The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 49–53

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a

Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research

Gary Yukl ⁎
UAlbany, State University of New York, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This essay conveys some of the author's ideas about the influence of leaders on organizational
Leadership learning. Limitations of some well known leadership theories for explaining this influence are
Organizational learning described, and ideas for developing more comprehensive and accurate theories are suggested.
Examples of specific ways leaders can influence organizational learning are provided. The
methods used for most of the research on the subject are evaluated, and some alternative
methods are suggested.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Organizational learning has been defined in many ways, but a core aspect of most definitions is collective learning by members
of the organization. Essential processes include the discovery of relevant new knowledge, diffusion of this knowledge to people in
the organization who need it, and application of the knowledge to improve internal processes and external adaptation. Successful
application of new knowledge includes institutionalizing it in a way that will ensure it is retained as long as it remains relevant.
Organizational learning is an important determinant of long-term performance and survival for organizations, but many
companies seem unable to master the learning processes. Despite the substantial amount of research and development conducted
by large organizations, the source for many innovative products and services is individual entrepreneurs or small businesses. Even
when important innovations come from large organizations, the initial work is often done by individuals who do not have formal
authorization and must overcome strong resistance to gain acceptance for their ideas.
Failures in organizational learning may involve weaknesses in any of the core processes of discovery, diffusion, and application
of new knowledge. Some organizations make little effort to improve inefficient procedures or poor customer service, even when
the necessary knowledge is easy to find and apply. Sometimes effective practices are discovered in one subunit of an organization,
but they do not get implemented in other parts of the organization where they are also relevant. For example, the Australian
division of a multinational company established a program that increased market share by 25%, but the knowledge was not applied
in the European and U.S. divisions where the benefits would have been even greater (Ulrich, Jick, & Von Glinow, 1993). Sometimes
important discoveries are made in an organization, but top management fails to recognize their potential value, and the knowledge
is never used in the organization. For example, Microsoft and Apple earned millions of dollars in profits from the sale of computers
that incorporated unused discoveries made in a Xerox research facility (Smith & Alexander, 1988). Sometimes an organization
implements best practices for avoiding accidents or serious problems, but the practices are later abandoned and the organization
eventually has a disaster that could have been prevented.
Research on organizational learning involves scholars from several disciplines and areas of specialization, including
organization theory, organization behavior, industrial and organizational psychology, strategic management, and change
management. Researchers have explored how leaders influence collective learning in teams and organizations, and the number of
empirical studies on the subject is increasing (see Berson, Nemanich, Waldman, Galvin, & Keller, 2006). This essay will suggest
some issues and research questions that deserve more attention and some research methods that should be used more often in the

⁎ Management Dept., School of Business, UAlbany, SUNY, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222, United States. Tel.: +1 518 442 4932; fax: +1 518 442 4765.
E-mail address: G.yukl@albany.edu.

1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.006
50 G. Yukl / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 49–53

search for answers. I also point out some limitations of well known theories such as transformational and charismatic leadership
for explaining how leaders influence organizational learning.

2. Ways leaders influence collective learning

One of the greatest challenges for leadership at all levels in organizations is how to create the type of conditions that
encourage, facilitate, and sustain a favorable level of innovation and collective learning. Leaders can directly encourage and
facilitate collective learning by what they say and do, and they can indirectly influence it by implementing or modifying relevant
programs, systems, and structures (Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004). Researchers and practitioners have identified many ways leaders can
encourage and facilitate the process of collective learning in organizations, and some representative examples are shown in
Table 1.

