A preliminary typology of organizational learning: synthesizing the literature

Journal of Management, Fall, 1996 by Danny Miller

Again, as we move from synthetic to institutional learning there is a progression from more voluntaristic modes of emergent learning to more deterministic ones. Synthesis places few restrictions on actors, political interaction limits action, and institutional learning channels both thought and action.

The six kinds of learning are presented in Table 1. It is interesting that as we move down the table there is a tendency for learning to take place at lower levels of the hierarchy - analytical and synthetic learning, as will be described, are often the province of upper echelons, experimental and interactive learning are engaged in frequently by middle managers, and structural and institutional learning take place even at lower levels. The scope of learning also alters as we move down the table - from a selective to a broader influence. We will have more to say later about these tendencies.

Common Modes of Learning

Our six modes of learning each represent a common "configuration" of mutually supportive elements. The significance of these modes is not that they are exhaustive but that they reveal the wide range of common learning processes identified by the literature. Also, we will argue that they produce disparate outcomes and must occur in distinctive contexts. Although one or two learning modes may dominate in many organizations, several modes may easily co-exist.

In presenting each mode, we will first describe search and choice behavior, then address the locus and diffusion of learning with some typical examples, and finally, discuss the potential strengths and weaknesses of each mode. These descriptions are followed by hypotheses concerning the contexts, outcomes, and connections among the modes. The summary Table 2 relates the six modes of learning to their sources in the literature; Table 3 then compares the modes along some salient dimensions of process.

Analytic learning

Rational analysis is a well-known, perhaps overly idealized, mode of methodical learning (Allison, 1971; Ansoff, 1965). Learning occurs via intensive and systematic information gathering both from within and from outside the firm. Operations [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED] are analyzed and the environment is scanned to discover key problems and opportunities. In making decisions, top managers and their staff of planning analysts evaluate a wide variety of alternatives. Careful choice is made of the alternative that maximizes one or two key objectives (Grandori, 1984), usually ones having to do with profitability and growth. Ultimately, feedback from performance is scrutinized and used to adjust tactics or strategies, thus beginning another learning cycle (Steiner, 1979). Much of the information gathered is quantitative and is monitored via formal systems. The emphasis is on hard intelligence data, deductive logic, numerical calculation, and even optimization (Ackoff, 1971).

The proactive and far-reaching analysis we refer to here generally can only take place at upper echelons - by executives and their staff departments. Grand plans have little chance of being accepted if they are formulated by those with [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 3 OMITTED] little power, especially if they challenge elite beliefs (Staw, 1977). Also, the mandates of lower level managers are too specialized to provoke analyses of fundamental scope.