Int J Training Development - 2002 - Harrison - Learning Knowledge Productivity and Strategic Progress

International Journal of Training and Development 4:4
ISSN 1360-3736
Learning, knowledge
productivity and strategic
progress
Rosemary Harrison
Learning that yields strategically valuable knowledge is vital
to an organisation’s progress towards its strategic goals. In
increasingly turbulent environments, all types of knowledge
have value; the development of knowledge must therefore be
a responsibility shared by all organisational members, includ-
ing human resource development professionals.
A literature review across three related fields points to the
importance of an integrative approach to learning and knowl-
edge processes in an organisation, if they are to aid strategic
progress. It suggests the particular importance of corporate
vision, of organisational context and of management action,
and also indicates some roles and tasks for HRD pro-
fessionals.
Aim of the article

The purpose of this article is to explore, by a literature survey, ways in which learning
and knowledge processes may link to the strategic progress of an organisation, and
to identify any significant issues for human resource development practitioners
that emerge.
A growing interest in these processes has been attributed to the decline of some
well-established firms, the diminishing competitive power of many, the impact of
new information technologies and a globalised economy, and the consequent need
for organisational renewal (Nevis et al., 1995). In such discussions, the ability to learn
and to generate relevant knowledge is seen to be an essential determinant of organis-
ational survival (Senge, 1990; Huber, 1991; Nonaka, 1994).
This article does not have as its central focus the implications of changing competi-
tive conditions for the organisation and management of learning. It is not primarily
concerned with ‘the links between learning, culture and performance improvement’
❒ Rosemary Harrison is Chief Examiner (Employee Development), Chartered Institute of Personnel

and Development, UK, and associate faculty member, University of Durham Business School.
 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA.
244 International Journal of Training and Development

14682419, 2000, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2419.00111 by Politecnico Di Torino Sist. Bibl Del Polit Di Torino, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
(Stern and Sommerlad, 1999: 1), with learning as an integral part of the production
process, or with the competencies needed to facilitate, manage and work effectively
in a continuous learning work environment. Its purpose is more tentative, involving
a search for insights into any relationship there may be between an organisation’s
knowledge and learning processes, and its progress along its strategic path. ‘Tenta-
tive’ because a significant relationship may not be found, particularly since there is
as yet no unifying literature here (Scarbrough, 1998: 222).
Three sets of literature are reviewed. First, there is a scholarly literature drawing
on organisational science. It deals with socio-cognitive frameworks used to explain
how individuals and groups interpret their organisational world and make decisions
about its future. Second, there is a literature that at the scholarly level is to do with
what is loosely described as ‘organisational’ learning, and at the practitioner level
with ‘the learning organisation’. It draws heavily but not exclusively on the work of
strategy writers and researchers. Third, there is a literature, also part scholarly, part
practitioner-based, relating to the development and management of knowledge in
the organisation. The article concludes with a summary of main themes, and suggests
some practical implications for those working in the field of human resource develop-
ment and learning. Research suggests that they have a role to play here, but that are
present they are paying it too little attention (Scarbrough et al., 1999).
Socio-cognitive frameworks
Laukkanen (1996: 1) commented that ‘a salient trend of organizational science for
the past 20 years has been the interest in how organizational members conceptualize
and make sense of their organizational worlds’. In this first part of the article, two
major perspectives in the literature are introduced, and their utility in relation to the
aim of the article is explored.
The cognitive perspective

A cognitive perspective focuses on the cognitive structures or schemas that enable
individuals to understand events and situations, and to interpret and respond to
their competitive environments (Gioai and Poole, 1984; Walsh et al., 1988; Porac et
al., 1989; Harris, 1994). The traditional cognitivist view has been said to portray
knowledge as ‘abstract % and oriented towards problem solving’ and cognition as,
to a large extent, about ‘information processing and rule-based manipulation of sym-
bols’ (von Krogh et al., 1994: 57). That rationalist stance has been challenged by those
who see knowledge as fundamentally embodied in the individual and oriented
towards problem definition (von Foerster, 1984; Luhmann, 1986; Varela, 1992).
In their view, knowledge is seen as the outcome of collecting or unconsciously
absorbing pieces of information—themselves formed through a process of selecting
and assembling data in a particular pattern—and processing them internally in ways
unique to each individual. These ways are unique because of the intervention of
factors such as intellectual capacity, previous knowledge, experience and values, cus-
tomary ways of perceiving and treating information, and a range of social and
emotional variables. The availability of new information does not invariably change
current knowledge, since that information may be disregarded, discounted, or simply
not noticed. In any case, the way in which information is put together and construed
by each individual will give its own uniqueness to the ‘knowledge’ that each ulti-
mately acquires.
Once new knowledge emerges in one sector of the organisation, its significance
and quality can be tested by its dissemination and discussion across internal (and
often external) boundaries. During that process, emergent knowledge may become
progressively more refined until it is of high quality, or it may be accepted without
adequate assessment and become the basis for poor quality decision-making. It may
be hoarded by the few and used only for their ends, or it may be viewed as threaten-
ing to certain interests and therefore be hidden or destroyed.
 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000. Learning, knowledge productivity and strategic progress 245
Whether the concern is with collective or with individual perspectives, cognitive
limitations to the ability to operate ‘rationally’ have to be taken into account (Simon,
1979; Schwenk, 1984; Tyler and Steensma, 1995). Such ‘bounded rationality’ appears
to be the manifestation of a complex and obscure knowledge process. It is often
presented as leading to the formation of simplified mental models or schemata that
have significance for the conduct of the strategy process (Schwenk, 1984; Walsh,
1995). Take, for example, the concept of the dominant managerial logic (Prahalad and
Bettis, 1986; Bettis and Prahalad, 1995), explained as ‘a mind set or a world view or
conceptualization of the business and the administrative tools to accomplish goals
and make decisions in that business % [that is] stored as a shared cognitive map
among the dominant coalition’ (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986: 491). The logic is viewed as
filtering incoming data that are then incorporated into the strategy, systems, values,
expectations and reinforced behaviour of the organisation. They, in turn, shape the
logic through feedback. In these writers’ view, to aid strategic unlearning and
relearning, it may sometimes be necessary to construct organisational events that
challenge a logic that has become rigid and inappropriate. Similar views have been
expressed by many writers (for example, Argyris and Schön, 1978; Weick, 1979;
Miller, 1993; Levinthal and March, 1993; Cray et al., 1994; Bohn, 1994; Inkpen and
Choudhury, 1995; Nevis et al., 1995; Strebel, 1995).
Laukkanen (1996: 2) expressed concern at the reliance, in cognitive research, on
‘conceptual or descriptive studies’, and perceived a failure to develop theory that
explains how managerial thinking is born, despite much emphasis on the processual
nature of that thinking. The criticism can be applied to the dominant logic concept.
In particular, it is unclear how such logics (if indeed they exist) can be unlearnt, or
how new logics can be added on to existing ones (Hedberg, 1981). Yet such is the
power of the dominant logic imagery that the concept exercises an enduring appeal.
It is relevant to a discussion of strategic progress because of the questions it raises
about unlearning and relearning processes. ‘Relearning’ refers to the need to transfer
old learning to new contexts, and to make the necessary physical, mental and social
adjustments that this process involves. Its significance in relation to all types of
change situation is clear and in consequence it receives much attention in organis-
ational change programmes. Yet in the achievement of such change, and in relation
to the development of strategic capability, ‘unlearning’ is often of much greater
importance. The process involves the removal of barriers to relearning and to new
learning that are presented by previously acquired knowledge, skills, attitudes and
cognitions. The concept of the dominant logic is valuable here because it graphically
envisages the danger of ways of thinking and behaving that have become so deeply
embedded in individual and collective mind sets that they can prevent even the
awareness that change is needed, let alone the willingness to learn how to achieve
that change.
The socio-cognitive perspective