3. Relevance of popular leadership theories

Understanding organizational learning will require multi-level theories and research, and it is essential to include collective
processes at the group and organizational levels. Dyadic theories have dominated the traditional leadership literature for decades,
and theories of team leadership, strategic leadership, and shared leadership did not get the attention they deserved. How a leader
influences individual subordinates is relevant, but it is more important to understand how multiple leaders influence collective
learning by teams and organizations. The potential of dyadic theories for explaining leader influence on collective learning is very
limited, and the theories sometimes distract attention from the most important influence processes.
An example is transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985), which was formulated initially to describe how a leader can
influence the motivation of individual followers and increase their performance. The core leadership constructs are two broadly
defined behavior categories called transformational and transactional leadership. Transformational leadership involves motivating
individuals to do something different than before, or to do more than initially expected. It is an important form of leader influence,
but the theory does not clearly explain how leaders can influence collective learning. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(Bass & Avolio, 1990) used in most research on transformational leadership does not explicitly measure most of the leadership
behaviors that are relevant for enhancing organizational learning. Furthermore, the emphasis on a single leader's direct influence
on subordinates distracts attention from the shared influence of multiple leaders (Pearce & Conger, 2003), and from the influence
of leaders on programs and systems that are relevant for collective learning (Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004).
Charismatic leadership (Conger, 1989) is another popular theory with limited utility for explaining organizational learning.
Attributed charisma can increase a leader's influence, but this influence may not be used to enhance collective learning and
increase long-term organizational effectiveness. There is ample evidence that charismatic leaders can have negative effects on an
organization (Conger, 1989; Finkelstein, 2003; Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990). A leader who is widely viewed as extraordinary can
impede collective learning by followers who expect the leader to know what is best for the organization. Followers are less likely to
challenge the leader's decision to pursue a risky new initiative or strategy, and they are less likely to report information indicating
that it is failing.
Instead of trying to extend dyadic theories of leadership to explain organization-level processes, it is much better to develop
new conceptual frameworks that are more relevant and comprehensive. Promising ideas can be found in several emerging theories
of organizational leadership that include ideas from other literatures as well as the leadership literature (e.g., Balkundi & Kilduff,
2005; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007; Yukl, 2008). Relationships discovered in empirical studies of learning in teams and
organizations provide another source of ideas for inductive development of theoretical propositions about the potential influence
of leaders on this learning (e.g., Berson et al., 2006).

Table 1
Examples of ways for leaders to enhance organizational learning

• Encourage people to question traditional methods and look for innovative new approaches that will be more effective.
• Articulate an inspiring vision to gain support for innovative changes from members of the organization.
• Encourage and facilitate the acquisition of skills needed for collective learning by individuals and teams.
• Strengthen values consistent with learning from experience and openness to new knowledge, thereby helping to create a learning culture in the organization.
• Help people develop shared mental models about cause-effect relationships and the determinants of performance for the team or organization.
• Encourage social networks that will facilitate knowledge sharing, collaborative development of creative ideas, and the acquisition of political support for innovations.
• Help people recognize when important learning has occurred and to understand the implications for the team or organization.
• Gain external support and financing for major initiatives involving the acquisition or application of new knowledge (e.g., acquisitions or joint ventures).
• Encourage experiments to gain more knowledge about the likely effects of changes before implementing them on a large scale in a way that cannot easily be aborted.
• Encourage teams to conduct after-activity reviews to identify effective and ineffective processes.
• Develop measures of collective learning and knowledge diffusion to assess how well it is accomplished and identify ways to improve it (learning how to learn).
• Encourage people to acknowledge when a new initiative is failing and should be aborted rather than continuing to waste resources on it.
• Create decentralized subunits with considerable authority to pursue learning and entrepreneurial activities in a responsible way.
• Develop, implement, and support programs and systems that will encourage and reward the discovery of new knowledge and its diffusion and application in the
organization.
 G. Yukl / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 49–53 51

