The International Journal of Organizational Analysis

1995, Vol. 3, No. 4 (October), pp. 337-360

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING:
DIMENSIONS FOR A THEORY
Mary M. Crossan
Henry W. Lane
Roderick . White
Lisa Djurfeldt
University of Western Ontario
Organizational learning (OL) is receiving increasing attention from
researchers and practitioners alike. In fact, some have suggested that
the only sustainable competitive advantage is a firm's ability to learn
faster than its competitors. In spite ofOL's promise, the field has been
slow to evolve. The primary impediments to the development of OL the
ory are that inconsistent terminology is used for comparable concepts
and that different definitions are used to describe the phenomenon.
Furthermore, many theorists have neglected to make explicit their
underlying assumptions about the phenomenon. Employing an inductive
approach, this review surfaces the implicit and explicit assumptions of
OL researchers, identifying three key dimensions that differentiate per
spectives: (1) unit of analysisindividual, group, organizational, and
interorganizational; (2) cognitive/behavioral emphasis; and (3) the
learning-performance relationship.
One of the pioneering empirical studies of the phenomenon of OL was per
formed by Cangelosi and Dill (1965). They conclude:
To better specify the constructs of organizational learning, to elaborate them,
to test them, or to replace them, more empirical work is needed. Such work
should focus on the study of interactions between individual and organiza
tional learning; on the identification of those facets of environment, organi
zation, and personality that define an organization's unique learning task and
its learning potential; and on the search for behavioral cues that will let us
better anticipate and identify learning when it actually takes place. (p. 202)
Has there been progress since the Cangelosi and Dill study in 1965? Two
decades later, Fiol and Lyles (1985) suggest that the challenge proposed by Can
gelosi and Dill has not been met, at least to the extent that attempts have not been
We gratefully acknowledge thefinancialsupport of the National Center For Management
Research and Development, and the Canadian Center For Management Development.

338

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

systematically organized to reflect such progress. "Although there exists

widespread acceptance of the notion of organizational learning and its importance
to strategic performance, no theory or model of organizational learning is widely
accepted" (p. 803). Nearly three decades later, this same concern is echoed by
Weick (1991), Huber (1991), and Simon (1991): "Without working toward a
higher level of consistency in terminology than prevails in organization theory
today, it will be difficult or impossible to cumulate and assemble into a coherent
structure the knowledge we are gaining from individual case studies and experi
ments" (Simon 1991, p. 133). Simon further asserts that if the challenge is not met,
we will continually be reinventing wheels, "a luxury we cannot afford" (p. 133).
The primary impediments to the development of OL theory are that inconsis
tent terminology is used for comparable concepts and that different definitions are
used to describe the phenomenon. As a result, there is little integration and cumu
lative theory (Huber, 1991). Although disagreement on what OL is represents the
norm, an assessment of the extant literature suggests that there is variance along
three key dimensions: (1) the unit of analysisindividual, group, organizational,
and/or interorganizational; (2) cognition and behaviorthe relationship between
knowledge, understanding, action, and learning; and (3) the relationship between
learning and performance. These dimensions form the "assumption set" from
which most researchers, explicitly or implicitly, frame their definitions and con
cepts. The tendency has been towards implicit statement of the assumption set,
which is one of the contributing factors to the divergence and lack of conformity
present in the OL literature.
The following sections elaborate on these dimensions by focusing on the key
contributions in the field. The dimensions are then used to highlight differences in
various types or categories of organizational learning that have been proposed,
such as incremental learning, transformational learning, single-loop learning, and
double-loop learning.
The key contributions were based on the number of citations in the Social
Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Over 100 articles on organizational learning were
identified through a subject search of the SSCI. This review focuses on papers with
twenty or more citations or papers with more than five citations in any one year in
order not to prejudice later publications. (For a more in-depth review of the
methodology, see Crossan & Guatto, in press). Figure 1 illustrates the number of
citations for the influential articles. Table 1 provides a summary of the articles
along the three dimensions
Levels of Learning: Individual, Group, Organizational, Interorganizational
OL researchers can be distinguished on the basis of their assumptions about
the level(s) of organizational learning. As early as 1965, Cangelosi and Dill sug
gested that learning occurs at individual, group, and organizational levels. They
assumed, however, that the same process of learning occurred at each level. A
fourth level, interorganizational, is emergent in the literature in the form of learnThe International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

M. M. CROSSAN, H. W. LANE, R. R WHITE, ANDL.DJURFELDT

339

ing between organizations through partnerships and joint ventures. Since 1965, we
have not arrived at any consensus about the appropriate level(s) of OL.
Researchers often make implicit assumptions about the level of learning with no
recognition of alternative views. Even when researchers recognize alternative
interpretations of learning levels, they often neglect to consider how the levels
relate. This is perhaps most apparent with researchers who use the term
'organizational learning' to describe individual learning.

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

340

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

Table 1
Summary of Influential Papers
Author

Garvin
(1993)

Parkhe
(1991)

Huber
(1991)

Senge
(1990)

Level; Individual (I,i),

Group (G,g),
Organization (,)
(Upper Case - dominant)

I-o

Cognition (C,c)
Behavior (B,b)
Orientation
(Upper Case - dominant)

c-B

Suggests that organizations

learn but defines five main
activities of learning
organizations which are
primarily individual.

Indicates that ideas are

essential for learning to take
place, but without changes in
behavior, "only the potential
for improvement exists."

Inter-O

C
Uses Fiol and Lyles
definitions (see below).
Degrees of learning (minor,
moderate, major) are added.
The latter two correspond to
Argyris's single and double
loop models.

Organizational level
conception applied to global
strategic alliances.

i-g-O
An information processing
perspective that can be
applied at individual, group,
organizational, industry, or
society levels of analysis.
Focuses on individual
interpretation but relates it
to an organizational level.

I-g
Focus is heavily
individual (leaders and
people). "Leaders in learning
organizations are responsible
for building organizations
where people are continually
expanding their capabilities
to shape their future." The
leader is designer, teacher,
and steward. Management
teams are referred to.

C-b
A behavioral perspective
that the author specifically
contrasts with a cognitive
perspective: "An entity learns
if, through its processing of
information, the range of its
potential behaviors is
changed. " Change resulting
from learning need not be
visibly behavioral.

C-b
Learning organizations adapt
effectively to environmental
change (coping) but also
engage in generative learning
(creating) about expanding
capabilities. There is a strong
cognitive element in the
creation of shared vision
and the surfacing and testing
of mental models.

TheInternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

Learning-Performance
Link
(L~> indirect link
L direct link)

LP
Proposes measuring OL
with a learning audit of
cognitive changes,
behavioral changes, and
performance.

