Status Quo", Organizational Dynamics, Winter: 29-43.

Argyris, C. (1982a): "The Executive Mind and Double-Loop Learning", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 11, No. 2: 5-22.

Argyris, C. (1982b): Reasoning, Learning, and Action, (Individual and Organizational) San Francisco, Jossey- Bass.

Argyris, C. (1983):"Productive and Counterproductive Reasoning Processes", in Suresh Srivastava and Associates, (Eds.): The Executive Mind , San Francisco, Jossey-Bass: 25-57.

To close, the skills and competencies that executives learn for dealing with an X-Y type of problem can be used for dealing with any double-loop problem. The key is to learn the new skills and to acquire a new set of governing rules. If executives learn the new skills - such as advocating their position and encouraging enquiry - but use them to maintain unilateral control and to maximize winning, they will be using the new skills in the service of Model 1 values. They remain within a Model 1 mode: they hide their views about the gimmickaries of the new behaviour and yet act as if they were not hiding anything. As a result, others may interpret their newly acquired skills as gimmicks as new ways to manipulate people.

Luckily, people judge the credibility of human skills by evaluating what values they serve. This means that those who learn the new skills as gimmicks and tricks will be discovered. It also means that those who wish to gain credibility not only must learn the new skills but must internalize a new set of values (1983: 57).

Argyris, C. (1985): Strategy, Change and Defensive Routines, Boston, Mass., Pitman.

Argyris. C. (1986): "Skilled incompetence", Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct: 74- 9.

Argyris, C. (1990): "Strategy Implementation: An Experience in Learning", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16: 5-15.

Argyris, A. (1990): Overcoming organizational defences, Boston, Allyn & Bacon.

Argyris, C. (1991): "Teaching Smart People How to Learn", Harvard Business Review, May-June: 100.

Argyris, C. (1993): "Education for leading-learning", Organization Dynamics, Winter: 5-17.

Argyris, C. (1995): "Action science and organizational learning", Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 10, No. 6: 20-26

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978): Organisational Learning: A Theory-in-Action Perspective, Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1980): "What is an Organization that it may learn?" in Lockett, M. and Spear R. (eds), Organizations as Systems Milton Keynes, UK, The Open University Press.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1990): Overcoming Organizational Defences: Facilitating Organizational Learning, Boston Mass., Allyn & Bacon.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1996): Organizational Learning Edition 2, Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.

Arrow, K. (1962): 'The implications of learning by doing'. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29: 166-170.

Ashton, D. (1988): "Are Business schools good learning organizations?", Personnel, Vol. 14, No. 4: 9-14.

Aubrey, R. and Cohen, P. M. (1995): Working Wisdom: Timeless Skills and Vanguard Strategies for Learning Organizations, San Francisco, CA, Jossey -Bass.

Ayas, K. (1996): "Learning Capacity for the Knowledge Age", International Federation of Scholarly Associations in Management 3rd World Conference, Paris., 8-11 July: 67-8.

Barber, J. C. (1994): "From the working class to the learning class", National Productivity Review , Vol .13, No. 4: 461-66.

Barclay, J. (1996): "Learning from experience with learning logs", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 15, No. 6: 28-43.


 

Barkema, H. G., Bell, J. H. J and Pennings, J. M. (1996) :" Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning" Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 17, No. 2: 151-166

A study examines the longevity of foreign entries. Hypotheses are developed on the mode (start-ups vas. acquisitions) and ownership structure (wholly owned vs. joint ventures) in relation to cultural distance. The hypotheses are tested within a framework of organizational learning, using data on 225 entries that 13 Dutch firms carried out from 1966 onwards. Results show that the presence of cultural barriers punctuates an organization's learning. Cultural distance is a prominent factor in foreign entry whenever this involves another firm, requiring the firm to engage in "double layered acculturation." Also identified are locational "paths of learning." The longevity of acquisitions is positively influenced by prior entries of the firm in the same country. Similarly, the longevity of foreign entries, in which the firm has a majority stake, improves whenever the expanding firm engaged in prior entries in the same country and in other countries in the same cultural block. (Extracted from BPO 21/9/96]

Barrett, F. (1995): "Creating Appreciative Learning Cultures", Organizational Dynamics Autumn: 36-49.

Bass, B. M. (1990): "From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 3:19-31.

Bateson, G. (1972): Steps Toward an Ecology of the Mind, New York, Ballentine Press.

Baughan. C. C., Osborn. R. N. and Denekamp, J. G. (1996): " Controlling the Transfer of Tacit Knowledge in Interorganizational Alliances," International Federation of Scholarly Associations in Management 3rd World Conference, Paris., 8-11 July: 73-4. (JO has copy of full paper and two-page summary)

Inform Michael Morrison, ASTOL g

Successful alliance management involves a process of structuring, managing and monitoring the collaborative interface to balance the need for information sharing with protection of intellectual capital. This work describes a framework for assessing and implementing this process (Authors' abstract to long paper)

Bawden, R. (1994): "Learning to Become a More Effective Organisation: A Critical Systems Thinking Approach, Sydney, NSW, Hynwest (Consulting) Pty. Ltd.

Beam, H. H. (1996): "Transformational Learning: Renewing Your Company Through Knowledge and Skills", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 10, No. 3: 73- 75. (NB: Book review: Tobin, D. R 1996)

Beck, M. (1989): "Learning organizations and how to create them", Industrial and Commercial Training:, Vol. 21, No. 3: 21-8.

Beddowes, P. and Wills, S. (1993): "Ashbridge: Shaping an integrative approach to management education", Executive Development, Vol. 6, No. 4: 15-20.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A. (1996): " Developing an organization capable of implementing strategy and learning", Human-Relations., Vol. 49, No.5: 597- 619

Beer, S. (1972): The brain of the firm, London, Allen Lane.

Bennett, J. K. and O'Brien, M. J. (1994): "The 12 building blocks of a learning organization, Training, Vol. 6) 41-9.

Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985):" Organizational learning: The Management Of the Collective Self", New Management Vol. 3, No. 1: 7-13.

Benoit, C. A and Mackenzie, K. D. (1995): "The Science of an organization: Part II- Realizing a New Model of organizational learning", Human Systems Management, Vol. 14, No. 2: 119-32.

Benson, T. (1993): "The Learning Organization: Heading Towards Places Unimaginable", Industry Week, January: 35-8.

Bettis, R. A. and Prahalad, C. K. (1995): "The dominant logic: retrospective and extension", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16: 5-14.

Bilston, F. and Sohal, A. S. (1995): "Learning about quality: A small business perspective", The Learning Organization, Vol. 2, No. 3: 4-8.

• · Bouwen, R. and Fry, R. (1991): " Organizational Innovation and Learning - Four Patterns of Dialogue between the Dominant Logic and the New Logic", International Studies of Management and Organization , Vol. 12, No. 4: 37-51

• · Brown, J. S. and Dugind, P. (1991): "Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation",

Organisational Science, Vol. 2, No. 1: 40-57.

Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (Eds.): Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, New York, Nichols Publishing Company.

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991): "Organizational learning and communities-of- practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation", Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1: 40-57.

Bumstead, D. C. (1994): "Learning organization and the meaning of work", Sloan Management Review, Vol. 19: 1-22.

Bunning, C. (1991): "Turning Experience into Learning: The Strategic Challenge for Individuals and Organizations", Training and Development in Australia, Vol. 18, No. 4: 5-10.

Burgleman, R. A. (1988): "Strategy making as a Social Learning Process: The case of Internal Corporate Venturing", INTERFACES, Vol. 18. No. 3: 74-85.

Burgoyne, J. G. (1976): "Learning processes in the acquisition of managerial skills

and qualities", Management Education and Development, Vol. 7: 205-07.

Burgoyne, J. G. (ND): Organizational learning and the learning company,: Perspectives in the literature.

Burgoyne, J. G. (1995): "Learning from experience: From individual discovery to meta-dialogue via the evolution of transitional myths", Personnel Review Vol. 24, No. 6: 61-72

Learning from experience assumes particular importance at times of fundamental transition because inherited learning becomes irrelevant or misleading. The current fundamental transition is from work for the production of knowledge to work for the production of identify/meaning. The accompanying transition in terms of learning from experience is from individual discovery of personal and environmental realities to collective meaning making. The contemporary concern with dialogue as a core process of collective meaning making in organizational learning is discussed, and a process of meta-dialogue is proposed as an approach to facilitating learning from experience in a way appropriate to the times. Meta-dialogue involves sharing and reaching an understanding of the ways in which beliefs under discussion in dialogue can be believed to be true or useful. [Abstract from BPO 21/9/96]

Burgoyne, J, Pedler, M. and Boydell, T. (eds), (199?): Towards the Learning Company: Concepts and Practices, Sydney ?, McGraw -Hill?