4. Leader influence on exploration and exploitation

Conceptual frameworks that describe organizational learning provide useful insights for understanding how leaders can
influence this learning. An example is the distinction between exploration and exploitation (Benner & Tushman, 2003; March,
1991). The two learning processes are similar to other dichotomies that have been proposed in the literature on organizational
theory, organizational change, and strategic management. Exploration involves finding innovative new products, services,
processes, or technology. Exploitation involves learning how to make incremental improvements in existing products, services, or
processes. A potential problem with dichotomies is that they oversimplify complex processes and can limit the perspective of
scholars who use them as foundation concepts in a new theory or to guide the design of research.
Exploration and exploitation are not separate, unrelated learning processes, and both are necessary to some extent in most
organizations. Methods usually associated with exploitation can be used to reduce costs for expensive forms of exploration, such as
research in the pharmaceutical industry. Methods usually associated with exploration can be used to improve the efficiency of
established processes and to reduce the cost of traditional products and services. There is growing evidence that long-term
effectiveness for most organizations requires both external adaptation and internal efficiency (e.g., He & Wong, 2004; Tushman &
O'Reilly, 1996). Successful firms are able to develop new products and services (involving exploration) simultaneously with
delivery of existing ones in an efficient way (which involves exploitation).
A difficult challenge for leaders is how to gain the benefits of both learning processes and avoid adverse side effects (Miller,
1990; Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004). Too much emphasis on exploration may result in excessive costs for acquiring new knowledge (e.g.,
for R&D), but too much emphasis on exploitation can reduce flexibility and discourage development of new products and services.
Introducing new products too quickly can reduce the profitability of established products that are still selling well and paying off
their developmental costs, but waiting too long can result in the loss of competitive advantage. Theories describing effective
leadership of innovation and change should include these complex interdependencies and explain how leaders can balance the
tradeoffs and integrate the processes in a way that is appropriate for the situation.
The limitations of popular leadership theories for explaining how leaders influence organizational learning can be seen in the effort
to explain how leaders influence exploration and exploitation. Vera & Crossan (2004) proposed that transformational leadership
encourages exploration, whereas transactional leadership encourages exploitation but inhibits innovation. The idea of examining leader
influence on learning processes is worthwhile, but relying only on the two broadly-defined categories of leadership behavior limits the
possibilities for providing a clear and comprehensive explanation. The component transformational behaviors are not clearly defined in
the theory, and the MLQ scales do not capture the wide range of behaviors by which leaders can influence exploration and exploitation.
It is likely that each type of transformational behavior can influence both learning processes. Intellectual stimulation can be
used not only to encourage people to find new products and markets, but also to encourage people to improve existing products or
processes. Inspirational motivation can be used not only to build commitment to a new vision or strategy, but also to strengthen
loyalty to an existing vision and confidence in established practices. Forms of idealized influence such as leading by example and
symbolic actions can be used not only to encourage innovation and flexibility, but also to strengthen follower loyalty to the
organization and traditional values. Individualized consideration includes development of subordinate skills, but the skills may be
ones needed to carry out existing practices effectively rather than ones needed to enhance innovation.
Leaders can also use some of the component transactional leadership behaviors to influence both learning processes.
Contingent reward behavior may involve providing incentives for the development of new products and services, as well as
incentives for improving existing processes and projects. Active monitoring can be used to track progress in the development of
new products and the implementation of innovative processes, as well as to analyze and refine traditional work processes.
A more comprehensive and accurate model to explain leader influence on the two learning processes would emphasize specific
types of leadership behaviors that appear relevant. The model should include not only leadership behaviors that provide direct
forms of influence, but also indirect forms of influence derived from implementing programs and systems that encourage,
facilitate, and reward collective learning.

5. Leadership and collective learning in groups

Much of the work in organizations is carried out by small groups and teams, such as work crews, project teams, task forces,
committees, and top management teams. Extensive research over the past half century provides important insights about the
influence of formal and informal leaders on creativity, problem solving, decision making, and collective learning in teams (e.g.,
Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002; Yukl, 2006). Some examples of the ways leaders can influence collective learning by a
team include: encouraging the use of procedures that increase creative ideas, nurturing promising ideas that are initially vague or
controversial, obtaining resources needed to develop new ideas, encouraging members to experiment with new approaches to
assess their utility, using after-activity reviews to analyze team processes, and monitoring external events that are relevant to
innovative activities by the team. More effort should be made to incorporate relevant knowledge about team leadership into a
multi-level theory on leadership of organizational learning.

6. Leadership and obstacles to collective learning

One approach for understanding how leaders influence collective learning and innovation in an organization is to identify
obstacles and ways to avoid or overcome them. One obstacle is the common belief that top management should have most of the
52 G. Yukl / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 49–53