?
Longevity
of alliances is
L~>P
dependent
on interfirm
"Learning does
not have
diversity.
Similarity
to
be conscious
or
requires
lessLearning
learning does
intentional.
(single
loop);
dissimilarity
not always
increase
requires moreor
double
loop
effectiveness
potential
learning.
effectiveness. Entities can
incorrectly learn and learn
correctly things which are
incorrect."

L~>P
"Over the long term
superior performance
depends on superior
learning." Not clear what
the short-run link is, but
one might infer, given the
need for learning labs to
practice, that the
relationship is not direct.

M. M. CROSSAN,H.W. LANE, R. WHITE, AND L. DJURFELDT

341

Table 1 (Continued)
Stata
(1989)

Levitt
March
(1988)

Fiol
Lyles
(1985)

Herriott
Levinthal
March
(1985)

Daft
Weick
(1984)

G-o

c-B

Organizational learning
differs from individual
learning in that it "occurs
through shared insights,
knowledge, and mental
models. " It depends on
institutional mechanisms to
provide memory as well as
individual memories.

Although there is a cognitive

element (shared beliefs,
mental maps) the emphasis is
behavior: change, quality
improvement, innovation.

C-b

Organizations learn "by

encoding inferences from
history into routines that
guide behavior." Routines
include forms, rules
procedures, conventions,
strategies, and technologies.

i-O

Cognitively focused with an

emphasis on encoding
learning into routines that
guide behavior. Problems in
the learning process result
from "inadequacies of human
cognitive habits," as well as
from organizational features.

C-b

"Organizational learning is
not simply the sum of each
member's learning."
Organizations develop and
maintain learning systems,
and learning is influenced
by contextual factors such
as organizational culture,
strategy, structure, and
systems. Group level learning
is not addressed.

Learning (cognition) is
distinguished from adaptation
(behavior). Learning is "the
development of insights,
knowledge, and associations
between past actions, the
effectiveness of those actions,
and future actions."
Adaptation is "the ability to
make incremental changes,
goal structure changes, or
other changes."

Individual level of
analysis using models of
experiential learning.

Experiential learning is a
form of adaptive intelligence,
and the authors have
modeled a collection of
behavioral observations.

i-g-o

c-B
Learning is action taken.
Interpretation is analogous
to learning a new skill.
Although there is a strong
behavior/action emphasis,
there is a heavy cognitive
element to the various modes
of interpretation.

Individuals carry out the

interpretation process.
"Individuals come and go,
but organizations preserve
knowledge, behaviors, mental
maps, norms, and values over
time. The distinctive feature
of organization level
information activity is
sharing."

LP
Learning results in man
agement innovation and
increased competitiveness,
and it may be the only
form of sustainable
competitive advantage.

L->P
"Learning does not always
lead to intelligent
behavior." There also are
competency traps,
superstitious learning, and
erroneous inferences.

lower L
higher L ~>
Lower level learning (not
referring to level of the
organization) is
performance (and
behaviorally) oriented.
Higher level learning
adjusts overall rules and
norms rather than
activities or behavior (and
is more cognitively
oriented).

LP
Adaptive intelligence can
improve human
performance.

?
Interpretation is a
necessary process in
the formulation of
responses to problems
and opportunities in
the environment.

TheInternationalJournal of OrganizationalAnalysis,Vol.3,o.4, October 1995

342

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

Table 1 (Continued)
Shrivastava
i-O
(1983) "Organizational learning is an
organizational process rather
than an individual process."
Although it is stated that
learning takes place at various
levels and that individuals are
the agents of learning, the
emphasis is on organizational
level learning systems.

Duncan
Weiss
(1979)

G-O
"Organizational learning is
defined as different than
individual learning." It is
an organizational process
taking place at the top of
the organization in which
the dominant coalition
acquires knowledge about
action-outcome relationships.

Argyris
(1977;
1976;
1967)

I-g-O
Organizations learn through
individuals acting as agents
for them." However,
groups/teams and
organizations are facilitators
or inhibitors of learning.

March
Olsen
(1975)

Io
"Organizations and the
people in them learn from
their experience." Focus is
on the "organizational
participant" (individual) as
problem-solver or decision
maker. There appears to be
a direct link between the
individual and organization,
with no reference to groups.

c-B
Behaviorally oriented in that
organizations learn from
experience, adapt their goals,
search for solutions to
problems. It is stated that
learning involves
"fundamental changes in
theories-in-use.... and a
reorientation of world views
of important decision
makers," but this cognitive
dimension is not developed.

C-B
The emphasis is primarily on
behavior and action, although
they recognizes
paradigmatic (set of beliefs)
element to organizational
learning.

LP
The outcome of
organizational learning
is an integrated system
of action-outcome
heuristics.

LP
Organizational
learning is concerned
with the growth and
change of
organizational
knowledge to improve
organizational action,
effectiveness, and
outcomes.

C-B

L~>P

Learning is error detection

(cognition) and correction
(behavior). Single loop
learning is learning within
a frame of reference or
paradigm, and double loop
learning is learning a new
frame of reference or
paradigm.

Performance is the
outcome of
education/learning.
Learning can be
effective or ineffective,
depending on the
theory of action (single
or double loop).

C-b
Cognitive limitations on
rationality have been well
documented. The authors
assess the cognitive
limitations on learning from
experience. The cognitive
operations are seeing, liking,
and trusting. Cognition
influences future behavior,
but past behavior
(experience) influences
cognition.

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

L~>P
Learning is acting,
observing
consequences, making
inferences, and
drawing implications
for future actions.
Organizations can
improve through
learning. Not all
learning is positive, and
there are disconnects
such as superstitious
learning.

M. M. CROSSAN, H. W. LANE, R. WHITE, ANDL.DJURFELDT

343

Table 1 (Continued)
Cangelosi
Dill
(1965)

i-g-O

c-B

"Organizational learning must

be viewed as a series of
interactions between
adaptation at the individual or
subgroup level and adaptation
at the organizational level."
There is more emphasis on
the group and organizational
levels than on individuals.

Learning is adaptation or a
change in behavior. Changes
in behavior demonstrated
that an organization had
learned. Cognition could play
a role in elevating stress,
which motivates behavior,
but it is not specified
or emphasized.

LP
Learning is improved
performance in order
to reduce divergence
and conflict in goals
and in outcomes
of activity.