Butler, J. E. (1988): "Theories of Technological Innovation as Useful Tools for Corporate Strategy, Strategic Management Journal Vol .9, No. 1: 15-29.

The type of innovation, stage of development, learning at all levels, interdependence between technologies and users' expectations all appear to play a role in the emergence of technologies and the rate of innovation.

Butler, J. (1993): "Beyond Project-based Learning for Senior Managers and Their Teams", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 12, No. 2: 32-39.

Byrnes, J. S, Byrnes, J. and Copacino, W. C. (1990-91): "Develop a powerful learning team", Presidential Issue: 22-5.

Calas, M. B and Smircich, L. (1996): "Gendering Organizational Learning: Representation, Subjectivity, and the "Women's" Point of View" paper presented Academy of Management Conference , Cincinnati, Ohio, 9-14 August (Conference Proceedings: Wednesday: 121)

Calvert, G,. Mobley, S. and Marshall, L. (1994): "Grasping the learning organization", Training and Development, 6: 39-43.

Candy, P. C. (1992): "Learning to learn: The neglected dimension of managerial competence" in Smith, B. (ed.): Management Development in Australia , New South Wales, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: 181-9.

Cangelosi, V. and Dill, W. (1965): "Organizational Learning: Observations Toward a Theory", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10: 175-203.

One of the earliest articles devoted to organizational learning .Presents a useful model and offers keen insights into the methodological and conceptual challenges of researching organizational learning.

Carley, K. (1992): "Organizational learning and personnel turnover", Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 1: 20-46.

Carlson, K. D., Bretz, Jr., R. D. and Barrick, M .R. (1996): "Assessing Multiple Cognitive Learning Outcomes: Are They Independent Constructs?" paper presented Academy of Management Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, 9-14 August ( Monday: Conference Proceedings: 42)

Carlsson, B., Keane, P. and Martin, J. B. (1976): "R&D Organizations as Learning Systems", Sloan Management Review, Spring: 1-15.

Carnevale, A. P. (1989): 'The learning enterprise" , Training and Development, Vol. 43, No. 2: 26-37.

Carnevale, A. P. (1992): "Learning: The critical technology", Training and Development, Vol. 46, No. 2: S1-S16.

Carstedt, G. (1993): "A culture of virtuous learning", Executive Excellence, Vol. 10, No. 2: 6-7.

Casey, A. (1996): "Enhancing Individual and Organizational Learning: A Sociological Model" paper Presented Academy of Management Conference, Cincinnatti, Ohio, 9-14 August ( Monday: Conference Proceedings: 42)

Cavaleri, S. A. and Fearnon, D. S. (19??): "Systems integration through concurrent learning", Industrial Management, Vol. 36., No. 1: 27-9.

Ciborra, C. (1991): 'Alliances as learning experiences: cooperation, competition and change in high-tech industries' in L. Mytelka (ed.): Strategic partnerships and the world economy. London: Pinter: 51-77 (Informed ASTOL G. 18/12/96)

Checkland, P. (1985): "From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990s", Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol.36: 757-67.

Cherry, N. (1995): Developing Reflective Practice, Melbourne, Vic., Unpublished PhD thesis, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

Clark, E. T. (1988): "The search for a new paradigm: The implications of new aspirations about thinking and learning, "Holistic Education Review, Spring: 18- 31.

Coates, N. (1994): "Organizations as Learning Systems: The Case of the Japanese Automobile Automobile Manufacturing Industry" The International Executive, Vol. 36, No. 2: 171-87.

Cohen, M D. (1991): "Individual Learning and Organizational Routine: Emerging Connections", Organization Science, Vol 2, No. 1 Feb: 135-9.

Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1989): "Innovation and learning: two faces of R & D", Economic Journal, Vol. 99: 569-96.

Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990): "Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35: 128-52.

Conant, J. K. (1996): "The manager's view of management education and training"

Review of Public Personnel Administration (Summer) Vol. 16, No. 3: 23-37

Confessore, S. J .and Kops, W. J. (1996): "Self-directed Learning and the Learning Organization: Examining the Connection of the Individual and the Learning Environment", paper presented for the Symposium on Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation : Theoretical and Research Developments, The Management School. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 1 - 3 September.

Conner, M. L.. et al. (1995): Learning: The Critical Technology, St Louis, Missouri, Wave Technologies International Inc.

Coopey, J. (1995): "The learning organization, power, politics, and ideology", Management Learning Vol. 26, No. 2: 193-213.

Corsini, R. (1987) Concise encyclopedia of psychology. New York: Wiley.

A psychologist who sees individual learning as involving 5 kinds of learning

capacities: (1) verbal skills; (2) intellectual skills; (3) cognitive strategies; (4)

attitudes; and (5) motor skills (as noted by Dodgson, 1993)

Cote, L., Langley, A. and Pasquero, J. (1996): "Acquisition Strategy and Dominant Logic in an Engineering Firm", paper presented Academy of Management Conference , Cincinnati, Ohio, 9-14 August (Conference Proceedings: Tuesday: 96)

Crosby, P. (1994): "Leaders and learning", Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 17, No. 2: 30-3.

Crossan, M. and Guatto, T. (1996): "Organizational learning research profile", Special issue of Journal of Organizational Change Management -

Organizational Learning: Past, Present, and Future, Journal of Organizational Change Management , Volume 9 Number 1.

This paper presents the results of a key word search of the Social Science

Citation Index (SSCI), ABI Inform, and PyschLit data bases using the terms

"organizational learning" and "learning organization" to uncover patterns

relating to the:

1. Amount of publishing activity by year;

2 Influential authors;

3 Journals publishing organizational learning research; and

4. Type of research published.

Crossman, M. Lane, H. and Hildebrand, T. (1993): "Organizational Learning: Theory to Practice", in Johnson, G and Hendry, J. (Eds.) Strategic Thinking : Leadership and the Management of Change , New York, Wiley: 229-65.

Crossan, M. M and Inkpen, A. C. (1993)" "Believing is Seeing: Joint Ventures and Organizational Learning" , National Centre for Management Research and Development Working Paper Series No. NC 93-009-G.

Crossan, M. M and Inkpen, A. C. (1994): "Commentary: Promise and Reality of Learning through Alliances", The International Executive, Vol. 36, No.3: c. 260-73.

Coulsin-Thomas, C. J. (1996): "BPR and the Learning Organization", The Learning Organization, Vol. 3, no. 1: 16-21.

Cunningham, I. (1994): The Wisdom of Strategic Learning: The Self Managed Solution, London, McGraw Hill.

Czegledy, A. P. (1996): "New directions for organizational learning in Eastern Europe" Organization-Studies. Vol. 17, No. 2,: 327-341

This paper Öseeks to critically examine some of the fundamental issues of organizational learning in the regional context. By drawing upon the author's own research and epistemological interests in this area, it also advocates specific directions for future research and business practice. Four inter-related themes are addressed: agency, communication, typification and contextuality. These themes emphasize the importance of seeking to separate the often generalized and ethnocentric discourse on organizational learning from the reality of its empirical and interpretive complexity. (Copied from BPPO CDROM 21/9.' 96)

Daft, R. L. (1984): "Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 2: 284-95.

Daniels, S. (1994): "The learning organization", Work Study, Vol. 43, No. 8: 5-6.

Davies, J. and Easterby-Smith, M. (1984): "Learning and development from managerial work experiences", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21: 2.

Davis, S. and Botkin, J. (1994): "The Coming of Knowledge-Based Business", Harvard Business Review, No. 9-10: 165-70.

Day, G. S. (1994): "Continuous learning about markets", California Management Review, Vol. 36, No. 4: 9-31.

Dechant, K. (1990): "Knowing How to Learn: The "Neglected" Management Ability", Journal of Management Development, Vol.9, No. 4: 40-49.

(Incorporated into Mangl.lng.Ovw)

de Boer, M., van den Bosch, F. and Volberda, H. (1996): "Managing Innovation in An Emerging Industrial Complex: Organizational Knowledge Integration in Multimedia Firms," paper presented Academy of Management Conference , Cincinnati, Ohio, 9-14 August (Conference Proceedings: Tuesday: 92)

de Geus, A. P. (1988): "Strategy as Learning", Harvard Business Review, Mar-Apr.: 70-4.

Denton, D. K. (1991): "The learning organization involves the entire work force", Quality Progress, , No. 12: 69-72.

DiBella, A. J. (1995): "Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of Perspective",

in Moore, D. P (ed), Best Papers Proceedings, Academy of Management Conference, Vancouver, BC, 6-9 August: 287-90.