Looking next at the interplay between cognitions and social factors, and its impli-
cations for strategic choice and decision-making, what has been described as a neo-
institutionalist approach is evident in the literature (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991;
Scott, 1995). Here, norms and rules are seen to constitute shared cognitions and com-
mon frames of reference that profoundly influence human action. Werr and
Stjernberg (1996: 2) observed that this perspective masks two different views of the
world: a realist ontology, where the organisation ‘is seen as an object % [and] the
change method is seen as a map or model specifying the process of analyzing and
designing the organization’; and a constructivist ontology, which views the world as
socially constructed. For constructivists, the purpose of producing methods and tools
of analysis is to codify and disseminate existing knowledge and to ‘reproduce culture,
by providing a language for communicating about change projects’ (ibid: 17).
Within the general socio-cognitive perspective, collective representation or schema
are understood as the process and result of a social construction of reality, worked
246 International Journal of Training and Development  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000.
out during social exchange and interactions (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). For the,
mainly British, ‘relational’ writers the discussion here revolves around the employ-
ment relationship, seen as ‘the principal means of appropriating employee knowl-
edge % on the fragile basis of negotiated control rather than outright ownership’
(Kamoche, 1996, quoted in Scarbrough, 1998: 227). In this view, the organisation
operates ‘not as a container of competencies but as a complex social institution’
(Scarbrough, ibid: 227). Professional and sectoral networks allow transfer of knowl-
edge across sectors, and also influence the development and application of
knowledge within the organisation (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991). Thus firm-level
change is seen to be based on shared knowledge and ‘recipes’ as much as on unique
competencies (Huff, 1982; Child, 1988).
The perspective is also used to clarify the limits placed on rationality and learning
that arise not only from individual or collectively shared maps, biases and recipes,
but also from ‘cognitive heterogeneity among organizational decision-makers’
(Ginsberg, 1994: 157). Ginsberg made a distinction here between the ability and the
desire to do something, reminding of the need to take disposition fully into account
in any consideration of the strategy process and of strategic progress: ‘Whereas cogni-
tive obstacles serve to impair managers’ abilities to develop and deploy resources
that yield sustainable competitive advantage, social obstacles inhibit managers’ desire
to do so’ (ibid: 157).
A socio-cognitive perspective is frequently used to throw light on the strategy
process, since social competencies and cognitive abilities appear to have such a
powerful effect on strategy development. Many writers view strategy-making teams
as the basic unit of socio-cognitive capability and economic performance (for
example, Prahalad and Bettis, 1986: 496; Hambrick, 1987; Katzenbach and Smith,
1993). Top management groups receive particular attention here, because they ulti-
mately determine choice both of strategy development modes, and of the groups and
individuals who will operate in them. The importance of choosing appropriate such
modes is often stressed (for example, Hart, 1992; Hart and Banbury, 1994). A mixture,
rather than reliance only on one mode, is thought to aid unlearning and ensure varied
patterns of strategic decision-making when that is relevant. Absence of a rigid pattern
‘may ensure that sufficient “noise” is retained in organisational systems to stimulate
new thinking’ (Inkpen and Choudhury, 1995: 322). Circumstances calling for such
‘noise’ are explained in the second part of this article.
Summary
Two perspectives on cognitions and their possible effects on strategic choice and
decision-making have been outlined: the cognitive and the socio-cognitive. Some
individual and collective implications of these perspectives have been explored.
Whichever perspective is favoured, many writers appear to agree that:
Managers draw on pools of concepts and recipes constituting the cognitive fields they are men-
tally living in % What will be noticed and/or adopted, depends on the one hand on external
stimuli the environment presents and on the other hand on internal representations like schemata.
(Bood, 1996: 1, echoing a view expressed by Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1985: 337)
The fields of enquiry covered in this first part are multi-faceted and unintegrated.
Hodgkinson (1996) noted the rapidly increasing interest in the study of business
competition from a cognitive perspective but concluded that, although the notion
had significance, its potential had still to be realised. He attributed this to the limited
empirical knowledge base that had accumulated thus far, characterised mainly by
small-scale inductive exploratory work. Allard-Poesi (1996) observed in her literature
review that the cognitive perspective had been uncritically applied to the group and
organisational levels of analysis. This had left unanswered too many questions to do
with the content and form of a collective cognitive structure. What (she asked) does
collective learning actually mean? How far and how much must be ‘shared’? What
exactly does collective learning, or an organisational knowledge structure, consist of,
and how is it constructed and made manifest? Is it stable or a dynamic? These and
other questions have been voiced by a number of commentators, and remain largely
rhetorical (including Argyris and Schön, 1978; Hedberg, 1981; Shrivastava, 1983; Fiol
and Lyles, 1985; Bedeian, 1986; Huber, 1991; Levinthal and March, 1993). If, for
example, the organisation is viewed as a dynamic learning system characterised by a
continuous ‘stream of knowledge’ (von Krogh et al., 1994: 54) and if—as is commonly
agreed—learning occurs at several organisational levels, from individual to collective,
then should not planned learning and development interventions have multiple lev-
els of impact on the knowledge structure of the firm? Yet in the literature there is
no certainty as to the ways in which such interventions might affect knowledge struc-
ture, cognitions and logics at any of those levels (von Krogh et al., 1994; Hedlund,
1994; Pisano, 1994; Nevis et al., 1995).
What does emerge in study after study is that cognitions, no matter how formed
and sustained, do profoundly influence perceptions and behaviour at all organis-
ational levels, even though they do not of themselves explain how organisational
members understand organisational context and make decisions. ‘Knowing’ is about
relational and emotional as well as rational processes, social as well as psychological
factors. In organisations, cognition occurs in a social context or through a social pro-
cess (Daft and Weick, 1984). Both practical and social competencies are crucial in
helping to explain intelligence and ‘contextually appropriate behaviour’ (Ginsberg,
1994: 155). Social context itself is seen by writers of the ‘relational’ school to be sig-
nificantly shaped by the employment system of the firm that, in turn, they perceive
to exercise a powerful influence on the knowledge process.
‘Organisational learning’ and ‘knowledge productivity’