Differences in views about OL across the various levels arise, in part, from
different definitions of "organization." If one views the organization as the sum of
its members, then it follows that OL will be an individually-based phenomenon. If
one believes that once brought together and integrated, the organization becomes
more than the sum of its individual members, even though the learning resides
within individuals, then the view of OL will be predominantly group-based. If one
believes that the organization represents something more than the integration of its
members, then it follows that the view of OL will be an organizationally-based
phenomenon. And, finally, if one views organizational boundaries as being
blurred, it is likely that the level of analysis will be interorganizational. Although
this conceptualization suggests a hierarchy of levels, with individual being sub
sumed by the group which is subsumed by the organization, this is not necessarily
the case, as researchers may adopt an organizational level perspective with no
acknowledgment of the other levels in their concept of OL. The following sections
discuss each of the learning levels.
Individual
Although researchers have often used the term OL to describe individual
learning, with no regard to other learning levels, a few theorists have argued that
the appropriate if not sole level of analysis is the individual (March & Olsen, 1975;
Simon, 1991). Simon provides a straightforward summary of his interpretation of
OL, stating: "All learning takes place inside individual human heads; an organiza
tion learns in only two ways: (a) by the learning of its members, or (b) by ingesting
new members who have knowledge the organization didn't previously have" (1991,
p. 125). In his view, the mechanism for learning resides within the individual. The
ories which reify the organization, attributing to it capabilities of "knowing" and
"learning" and ignoring the role of the individual, are problematic. As with most
individually based concepts of OL, Simon's focus is on employee recruitment,
training and development, and turnover. He extends the individual perspective
somewhat by recognizing the concept of "organizational memory" but only as it
resides or is stored in "human heads."
It is more common that theorists recognize the importance of individual
learning but see organizational learning as something more. However, in the rush
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

344

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

to develop an understanding of other learning levels, there is a risk of losing sight

of the depth of research and understanding of individual learning. March and
Olsen's (1975) emphasis on individual learning focuses the reader's attention on
information exposure, memory, retrieval, learning incentives, and belief structures.
Although Shrivastava (1983) does not link his review of individual learning theory
with his typology of learning systems, he at least acknowledges that there is a rich
tradition of psychological theory on which to build a theory of OL. Herriott,
Levinthal, and March (1985) use difference equation models to examine incre
mental experiential learning.
While both Senge (1990) and Garvin (1993) present a predominantly individ
ually based view of OL, they are more applied than the March and Olsen (1975)
perspective. Garvin discusses problem solving, experimentation, and learning from
others, while Senge discusses the role of leaders in surfacing and challenging
mental models, developing personal vision, and applying systems thinking.
Group
Several theorists have recognized that learning occurs at the individual level,
but they suggest that there is group learning as well, asserting that the knowledge
generated by the individual does not come to bear on the organization indepen
dently and that OL would be incomplete if no information were shared and no
common meaning developed (Daft & Weick, 1984; Stata, 1989; Huber, 1991).
Duncan and Weiss (1979) were quite critical of the individual perspective of
March and Olsen (1976), stating that "they have done little more than extract basic
concepts of training theory, problem solving, and theory construction at the indi
vidual level and placed these into an organizational context" (p. 88). Although
Duncan and Weiss do not explicitly recognize a group level of analysis, much of
what they refer to as organizational is consistent with-a group focus. They argue
that learning must be "shared, evaluated, and integrated with that done by others"
(p. 89). Other theorists (Daft & Weick, 1984) have also equated organizational
learning with a specialized form of group learning focused on the dominant coali
tion or senior management team.
Theorists differ on the emphasis placed on the individual versus the group.
Daft and Huber (1987) recognize the importance of group learning but see it as an
extension of individual learning. The Daft and Huber perspective is actually not
that far removed from Simon (1991). Simon clearly anchors his view of OL with
the individual, but recognizes that individual learning needs to be communicated.
The common thread Daft and Huber share with Simon is the emphasis on informa
tion processing.
A view of group learning as the transmission of information suggests that
information simply needs to be routed to the appropriate people. The underlying
logic, as Weick (1979a) points out, is that individuals will "believe it when they
see it." In contrast, a view of group level learning as sharing or integrating under
standing recognizes the role of interpretation in the sharing of information: indi
viduals may not "see it until they believe it." Daft and Huber (1987) described the
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

M. M. CROSSAN, H. W. LANE, R. E. WHITE, AND L. DJURFELDT

345

former view as the "systems-structural perspective" and the latter as the "interpre
tive perspective."
Stata (1989) and Senge (1990), with their focus on mental models and shared
vision, represent the more familiar form of the interpretive perspective. Perhaps the
most extreme view of the importance of the group is captured in the work of SeelyBrown (1993). He asserts that learning is group or community based, with most of
it occurring in a social context. Even that which occurs in a private context, such as
reading a book, can be construed as learning from others. Weick's (1979a) view of
learning as a "social construction of reality" also emphasizes the group.
Organizational
Several theorists have asserted that OL is not simply the learning arising from
individuals and groups, there is a role for the organization as well (Duncan &
Weiss, 1979; Hedberg, 1981; Shrivastava, 1983; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Levitt &
March, 1988; Stata 1989; Huber, 1991). A more easily accepted view of an organi
zational level component in OL is that the systems, structures, and procedures of
the organization affect learning (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). More controversial is the
view that learning is stored in the systems, structures, and procedures of the orga
nization, as articulated most strongly by Hedberg (1981), who suggests that the lit
erature on OL has ignored the question of "whether it is meaningful to think of
organizations as having objectives, learning abilities, and memories, or do organi
zations only learn and remember through their current members?" (p. 3). He sug
gests that "although organizational learning occurs through individuals, it would be
a mistake to conclude that organizational learning is nothing but the cumulative
result of their members' learning. . . . Members come and go, and leadership
changes, but organizations' memories preserve certain behaviors, mental maps,
norms and values over time" (p. 6). Hedberg asserts that the systems, structures,
and procedures of the organization are the repositories for learning. They form the
memory of the organization that endures even though individuals leave.
Theorists who recognize an organization level component to OL suggest that
without encoding and institutionalizing what has been learned in the systems,
structures, and procedures of the organization, individuals will have learned, but
the organization will not have done so (Argyris & Schn, 1978). According to
Argyris and Schn, transfer of knowledge from the individual to the organization
will result in learning at the organization level, distinct from learning at the indi
vidual level. Levitt and March (1988) state that organizations learn "by encoding
inferences from history into routines that guide behavior" (p. 320). Shrivastava
(1983) explains this process as the "conversion of individual knowledge and
insights into a systematic organization knowledge base which informs decision
making" (p. 18). In contrast, Duncan and Weiss (1979) suggest that once gener
ated, knowledge is stored within individuals and eventually translated to the orga
nization. Although Weick's (1979b) view of learning is predominantly groupbased, he extends it to encompass the organizational level, stating: "Organizations
TheInternationalJournalofOrganizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