As publications about the learning organization increase, the field has begun to exhibit three different orientations (normative, developmental, capability) in how learning organizations can be built. This paper delineates each of these orientations and discusses their implications for research and practice (1995: 287)

DiBella concludes : 'the learning organization is, as of yet, a chameleon-like target. Scholars and practitioners should continually assess the meaning and value of the concept through shifts in both organizational and theoretical environments Ö in doing so, we should be cognizant of our theoretical orientations about the learning organization and our underlying assumptions about organizations in general (1995: 289)

DiBella, A. J, Nevis, E. C. and Gould, J. M. (1996): "Understanding organizational learning capability", Journal of Management-Studies., Vol. 33, No. 3: 361-379

A study presents data on how learning takes place in 4 organizations, what gets learned, and the factors and processes that facilitate or impede learning. Seven orientations for describing organizational learning capability and understanding learning styles are identified: 1. knowledge source, 2. product-process focus, 3. documentation mode, 4. dissemination mode, 5. learning focus, 6. value-chain focus, and 7. skill development focus. Each of these orientations is conceived as a bi-polar continuum that reflects learning processes. (Cross refer Neivs, Dibella and Gould)

Dinur, A. (1996): "The Transfer of Knowledge in the Multinational Corporation", paper presented Academy of Management Conference , Cincinnati, Ohio, 9-14 August (Conference Proceedings: Tuesday: 92)

Dodgson, M. (1993): "Organizational learning : A review of some literatures", Organization Studies, Vol. 14, No.. 3: 375-94.

Donaldson, R. (1993): Further steps to an ecology of the mind: Essays of George Bateson, New York, Harper and Row.

Donegon, J. (1990): "The learning organization: Lessons from British Petroleum", European Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3: 302-12.

Dore, R.. and M. Sako (1989): How the Japanese learn to work. London: Routledge.

Doz, Y. L . (1996): "Th evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes?", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 Special Issue: 55-83.

Drew, S. A. W. and Davidson, A. (1993): "Simulation-based Leadership Development and Team Learning". Journal of Management Development, Vol. 12, No. 8: 39- 52 (JO has copy of paper and demonstration disk )

Drew, S. A. W. and Smith. P. A. C. (1995): "The new logistics management: Transformation through organizational learning", Logistics Information Management Vol. 8, No. 1: 24-33.

Duchon, D. and Ashmos, D. P (1996): "Developed Mind vs. Developed Group: Differential Effects on Organizational Performance", International Federation of Scholarly Associations in Management 3rd World Conference, Paris., 8-11 July: 131-2.

Organizations with well-developed mechanisms for collectively giving meaning to the present as it unfolds into the future are organizations in which the interrelations and connections among its members are heedful, i.e. attentive purposeful, vigilant.Ö

Developed mind Ö occurs because of the interrelations of actors in the system, such that an organization's mental process exists which increases alertness. The ability of an organization to identify data, give meaning to it because of strong sense making mechanisms and agree upon ways of viewing new stimuli result in a sense of developed collective mind Ö we suggest that a developed mind will ultimately be more beneficial to an organization than developed group.

Dumaine, B. (1994): "Mr Learning Organization", FORTUNE, No. 10: 95-101.

Duncan, R. and Weiss, A. (1979): "Organizational Learning - Implications for Organizational Design", in Straw, B. (ed.) :Research in Organizational Behavior, Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, Vol. 1: 75-123.

Easterby-Smith, M. (ND): "Creating a Learning Organisation", Personnel Review, Vol. 19, No. 5: 24-8.

Easterby-Smith, M. (1996): "Disciplines of the Learning Organization: Contributions and Critiques", paper presented for the Symposium on Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation : Theoretical and Research Developments, The Management School. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 1 - 3 September.

The paper argues against attempts to create a single framework for understanding organizational learning. Relevant literature is reviewed from six disciplinary perspectives: psychology and OD, management science; sociology and organizational theory; strategy; production management and anthropology. It is argued that each discipline provides distinct contributions and conceptions of problems. Furthermore, a basic distinction is drawn between organizational learning and the new idea of the learning organization is noted. Whereas the former is discipline based and analytic, the latter is multi-disciplinary and emphasises action and the creation of an 'ideal type' of organization.

Due to the diversity of purpose and perspective it is suggested that it is better to consider organizational learning as a multi-disciplinary field containing complementary contributions and research agendas (Abstract by Easterby-Smith, 1996)

Edmondson, A. and Moingeon, B. (1996): "From Organizational Learning to the Learning Organization: Toward an Integrative Approach'", paper presented Academy of Management Conference , Cincinnati, Ohio, 9-14 August (Conference Proceedings: Tuesday: 92)

Egelhoff, W. G. et al. (1996): "Organizational Learning in MNCs: The Flow of Knowledge between Irish Subsidiaries and other Parts of the Company'", paper Presented Academy of Management Conference , Cincinnati, Ohio, 9-14 August (Conference Proceedings: Tuesday: 92)

Eisman, R. (1995): "Learning curve" Incentive- Vol. 169,No. 12: 40-41

Emrich, C. G. (1996): "Cognitive Schemas and Idiosyncratic Resources: A Cognitive- Based View of Firm Resources and Performance" paper Presented Academy of Management Conference, Cininnati, Ohio, 9-14 August ( Monday: Conference Proceedings: 63)

Evamy, M. (1994): "Organizations Learning to Succeed: Resource Book, , London , BBC For Business.

Fearon, D. and Cavaleri, S. (1991): Concurrent learning: Theory and practice, Unpublished manuscript. (refer Fern Marriott, Monash Uni).

Field, L and Ford, , B. (1990): "Identifying the learning opportunities in a chemical plant shutdown," ICI/ Department of Education, Employment and Training [available from LRU, Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney]

Field, L. and Ford, B. (1995): Managing Organizational Learning : From Rhetoric to Reality, Melbourne, Vic. Longman Publishers

As reviewed by Paul Farrell (in AUSINDUSTRY, Jan -mar 1996: 30) this is "a detailed and academic textÖ For those who are interested in the nitty-gritty of the subject, the final chapter provides a user-friendly five-page summary.

Filipczak, B. (1993): "I am a learning organization", Training, Vol. 30. No. 2: 10.

Fiol. C. M. (1994): "Consensus, Diversity, and Learning in Organizations," Organization Science, Vol. 5: 403-20.

Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M. A. (1985): "Organizational Learning", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 4: 803-13.

Flower, J. (1996): "We are what we can learn", Healthcare Forum Journal Vol. 39, No. 4: 35-39

A learning organization is a vision of the continual development of an organization, its people, its capabilities, its capacity to enhance or create its own future

Ford, B. (1987): "Innovative approaches to work: Learning from others", Commission for the future - Occasional paper no. 6. Canberra, Australian Government Printing Service.

Ford, B. (1991) "The learning enterprise : Integrating total quality management and workplace reform and renewal," TQMI 2nd National Conference, Melbourne, 21-22 August, Conference papers: 59-63.

Ford, C. M. and Ogilvie, D. T. (1996): "The Role of Creative Action in Organizational learning and Change" , Special issue of Journal of Organizational Change Management - Organizational Learning: Past, Present, and Future, Journal of Organizational Change Management , Vol. 9, No. 1.

Organizational learning is most frequently depicted as an intra-organizational information processing activity. However, the role that experience plays in the development of organizational knowledge has recently become a more central focus of learning theories. Yet, the two primary perspectives on organizational learning present strikingly different depictions of the relationship between action and learning. Systems-Structural models of organizational learning based on positivist epistemological assumptions emphasize internally-directed information collection and distribution activities aimed at reducing uncertainty. Conversely, interpretive models utilize an interpretivist epistemology that emphasizes the necessity of taking action in ambiguous circumstances as a means of creating knowledge. Unfortunately, neither of these alternative views of organizational learning describe how learning outcomes vary as a

consequence of different types of action. Specifically, previous models of organizational learning have not emphasized the critical role that creative actions play in the development of organizational knowledge. This paper delineates assumptions that serve to legitimize creative action taking within organizational contexts, and describes the learning outcomes that result from creative and routine actions. This framework extends previous models of organizational learning that emphasize cognition and communication processes by distinguishing the varied influences that different actions have on the production of knowledge. (Abstract in Special issue' Emphasis added: - Ford, C. M. and Ogilvie, D. T. (1996):)

Freed, G. (1992): Fifth Generation Innovation, Sydney, NSW, Centre for Innovation and International Competitiveness, Occasional Paper.

Friedlander, F. (1983): "Patterns of Individual and Organizational Learning", in Suresh Srivastava and Associates (Eds.): The Executive Mind , San Francisco, Jossey- Bass: 192-220.

The executive role in guiding learning is to manage crisis and frustration: it is to manage differences; it is to manage power, contact, conflict, and tension. It is to navigate the organization through the transitions of self-confrontation and identity change it must undergo if it is to survive and grow (1983: 220)

Fulmer, R. M. (1990): "Executive Learning as a Strategic Weapon", Executive Development, Vol. 3, No. 3: 26.