Themes and problems
It has proved difficult to separate the individual from the collective when exploring
the impact of socio-cognitive perspectives. In this second part of the article, the focus
is on the collective—that is to say, on what is referred to as ‘organisational learning’—
and on its relationship to the development of strategically valuable knowledge (see
also Harrison, 2000, Chapter 22).
Marsick (1994: 28) saw ‘organizational learning’ as a description of a systemic
organisational capacity for growth, change and transformation in which team learn-
ing is the key, since teams provide a minimum critical mass for more widely shared
learning. A focus on teams as a primary variable in explaining the nature of strategic
progress is common in the strategy literature, as it is in writings on workplace learn-
ing. However, ‘capturing and sharing the gains depends on the existence of exchange
mechanisms, yet it is not clear which mechanisms work best, what the process of
organizational learning looks like, or what conditions prompt access and utilization
for learning’ (ibid: 18). Marsick concluded that the literature is as yet more theoretical
than practical. Others have described it as ‘rich but confusing’ (Stern and Sommerlad,
1999: 1).
The literature on the ‘learning organisation’ (LO) has been described as ‘practice-
oriented, prescriptive’ (Argyris and Schön, 1996: 180; see also Tsang, 1997). In the
UK recently, a reformulation has been offered by Burgoyne (1999), whose early work
did so much to develop and popularise the LO concept. This claims to provide more
realistic operational guidelines, showing how the concept can work in specific organ-
isational contexts, and integrating it with the growing field of knowledge manage-
ment. Burgoyne has vigorously defended the continued relevance of the LO concept
and its practice, in the face of a number of commentators for whom it is now ‘time
to move on’ (Critten, 1999). Doubts remain. One major issue related to the strategic
progress of the firm is the concept’s underpinning philosophy, which still appears
to be unitary and normative, failing adequately to confront questions about who
controls that organisation and the uses to which new learning will be put (Coopey,
1995). Reassurances that ‘more safeguards are needed to prevent the learning organ-
isation from being misused as a cover for harsh and non-developmental regimes’
and that ‘companies have to become more aware of internal politics they must tackle
if they are to become learning organisations’ (Burgoyne, 1999: 41–4) seem—like the
attempt to explore ‘collective learning’—merely to scrape the surface of profoundly
complex issues. Another issue relevant to this article is the conceptualisation of the
strategy process, which has tended to be presented in the LO literature as a linear,
rationally-based activity, rather than one that is also influenced by spontaneous
insights and by the workings of emotion and personality (see discussion by Tosey,
1993, of writings by Bateson, 1973 and 1979). Leading British exponents of the LO
have consistently applied what is essentially a traditional unitary scientific manage-
ment approach to the search for better ways of tackling existing problems and of
rationally reorganising work (Revans, 1971; Morris, 1991; Pedler and Boutall, 1992).
Finally, the emphasis on building a climate of trust and challenge in order to achi-
eve high commitment organisations still does not make clear quite how this can be
done, and this too raises further unanswered questions about the practical relevance
of the LO concept to an organisation’s strategic progress. At the formal level, if not
only improved workplace learning and practice, but also new ways of understanding
the organisation and aiding its strategic progress are to be generated, then this points
to a need for learning systems, mechanisms and structures that will ensure ‘coordi-
nated systems change’ (Marsick, 1994: 28). At the more informal level, it points to
the value of a ‘rich landscape’ of learning and development possibilities in which
people can be left relatively free of managerial constraint to produce spontaneous
insights that can inform the organisation’s knowledge base (Kessels, 1996). Yet
requirements like these pose considerable risks for management. The organisational
restructuring and devolution of power that such changes are likely to involve cannot
be offset by any certainty that intended results will be achieved. There are too many
intervening variables, many of which are little understood. Also, the attempt to ‘man-
age’ learning for strategic ends raises issues of power, politics and manipulation that
can lead employees to be sceptical of management’s true intent (Coopey, 1995). To
overcome political obstacles, and then to achieve the necessary skilful balance
between formal systems and informal features, presupposes a sophisticated under-
standing of the knowledge process and of the dynamics of human relationships in
an organisation. Given the lack of expertise and awareness about human resource
issues that research indicates widely prevails, such understanding on any wide scale
seems unlikely. It is therefore unsurprising that recent researchers have concluded:
‘It would appear that very few companies conform to the Human Resource Manage-
ment textbook model of the progressive “learning organisation”’ (Stern and Sommer-
lad, 1999: 5). More will be said about human resource issues in the third part of
the article.
Summary
While there exists much research and a growing understanding about individual
learning in the workplace, the literature relating to collective learning displays little
integration, and has produced no consensus on critical issues related to the nature
of that learning, and how strategically valuable knowledge may flow from it. The
scholarly literature on ‘organizational’ learning emerges as ‘predominantly skeptical’
(Argyris and Schön, 1996: 180). The primarily consultancy-based LO literature still
tends to be normative, prescriptive and assumptive, and ‘it is often difficult to disen-
tangle the empirical from the rhetorical’ (Stern and Sommerlad, 1999: 8). Its main
focus is on the day-to-day operations of the organisation. Its main value lies in the
attention it gives to workplace learning and to the development of learning skills,
and in its emphasis on the need for managers to have clear roles and responsibilities
in the facilitation of both.
‘Managing’ knowledge
Very little systematic attention has been paid, in the strategy literature, to the structure of knowl-
edge, types of knowledge, levels at which it is generated, accumulated, stored, and deployed as
well as how it can be leveraged to enhance corporate performance. (Prahalad and Hamel, 1994: 12)
The literature on knowledge development and its ‘management’ is diffuse. In this

