A preliminary typology of organizational learning: synthesizing the literature

Journal of Management, Fall, 1996 by Danny Miller

Experimental learning is especially likely to occur during attempts at adaptation or renewal, as changes to product lines and methods are made to discover better ways of doing things (Zaltman, Duncan & Holbek, 1973; Garud & Van de Ven, 1992; March, 1991).

Experimentation often has the advantage of limiting risks, reducing the cognitive burdens of top managers, and exploiting the capacities for learning that exist throughout an organization (Huber, 1991; Quinn, 1980). But it usually results in knowledge that is more local, more fragmented, and thus harder to integrate than that which derives from most other modes of learning (Miller, 1990b; Staw, 1977).

Interactive Learning

Like experimentation, interactive learning involves learning-by-doing, which occurs simultaneously in many parts of an organization. But instead of systematically experimenting with practices and offerings, managers learn in a more emergent and implicit way: by bargaining and trading with each other and with external stakeholders (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972). Learning is by the exchange of information and the evaluation of transactions that reveal the motives, resolve, and resources of rivals and allies within and outside the organization. It is the product of a spontaneous process of local adjustment to local opportunities and political forces (MacMillan & Jones, 1986; Pfeffer, 1981).

In the interactive mode, aims are modest. Learners attempt to understand just enough about the diverse pressures on them to discover some areas of freedom and opportunity. They seek out moves that are "good enough" to incrementally advance their agendas. Then they quickly re-evaluate and adjust their actions in response to feedback. This entire process is essentially one of "muddling through" (Braybrooke & Lindblom, 1963; Lindblom, 1959).

Interactive learning is more intuitive and inductive than methodical. It relies on hunch, political instinct and "reading people." Managers learn about their surroundings by interpreting their many encounters and bouts of negotiation. And the many competing stakeholders usually limit the scope for action (Eden, 1992).

The unit of learning is typically an individual or department trying to achieve local objectives (Cyert & March, 1963; March & Olsen, 1976) - aims that may have more to do with personal socio-political agendas than with organization-wide economic or service goals (Georgiou, 1972; Silverman, 1970). Although scores of managers participate in interactive learning, learning outcomes tend to have only a local effect. But collectively, these outcomes, agreements, side-payments, and incremental adjustments can very much influence the evolutionary path of the organization. Many organizations are profoundly shaped by these multitudinous adaptations to a wide variety of constituencies (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972; Chaffee, 1985; Hart, 1992; Pettigrew, 1973; Shrivastava & Grant, 1985).

Interactive learning is especially common in public organizations where goals are vague and power is broadly distributed. In modifying college curricula, for example, there may be a protracted series of bargaining sessions among different departments, each trying to increase the level of representation of its discipline. In the process, professors learn about each others' preferences and agendas, resources and skills, and areas of compromise. This knowledge affects the subsequent bargaining tactics of each actor. Learning continues until some agreement is reached after a series of proposals and counterproposals (March & Olsen, 1976). Similar processes may take place in inter-organizational exchanges, as networks of companies negotiate and carry on joint ventures or projects (Harrigan, 1986).