Fulmer. R. M. (1993a): "Editorial" in Journal of Management Development, Vol. 12, No. 5: 4-6.

Editorial outlines concept of anticipatory learning which "involves two characteristics (future orientation along with its participation" Fulmer presents a two-by-two matrix of 'How organizations Learn", with PARTICIPATION on the vertical axis and Orientation (Present or Future) on the Horizontal. Fulmer labels the 4 quadrants as A: "Because I say so" (i.e. an authority figure says something is to be done (or avoided) : this style is "the essence of maintenance learning"; B. "As you like it" learning where provided executives "meet their "operating bogie" the means by which they proceed is often left to the creativity of the executive team (Fulmer, 1993: 5); C. is the "Change Master" quadrant, which is equivalent to a style of visionary learning; and D. is labelled as "Inventing the future". Fulmer states that essentially "anticipatory learning is for a group of motivated individuals to work together not to forecast, but to create a future hey feel committed to (Fulmer, 1993a: 5)."

Fulmer. R. M. (1993b): "The Tools of Anticipatory Learning", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 12, No. 5: 7-14.

Fulmer, W. E. (1993c): "Anticipatory Learning: The Seventh Strategic imperative for the Twenty-first Century:, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 12, no. 6: 61-6.

Fulmer, R. M. (1994): "A model for changing the way organizations learn", Planning Review, , No. 3-4: 20-4.

Fulmer, R. M. and Franklin, Sr. S. G. (1994): "The Merlin Exercise: Creating Your Future Through Strategic Anticipatory Learning:, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 13, No. 8: 38-43.

Galagan, P. A. (1989): "The learning enterprise", Training and Development, Journal, No. 2: 26-33.

Galambos, J. A. Abelson, R. P. and Black, J. B. (1986):Knowledge Structures, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Erlbaum.

Galvin. R (1996): "Managing knowledge towards wisdom", European Management Journal Vol. 14. No. 4: 374-378

Garbi. E. (1995): "Contingencies of Learning: The Effect of Organizational Learning Abilities on Competitive Performance", Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Vancouver, BC, 6-9 August.

Garratt, B. (1987): The Learning Organization, London, Fortuna / Pitman.

Garratt, B. (1990a): Creating a learning organisation: A guide to leadership, learning and development, London, Director Books.

Garratt, B. (1990b): Learning to lead: Developing your organisation and yourself, London, Fontana.

Garratt, B. (1995): " An old idea that has come of age", People Management. Vol. 1, No. 9,: 25-28

Garvin, D. A. (1993): "Building a Learning Organization", Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug: 78-91.

Geppert, M. (1996): "Paths of managerial learning in the East German context",

Organization-Studies. Vol. 17, No. 2: 249-268

Gerling, T. et al (1996): Organizational learning and leadership: Learning Organization model, Caulfield, Vic., Monash University unpublished Group assignment term paper .

Ghosal, S. and Bartlett, C. A. (1994): "Linking Organizational Context and Managerial Action: The Dimensions of Quality of Management", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15: 91-112.

Organizational context is created and renewed through tangible and concrete management actions. The context, in turn, influences the actions of all those within the company. They argue that "an interactive development of context and action Ö lies at the core of a company's management process and is a key influencer of its performance (1994: 91)." Four primary dimensions of organizational context are identified from a longitudinal study of one company: discipline, stretch, trust, and support. These four dimensions "influence the levels of individual initiative, mutual cooperation and collective learning within companies. (1994: 91)." The quality of organizational context they argue is a "good measure of what Doz and Prahalad (1988) have referred to as an organisation's 'quality of management' (1994: 92)." These four dimensions, Ghosal and Bartlett suggest can be created and reinforced by a variety of macro and micro level actions taken by managers at all levels of an organization (1994: 95). Ghosal and Bartlett propose, inter alia, that 'organizational learning results from a combination of distributed initiative and mutual cooperation which, in turn, require stretch, trust, discipline and support as the antecedent conditions of organizational context (1994: 107).' The conclusion is that the central task of general managers is shaping the organizational context.

Gibb, P. (1993): "Creating the learning organization: A collaborative journey", in ??????????????????????????, San Francisco, Interaction Associates.

Giles, P. J. (1996): "Knowledge Sharing; The First Steps to Creating a Learning Organisation", paper presented at the Australian Systems Conference: Learning through Systems Thinking, Monash University, Caulfield, Vic, 29 Sept. - 2 October

Ginter, P. M. and White, D. D. (1982): "A Social Learning Approach to Strategic Management: Toward a Theoretical Foundation", Academy of Management Review, April.

Goss, T., Pascale, R. and Athos, A. (1993): "The reinvention roller-coaster: risking the present for a powerful future", Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec.: 97-108.

Graham, A. and Pizzoa, V . (1996): "A question of balance: case studies in strategic knowledge management" European Management Journal Vol. 14. No. 4: 338- 346.

Grant, R. M. (1988): "On 'dominant logic' , relatedness and the link between diversity and performance", Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 9: 639-42.

The importance of Prahalad and Bettis' concept of dominant logic is in emphasizing business relatedness at the strategic rather than operational level. By examining dominant logic in relation to the functions of systems of corporate management, it is possible to operationalize the concept of dominant logic and identify the key components of relatedness at the strategic level. (1988: 639).

Gregory, M. (1994): "Accrediting Work-Based Learning: Action Learning - A Model of Empowerment", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 13, No. 4: 41- 52.

Grundy, T. (1994): Strategic learning in action, London, McGraw-Hill.

Gurkov, I. and Kuz-minov, Y. (1996): " Organizational learning in Russian privatized enterprises: The beginning of strategic change", International Studies of management and Organization, Vol. 25, No. 4: 91-117.

Gutman, J. A. (1993): "Developing Cases and Scenarios for Anticipatory Learning", Journal of Management Development, Vo. 12, No. 6: 53 -60.

Hagel, P. and Graetz, F. (1996): "Learning and the Knowledge-Based Organisation: Theory and Practice in a Public Sector organisation", in Browne. M. (ed) ANZAM Refereed Papers, Vol. 1: 101-112.

Hamel, G. (1991): "Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within International strategic alliances", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12. Special Issue: 83-104.

Harari, O. (1994): "The brain-based organization" Management Review, Vol. 72, No. 4: 57-60.

Hawkins, P. (1994): "The changing view of learning", in Burgoyne, J, Pedler, M. and Boydell. T. (Eds.), Towards the learning company:: Concepts and Practices, London McGraw Hill: 9-27.

Hayes, J. and Allison, C. W. (1996): "Cognitive Style and the Theory and Practice of Individual and Collective Learning in Organisations: A Conceptual Synthesis", paper presented for the Symposium on Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation : Theoretical and Research Developments, The Management School. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 1 - 3 September.

Hedberg, B. (1981): "How Organizations Learn and Unlearn", in Nystrom, P. and Starbuck, W. (Eds.). Handbook of Organizational Design, New York, Vol. 1

Hedberg, B., Nystrom, P. and Starbuck, W. H. (1976): "Camping on see-saws: Prescriptions for a self-diagnosing organization", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, N0. 3: 41-65.

Hedlund, G. (1994): "A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation", Strategic Management Journal ,Vol. 15: 73-90.

Hedlund develops a model of knowledge management which builds on the 'interplay of articulated and tacit knowledge at four different levels: the individual, the small group, the organization, and the interorganizational domain. (1994: 73). The model is used to compare differences in Western and Japanese patterns of knowledge management in respect of organizational characteristics such as (i) employment systems; (ii) career patterns; (iii) and organization structure. Hedlund argues that "effective knowledge management requires departure from the logic of hierarchical organization and the M-form structure' , with an alternative N-form being suggested as more appropriate. Such a variant organizational structure "entails combination of knowledge rather than its division (1994: 73): it also features "the temporary constellations of people, the importance of personnel at 'lower levels', ;lateral communication, a catalytic and architectural role for top management, strategies aimed at focussing and economies of depth, and heterarchical structures (1994: 73).

Heracleous, L. (1995): "Spinning a brand new cultural web", People Management Vol 1, No. 22: 24-27

Organizational learning is the process by which organizations change their cultures and systems in relation to market conditions. Organizations must do this in order to improve their competitiveness and achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. Organizational learning is about having the appropriate culture, structure and systems to encourage people to develop continually and share knowledge with others. Cultural change necessitates higher-level of double-loop learning because a change in cultural values and beliefs implies a change in the governing variables for action. The cultural web is a powerful way of gaining a deeper understanding of the internal situation of an organization. (BPO 21/ 9 /96]

Herriot, S. R., Levinthal, D. and March, J. G. (1983): "Learning from experience in organizations," American Economic Review, Vol. 75: 298-302.