third part of the article, a degree of coherence will be sought by discussing first,
implications of stable and turbulent environments for learning and knowledge pro-
cesses; and next, issues of organisational context and the management of the firm’s
knowledge base.
Stability and turbulence

A recurring theme in the scholarly literature is the changing demands placed on
an organisation’s strategy and knowledge processes when the business environment
becomes more turbulent. Ansoff and Sullivan (1993: 13) analysed turbulence by refer-
ence to four variables:
쐌 complexity of events in the environment;
쐌 familiarity of the successive events;
쐌 rapidity with which the events evolve after they are first perceived;
쐌 visibility of the consequence of these events.
These writers argued that at the more stable end of the spectrum, the past can act
as a good guide for the present, and that strategic decision-makers will need formal
strategic planning skills, together with competence in financial and human resource
management and a focus on continuous improvement. At the unstable end, however,
the unpredictability of external events indicates a need for increasing reliance on
entrepreneurial skills, collective learning and innovation.
If what an organisation needs in order to make progress towards its strategic goals
is, essentially, continuous improvement, then this will put a premium on the gener-
ation of adaptive knowledge (Senge, 1990). This is the kind of knowledge that, by
producing understanding of the gaps with competitors that relate to productivity,
quality or operational flexibility and cost, enables the steady closing of those gaps.
When, on the other hand, new classes of assets and strategies are needed, and corpor-
ate character may need to be radically changed, this calls for learning that will pro-
duce, and sustain, discontinuous change. Argyris and Schön (1996) described this as
double-loop learning, where the very goals, norms and assumptions of the organis-
ation itself have to be questioned.
An example of such learning, and of top management actions that can facilitate it,
is suggested in an account of Ford Europe’s attempts to gain competitive edge in
the 1980s. Fordism ‘was predicated upon the one-dimensional strategic imperative
of economies of scale’ (Starkey and McKinlay, 1993: 16). The strategic challenges
facing Ford Europe in the 1980s made that paradigm increasingly inappropriate and
highlighted the importance of quality and service, of differentiation allied to cost.
Learning how to think about a different pattern of links between the nature of the
market and of organisation and job design was impeded by the fact that no one in
the company had any concept of an alternative pattern. The regular importation of
new information, and the continuous stimulation of reflection, debate and experi-
mentation across all sectors of the organisation had to take place over a long period
of time before unlearning finally occurred and a new paradigm emerged: one of the
organisation as a social entity, with a social organisation of production based on
teamwork, skill flexibility, and communication processes that tapped into workers’
tacit knowledge. The writers concluded that organisational transformation at Ford
Europe was only gained by the sustained vision and purpose of corporate leaders
in ensuring the pursuit across Ford of ‘often painful learning to undo existing pat-
terns of thought and behaviour’ (ibid: 2).
Engestrom (1995) provided a typology that distinguishes between adaptive,
investigative and expansive learning, each presupposing a different type of relation-
ship between learner and context. The type of learning achieved at Ford would be
classed as ‘expansive’ because it transformed the prevailing social, cultural and
material practices that dominated the company at that time. At Ford Europe, an
initial state of confusion seems to have been essential to this learning. This apparent
paradox—that disorder fuels progress—forms the focus for a growing interest in the
literature to utilise insights from the science of complexity, and, in particular, chaos
theory. Levy (1994) (whose work is drawn on heavily at this point) warned first that
there are limits in the parallels that can be drawn here with the behaviour of business
organisations. He observed that ‘in the social world, outcomes often reflect very com-
plex underlying relationships that include the interaction of several potentially
chaotic systems’; that social and physical systems also differ in the source of unpre-
dictability; and that ‘physical systems are shaped by unchanging natural laws,
whereas social systems are subject to intervention by individuals and organizations
% Human agency can alter the parameters and very structures of social systems’
(ibid: 169). None the less, he found it useful to conceptualise business organisations
as chaotic, or potentially chaotic, systems, and raised two points of particular rel-
evance for this article.
The first point is that in chaotic systems ‘small disturbances multiply over time
because of nonlinear relationships and the dynamic, repetitive nature of chaotic sys-
tems. As a result % [they] are extremely sensitive to initial conditions, which makes
forecasting very difficult’ (ibid: 170). In chaotic systems, then, history cannot repeat
itself and little can therefore be extrapolated from old strategic prescriptions that will
aid the formulation of new ones. The second point is that, although small disturb-
ances to chaotic systems can cause unexpectedly large changes, chaotic systems do
trace repetitive patterns (ibid: 171). These cannot be precisely predicted, but the con-
ditions in which they are most likely to occur can be identified, as can their likely
paths. This suggests that historical enquiry does, after all, have a value, providing
that it covers a long enough period of time to yield indications of such patterns.
Lessons can be learnt from the past; but they will be lessons about a system’s overall
ability, or inability, to adapt quickly and effectively to changing conditions, and about
processes and generalised strategies that were helpful there.
Levy also made the point that disorder can have a positive function in relation to
organisational survival, and should not be dismissed as invariably the result of ‘iner-
tia, incompetence or ignorance’ (ibid: 172). Other commentators have expressed a
similar view, speculating that if some organisations that subsequently became com-
mercially successful had not initially been ‘able to “muddle through” without prema-
turely embracing any one generic strategic prescription, they would not have suc-
ceeded in the long term’ (Carroll, 1987, quoted in Starkey and McKinlay, 1993: 13).
Strategic confusion, even apparent ‘failure’, may be a requirement of creativity
(Stacey, 1995: 484). Furthermore, it may protect against the kind of inertia that can
prevail in a hitherto protected or stable environment. Perhaps this kind of inertia
explained why researchers examining asset mix decisions made by pension fund
managers could find no evidence ‘that managers actively search out new decision
processes or mechanisms % There is little conscious search for better methods of
making decisions, however manifest the importance of the decision’ (Cray et al.,
1994: 203).
However, in an informal organisation that operates in a state of ‘bounded insta-
bility’, human resource problems can be acute where ‘disorderly dynamics of contra-
diction, conflict, tension and dialog provide the driving force for changeability’
(Stacey, 1995: 487). There is much research to show that the pressure to continually
innovate, the uncertainty of work patterns and routines, and the decentralisation of
structure and decision-making carry with them the danger of loss of balance between
operational and creative activity until strategic coherency breaks down. All this can
fracture the firm’s employment system and prevent the operation of learning and
knowledge processes needed to ensure strategic progress (for example, Nonaka, 1994;
Bohn, 1994; Hart and Banbury, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Bettis and Hitt,
1995; Kessels, 1996; Schuck, 1996; Tushman and Nadler, 1996).
Summary
This section has indicated a broad consensus in the literature about the need for
changed learning and knowledge processes as organisations move from relatively
stable to relatively unstable environmental conditions. As past strategic prescriptions
become irrelevant to future progress, there may be value in a period of relative dis-
order that can stimulate a wide-ranging search for new ways forward. However,
there seems to be a broad consensus too on a need for sustained corporate purpose
and vision, in order to provide the overall focus of attention that will draw organis-
ational members through vital unlearning and relearning processes. In all of this,
problematic human resource issues are likely to be encountered.
Managing organisational context and the firm’s knowledge base
Managing the context