responsibility for leading change and innovation. This belief encourages a top-down approach to innovation, rather than a
collaborative approach that includes emergent processes. Many CEOs are too insulated to recognize opportunities and threats
immediately, and bottom-up initiatives help an organization to be more flexible and adaptive. Top management can help to avoid
or overcome this obstacle by implementing systems and programs that support local initiatives and emergent processes of learning
and innovation. Leaders at all levels in an organization can help to build and sustain a culture with strong values for learning,
innovation, experimentation, flexibility, and continuous improvement.
A second obstacle is restriction of information and knowledge that would facilitate collective learning and effective problem
solving by other members of the organization. Some people use their control over the distribution and access to information to
enhance their power, bias decisions in their favor, and maintain an exaggerated impression of expertise and competence (Atwater
& Waldman, 2008). The filtering and distortion of information hinders other members of the organization who need accurate,
timely information to understand the reasons for problems and opportunities for creative solutions. Likewise, when mistakes are
covered up and progress exaggerated, it minimizes the capacity of others to make important contributions to the solution of
problems. Leaders can facilitate the process of discovery and innovation by encouraging and rewarding accurate communication,
implementing appropriate information systems, allowing greater access to information, and encouraging followers to use social
networks to increase their access to relevant information and ideas.
A third obstacle is differentiation among the major subunits of an organization by function, product, customers, or geographic
region. Subunit differentiation usually provides benefits such as improved efficiency, but it also creates barriers to information sharing
and cooperation (e.g., Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Different functions, priorities, and jargon for describing things may impede
communication and discourage collaboration in the discovery of better processes and products. In an organization with subunits that
compete for resources and power, a subunit that discovers good ideas may be reluctant to share them with other subunits. Examples of
things leaders can do to improve cooperation and mutual trust include emphasizing shared values and objectives, fostering appreciation
for differences among subunits, facilitating communication between subunits, and providing tangible rewards for collaboration.
A fourth obstacle to organizational learning is conflict among the various stakeholders for an organization, such as owners,
employees, customers, public agencies, the local community, and top executives. If stakeholders disagree about objectives and
priorities for the organization, decisions about what type of learning to encourage and what new knowledge to implement are
likely to reflect the relative power of the stakeholders. Collective learning focused on improving long-term performance is more
likely to occur when the key stakeholders agree that it is important and will help them to achieve their individual objectives.
Leaders can help to build collective identification with the organization; build a culture of shared values for learning and flexibility;
develop strong capabilities for knowledge acquisition, diffusion, and application; encourage integrative “win-win” solutions to
conflicts; and create optimism that the organization can cope successfully with difficult challenges.

7. Alternative research methods

Progress in the research on leadership and organizational learning is limited by over-reliance on research methods that are not
well suited for studying complex, dynamic, processes that occur slowly over long periods of time in organizations. The dominant
research method in leadership has been a field survey study that includes a behavior description questionnaire. Respondents
(usually subordinates) indicate how often their leader uses each type of behavior described in the items, and scale scores are
computed for behavior categories that may be narrowly or broadly defined. Most of the behaviors are complex and do not occur in
brief episodes that are easy to observe and remember. The ratings of leader behavior are strongly influenced by respondent biases
and attributions, resulting in high inter-correlations among scales that supposedly measure distinct and independent behaviors.
The high inter-correlations encourage the common practice of aggregating specific behaviors into broad meta-categories such as
transformational leadership or supportive leadership. Reliance on these meta-categories makes interpretation of correlations with
other variables very difficult, especially when all data are from the same respondents.
Scholars continue to search for ways to improve leader behavior questionnaires and methods for analyzing survey data on
complex relationships. However, the effort to improve traditional survey methods seems like an example of using exploitation
when more exploration is needed. Alternative methods and measures are likely to be more useful for understanding how leaders
influence organizational learning and innovation.
One promising alternative is the use of intensive, longitudinal studies. A single case study conducted over time in one
organization can be useful, but a comparative study with several organizations provides more information and results that are
easier to interpret. Researchers could compare organizations that have a strong reputation for learning and innovation to similar
types of organizations that do not have much organizational learning and innovation. A variety of data collection methods can be
used to determine what leaders in these organizations do to influence the amount and type of learning that occurs. It is desirable to
measure behaviors, skills, motivation, values, and beliefs (e.g., mental models) for multiple leaders and members. The researchers
should also measure processes involving the acquisition, diffusion, and application of new knowledge. Measures of financial
performance over several years provide a useful criterion for determining the effects of leadership and organizational learning on
performance, and they can be useful in the selection of companies to include in the study.
Another research method that seems relevant is a simulation study with a realistic task that continues for several periods of
time and involves participants who take the roles of top executives in an organization. This type of simulation involves team
learning, but it is also relevant for understanding how collective learning occurs among people whose decisions and actions affect
organizational processes and performance. The potential utility of this method was demonstrated in an unpublished doctoral
dissertation (Zalatan, 2005). The study used a complex and realistic business game that was conducted over seven weeks with 20
 G. Yukl / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 49–53 53