Hodgetts, R., Luthans, F. and Lee, S. (1994): "New Paradigm Organizations: From Total Quality To Learning to World Class," Organizational Dynamics, Vol. ??: 5-16.

Hodgson, A. (1992): "Hexagons for systems thinking", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59: 220-30.

Honey, P. (1989): "The opportunist learner", Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Management Education and Development on the 'individual learner' , Chipping Norton, Oxon.

Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1983): Using Your Learning Styles, Maidenhead, England, Honey P. and Mumford, M.

Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1989): Manual of Learning Opportunities, Maidenhead, England, Honey P. and Mumford, M.

Fully explains Honey and mumford's Learning Diagnostic Questionnaire.

Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992): Manual of Learning Styles, Maidenhead, England, Honey and Mumford.

Honold, L. (1991): "The power of learning at Johnsonville Foods", Training, Vol. 4: 55-8.

Hosley, S. M., et al. (1994): "The quest for the competitive learning organization", Management Decision, Vol. 32, No. 6: 5-15.

Huber, G. P. (1991): "Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literature", Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1: 88-115.

Huff., A. S. (1982): "Industry influence on strategy reformulation", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 3: 119-131.

Huston, J. L., and Huston, T. L. (1995): "How learning style and personality type can affect performance", Health Care Supervision, Vol. 13, No. 4: 38- 45.

Johnson, K . E. (1996): 'The social nature of learning " Healthcare Forum Journal. Vol 9. No. 4.

Jones, M. L. (1990): "Action Learning as a New Idea", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 9, No. 5: 29-34.

Issacs, W. N. (1993): "Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational earning", Organization Dynamics, Autumn: 24-39.

Issacs, W. N. and Senge, P. (1992): "Overcoming limits to learning in computer- based learning environments", European Journal of Operational Research , Vol. 59: 183-96.

James, D. (1997): "BHP management school will nurture new leadership style" Business Review Weekly, February 10: 44-46.

Article outlines BHP's corporate level innovative decision to transform itself "from a relatively bureaucratic company into a "learning organisation" based on the application of unique knowledge (James, 1997: 44)." Article concludes with comments that (i) senior management support is crucial (James, 1997: 46); and (2) a BHP senior executive (corporate manager of organisation and management development) states "I reckon it is a five to eight-year job. (James, 1997: 46)."

Janov, J. E. (1995): "Creating meaning: The heart of learning communities", Training and Development, Vol. 49, No. %: ???

Jelinek. (1979) Institutionalising Innovation, New York, Praeger Publishers.

Jeuchter, J. E. (1993): "Learning by doing", Training and Development, Vol. 47, No. 10: 28-32.

Jones, P. H. and Jordan, J. (1996): "Managing Know-how: Psychological Perpsectives", International Federation of Scholarly Associations in Management 3rd World Conference, Paris., 8-11 July: 193-4.

This paper views tacit knowledge as equivalent to know-how. Tacit knowledge, or know-how, stands in contrast to explicit knowledge, which is articulated in symbolic form, usually language. Ö We suggest there are two kinds of tacit know-how: that which is learned through interaction with the non-social world (equivalent to procedural knowledge) and that which is learned through social interaction (equivalent to practical knowledge). Both Ö [types] are usually held at the tacit level. Ö Önon-social know-how is developed through trial and error learning or the use of problem-solving techniques, e.g. the use of analogy Ö Experimental evidence (Anderson, 1987) suggests that at some point learning may take a step-wise leap: this can occur where there is a cognitive shift in understanding which results in a quantitative change in the nature of the individual's knowledge. Instead of it being in conscious awareness knowledge shifts to the unconscious level: it becomes automatic or tacit in nature.

Social know-how stands in contrast to non-social know-how in that it involves collective and creative action by those involved in its development. Ö Social know-how is tied to the social context within which it is produced in a fundamental way. Its development is dependent on story-telling by organizational communities: stories transmit to members of the group the ways in which problems have been solved. This leads to the development of a sophisticated knowledge base which encompasses the may factors that need to be taken into account by group members when solving a problem. Moreover, social know-how may include the redefinition of problems through discussion by members of the group. Paper concludes with several implications for managers.

Kempin, G. (1994) : Learning Environments in Social and Community Services: A Starting Point, Learning Environment Action Research Project, SACS Industry Training Board Publication.

Keys. L. (1994): "Action Learning: Executive Development of Choice for the 1990s", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 13, No.??: 5-0-6.

Kidd, J. B and Teramoto, Y. (1996): "The learning organization: The case of the Japanese RHQs in Europe", Management International Review, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Special issue) : 39-56.

Kiechel, W. 111 (1994): "The Organization that Learns", FORTUNE, March 12: 134- 36

Kiesler, S . and Sproul, L. (1982): "Managerial response to changing environments: perspectives and problem sensing from social cognition", Administrative Science Quarterly,. Vol. 37: 548-70.

Kim, D. H. (1990a): "Toward Learning Organizations: Integrating Total Quality Control and Systems Thinking, " System Dynamics Group, Sloan School of Management, October.

Kim, D. H. (1990b): "Learning laboratories: Designing a reflective learning environment", Working Paper No. D-4026, Cambridge, Mass., Massachusetts Institute of Technology Systems Dynamic Group.

Kim, D. H. (1992) : "Organizational Learning and Individual Learning: Where the twain shall Meet?", Working Paper D-4114-1, Cambridge, Mass, MIT Sloan School of Management.

Kim, D. H. (1993): :"The link between individual and organizational learning", Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35, No. 1: 37-50.

Klein J. (1989): "Parenthetic Learning in Organizations: Toward the Unlearning of the Unlearning Model", Journal of Management Studies, May: 291-308.

Kline, P. and Saunders, B. L( 1995): "Ten steps to a learning organization", Executive Excellence, , No. 4: 20.

Klimecki, R. G., Lassleben H. and Riexinger-Li, B. (1994): Exploring the Process of Organizational Learning: an empirical study using cognitive maps and network analysis, Konstance, FRG. University of Constance, Faculty of Administrative Science Working Paper.

Design and results of an explorative study on organizational learning (OL) are presented. OL is conceptualized as transformations of organizational reality constructions. Reality constructions are represented as cognitive maps and communication structures as social networks. This allows description and analysis of OL systems and leads to new insights into OL processes (Abstract provided by the authors)

The research project was conducted using narrative interviews in the local administrations of two German cities. Cognitive mapping techniques and social network analysis were used for representation and further analysis. Individual cognitive maps were converted into organizational maps by comparison and aggregation. Network analysis was used to represent and analyse the communication structures (which are relevant to learning) of, and between organizational members

Four of the major conclusions drawn from this exploratory survey . (1) OL means "networking" since organizationally shared reality constructions evolve along network relations rather than according to departmental and hierarchical levels (1994: 54). (2) 'Visioning" (creating a shared vision) and "structuring" (building new structures in order to readjust and coordinate activities) are two distinct types of learning orientation both of which "mark different 'take off ' points for the transformation of organizational mental models (1994: 54). (3) The type of learning pursued influences the perceived need for change" :

"Comparison of the organizational maps shows that the gap between "desired state" of the organization and its current "real conditions" (i.e. the need for transformation) is larger in the OL system which concentrates "only" on the

establishment of new structures than that which pulls itself forward by creating new visions (1994: 54)."

(4) The perceived domain of power determines the scope of OL : "the imagination (sic) of having power is the most important intervening factor for the scope of the learning efforts: in this study network analysis reveals that although both OL systems "are embedded in the same political and legal frame" there are differences in the perception of being in control, with those following the "visioning" type of learning orientation assessing its power as high whereas those in the "structuring " OL orientation "ascribes power predominantly to political authorities outside the administration (1994: 54)."

The authors lastly conclude that "(top) managers initialize and catalyze learning activities when they (1) function as turntables of communication processes (i.e they show "high communicativeness and responsiveness") ; and (2) believe in the power of visions and are seen "nourishing employees' beliefs in being self-controlled and in transmitting the "powerful vision of the power of visions" (1994: 54)

Knock, N. F., McQueen, R. J. and Baker, M. (1996): "Learning and Process Improvement in Knowledge Organisations: A Critical Analysis of Four Contemporary Myths", The Learning Organization, Vol. 3, No. 1: 31-41.

Knowles, M. S. (1978): The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species , New York, Gulf Publications.

Koffman, F, and Senge, P. (1993): "Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations", Organization Dynamics, Autumn: 5--23.

Kolb. D. A. (1983): Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.