Failure to address the social relations and institutional contexts in which organis-
ational knowledge is embedded has been claimed as a fundamental weakness in the
literature of the resource-based view of the firm, whose writers ‘remain dependent
on the outmoded command and control model of management’ (Scarbrough, 1998:
230). When ‘personnel are not encouraged or taught to transmit the knowledge they
gain to others in their organisation (i.e. it does not become organisational
knowledge)’, executives may find that their organisation’s capacity to learn is limited
(Tyler and Steensma, 1995: 64). This failure becomes more serious as increasing num-
bers of organisations enter and compete in global markets, and there is a greater
need for intra-organisational as well as inter-organisational learning networks and
co-operative learning strategies (Badaracco, 1991; Hamel, 1991; Dodgson, 1993; Bohn,
1994: 62; Hosmer, 1994; von Krogh et al., 1994: 61–4). Nonaka (1991: 103) saw co-
operative learning to be vital to the process of questioning and challenge that is
‘especially essential during times of crisis or breakdown when a company’s tradi-
tional categories of knowledge no longer work’. For such writers, it is crucial that
within such organisations management create a climate of openness, support and
trust, and a relevant structure and business processes to sustain it. It is a frequent
theme that top management must formulate and communicate a vision and sense of
purpose across the organisation that encourage organisational members to co-operate
in seeking and using new knowledge in ways that will drive the organisation along
its chosen strategic route. An organisation where knowledge is developed and used
in such ways has been described as knowledge-productive (Kessels, 1996).
Managing the knowledge base

In discussing how to manage the organisation’s base of knowledge, many writers
are preoccupied with knowledge as an invisible asset, and with the extent to which
that knowledge is tacit or explicit (see particularly Polanyi, 1966 and Nonaka, 1994).
On this view, tacit knowledge, being hard to understand, to copy or to poach, is
more likely than explicit knowledge to be the source of the organisation’s most dis-
tinctive and therefore most valuable competencies, so special care must be given to
its management. Such writers view tacit knowledge as embedded deep in the indi-
vidual or collective subconscious, expressing itself in habitual or intuitive ways of
doing things that are exercised without conscious thought or effort. It is a common
claim that it ‘will be enhanced most effectively by a process of socialisation’ (Hall,
1996: 6; see also Hall, 1993) and can thereby be shared widely among organisational
members without having to be made explicit.
However, this preoccupation with tacit knowledge has been challenged by those
who find something unsatisfactory about a concept that does not lend itself to obser-
vation or codification (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990: 100). Some writers prefer instead
to focus on the kinds of organisational structure that seem likely to stimulate and
sustain the knowledge process and ensure that all its strategically relevant outcomes
are utilised (Hedlund, 1994). Others see human disposition and competence as the
greater key, since without them, no structure can achieve its purpose. This draws
attention, again, to human resource policy and practice: ‘When strategies and struc-
tures are implemented without supporting human resource management philo-
sophies, failures usually occur’ (Miles and Snow, 1995: 17).
Ghoshal and Bartlett (1994: 91) argued for quality of management to receive the
fullest attention here. They proposed a ‘model of context’ whereby to assess that
quality. Discipline, stretch, trust and support were identified through their three-
year longitudinal case study as key dimensions of context, especially in turn-round
situations where fundamental organisational changes must be achieved and where
there must be entrepeneurial behaviour at all levels. The methodology that produced
the model has its critics, but there is a practical value in the focus on the importance
of organisational context in order to stimulate the kind of management action that
will aid and support the generation of strategically valuable knowledge.
The impact of such theorising is hard to assess. Recent observation of practice that
is increasingly dominating the knowledge management (KM) field in the UK has led
some researchers to conclude that there is an excessive preoccupation with: ‘infor-
mation systems as a means of externalising tacit knowledge to codified, explicit
knowledge and also combining different kinds of explicit knowledge’ (Scarbrough
et al., 1999: 25). Those writers were particularly concerned at the evidence of failure
by human resource practitioners to take a lead. Their comprehensive review of the
knowledge management literature gives their statements conviction. They saw a very
real danger that a narrowly conceived KM approach will lead to an ‘obsession with
tools and techniques’ (ibid: 24) that ignores or minimises the centrality of people
throughout the knowledge process.
Summary
In this third part of the article, exploration of issues to do with changing business
environments and with the outcomes of adaptive and of expansive learning has indi-
cated a need for fresh approaches to the knowledge process, particularly as the
organisation moves into more turbulent conditions. Top management vision and the
organisational context that strongly shapes management actions are quite widely
seen as having a critical influence on the mobilisation of knowledge within and
between organisations, and on the extent to which an organisation can move forward
even in apparently ‘chaotic’ conditions. Many writers emphasise the need to identify
the type of knowledge base that will be of unique value to the organisation, although
there is no generalised agreement on typologies, or on appropriate structures and
processes for managing knowledge. Throughout the review, the significance of
human resource issues in achieving knowledge productivity and strategic progress
has been apparent, yet there seems to be a relative neglect of those issues in most
of the knowledge management literature and practice.
Conclusion and some implications for human resource