teams of MBA students. The teams that developed an accurate shared mental model about the determinants of performance
(measured with a questionnaire) by the middle of the simulation had the highest profits in the final part of the simulation. A
content analysis of taped conversations from the team meetings revealed that CEO leadership facilitated the development of an
accurate shared mental model and better strategic decisions. Effective leaders used relevant behaviors to learn about external
conditions (e.g., ordering reports about market conditions), encouraged team members to share relevant information, and guided
discussions in which information about customers, suppliers, and outcomes of prior decisions was used to gain a better
understanding of ways to improve company performance. Despite the limitations of this type of simulation, the method provides a
useful way to study some aspects of leadership influence on team and organizational learning.
Field experiments and quasi-experimental studies are the strongest methods for studying leader influence on organizational
learning. The difficulties in finding an appropriate sample and gaining permission for the study are immense, but scholars should
be alert for opportunities to conduct this type of study. A sample of small organizations that have similar objective indicators of
financial performance seems ideal. The organizations may be selected from the same industry or matched pairs of similar
organizations may be selected from different industries. Leaders in the experimental condition would be trained to use appropriate
behaviors for encouraging and facilitating organizational learning, and appropriate programs and systems could be implemented
with the assistance of consultants on the research team. Interviews, questionnaires, and observation can be used to gather relevant
data over a period of time that is sufficient to test propositions about the effects of the leaders on collective learning and other
determinants of company performance. The types of variables measured would be similar to the ones listed earlier for a
comparative study, and qualitative measures would provide an opportunity for the discovery of relationships and best practices
that were not initially obvious to researchers.

8. Concluding comments

More use of alternative research methods will improve the pace of discovery about the influence of leaders on organizational
learning. The most useful methods require more time, more expense, and a larger team of researchers. However, the clear need to
become more competitive in a global economy may make grants for such research more accessible.
The research on organizational learning is itself a form of collective learning, and theories about it can be viewed as mental models
about cause–effect relationships. As we learn more about ways to improve collective learning, we should apply this knowledge to
improve our research and theory development. For example, ways to reduce communication barriers that impede the diffusion of
knowledge in organizations could be used to improve the integration of relevant ideas across different disciplines concerned with
collective learning. Better information systems and networking opportunities would make it easier to find colleagues who have
relevant knowledge, access to samples, and interest in collaboration. More explicit identification of best and worst practices in research
would provide helpful guidance for improving the quality of future research. Finally, more collaboration among scholars, and between
scholars and practitioners, would improve the acquisition and application of knowledge about organizational learning.

References

Atwater, L. E., & Waldman, D. A. (2008). Leadership, feedback, and the open communication gap. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Balkundi, P., & Kilduff, M. (2005). The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 941−961.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (1990). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Benner, M., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238−256.
Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M., & Keller, R. T. (2006). Leadership and organizational learning: A multiple levels perspective. Leadership
Quarterly, 17(6), 577−594.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail. New York: Portfolio.
He, L. Z., & Wong, K. P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481−494.
Hogan, R. J., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark, & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343−354). West Orange,
NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967, November–December). New management job: The integrator. Harvard Business Review, 45, 142−151.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71−87.
Miller, D. (1990). The Icarus paradox. New York: Harper-Collins.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705−750.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, D. K., & Alexander, R. C. (1988). Fumbling the future: How Xerox invented, then ignored, the first personal computer. New York: William Morrow.
Tushman, L. M., & O'Reilly, A. C., III (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 4−28.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 298−318.
Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1993). High impact learning: Building and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22(1), 52−79.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29, 222−240.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 708−722.
Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zalatan, K., (2005). Inside the black box: Leadership influence on team effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UAlbany, State University of New York at Albany.