The {dialectical] model identifies four analytic stages in problem management - situation analysis, problem analysis, solution analysis, and implementation analysis. Within each stage, analysis is based on dialectically opposed phases - valuing and priority setting in situation analysis, information gathering and problem definition in problem analysis, idea getting and decision making in solution analysis, and participation and planning in implementation analysis. Problem management involves adopting the appropriate cognitive mind set for each stage and phase. Problem solving is both a cognitive and a social process. Social factors that can facilitate or hinder effective problem-solving management are the organization's structure and an executive's role in it, the extent to which an organization emphasizes the red-mode or green-mode mind set, and the way conflict is used in problem management (1983: 143).

Kolb, D. (1986):Experiential Learning, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. et al. (1985? ): Experiential Organisation Behavior, Englewood Cils, NJ. Prentice Hall Inc: 56-64.

Kolb, D. A. and Fry, R. (1975): "Toward An Applied Theory of Experiential Learning", in Cooper, C. (ed.): Theories of Group Processes, London, Wiley.

Kramlinger, T. (1992): "Training's role in a learning organization", Training, Vol. 2 9. No. 7: 46-51.

Kuchinke, K. P. (1995): "Managing learning for performance", Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 6,No. 3: 307-316

Lane, D. (1992): "Modelling as learning", European Journal of Operational Research Vol .59, No. 1: 64-84.

Langley, P. A. (1996): "Accelerating Learning in Microworld Environment", paper Presented Academy of Management Conference, Cininnati, Ohio, 9-14 August ( Monday: Conference Proceedings: 42)

Lansbury, R. D. (1992): "Managing change in a challenging environment", Asia - Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 30 No. 1: 16-28.

Lant, T. K. and Mezias, S. J. (1989): "An organization learning model of convergence and reorientation", New York University, Stern School of Business Research Paper Series.

Lant, T. K and Mezias, S. J. (1990): "Managing Discontinuous Change: A Simulation Study of Organizational Learning and Entrepreneurship:, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11: 147-79.

Lant, T. K and Mezias, S. J. (1992): "An Organizational Learning model of Convergence and Reorientation", Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 1: 47-71.

Lant, T. K, Milliken, F. J. and Batra, ... (1992): "The Role of Managerial Learning and interpretation in Strategic Persistence and Reorientation: An Empirical Exploration", Strategic Management Journal, Vol,.13,: 585-608.

Lant, T. K. and Montgomery, D. B. (1987): "Learning from strategic success and failure", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 15: 503-18.

Lave, J. (1991): Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press

Lee, F. (1996): "Barriers to Organizational Learning: A case Study of Physicians and Hospital Technology", paper Presented Academy of Management Conference, Cininnati, Ohio, 9-14 August (Tuesday: Conference Proceedings: 82)

Leeuw, F. L, Rist , R. C and Sonnichsen, R. C.(Eds) (1994): Can Government Learn? Comparative Perspectives on Evaluation & Organizational Learning." New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992): "The factory as a learning laboratory", Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34. No. 1: 23-38.

Lepani, B. (1994): "The New Learning Society - The Challenge for Schools", IARTV Seminar Series, May, No. 33.

Lessem, R. (1982): "A biography of Action learning", in Revans, R. W. (ed.) The origins and growth of action-learning, Bromley, Chartwell-Ball.

Lessem, R. (1991): Total quality learning: Building a learning organisation, Oxford,

Basil Blackwell.

Lessem, R. (1993): Business as a learning community: Applying global concepts to organizational learning, United Kingdom, McGraw-Hill.

Levinson, N. S., and Asashi, M. (1995): Cross-national alliances and interorganizational learning", Organizational Dynamics, Autumn: 50-63.

Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993): "The Myopia of Learning," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14: 95-112.

Levitt, B. and March, J. G. (1988): "Organizational Learning", Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14: 319-40.

Limerick, D, Passfield, R. and Cunnington, B. (1994)" Transformational change: Towards an action learning organization", The Learning Organization, Vol. 1, No. 2:: 29-40.

Locke, E. A. and Jain, V. K. (1995): "Organizational learning and continuous improvement, " The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 1: 45-68.

Lounamaa, P. and March, J. G,. (1987): "Adaptive coordination of a learning team", Management Science, Vol. 33: 107-23.

Lukas, B., Hult, G. T. and Ferrell, O. C.(1986):"A theoretical perspective of the antecedents and consequences of organizational learning in marketing channels" Journal of Business Research, Vol. 36, No. 3. 233-244

A theoretical framework for the study of organizational learning in marketing channels is developed, based on: 1. the degrees of learning subprocesses, and 2. the cognitive levels of learning. Task-specific, environmental, and organizational factors are also incorporated into the framework. Potential features of organizational memory are explored and propositions are developed to clarify the relationships between the various constructs on the basis of past research and a series of case studies. Research directions are developed to guide future empirical testing of the theoretical framework advanced.

Lundberg, L. (1989): "On Organization Learning: Implications and Opportunities for Expanding Organizational Development", in Woodman, R. and Pasmore, W. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 3, Connecticut, JAI Press.

Luthans, F. (1995): "Going beyond total quality: The characteristics, techniques, and measures of learning organizations" The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 31, No. 1: 24-44.

Lyles, M. and Salk, J. (1995): "Learning from foreign parents in international joint ventures: An empirical examination in the Hungarian context'" Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Vancouver, Canada.

McAuley, L. and Sims, D. (1995): "An inquiry into management learning" Management Learning, Vol. 26, No. 1: 21-36.

McCaskey (1982), The Executive Challenge : Managing Change and Ambiguity , Boston, Mass., Pitman.

McDougall, M. and Beattie, r. s. (1995): "Learning from Learning Groups", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 14, no. 8: 35041.

McGill, M. E., Slocum, Jr. J. W and Lei, D. (C. 1992): "Management Practices in Learning Organizations", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 21, No. 1: 5- 17.

The paper focuses on the differences between two styles of learning : adaptive learning and "generative" learning.. The authors argue that adaptive learning while being more common than generative learning in organizations is only really effective in situations where the organizations competitive environment remains relatively stable (1991: 8). Generative learning is characterized by five dimensions: openness, systemic thinking, creativity, a sense of efficacy and empathy (1991: 10). In turn, each dimension has unique requirements and specific managerial practices which promote its occurrence within organizations.

These practices encourage, foster, recognize, and reward openness, systemic thinking, creativity, personal efficacy, and empathy. In turn, these behaviors result in learning, in as much as they expand rather than limit managerial experience.

Building learning organizations requires that leaders develop employees who see their organization as a system, who can develop their own personal mastery, and who learn how to experiment and collaboratively reframe problems. Ö

Ö Yet, generative learning in many ways works against the experience and training of managers accustomed to reward systems and cultures that foster adaptive learning. The process of "un-learning" previous mindsets is a difficult task in itself. Inculcation of such organizational features as empathy, humility, and personal efficacy are vital first steps to help the firm move away from static, risk-avers patterns of behavior to pro-active, risk-taking learning (1991: 16) (Abstract by Odgers)

McGill, M. E., Slocum, Jr. (1993):" Unlearning the organization", Organizational Dynamics, Vol,.22, No. 3:: 67-79.

McGill, M. E., Slocum, Jr. (1994): The Smarter Organization: How to Build a Business that Learns and Adapts to Marketplace Needs, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McIntire, S. A. (1996): "Competitive Advantage Through Diversity: Organizational Learning from Difference", Personnel-Psychology, Vol. 49, No.1: 233-236

McKinley, W., Sanchez, C. M. and Schick, A. G. (1995): 'Organizational downsizing: Constraining, cloning, learning", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9., No. #: 32-44.

McLean, J. (1994) et al.: "Learning Organizations in Australia- An exploratory study: Summary of results", Unpublished paper presented at The Learning Company Conference, Andover, Mass., November.

Macher, K. (1992): "Organizations that learn", Journal of Quality and Participation Vol. 15: 8-11.

Mai, R. (1995): Learning Partnerships, New York, Irwin Professional Publishing.

Book features 2 dozen case studies of employee involvement programs which Maritz Performance improvement Co. has developed for clients. Mai has highlighted those companies he considers outstanding examples of "learning organizations".

March, J. (1991): Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning", Organization Science, Vol. 2: 71-87.

March, J. and Olsen, J. (1975): "The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under ambiguity", European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 3: 147-71.

March, J. and Olsen, J. (1976): "Organizational Learning and the Ambiguity of the Past", in March, J. and Olsen, J. (Eds), Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Bergen: 54-67.

March, J., L. Sproull, and M. Tamuz (1991): 'Learning from samples of one or fewer', Organization Science Vol. 2, No. 1; 1-13.

Marengo, L. (1992): Knowledge, coordination and learning in an adaptive model of the firm', Unpublished D.Phil. dissertation, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.

Marsick, V. J. (1990): "Experience-based Learning: Executive Learning outside the Classroom", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 9, no. 4: 50-60.

Marsick, V. J. et al. (1992): "Action-reflection learning", Training and Development

Aug.: 63-6.