346

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

are not just bodies of thought, they are sets of thinking practices that produce those
bodies of thought" (p. 61).
Interorganizational
Interorganizational learning was added as a fourth level in order to capture
concepts in the strategy literature that can be explained by, or supplemented with,
an OL perspective. For example, the success or failure of joint ventures can be
directly related to the degree to which the organization learned about and from its
partner. In contrast, the concept of sustainable competitive advantage implies that
there are sustainable barriers to learning between firms. Although it is not uncom
mon to see references to the term learning in discussions of interorganizational
activities, there have been few attempts to link a concept of OL to interorganiza
tional learning. An example of work in this area is that of Pucik (1988), Parkhe
(1991), and Inkpen and Crossan (1995), who examine OL in joint ventures and
alliances. The same issues arise with interorganizational learning as have been
proposed for organizational learning. Theorists can depict learning that occurs
between organizations as predominantly individual, group, or organizational.
Integrating the Levels
There is tremendous diversity in the development of theories of OL that
emphasize one or more of the four levels. Theories which emphasize the individual
as the unit of analysis face the challenge of applying concepts, derived from areas
as diverse as cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and organizational
settings. However, to suggest that there is organizational learning, and not just
individual learning, in organizations, it is necessary to address the unique nature of
the organization as being more than the sum of its individual members. Failure to
do so will restrict the application of these theories to areas such as recruitment or
training and development.
Concepts of OL that focus on the group as the level of analysis have been less
well developed, largely because the research lies in such areas as group decision
making and social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), with little or no reference to a
concept of learning. Much of the work takes an information processing view of
learning as opposed to an interpretive perspective.
Attempts to develop theories using the organization as the unit of analysis
seem to have suffered the fate of being perceived as metaphorical rather than sub
stantive and have been criticized for anthropomorphising: applying human traits
(e.g., memory) to inanimate objects (e.g., organizations). This risk is greatest when
theorists fail to acknowledge learning at the individual and group levels as well.
Although there have been no significant attempts to link concepts of OL with a
concept of culture, the culture literature has much to offer OL, regarding the role of
organization artifacts as storehouses of knowledge and meaning.
In spite of the progress made on researching each of the levels, there have
been few attempts to understand the interplay among the various levels. And it is in
the tension between the levels that the interesting issues lie (Crossan et al., 1995).
TheInternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

M. M. CROSSAN, H. W. LANE, R. E. WHITE, AND L. DJURFELDT

347

For example, it has been suggested that the term 'organizational learning' may be
an oxymoron; that is, organizing and learning are antithetical, since the learning
imbedded by "organizing" may impede learning at the individual and group levels.
As well, learning at the group level may impede individual learning if a "groupthink" mentality develops.
In summary, it is argued that research focusing solely on individual learning
refers to learning within organizations as opposed to organizational learning. This
is not to discount the critical role of individual learning in organizations but to
emphasize that there must be some shared understanding or transfer of knowledge
from the individual to the broader community and eventually to the formal organi
zation before it can be considered organizational learning. An organization is a co
operative system with a common purpose (Barnard, 1938). If OL is important to
the co-operative system, it cannot be purely individual. It must affect the co-opera
tive system in significant ways.
The organizational component to learning warrants consideration. Although
individuals and groups interpret and integrate information, that understanding often
benefits from a process of institutionalization, in which the learning becomes
embedded in the design of the systems, structures, and procedures of the organiza
tion. Having these storehouses of knowledge enables the organization to benefit
from past learning, even though individuals who have contributed to the learning
leave. For example, organization structures capture the understanding that has
developed over time about the nature of the business and how it should be man
aged. Spans of control and decisions regarding functional, product, or geographic
organization help to define what individuals pay attention to and whom they talk
to. Systems and procedures are instrumental in defining what data is captured and
attended to. A procedure should reflect the cumulative learning about how some
thing is best executed.
The foregoing has focused on the benefits of institutionalizing learning at the
organization level. However, the relevance of the organization level of analysis
needs to recognize how this kind of institutionalized learning can hinder learning at
the individual and group levels. For example, a functional structure may foster
learning within a functional group but impede learning between functional groups.
Existing systems and procedures appropriate at one time may inhibit individuals
from exhibiting new and different behaviors that may be required for the future.
Finally, there is a tremendous need for research examining the interplay
between the various levels. The literature implies that organizational learning
means having a high level of individual, group, and/or organizational learning. It
does not recognize the inherent tensions between the levels. Perhaps one of the
greatest challenges for researchers and managers is to identify the tensions and
their appropriateness for organizations in various stages of development, occupy
ing different competitive positions within their respective industries.

TheInternational Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

348

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

Cognition and Behavior

The role of knowledge, whether it be individual, group, or organizational
knowledge, and how it translates into action is a critical dimension delineating
researchers' perspectives on OL. Many management theorists are re-inventing the
debate that originally surfaced in the field of psychology between cognitive and
behavioral theorists.
Management theorists with a cognitive view of learning assume that learning
occurs when there has been an adjustment or change in the way organizations or
individuals process information, develop shared meaning, and interpret events.
Behavioral theorists assume that learning has occurred if there has been a change
in behavior or action. Simply stated, cognitive theorists would assume learning has
occurred if there is a change in thought processes (unobservable), even in the
absence of adjusted behavior (observable). Behaviorists assume that learning has
occurred if there is a noticeable change in behavior, even if not preceded by a
change in thinking to motivate the new behavior.
In the management literature, differences arising from having either a cogni
tive or behavioral perspective were identified by Fiol and Lyles (1985), who stated
that: "it is essential to note the difference between cognition and behavior, for not
only do they represent two different phenomena, but also one is not necessarily an
accurate reflection of the other" (p. 806). They suggest that learning involves
changes in cognition, while adaptation involves changes in behavior.
A researcher's level of analysis can also reflect his or her orientation on this
dimension. Researchers adopting a cognitive perspective have addressed learning
at the individual, group, and organizational levels. An individual orientation
focuses on changes in knowledge or beliefs of the individual. At the group level,
the focus is placed on the degree of shared understanding among the members. At
the organizational level, systems, structures, and procedures are depicted as store
houses of knowledge that change over time. Since knowledge can be depicted as
residing in individuals, groups, and organizations, the cognitive perspective covers
all three levels. In contrast, organizations do not behave. Behaviors must reside
with people, hence the behavioral perspective focuses on the individual and group
levels. However, a number of theorists who emphasize an organizational level of
analysis link the organizational storehouses of knowledge to their effect on indi
vidual behavior (Cangelosi & Dill, 1965; Shrivastava, 1983; Levitt & March,
1988).
In a review of the literature, Fiol and Lyles (1985) concluded that "there still
exists confusion regarding what is learning and how to distinguish it from unreflective change" (p. 808). Of the fifteen papers they reviewed, twelve referred to
OL as learning (as opposed to adaptation). Of these twelve, six look at both
behavioral and cognitive development; four look only at cognitive and two only at
behavioral phenomena. However, classifying theorists according to this distinction
can be misleading and runs theriskof being reduced to an argument of semantics.
It is more fruitful to examine a researcher's portrayal of the role of cognition and
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