development practitioners
The literature reviewed in this article has proved to have no unifying base, and views
on the knowledge process, in particular, have been found to differ widely, often
being in conflict. Scarbrough’s observation (1998: 222) about the divergence in focus,
assumptions and epistemology of the learning organisational writers and the
knowledge management writers can be extended to apply to the three fields explored
in the article.
No operationally transparent links between organisational learning, the develop-
ment of knowledge, and the strategic progress of the organisation have emerged.
Too often, rhetoric and conceptualisation do not seem to lead to any substantial
progress in theory-building or in practice in the field. Explanatory factors appear to
include the complexity of the knowledge process, the opaque links between what is
known about individual cognitions and learning and what is known about collective
knowledge productivity, and the need for a rigorous research methodology to under-
pin a more integrative approach. However, the review does indicate some relevant
questions for research, for example:
쐌 In what ways can top management’s vision stimulate and give collective purpose
to organisational learning and knowledge development processes?
쐌 How can an organisational philosophy based on mutuality of endeavour, interest
and benefit be generated, and how then can it become embedded in organis-
ational context?
쐌 What roles, actions and practices can stimulate, identify and connect strategically
relevant learning at every organisational level in order to enhance the organis-
ation’s knowledge base?
쐌 What intra-organisational learning networks, routines and processes can stimu-
late the continuous development of that base?
쐌 What kind of organisational context, structure and management actions can pro-
mote and support expansive as well as adaptive learning across the organisation?
쐌 What are the main human barriers to the development of strategically relevant
knowledge, and how should these be tackled?
There are no easy answers to such questions. The area covered by this article has
been revealed as dense and diffuse, and it is important that rigorous research of an
integrative kind should be undertaken, rather than simply producing further sets of
practical guidelines, role specifications and task inventories. That said, the article has
shown the need to stimulate more proactive and informed practice, especially in the
HRD field. With that in mind, the kind of practical tasks suggested by the above
questions include the following:
쐌 raising management’s awareness, through training initiatives and through
formal and informal learning processes, of the need to achieve commitment of
all employees to the vision and goals of the organisation, if knowledge that can
inform and support corporate strategy is to be generated, shared and dissemi-
nated;
쐌 developing in themselves and across the organisation an understanding and
skilled use of tools, processes and strategy modes to improve strategic awareness
and decision-making;
쐌 working with organisational leaders, local managers and team leaders to develop
across the organisation a climate in which knowledge productivity, rather than
just workplace learning, is understood as essential to the organisation’s stra-
tegic progress;
쐌 advising on how best to develop and sustain a knowledge-productive workforce;
쐌 raising awareness of the need for a performance management process that will
encourage and reward knowledge-productive learning;
쐌 introducing initiatives and processes that can achieve an inclusive approach to
learning, in order to access and share knowledge embedded in the grass roots
of the organisational community.
In relation to such tasks, recent work by the writer with a regional development
agency related to the development of knowledge-productive local communities has
highlighted some taxing practical issues that seem readily transferable to an organis-
ational context, and so could also be included on the HRD practitioners’ agenda:1
1
Acknowledgements for these suggestions are due to Richard Bromiley, doctoral research student
in the Department of Geography, University of Durham, who in 1999 carried out initial fieldwork
for the writer and the Northeast Regional Development Agency—ONE NorthEast—to test this tem-
plate in a context of community learning and regeneration.
쐌 One of the barriers to achieving real inclusiveness in a community context is a
domination of the learning environment by the customary community players.
The danger is that when new ideas do emerge from the ‘grass roots’, they will
be perceived as a threat to those players. It is here that the activities of local
champions, who should have a direct involvement with learning projects from
the start and throughout their course, are likely to be vital.
쐌 Another barrier can be reluctance or apathy, for whatever reason, of certain indi-
viduals and groups in the community. Again, local champions are important
here, as are ways of recognising all contributions to the development and dis-
semination of knowledge across the community.
쐌 There needs to be sufficient oversight and direction of learning across the com-
munity to ensure knowledge productivity, without thereby erecting a formal
superstructure that becomes rigid, top heavy and bureaucratised.
쐌 Communities need a cohering overall sense of purpose, but this must not stifle
individual and group initiative. Some ambiguity in overall vision, and a degree
of ‘disorder’ may be necessary, to stimulate challenges to fixed ways of thinking
and behaving that will act as spurs to creativity.
References
Allard-Poesi, F.A. (1996), ‘The Emergence Process of a Collective Representation in a Decision-
Making Group: A Case Study’, paper presented at European Institute for Advanced Studies
in Management, 4th International Workshop on Managerial and Organisational Cognition:
Management in the Thought-full Enterprise, 29–30 August, Stockholm.
Ansoff, H.I. and Sullivan, P.A. (1993), ‘Optimizing Profitability in Turbulent Environments: A
Formula for Strategic Success’, Long Range Planning, 26, 5, 11–23.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning II: Theory, Methods and Practice.
(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Badaracco, J.L. (1991), Knowledge Link: How Firms Compete Through Strategic Alliances (Boston:
Harvard Business School Press).
Bateson, G. (1973), Steps to an Ecology of Mind (London: Granada).
Bateson, G. (1979), Mind and Nature (Glasgow: Collins).
Bedeian, A.G. (1986), ‘Contemporary Challenges in the Study of Organisations’, in J.G. Hunt