Marsick, V. (1993): "Experience-based Learning: Executive Learning outside the Classroom," Journal of Management Development, Vol. 12, No. 2: 50-60.

Marsick, V. J. (1987): Learning in the Workplace, New York, Croom Helm.

Provides a framework for studying informal learning.

Martin, R. (1993): "Changing the mind of the corporation", Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec.: 87-94.

Martin, S. and Kehoe, B. (1991): "Organization Change: Developing a Learning Organization and Adapting to Change", Training and Development in Australia, Vol. 17, No. 1: 7-10.

Meen, D. E. and Keough, M. (1992): "Creating the learning organization", The McKinsey Quarterly, Issue 1: 58-78.

Michael, D. N. (1973): On Learning to Plan - and Planning to Learn: The Social Psychology of Changing Toward Future-Responsive Societal Learning, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Miles, R. H. (1980): "The Role of Organizational Learning in the Early Creation and Development of Organizations", in Kimberley, J, and Miles, R. H. and Associates (Eds): The Organizational Life Cycle: Issues in the

Creation, Transformation, and Decline of Organizations, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Miles, R. H. and Randolph, W. A. (1980): "Influence of Organizational Learning Styles on Early Development", in Kimberley, J. .R and Miles, R. .H and Associates (Eds): The Organizational Life Cycle: Issues in the Creation, Transformation, and Decline of Organizations, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Mills, D. and Friesen, B. (1992): "The learning organization", European Management Journal , Vol. 10, June: 146-56.

Mintzberg, H. (1978) "Patterns in Strategy Formulation," Management Science Vol. 24, No. 9: 934-48.

Mintzberg, H. and Waters (1985): " Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emerged", Strategic Management Journal. 6: 257-272.

Mirvis, P. H. (1996): "Historical foundations of organizational learning", Special issue of Journal of Organizational Change Management --Organizational Learning: Past, Present, and Future, Journal of Organizational Change Management , Volume 9 Number 1.

A broad review of theory and research about organizations as social, information processing, interpretive, and inquiry systems locates the origins of key concepts behind organization learning. This shows how different schools of thought explain what is behind routine versus creative action in organizations and what might be done to help people to collectively unlearn old habits and develop new behaviors. A look at contemporary models and practices considers to what extent holistic thinking and work arrangements will promote organizational learning and how measures to enhance collective consciousness could enable people to learn how to learn. (Abstract from Special issue)

Mischke, G. A. (1996): "Learning to Do it Better: The Effects of Organization Resources and Traits on Cooperative Strategy for Research and Development", paper presented Academy of Management Conference , Cincinnati, Ohio, 9-14 August (Conference Proceedings: Tuesday: 92)

Mitroff, I. (1983): Stakeholders of the organizational mind, Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Mitroff, I. I and Linstone, H. A. (1993): The Unbounded Mind: Breaking the Chains of Traditional Business Thinking, New York, Oxford University Press.

Mody, A. (1990): Learning through alliances Washington: The World Bank.

Moenaert, R. K and Caeldries, F (1996): ".Architectural redesign, interpersonal communication, and learning in R&D", Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 13, No. 4: 296-310

Mohapatra, P. and Mandal, P. (1989): "The systems dynamic paradigm, Decision, Vol. 16: 251-66.

Moorcroft, J. (1988): "Systems dynamics and microworlds for policy makers", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 36. 37: 301-320.

Morgan, G. (1986): Images of Organization, Newbury Park, Calif, Sage Publications:

77-105.

Morrigan, P. (1996): "Finding inspiration in the learning organisation", HR Monthly, May: 26-7.

The "learning organization" concept and organizational learning are not identical. Organizational learning has mostly occurred "within a sub-system of the whole organisation and with the need for continuous change, the status of this particular sub-system has gained more prominence over the past decade (Morrigan, 1996: 26)." On the other hand, the learning organisation "is the whole organisation." Morrigan argues that there are two dominant models of a learning organisation which can be gleaned from the existing literature. One is the Modern Rationalist Organisation which has only one objective: "an economic one based on improved productivity and competitiveness. (Morrigan, 196: 26). In such an organisation, which is a 'closed socio-technical one with boundaries that are "open" where the organisation and the customer or supplier interact ; 'learning is important for control of variance and maintaining equilibrium (Morrigan, 1996: 26)." Its culture is based on competitive individualism even where work is team-based because rewards and recognition are allocated on an individual basis". Learning in such a Modern Rationalist organisation is of an adaptive nature being :geared to the development of skills, a little ahead of the work to be performed (Morrigan, 1996: 26)." In comparison the other type of organisation is the Modern Democratic Learning organisation. In such enterprises, many related objectives are pursued. While it still is dependent ion economic survival" and therefore does pursue important economic objectives, it at the same time "would also be creating "social capital" making a contribution to society and culture, and acting responsibly towards environmental resources (Morrigan , 1996: 26)." Its organisational systems are more open and holistic, with the boundaries being defined strategically, according to need (Morrigan ,1996: 26)." Unlike the modern Rationalist organisation, the culture in a modern democratic one is "one of diversity with shared vision, cooperation, and partnerships of many kinds.". With respect to the type of learning it pursues, a modern democratic learning organisation "grows out of "generative learning" where adaptive learning is only one of the many levels achieved (Morrigan, 1996: 27)." Morrigan argues that Peter Senge's five disciplines "are a good place to look for a beginning for generative learning. Morrigan concludes by offering several design principles to aid in developing and managing generative learning environments .

Mullen, E. (ed.), (1995): "Building Communities of Commitment", The Systems Thinker: Building Shared Understanding, Vol. 5, No. 10: 1-6.

Mumford, A. (1980): Making Experience Pay: Management Success Through Effective Learning, London ,McGraw-hill.

Mumford, A. (1988): "Learning and development: Influences, " in Mumford, A. (ed.), Developing Top Managers, London, , Gower Publishing Company: 177- 93.

Mumford, A. (1991): "Learning in Action" Personnel Management Vol. 23 No. 7 (July) : 34-37

Action learning Ö did not gain widespread acceptance until the 1970s, when Reg Revans published a book on the topic. Some of the essential elements of action learning include: 1. Learning for managers should mean learning to take effective action. 2. Learning to take effective action necessarily involves actually taking action, not recommending action or undertaking analysis of someone else's problem. 3. The best form of action for learning is work on a defined project that is significant to the managers themselves. 4. Managers learn best with and from each other. 5. The social process is achieved and managed through regular meetings of managers to discuss individual projects. 6. The role of the group (set) is not to teach, but to help managers learn from exposure to problems and to each other. To be an effective strategy in the 1990s, action learning must be extended outside the set to include all those who will influence task performance and achieved learning. (ABI.INFORM 91-38502 Abstract: emphasis added)

Mumford, A. (1993): Helping individuals to learn" in Mumford, A. (Ed.), How managers can develop managers, London Gower Publishing Company: 93-115.

Mumford, A. (1995): Learning at the Top, London , McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Mumford states at the outset of his personal reflection on learning g at the top (of organizations) that he is at the same time pleased, puzzled and sceptical about the "proliferating articles and books on the learning organization (1995: xv). Mumford is firstly pleased "because the concept that at organization could both provide a context for, and be the active force in, a learning process provides great potential. (1995: xv). Mumford is puzzled "because the concepts and constructs of organizational learning often seem elusive, sometimes seem contradictory with each other, and sometimes seem to claim purposes and achievements at a higher level than most dreamt of in my philosophy (1995: xv)." His scepticism may partly arise from his personal and "now lengthy experience in management development, and of my awareness of the susceptibility of management development to flavours of the year and to my personal styles of thinking and learning, which emphasize analysis and reflection (1995: xv)." Mumford defines a learning organization as "one that creates an environment where the behaviours and practices involved in continuous development are actively encouraged (1995: xx)

Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. and Gould, J. M. (1995): "Understanding organizations as learning systems", Sloan Management Review, Vol 23., Winter: 73-85.

Newman, W. (1991): "Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, longevity in global alliances'" Journal of International Business Studies Vol. 2 No. 4: 579-601.

Nicolini, D. and Meznar, M. B. (1995): "The social construction of organizational learning: Conceptual and practical issues in the field", Human Relations Vol. 48, No,. 7: 727-46.

The field of organizational learning has been characterized by a wide diversity of opinions, definitions, and conceptualizations. Organizational learning (OL) cannot be understood without taking into account the continuous ongoing change of organizational cognitive structures. However, learning is only recognized wh en an observer identifies and contextualizes those changes. Thus, OL can be interpreted as a social construction which transforms acquired knowledge into accountable abstract knowledge. The implications of this conceptualization of learning on management practice and organizational research are discussed (Abstract downloaded from BPO 19/ 10 /96)

Nonaka, I. (1991): "The knowledge creating company", Harvard Business Review

Vol. 69, No. 6: 96-104.