M. M. CROSSAN, H. W. LANE, R. WHITE, AND L. DJURFELDT

349

behavior and the interrelationship between the two. Adaptation, for instance, can
be either cognitively or behaviorally rooted, and its use as either a noun or verb
changes its meaning.
This paper suggests that the distinction between a cognitive and a behavioral
focus of OL research can be made at four levels: (1) whether or not a theorist
incorporates any cognitive or behavioral elements in his or her discussion of the
phenomena; (2) whether a cognitive perspective portrays cognition in an active or
passive sense; (3) whether the portrayal of learning as behavioral or cognitive is
focused on the individual, group, organization, and/or interorganizational level;
and (4) whether a theorist classifies learning as changes in interpretation (cogni
tion) and/or changes in action or adaptation (behavior).
For example, the work of Cyert and March (1963) and Daft and Weick (1984)
was characterized in the Fiol and Lyles study as "behavioral" because their view of
learning was adaptation, not interpretation. However, Cyert and March's notion of
"bounded rationality" incorporates cognitive elements. In spite of the fact that Daft
and Weick view learning as the action taken after interpretations are made, they
recognize the cognitive elements of interpretation but suggest that learning has
only occurred when there is evidence of changes in action.
The Cangelosi and Dill (1965) study concluded that learning had occurred
due to a change in behavior and improved performance. This conclusion, estab
lished from studying the observable, was further challenged by the authors them
selves, admitting to the lack of observable data as to how the groups learned,
implying that there is more to learning than simply the observable changes in
behavior or, in other words that adaptation is not necessarily determined by
changes in behavior. They refer to the work of Chapman, Kennedy, and Newell,
(1959), who observed that the learning of air defense teams during a simulation
exercise was "often not obvious" to the team or to outside observers. "Procedures
often changed without any signs in prior discussions or actions that change was
impending, and changes sometimes were made in one direction, although discus
sions were proceeding in a different direction" (p. 191). Further analysis of the
pioneering work of Cangelosi and Dill uncovers a preliminary cognitive outlook.
They suggest that interpretation at the individual, group, and organizational levels
is necessary for meaning to be applied to the information.
Duncan and Weiss (1979) state that "organizational learning is defined here
as the process within the organization by which knowledge about action-outcome
relationships and the effect of the environment of these relationships is developed"
(p. 84). While they acknowledge the presence of cognitive functioning in the form
of knowledge development, the concept is not well developed. In their definition,
the organizational learning process refers to the growth and change in organiza
tional knowledge of the dominant coalition. However, there is no indication of how
this occurs. March and Olsen (1975) extend their understanding of the cognitive
limitations on rationality to learning from experience. They discuss the cognitive
operations of seeing, liking, and trusting.
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

350

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

For theorists who recognize the role of cognition in learning, there is a critical
distinction between viewing cognition in an active or a passive sense. passive
portrayal of cognition views data as information that is processed and transferred;
individuals will believe something when they see it. In contrast, an active portrayal
of cognition suggests that data is information once it is interpreted and that indi
viduals are more likely to see something when they believe it.
Organization frames of reference have been depicted as the artifactual ele
ments of an organization, such as structure, systems, and routines. Weick (1979a)
views organizations as bodies of thought, ascribing to them cognitive ability
beyond the collection of the cognitive processes of its individual members,
although not mutually exclusive from them. He suggests that cognitive maps exist
at the organizational level. Hedberg (1981) adopts a cognitive outlook on learning
with the organization as the unit of analysis as well, stating that: "Organizations
have cognitive systems and memories. Individuals come and go, but organizations
preserve knowledge, behaviors, mental maps, norms and values over time" (p. 6).
In summary, while it has been suggested that the definition of learning as
interpretation (cognition), adaptation (behavior), or both, may seem to be one of
semantics, the underlying assumptions are important. The adaptation view of
learning might acknowledge a link between knowledge and action; however, the
changes in action or behavior are considered the value-added learning. As well, the
assumption is that one interprets something and then acts accordingly. On the other
hand, an interpretive view of learning assumes that changes in knowledge will
ultimately be reflected in changes in actions or behaviors. Although several theo
rists have recognized the importance of the interdependence between cognition and
behavior (Cangelosi & Dill, 1965; Argyris & Schn, 1978; Weick 1979a), there is
no single theory that provides strong conceptual development of cognition, behav
ior, their interrelationship, and their role with learning. It is suggested that
researchers need to consider the interplay between cognitive and behavioral change
in relation to learning, as depicted in Figure 2.
There is no dispute that where there is both cognitive and behavioral change,
there is learning. We refer to this state as "integrated learning." And where there is
no cognitive or behavioral change, there is "no learning." The more interesting
cases are those in which there is change in one with no corresponding change in
the other. Our educational system is based on an "anticipatory learning" model:
understand, then act. And many organizational changes are based on "forced
learning" through edicts or incentive systems that may influence actions but not
impact understanding. Unfortunately, when these artificial forces are removed,
actions generally revert to their previous state so that one's beliefs (cognition) are
in balance with one's actions (Festinger, 1957; Heider 1958). In contrast,
"experimental learning," in which an individual suspends his or her belief to try
something out, may actually resolve itself into integrated learning, as the actions
are interpreted with a fresh mind-set. In cases where cognitive changes are not
supported by changes in actions, it is likely that other beliefs override or block the
achievement of integrated learning.
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

M. M. CROSSAN, H. W. LANE, R. WHITE, AND L. DJURFELDT

351

Although a simple depiction, Figure 2 highlights that learning involves

changes in both cognition and behavior and that changes in one may precede
changes in the other. Furthermore, there are opportunities to examine impediments
to the successful resolution of both into an integrated learning pattern.
Learning and Performance
Is performance a prerequisite for learning or an outcome of learning? Or is it
simply that improved performance is learning, as concluded by Cangelosi and Dill
(1965)? Can learning be measured, and if so how? What perceptions are associated
with learning? Is learning always good, positive, and intentional, or can it be nega
tive? Is it always functional and adaptive? Should all organizations strive to
achieve a learning organization, or should dissolution be considered?
For the most part, these questions have not been addressed in the OL litera
ture. Fiol and Lyles (1985) suggest that, irrespective of the underlying interpreta
tions of organizational learning, "in all instances the assumption that learning will
improve future performance exists" (p. 803). Evidence to the contrary suggests that
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