and J.D. Blair (eds), Yearly Review of Management of the Journal of Management, 12, 185–201.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966), The Social Construction of Reality (London: Penguin Books).
Bettis, R.A. and Hitt, M.A. (1995), ‘The New Competitive Landscape’, Strategic Management Jour-
nal, Summer Special Issue, 16, 7–19.
Bettis, R.A. and Prahalad, C.K. (1995), ‘The Dominant Logic: Retrospective and Extension’,
Strategic Management Journal, 16, 1, 5–14.
Bohn, R.E. (1994), ‘Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge’, Sloan Management
Review, 36, 1, 61–73.
Bood, R.P. (1996), ‘Wandering in a Cognitive Field’, paper presented at European Institute for
Advanced Studies in Management, 4th International Workshop on Managerial and Organis-
ational Cognition: Management in the Thought-full Enterprise, 29–30 August, Stockholm.
Burgoyne. J. (1999), ‘Design of the Times’, People Management, 5, 11, 39–44.
Carroll, R. (1987), ‘Organizational Approaches to Strategy: An Introduction and Overview’, Cali-
fornia Management Review, 30, 1, Fall, 8–9.
Child, J. (1988), ‘On Organizations in their Sectors’, Organization Studies, 9, 1, 1–32.
Coopey, J. (1995), ‘The Learning Organization, Power, Politics and Ideology’, Management Learn-
ing, 26, 2, 193–213.
Cray, D., Haines Jr., G.H. and Mallory, G.R. (1994), ‘Programmed Strategic Decision Making:
The View from Mintzberg’s Window’, British Journal of Management, 5, 191–204.
Critten, P. (1999), ‘To Embrace the New, Release the Old’, People Management, 5, 12, 29.
Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984), ‘Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems’,
Academy of Management Review, 9, 2, 284–95.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991), ‘Introduction’, in W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (eds),
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).
Dodgson, M. (1993), ‘Learning, Trust, and Technological Collaboration’, Human Relations, 46,
77–95.
Engestrom, Y. (1995), Training and Change (Geneva: International Labour Office).
Fiol, C.M. and Lyles. M.A. (1985), ‘Organization Learning’, Academy of Management Review, 10,
803–13.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1994), ‘Linking Organizational Context and Managerial Action:
The Dimensions of Quality of Management’, Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue,
15, 91–112.
Ginsberg, A. (1994), ‘Minding the Competition: From Mapping to Mastery’, Strategic Management
Journal, 15, 153–74.
Gioai, D.A. and Poole, P.P. (1984), ‘Scripts in Organizational Behaviour’, Academy of Management
Review, 9, 3, 449–59.
Hall, R. (1993), ‘A Framework Linking Intangible Resources and Capabilities to Sustainable Com-
petitive Advantage’, Strategic Management Journal, 14, 607–18.
Hall, R. (1996), ‘Supply Chain Management – The Challenges for the 21st Century’, paper
presented to the CIPS Conference at Durham University Business School, 9 May, Durham.
Hambrick, D.C. (1987), ‘The Top Management Team: Key to Strategic Success’, California Manage-
ment Review, Fall, 88–108.
Hamel, G. (1991), ‘Competition for Competence and Inter-Partner Learning Within International
Strategic Alliances’, Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83–103.
Harris, S.G. (1994), ‘Organizational Culture and Individual Sensemaking: A Schema Based Per-
spective’, Organization Science, 5, 3, 309–21.
Harrison, R. (2000), People and Organisations: Employee Development (2nd edn.) (London: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development).
Hart, S. and Banbury, C. (1994), ‘How Strategy-Making Processes Can Make a Difference’, Stra-
tegic Management Journal, 15, 251–69.
Hart, S.L. (1992), ‘An Integrative Framework for Strategy-Making Processes’, Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 17, 2, 327–51.
Hedberg, B.L.T. (1981), ‘How Organizations Learn and Unlearn’, in P.C. Nystrom and W.H.
Starbuck (eds), Handbook of Organizational Design, Volume 1 (New York: Oxford University
Press).
Hedlund, G. (1994), ‘A Model of Knowledge Management and the N-Form Corporation’, Stra-
tegic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 15, 73–90.
Hodgkinson, G.P. (1996), ‘The Cognitive Analysis of Competitive Structures: A Review and
Critique’, Working Article (June) (Leeds: School of Business and Economic Studies, University
of Leeds).
Hosmer, L.T. (1994), ‘Strategic Planning as if Ethics Mattered’, Strategic Management Journal, Sum-
mer Special Issue, 15, 17–34.
Hrebiniak, L.G. and Joyce, W.F. (1985), ‘Organizational Adaptation: Strategic Choice and
Environmental Determinism’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 336–49.
Huber, G. (1991), ‘Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and Literatures’, Organi-
zation Science, 2, 85–113.
Huff, A.S. (1982), ‘Industry Influences on Strategy Reformulation’, Strategic Management Journal,
3, 119–31.
Inkpen, A. and Choudhury, N. (1995), ‘The Seeking of Strategy Where It Is Not: Towards a
Theory of Strategy Absence’, Strategic Management Journal, 16, 313–23.
Kamoche, K. (1996), ‘Strategic Human Resource Management Within a Resource-Capability
View of the Firm’, Journal of Management Studies, 33, 2, 213–33.
Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.J. (1993), The Wisdom of Teams (Boston: Harvard Business
School Press).
Kessels, J.W.M. (1996), ‘Knowledge Productivity and the Corporate Curriculum’, in J.F. Schreine-
makers (ed.), Knowledge Management: Organization, Competence and Methodology, Proceedings of
the Fourth International ISMICK Symposium, 21–22 October (Rotterdam: Wurzburg, ERGON-
Verl.).
Laukkanen, M. (1996), ‘Environmental Upheaval and Management Thinking: A Longitudinal
Single-Case Study’, paper presented at European Institute for Advanced Studies in Manage-
ment, 4th International Workshop on Managerial and Organisational Cognition: Management
in the Thought-full Enterprise, 29–30 August, Stockholm.
Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G (1993), ‘The Myopia of Learning’, Strategic Management Journal,
14, 95–112.
Levy, D. (1994), ‘Chaos Theory and Strategy: Theory, Application, and Managerial Implications’,
Strategic Management Journal, Special Summer Issue, 15, 167–78.
Luhmann, N. (1986), ‘The Autopoiesis of Social Systems’, in F. Geyer and J. van der Zouwen
(eds), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage).
Marsick, V.J. (1994), ‘Trends in Managerial Reinvention: Creating a Learning Map’, Management
Learning, 25, 1, 11–33.
Miles, R. and Snow, W.C. (1995), ‘The New Network Firm: A Spherical Structure Built on a