Nonaka, I. (1994): "A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge" Organization Science, Vol. 5: 14-37.

Nonaka, I. and Johansson, J. (1985): "Organizational learning in Japanese companies", in Lamb, R. and Shrivastava, P. (Eds.) Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 3, Greenwich, CT, JAI Press: 277-96.

Norman, D. (1976): Memory and Attention, Second Edition, New York, Wiley.

Prahalad and Bettis (1986) draw on Normna's discussion of schemas ie. beliefs, theories and propositions people develop over time based on personal experiences.

Novak, J. D. and Gowan, D.B. (1984): "Concept mapping for meaningful learning", in Novak, J. D. and Gwen, D.B. (Eds.), Learning how to learn, Cambridge, Mass. , Cambridge University Press.

Nyhan, B. (1991): Developing people's ability to learn: A European perspective on self-learning competency and technological change, Brussels, European Inter- University Press.

Nystrom, P. C. and Starbuck, W. H. (1984): "To avoid organizational crisis, unlearn", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 12, No.4: 53-65.

Odgers. J. F. (1995): :"What have we learnt about organizational learning?" Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of Strategic Management Educators, LaTrobe University, Melbourne. April 1995.

While there is (1) no standard definition of organizational learning [Garvin, 1993; Shrivastava, 1983], there are some developing agreements about (2) why it is becoming a strategic imperative [e.g. de Geus, 1988; McGill and Slocum, 1994]; (3) about what it relies upon [Garvin, 1993;McGill & Slocum, 1994;Senge,1992] ; (4) about what sorts of organizational characteristics and behaviours will potentially ensure that an organization does enhance its ability to learn [e.g. de Geus, 1988, Garvin, 1993; McGill and Slocum, 1994; Senge, 1992] and (5) the very real difficulties of implanting learning in organizations [de Geus, 1988; Garvin, 1993; McGill and Slocum, 1994; Stacey, 1993]

This paper aims to review and critique our current store of knowledge about organizational learning around these five issues.

Odgers, J. F. (1996): "Book review: Learning at the top", ASTOLg Newsletter, Vol. 3, Issue 3: (December): 21-22.

Orr. J. F. I. (1993): "Learning to learn: The new logic of learning," Vital Speeches, Vol. 59, No. 23: 725-2.

Ortenblad, A. (1996): "Beginning to understand the concept of the learning organization: from ambiguity to creativity", paper presented for the Symposium on Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation : Theoretical and Research Developments, The Management School. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 1 - 3 September.

Ortenblad (1996) argues that it is difficult to understand the concept of the learning organization because of such reasons as (1) the vagueness of some of the underlying assumptions presented in the literature; (2) the 'popularity' of some of the theories involved. The paper concludes with a (1) the suggestion of a classification "based on who is learning and where knowledge is located, which results in three different subconcepts of the LO [Learning organization}"; and (2) an stated uncertainty as to whether "the positive organizations where everyone works for the best (sic) of the organization should necessarily be called learning organizations (1996: 14)"

Osland, G. .E and Yaprak, A. (1995): "Learning through strategic alliances: Processes and factors that enhance marketing effectiveness", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 3: 52-66. (JO has copy: Notify ASTOL g)

Pearn, M. A., Roderick, C. and Mulrooney, C. (1995): Learning organizations in Practice, London, McGraw- Hill. (Jo has summary)

Offer an alternative model of organizational learning (the INVEST model). Present a full Learning Audit comprising a self-administered checklist broken into five separate parts. It is designed to assess "individual and group learning ability and to sustain learning: in the organization as a whole; in the individual's department of function; by the individual's own line managers or supervisor; by the training and / or HR function; (and) by inviting more general comments from the participants about the sorts of things which hinder or prevent them learning at work, and also the things they think would encourage or support them learning a work (1995: 89)

Pedler, M. (1992a): "Biography work for organisational learning: Strategy or destiny?", Management Education and Development, Vol. 23, No. 3: 258- 70.

Pedler, M. (ed.) (1992): Action learning ion practice, Aldershot Hants England, Gower.

Pedler, M. (1995a): Creating the learning organization, London, BBC for Business.

Pedler, M. (1995b): "A guide to the learning organization", Industrial and Commercial Training Vol. 27, No. 4,: 21-25.

Pedler, M., T. Boydell, and J. Burgoyne (1989): "Towards the learning company", Management Education and Development Vol. 20, No. 1: 1-8.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, J. (1991): The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, Maidenhead, UK, McGraw Hill Book Company.

Pennings, J. M, Barkema, H. and Douma, S. (1994): "Organizational learning and diversification", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37. No. 3: 608-40.

Petrash. G (1996): "Dow's journey to a knowledge value management culture", European Management Journal Vol. 14. No. 4: 365-373

Pisano, G. P. (1994): "Knowledge, Integration, and the locus of learning: An Empirical Analysis of Process Development, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, Special Issue:, Winter: 85-100.

Pisano, G. P. (1996): "Learning by -doing versus Learning-Before-Doing: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals," paper presented Academy of Management Conference, Cininnati, Ohio, 9-14 August (CCC 214 Monday: Conference Proceedings: 39)

Pittenger, J. E. and Gooding, C. T. (1971): Learning Theories in Education and Practice, New York, Wiley.

Powell, W. W, Koput, K. W and Smith, D. L. (1996): "Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology" Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 41,. No. 1: 116-145.

It is argued that when the knowledge base of an industry is both complex and expanding and the sources of expertise are widely dispersed, the locus of innovation will be found in networks of learning, rather than in individual firms. The large-scale reliance on interorganizational collaborations in the biotechnology industry reflects a fundamental and pervasive concern with access to knowledge. A network approach to organizational learning is developed, and a firm-level, longitudinal hypotheses are derived that link research and development alliances, experience with managing interfirm relationships, network position, rates of growth and portfolios of collaborative activities. These hypotheses are tested on a sample of dedicated biotechnology firms in the years 1990-1994. Results support a learning view and have broad implications for future theoretical and empirical research. (Abstract supplied by BPO 21/9/96)

Prahalad, C. K. and Bettis, R. A. (1986): The Dominant Logic: A New Linkage Between Diversity and Performance", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 6: 485-501.

The purpose of this paper is to propose an additional 'linkage', conceptual at this stage, that might help our understanding of the crucial connection between diversity and performance. The conceptual argument is intended as a 'supplement' to the current lines of research, rather than as an alternative. This linkage is referred to as the 'dominant general management logic' (or dominant logic) and consists of the mental maps developed through experience in the core business and sometimes applied inappropriately in the new business (1986: 485)

Prange, C. (1996): "Organizational Learning - desperately seeking theory?" paper presented for the Symposium on Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation : Theoretical and Research Developments, The Management School. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 1 - 3 September.

Prange (1996) contends that while concepts of organizational learning abound in the literature, an "integrated theory is still missing". Prange argues that "most useful research in organizational learning is confronted with the quest for 'usefulness' which is inherently detrimental to 'theory building' in the traditional sense. In contrast, focusing on 'practicality' in organizational learning research, and purporting the critical use of metaphors and/or analogies may be more adequate for the theoretical development of the field (taken from Prange !996) Abstract)".

Prideaux, G. and Ford, J. F. (1988): "Management Development: Competencies, Teams, Learning Contracts and Work Experience Based Learning", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 7, No. 3: 13-21.

Pucik, V. (1988): "Strategic alliances, organizational learning, and competitive advantage: the HRM Agenda", Human Resource Management Vol. 27, No. 1: 77-93. (Notified ASTOL g 19/12/ 96).

Pun, A. S. L. (1990): "Managing the Cultural Differences in Learning", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 9, No. 5: 35-40.

Quinn, J. B. (1982): "Managing Strategies Incrementally," OMEGA, International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 10, No. 6: 613-27.

Quinn, J. B. (1992): Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for Industry, New York, The Free Press.

Quinn Mills D. and Friesen, B:. (1992): "The learning organization", European Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2: 146-56.

Ramirez, R. (1983): "Action learning: A strategic approach for organizations facing turbulent conditions", Human Relations, Vol. 36, No,. 8: 725-42.

Randars, J. (ed.), (1980): Elements of the systems dynamics model: International conference on Systems Dynamics, Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.

Redding, J. C. and Catalanello, R. F. (1994): Strategic Readiness: The Making of

of Learning Organization, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Revans, R. W. (1980): Action Learning, London, Blond and Briggs.

Revans, R. (1982): The Origins and Growth of Action Learning, Bromley, Chartwell- Bratt.

Rheem, H. (1995): "The learning Organization" Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73, No. 2: 10

Richardson, G. (1986): "Problems with causal loop diagrams", System Dynamics