Logistics managers' learning environments and firm performance

Journal of Business Logistics, 2002 by Ellinger, Alexander E, Ellinger, Andrea D, Keller, Scott B

Rapid change in the business environment, constant breakthroughs in information technology, and higher customer expectations mean that firms' successes will be increasingly dependent on learning (Baldwin, Danielson, and Wiggenhorn 1997). The notion of leveraging superior learning processes as a source of competitive advantage is well established (Baker and Sinkula 1999; Day 1994; de Geus 1988, 1997; Slater and Narver 1995, 2000; Slocum, McGill, and Lei 1994; Stata 1989). In fact, Stata suggests that "the rate at which individuals and organizations learn may be the only source of sustainable competitive advantage" (p. 64).

Concurrent with the notion of leveraging learning for competitive advantage is the emergence of the learning organization concept (Garvin 1993, 2000; Marsick and Watkins 1999; Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell 1991; Senge 1990; Watkins and Marsick 1993,1996). Learning organizations focus on the importance of acquiring, processing and disseminating knowledge, facilitating and making use of individual learning, and modifying behavior and practices to reflect the learning (Applebaum and Reichart 1998). The overall premise of the learning organization concept is that the firm can improve performance by developing the learning skills and harnessing the knowledge of its employees.

Learning organization characteristics may help logistics managers develop systems thinking, information sharing, and collaborative teamwork skills to improve firm performance (Drew and Smith 1998). The current business environment has raised the performance bar substantially for today's logistics manager who must "maintain an organizational lightness of foot never before seen" (Mississippi State University 1999, p. 4). As the "quarterbacks" for supply chain initiatives, logistics managers are expected to get closer to the customer and become conversant with information technology (Quinn 1997), break down traditional intra-organizational barriers (Copacino 1997), collaborate with suppliers (Corbett, Blackburn, and Van Wassenhove 1999), and provide enhanced levels of service while simultaneously reducing costs (Christopher 1998).

Despite these unprecedented demands, relatively little is known about firms' learning and development strategies for logistics managers. It is believed that developing people pays off in terms of improved performance. However, logistics organizations' performance improvement strategies have not sufficiently emphasized the growth and development of people (Bowersox 1998; Mississippi State University 1999). Thus, embracing behavioral characteristics of the learning organization concept may help firms better leverage the knowledge, skills, and abilities of logistics managers.

The current research was undertaken to assess firms' learning environments from the logistics manager's perspective, and to gauge the impact of learning behavior on business operations. In short, how do logistics managers rate their firms' learning environments, and is there a payoff in terms of performance for firms that exhibit higher levels of learning behavior?

The Learning Organization Concept

Over the last decade, the learning organization has emerged as a well-established concept. However, considerable ambiguity continues to surround its exact definition (Leitch et al. 1996; Luthans, Rubach, and Marsnik 1995). Synonyms for the learning organization include the smarter organization (McGill and Slocum 1994), the knowledge-creating company (Nonaka 1991), the learning laboratory (Leonard-Barton 1992), and the learning company (Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell 1991). Drew and Smith suggest that the learning organization should be viewed as a metaphor rather than as a distinct type of structure. Table 1 summarizes various key definitions of the learning organization concept.

Senge (1990) popularized the learning organization concept with the publication of his seminal work The Fifth Discipline: TheArt and Practice of the Learning Organization. Senge's work articulates five disciplines or "component technologies" of the learning organization: personal mastery, building a shared vision, surfacing and testing mental models, team learning, and systems thinking. Senge, like Stata (1989), de Geus (1988, 1997), and others believes that the future of successful firms will be directly related to their capacity for sustained organization-wide learning.

This view parallels Nonaka's conceptualization of knowledge-creating companies. According to Nonaka, inventing new knowledge is not solely the work of the R&D department, marketing, or strategic planning; it is a way of behaving, a way of being in which everyone is a knowledge worker or entrepreneur. For Nonaka, understanding what knowledge is and how to exploit it distinguishes the knowledge-creating company.

Garvin (1993) is somewhat critical of Senge's and Nonaka's visions of the learning organization, claiming that their recommendations are "far too abstract" and do not provide a framework for action. For Garvin, meaning, management, and measurement are the key factors for launching a learning organization. Meaning represents "a plausible, well-grounded" definition of the learning organization that is "actionable and easy to apply" (p. 79). Management refers to practices that can be operationally applied rather than "high aspirations" (p. 79), and measurement refers to tools that help a firm assess rates and levels of learning to ensure that gains have been made.