352

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

although learning affects the performance of the organization, this performance

adjustment might not necessarily be positive. Levitt and March (1988) state that
"learning does not always lead to intelligent behavior" (p. 335), implying that not
only can the input to learning be negative, thus often ignored, but the outcome of
learning could also fail to result in the expected. Huber (1991) adds that "learning
does not always increase the learner's effectiveness, or even potential effectiveness.
. . . Entities can incorrectly learn, and they can correctly learn that which is incor
rect" (p. 89).
Cangelosi and Dill (1965) examined the relationship between success or fail
ure and learning. They found that when a particular decision which was instituted
by the team resulted in a negative outcome, it was quickly modified. They con
clude that "failure leads to change." The consequences of success, they argue, are
less clear. Although Cangelosi andDillequate learning and performance, their own
observations suggest that the link is tenuous, since failure plays an important role
in the learning process. Furthermore, Thompson (1967) proposed that the differ
ence between success and failure is not always clear from an organizational per
spective. However, individuals will form interpretations of events and come to
classify outcomes as good or bad.
Although assumptions about the relationship between learning and perfor
mance are closely associated with assumptions about what motivates learning,
there has been a major disconnection between these two areas. As a result, it is dif
ficult to reconcile the view that stress, tension, or failure motivates learning, but
that performance enhancement is a necessary outcome. If learning is motivated by
failure, poor performance can be part of the learning process.
The stress or tension that motivates learning may be primarily internal, as
observed by Cangelosi and Dill (1965). They state that learning in their simulation
occurred due to organizational stress present from internal discomfort initiated by
environmental complexity and the team's ability to forecast the future. This view of
motivation for learning is embedded in the internal cognitive processes of the indi
viduals who experienced the stress. It also implies a conscious acknowledgment of
internal discomfort. Weick (1993) suggests that learning may be more subcon
scious. He touches on the role of emotion and intuition in learning and suggests
that learning may actually be a process of regression: the return to earlier, overlearned behaviors under pressure.
Although Cangelosi and Dill (1965) focus on internally generated stress or
tension, Weick (1993) suggests that external stress can arise from the "mere pres
ence of other individuals who also hold them accountable, compete with them for
promotions, can embarrass them, can support them, can affect their fate. Mere
presence can alter individual performance" (p. 4).
Hirschman and Lindblom (1962) suggest that "organizational learning seldom
occurs under conditions when goals and preferences are known a priori. Goals and
preferences develop and change as an integral part of the process by which organi
zations make decisions and get information about outcomes" (p. 198). Duncan and
Weiss' (1979) observation that "organizational members do engage in tasks which
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

M. M. CROSSAN, H. W. LANE, R. E. WHITE, AND L. DJURFELDT

353

are purposeful with regard to the transformation process, specific to an organiza

tional outcome, even if not all actions engaged in by these members are purposeful
in this sense" (p. 80) implies that individuals are directed towards attainment of
organizational goals, irrespective of their individual motivation. It is these goals
which are important to the process of organizational learning.
"Unlearning" can be considered a subdimension of performance, equating
unlearning with connotations of maladaptation and unwanted outcomes. Hedberg
(1981) states that "understanding involves both learning new knowledge and dis
carding obsolete and misleading knowledge. The discarding activityunlearn
ingis as important a part of understanding as adding new knowledge. In fact, it
seems as if slow unlearning is a crucial weakness of many organizations" (p. 3).
The "unlearning" concept has generated interest (Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984; Klein
1989) but has received limited acceptance. It appears that it has been helpful in
focusing theorist's attention on the process of discarding knowledge. However, this
process is still viewed as a learning versus unlearning process.
Daft and Huber's (1987) statement that "Organizations may learn sponta
neously and intuitively, but we propose that learning systems can be deliberately
designed to enhance learning and adaptation" (p. 31), reflects the stance of many
OL theorists. It is generally assumed that learning is good and can be influenced to
enhance performance.
Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that learning is synonymous with
improved performance. Learning is a process of change in cognition and behavior,
and it does not necessarily follow that those changes will directly enhance perfor
mance. On the contrary, learning may negatively impact performance in the shortterm as individuals and organizations cast off familiar practices for new and unfa
miliar ways of operating. While we will readily accept the need to "take one step
backward to take two steps forward" in other domains such as music or sports, this
view has not translated into the management domain. Unfortunately, the perception
of a tight link between learning and performance may cause organizations to pre
maturely abandon projects that are not performing (Inkpen & Crossan, 1995).
Conversely, good performance is not necessarily a sign that learning has
occurred. Other factors, which are external to the organizationsuch as the failure
of a competitor to service customers, changing government regulations which may
favor one company over another, or changes in the cost of producing or delivering
a product or service as a result of favorable macro-economic shiftsmay enhance
performance.
Although the relationship between learning and performance is complex, it
can be actively managed in order to increase the probability of improved perfor
mance. For example, simply recognizing that performance may deteriorate before
it improves may help organizations to move to a new plateau of excellence.

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

354

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

Types of Learning
Researchers have suggested a variety of learning processes including incre
mental learning, transformational learning, single-loop learning, and double-loop
learning (Argyris & Schn, 1978). This section comments on these processes in
light of the previous discussion of the three key dimensions. The intent is not to
summarize all that has been written on these processes but to demonstrate how the
foregoing dimensions can be used to understand learning processes.
There has been much contention about the nature of incremental and trans
formational learning. Applying the dimensions outlined above to the processes,
several salient points surface. First, the two types of learning are distinguished
primarily on the basis of observed patterns of organizational behavior. Incremental
learning is manifested in small changes in the pattern of behavior, while transfor
mational learning is manifested in radical changes in behavior. However, we sug
gest that underlying both types of behavioral change are incremental changes in
cognition. Although one might think that transformational learning requires a radi
cal transformation in thinking over a brief period of time, this may not be the case.
The relationship between changes in cognition and changes in behavior is very
complex. Cognitive change itself involves examining both subconscious and con
scious changes. There is no evidence from cognitive studies to suggest that indi
viduals undergo dramatic changes in cognition that are not supported by a progres
sion of subtle and minute changes in conscious or subconscious beliefs. A break
through insight may simply represent the final link made between two concepts
that had developed independently over a period of time.
The interesting question that surfaces from this analysis is: why is it that
some cognitive changes manifest themselves in incremental behavioral change,
while others manifest themselves in transformational behavioral change? We pro
pose three reasons why this might occur. The first relates to the complex relation
ship between individual cognitive and behavioral change. Changes in cognition
(knowledge/beliefs) do not necessarily lead to changes in behavior (actions). For
example, there may be a strong set of competing beliefs that impede taking action.
As a result, one might see a transformation in an individual's behavior once some
kind of resolution of the different perspectives had been achieved. In contrast,
another individual might adopt incremental changes in behavior in an experimental
fashion.
The second reason relates to the levels of learning. While incremental learn
ing might be manifested in a few individuals in certain parts of the organization, it
may not appear as if the organization is changing its pattern of behavior. The orga
nization itself may learn in increments, or the learning in one part of the organiza
tion may quickly spread to another, in what appears to be a transformational fash
ion, or the change in behavior may be mandated and appear transformational but
with no underlying change in cognition.
The final area relates to the nature of the change itself, whether it be singleloop learning or double-loop learning. Single-loop learning is often confused with
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