Human Investment Philosophy’, Organizational Dynamics, 23, 4, 5–18.
Miller, D. (1993), ‘The Architecture of Simplicity’, Academy of Management Review, 18, 1, 116–38.
Morris, J. (1991), ‘Action Learning: The Long Haul’, in J. Prior (ed.), Handbook of Training and
Development (Aldershot: Gower).
Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J. and Gould, J.M. (1995), ‘Understanding Organizations as Learning
Systems’, Sloan Management Review, 36, 2, 73–85.
Nonaka, I. (1991), ‘The Knowledge-Creating Company’, Harvard Business Review, November–
December, 96–104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), ‘A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation’, Organization
Science, 5, 1, 14–37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press).
Pedler, M. and Boutall, J. (1992), Action Learning for Change: A Resource Book for Managers and
Other Professionals (Eastwood Park, Avon: NHS Training Directorate).
Pisano, G.P. (1994), ‘Knowledge, Integration, and the Locus of Learning: An Empirical Analysis
of Process Development’, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 85–100.
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension (New York: Anchor Day Books).
Porac, J., Thomas, H. and Fuller, C.B. (1989), ‘Competitive Groups as Cognitive Communities:
The Case of the Scottish Knitwear Manufacturers’, Journal of Management Studies, 26, 4, 397–416.
Prahalad, C.K. and Bettis, R.A. (1986), ‘The Dominant Logic: A New Linkage between Diversity
and Performance’, Strategic Management Journal, 7, 485–501.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1994), ‘Strategy as a Field of Study: Why Search for a New
Paradigm?’, Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 15, 5–16.
Reed, R. and DeFillippi, R. (1990), ‘Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable
Competitive Advantage’, Academy of Management Review, 15, 11, 88–102.
Revans, R. W. (1971), Developing Effective Managers (London: Longman).
Scarbrough, H. (1998), ‘Path(ological) Dependency? Core Competencies from an Organizational
Perspective’, British Journal of Management, 9, 219–32.
Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. and Preston, J. (1999), Knowledge Management: A Literature Review
(London: Institute of Personnel and Development).
Schuck, G. (1996), ‘Intelligent Technology, Intelligent Workers: A New Pedagogy for the High-
Tech Workplace’, in K. Starkey (ed.), How Organizations Learn (London: International Thomson
Business Press).
Schwenk, C.R. (1984), ‘Cognitive Simplification Processes in Strategic Decision-Making’, Strategic
Management Journal, 5, 2, 111–28.
Scott, W.R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Senge, M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New
York: Doubleday).
Shrivastava, P. (1983), ‘A Typology of Organizational Learning Systems’, Journal of Management
Studies, 20, 1, 9–28.
Simon, H. (1979), ‘Information Processing Models of Cognition’, Annual Review of Psychology, 30,
363–96.
Stacey, R.D. (1995), ‘The Science of Complexity: An Alternative Perspective for Strategic Change
Processes’, Strategic Management Journal, 16, 477–95.
Starkey, K. and McKinlay, A. (1993), Strategy and the Human Resource: Ford and the Search for
Competitive Advantage (Oxford: Blackwell).
Stern, E. and Sommerlad, E. (1999), Workplace Learning, Culture and Performance (London: Institute
of Personnel and Development).
Strebel, P. (1995), ‘Creating Industry Breakpoints: Changing the Rules of the Game’, Long Range
Planning, 28, 2, 11–20.
Tosey, P. (1993), ‘Interfering with the Interference: A Systemic Approach to Change in Organis-
ations’, Management Education and Development, 24, (part 3), 187–204.
Tsang, E. (1997), ‘Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy
between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research’ Human Relations, 50, 1, 73–89.
Tushman, M. and Nadler, D. (1996), ‘Organizing for Innovation’, in K. Starkey (ed.), How Organi-
zations Learn (London: International Thomson Business Press).
Tyler, B.B. and Steensma, H.K. (1995), ‘Evaluating Technological Collaborative Opportunities:
A Cognitive Modeling Perspective’, Strategic Management Journal, 16, 43–70.
Varela, F.J. (1992), ‘Whence Perceptual Meaning? A Cartography of Current Ideas’, in F.J. Varela
and J.P. Dupuy (eds), Understanding Origins: Contemporary Views on the Origin of Life, Mind
and Society (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).
von Foerster, H. (1984), ‘Principles of Self-Organization in Socio-Managerial Context’, in H.
Ulrich and G.J.B. Probst (eds), Self-Organization and Management of Social Systems (Berlin:
Springer-Verlag).
von Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Slocum, K. (1994), ‘An Essay on Corporate Epistemology’, Strategic
Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 15, 53–71.
Walsh, J. (1995), ‘Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory
Lane’, Organization Science, 6, 280–321.
Walsh, J.P., Henderson, C.M. and Deighton, J. (1988), ‘Negotiated Belief Structures and Decision
Performance: An Empirical Investigation’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 42, 194–216.
Weick, K. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Werr, A. and Stjernberg, T. (1996), ‘Models and Tools as Individual and Organizational Com-
petence’, paper presented at European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management, 4th
International Workshop on Managerial and Organisational Cognition: Management in the
Thought-full Enterprise, 29–30 August, Stockholm.

Int J Training Development - 2002 - Harrison - Learning Knowledge Productivity and Strategic Progress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Int J Training Development - 2002 - Harrison - Learning Knowledge Productivity and Strategic Progress

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Int J Training Development - 2002 - Harrison - Learning Knowledge Productivity and Strategic Progress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Training and Development 4:4

Aim of the article

❒ Rosemary Harrison is Chief Examiner (Employee Development), Chartered Institute of Personnel

244 International Journal of Training and Development

The cognitive perspective

The socio-cognitive perspective

‘Organisational learning’ and ‘knowledge productivity’

The literature on knowledge development and its ‘management’ is diffuse. In this

Stability and turbulence

Managing organisational context and the firm’s knowledge base

Managing the context

Managing the knowledge base

Conclusion and some implications for human resource

You might also like