M. M. CROSSAN, H. W. LANE, R. E. WHITE, AND L. DJURFELDT

355

incremental learning, since it suggests that the learning as manifested in cognitive

and behavioral change occurs within an existing strategic paradigm. Double-loop
learning involves changes in cognition and behavior outside of the existing strate
gic paradigm. Breaking out of the paradigm itself is often considered radical and
therefore transformational. By developing an understanding of the challenge in
changing both cognition and behavior, it is clear that being able to break out of an
existing set of beliefs will require dealing with competing belief sets for a period of
time. It is not surprising, therefore, that one might see dramatic changes in strategy
as being a transformation. In examining the nature of the change, there is usually a
value or performance assessment placed on the various types of learning. Doubleloop learning is often considered better than single-loop learning, suggesting that
there are performance-related ramifications. It may be, as Huber (1991) suggested,
that in practice there is no distinction between single-loop learning and doubleloop learning.
In summary, the levels of learning and the cognitive-behavioral dimensions
can be used to provide further insight into different types of learning that have
been presented in the literature. In hindsight, it is relatively easy to label something
as being incremental, transformational, single-loop, or double-loop. The challenge
is to examine the process as it unfolds in order to develop an understanding of how
changes in cognition, either incremental or transformational, relate to changes in
behavior at the individual, group, and organizational levels and how the changes
impact performance.
Conclusions
The foregoing discussion has outlined several dimensions that distinguish dif
ferent concepts of OL. The dimensions are intended to map the complex and
diverse territory on OL and thus provide a means to compare, contrast, and inte
grate the different perspectives. After reviewing the literature, it is apparent that
the majority of researchers have complementary rather than conflicting perspec
tives. Most researchers emphasize different aspects of the OL puzzle; some are
more cognitively focused at the individual level, while others are more behaviorally focused at the group level, for example. However, progression in the field
of organizational learning will require researchers to recognize, link, and build on
the different perspectives presented.
The primary areas of conflict are: (1) disagreements on the appropriate level
of analysis; (2) defining learning as either cognitive or behavioral change; and (3)
the tightness of the linkage between learning and performance. In terms of the
appropriate level of analysis, there is a need to recognize all levels of analysis. In
particular, theorists adopting an individual or group perspective and discounting
the value of an organizational perspective need to consider that learning is embed
ded in the systems, structures, and routines of the organization. Furthermore, they
need to recognize that this organizational level of learning can have a significant
impact on individual and group learning.
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

356

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

It is also apparent that many theorists confuse group and organizational

learning. To equate the senior management team or the dominant coalition with the
organization is misleading. They are a group of individuals who may have a sig
nificant impact on the learning that is embedded in the organization, but they are
not one in the same.
With respect to the levels of learning, it is critical that researchers position
their work within the broader framework. Doing so will not only provide a basis
for Unking more specialized pieces of research but will also prompt researchers to
broaden their thinking on how their specialized research might impact other areas
and how other specialized areas impact their own. For example, there has been
considerable work in psychology and sociology on individual learning and sub
stantial research on group decision making which can help shed light on group
learning. Furthermore, the culture literature provides insight into organization level
learning. However, these various literature bases must be tapped, using a consistent
and coherent OL perspective that recognizes the important links between the vari
ous levels. Overall, there appears to have been more emphasis placed on the indi
vidual and organizational levels. While there is opportunity to develop each of the
levels, the group level presents a particularly good opportunity for future research.
The challenge to link the levels increases as researchers move from the indi
vidual to the inter-organizational level. For example, learning in joint ventures and
alliances carries with it all of therichnessand complexity of learning at the indi
vidual, group, and organizational levels, which is further complicated by the inter
action between two or more organizations. While the field of OL has much to
inform the management of alliances and joint ventures, researchers need to be
aware that the translation is not a simple one.
The debate between learning as cognition or behavior can be resolved by
examining the interplay between them. As noted, the debate can become counter
productive if we simply focus on end-products and neglect the learning process.
There are theorists who deny that learning has occurred in the absence of behav
ioral change yet describe the process of learning as being largely cognitive. That
cognitive change leads to behavioral change is a very conventional notion of
learning. There is far less known about how changes in behavior impact cognition,
which becomes critically important in rapidly changing and complex environments
where individuals need to take action before they understand.
Although some theorists have advocated a direct link between learning and
performance, it is clear that the link is much more indirect. It appears that propo
nents of the direct link have been caught up in the more commonly held perspec
tive that learning can be managed in order to enhance performance. However, not
all learning leads to enhanced performance, and, in fact, failure may enable learn
ing. Further research needs to develop a better understanding of the learning-per
formance relationship. In particular, in what situations is there opportunity to learn
that is not tied directly to performance (practice), and, in contrast, what character
izes situations that demand a high degree of performance with no room for learning
(execution)?
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

M. M. CROSSAN, H. W. LANE, R. E. WHITE, AND L. DJURFELDT

357

In applying the dimensions to incremental, transformational, single-loop, and

double-loop learning, it is apparent that these descriptors apply to the product of
the learning process in terms of the breadth, depth, and nature of the change vis-vis the existing paradigm. Future research needs to better delineate the differences
in these various types of learning in order to assess whether the underlying pro
cesses are indeed different.
In the same way that important insights lie in the intersection between the
levels of learning, key insights lie in the intersection between the dimensions, all of
which are critical to developing a comprehensive understanding of the process of
learning. Given the difficulty of investigating any one of these areas, it is not sur
prising that the field has made little progress in understanding the process of
learning. However, we caution against the tendency to reduce or compartmentalize
the phenomenon in order to deal with its complexity. The whole may be different
than the sum of its parts. When parsing the phenomenon, researchers need to
appreciate its wholeness. This review should sensitize researchers to the need to
complicate paradigms in order to tap into the rich areas of intersection.
As researchers in OL, we need to be mindful of two traps. The first is that we
become self-absorbed in the complexity of the phenomenon and do not bridge the
gap between theory and practice. The second is that we become drawn in to super
ficial applications of OL that diminish its value in the eyes of managers. The
dimensions presented in this paper are a starting point for any OL researcher.
Delineating assumptions along the three dimensions will help to provide links
between areas of research and will also help to ensure that researchers consider the
complexity of the phenomenon.
References
Argyris, C. (1967). Today's problems with tomorrow's organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 1, 31-55.
Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 363-377.
Argyris, C. (1977a). Double-loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Renew, 55
(5), 115-134.
Argyris, C. (1977b). Organizational learning and management information systems.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2(2), 113-123.
Argyris, C, & Schn, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Cangelosi, V. E., & Dill, W. R. (1965). Organizational learning: Observations toward a the
ory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 175-203.
Cohen, M. D. (1991). Individual learning and organizational routine emerging connections.
Organization Science, 2, 135-139.

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

358

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

Crossan, M. M., Tiemessen, I., Lane, H., & White, R. E. (1995). Diagnosing organizational
learning (Working Paper, Series 95-08). Western Business School, London, Canada.
Crossan, M., & Guatto, T. (in press). Organizational learning research profile. Journal of
Organizational Change Management.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Daft, R. L., & Huber, G. P. (1987). How organizations learn: communication framework.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, 1-36.
Daft, R. L., & Weick . . (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation sys
tems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284-295.
Duncan, R. D., & Weiss, A. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications for organizational
design. In B. Straw (Ed.) Research in organizational behavior (pp. 75-124). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management
Review, 10, 803-813.
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Howard Business Review, 71 (4),
78-91.
Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (pp. 3-27). New York: Oxford Univer
sity Press.
Heider, F. (1958). Thr psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Herriott, S., Levinthal, D., & March J. (1985). Learning from experience in organizations.
American Economic Review, 75,298-302.
Hirschman, A. O., & Lindblom, C. E. (1962). Economic development, research and devel
opment, policy making: Some converging views. Behavioral Science, 8, 211-222.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures.
Organization Science, 2, 88-115.
Inkpen, ., & Crossan, M. (1995). Believing is seeing: Joint ventures and organizational
learning. Journal of Management Studies, 32,595-618.
Klein, J. L. (1989). Parenthetic learning in organizations: Toward the unlearning of the
learning model. Journal of Management Studies, 26,291-308.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14,
319-340.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1975). Organizational learning under ambiguity. European
Journal of Policy Review, 3 (2), 147-171.
Nystrom, N. C , & Starbuck, W. H. (1984). To avoid organizational crisis, unlearn. Organi
zational Dynamics, 12(4), 53-65.
Parkhe, A. (1991). Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and longevity in global
strategic alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 22,579-601.
Pucik, V. (1988). Strategic alliances, organizational learning, and competitive advantage:
The HRM agenda. Human Resource Management, 27(1), 77-93.
Seely-Brown, J. (1993). Thinking, working, and learning. In M. M. Crossan, H. W. Lane, J.
Rush, & R. E. White (Eds.) Learning in organizations (pp. 81-99). London, ONT:
Western Business School Monograph.
Senge, P. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Manage
ment Review, 32 (1), 7 - 2 3 .

TheInternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995

M. M. CROSSAN, H. W. LANE, R. E. WHITE, AND L. DJURFELDT

359

Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems [Special issue on

organizational learning]. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 7-28.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Sci
ence, 2, 125-133.
Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: The key to management innovation. Sloan Man
agement Review, 30 (3), 63-74.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Weick, K. E. (1979a). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1979b). Cognitive processes in organizations. In B. Staw, (Ed.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 41-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Weick, K. E. (1991). The nontraditional quality of organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2,116-124.
Weick, K. E. (1993). Conceptual options in the study of organizational learning. In M. M.
Crossan, H. W. Lane, J. Rush, & R. E. White (Eds.), Learning in organizations (pp.
25-41). London, ONT: Western Business School Monograph.
Biographical Note
Mary M. Crossan
Western Business School
University of Western Ontario
London, N6A 3K7 Canada
Phone/Fax: 519-661-3217/3485
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Crossan is the F.W.P. Jones Faculty Fellow and Assistant Professor of Strategic Man
agement at the Western Business School. She received her doctorate in Business Policy
from the University of Western Ontario and has been on the faculty of the Western Business
School since that time. She teaches strategic management at the undergraduate, MBA, PhD,
and executive levels. As part of a research team at the Western Business School, she has
done extensive research on organizational learning and strategic renewal which is repre
sented in the Journal of Management Studies, the International Executive, Business Quar
terly, Organizational Dynamics, the Journal of Organizational Change Management, sev
eral book chapters, and a monograph entitled Learning in Organizations.
Dr. Henry W. (Harry) Lane is the Donald F. Hunter Professor of International Business at
the Western Business School at the University of Western Ontario. He received his DBA in
organizational behavior from the Harvard Business School. Professor Lane's research inter
ests are international business as well as organizational learning and strategic renewal. He
teaches courses in cross-cultural management, valuing and managing diversity, and organi
zational renewal and change. Professor Lane has authored or co-authored four books and
numerous articles. His most recent books are International Management Behavior: From
Policy to Practice, and Border Crossings: Doing Business in the United States. His articles
have appeared in the Journal of International Business Studies, Management International
Review, Organizational Dynamics and the Journal of Business Ethics. He is the Associate
Editor of the Journal of International Business Studies.

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, o. 4, October 1995

360

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DIMENSIONS

Dr. Rod White is an Associate Professor in the Business Policy area at the Western Busi
ness School. Currently he is exploring how teams of managers learn, or fail to learn, and
how this process contributes to organizational excellence and strategic renewal. Professor
White has authored or coauthored articles appearing in Academy of Management Review,
Harvard Business Review, Business Quarterly, Policy Options, Planning Review and the
Strategic Management Journal. He was co-editor of Building the Strategically-Responsive
Organization. He serves on the editorial board of the Strategic Management Journal. He is
the Director of the Western Business School's Doctoral Program. He received his DBA and
MBA from Harvard University and his Honors BA in Business from the University of
Western Ontario.
Lisa Djurefeldt is a self-employed business consultant specializing in marketing strategy
formulation. She received her MBA from the Western Business School, where she also
spent four years as a faculty member leading undergraduate case discussions in general
management issues. During this time she published cases dealing with marketing strategy in
the service industry, as well as designed a marketing course for the Continuing Education
Department at the University of Western Ontario.

Received: November 5, 1993

Accepted after two revisions: October 10,1995

THE International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1995