Knowledge that Transforms

Common sense suggests that work is organized in accordance with plans that are created by designers who reflect on the work setting and manipulate representations of the work process in order to de...

This paper illustrates how a learning-curve model can be generalized to investigate potential explanations of organizational learning. The paper examines the hypothesis that knowledge acquired thro...

Recent ethnographic studies of workplace practices indicate that the ways people actually work usually differ fundamentally from the ways organizations describe that work in manuals, training progr...

The objective of this research was to determine if a convergence in understanding between providers and users of a technology would result in greater innovativeness regarding that technology. Two mechanisms were proposed for achieving greater convergence: (1) more frequent communication and (2) the use of richer communication channels. Here, convergence represents the degree of mutual understanding between the technology providers and the other business personnel about the firm's business activities and the importance of the technology in supporting those activities. Frequency of communication indicated the degree to which the technology providers and the business personnel had communication contact, while richness of communication was determined by the type of communication channel used. These means of communication ranged from face to face, computer mediated, to written channels of communication. The convergence construct was operationalized in terms of the value chain framework where 14 business activities (primary and secondary to the value chain) were identified. Convergence thus represents the degree of mutual understanding between the technology providers and the business personnel regarding the importance of these business activities and the importance of the technology in supporting these activities. Innovativeness was determined through expert evaluation of information technology innovativeness. This research was conducted in two United States divisions of a large multinational firm. The units of analyses for the research constructs were the departments in these two divisions. The constructs were measured over five periods of data collection so that longitudinal, causal analysis techniques (cross-lagged correlations and path analysis) were used to investigate the research model. The following results were obtained: (1) convergence was found to be a predictor of innovativeness, (2) communication richness was a predictor of convergence, and (3) communication frequency was a predictor of both convergence and communication richness. This study provided two important extensions to the often-studied relationship between communication behaviors and innovativeness. First, this research showed empirically that the richness of communication influences innovativeness and, in fact, may be the more relevant predictor variable. Secondly, this research showed that convergence is an important intervening construct in the communication activity/innovativeness relationship. Interestingly, the research model only suggested a causal relationship for convergence on the importance of the primary business activities. Thus, the intent of this study to examine the proposition that frequent and rich communication exchanges produce a convergence in understanding among technology providers and users and, that this convergence directly promotes organizational innovativeness was supported.

This paper differs from previous examinations of organizational learning in that it is broader in scope and more evaluative of the literatures. Four constructs related to organizational learning (knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory) are articulated, and the literatures related to each are described and critiqued. The literature on knowledge acquisition is voluminous and multi-faceted, and so the knowledge acquisition construct is portrayed here as consisting of five subconstructs or subprocesses: (1) drawing on knowledge available at the organization's birth, (2) learning from experience, (3) learning by observing other organizations, (4) grafting on to itself components that possess knowledge needed but not possessed by the organization, and (5) noticing or searching for information about the organization's environment and performance. Examination of the related literatures indicates that much has been learned about learning from experience, but also that there is a lack of cumulative work and a lack of integration of work from different research groups. Similarly, much has been learned about organizational search, but there is a lack of conceptual work, and there is a lack of both cumulative work and syntheses with which to create a more mature literature. Congenital learning, vicarious learning, and grafting are information acquisition subprocesses about which relatively little has been learned. The literature concerning information distribution is rich and mature, but an aspect of information distribution that is central to an organization's benefitting from its learning, namely how units that possess information and units that need this information can find each other quickly and with a high likelihood, is unexplored. Information interpretation, as an organizational process, rather than an individual process, requires empirical work for further advancement. Organizational memory is much in need of systematic investigation, particularly by those whose special concerns are improving organizational learning and decision making.

The traditional definition of learning as a shift in performance when the stimulus situation remains essentially the same implies a set of conditions that occur rarely in organizations. Thus, either organizational learning is an infrequent event, or it occurs frequently but takes a nontraditional form. Both possibilities are reviewed and implications for research strategy are suggested.

Although there is general recognition that leadership is important for organizational cultures, the issue of how leadership affects culture has received only scattered attention. Existing analyses have tended to focus on how leaders create or change cultures, ignoring the role that leadership plays in maintaining cultures. This paper focuses on how cultural leadership that innovates, by either creating or changing organizational cultures, is likely to differ from that which maintains organizational cultures. Hypothesized linkages are advanced between nine elements of cultural leadership—drawn from the literature on charisma—and its consequences. The predictions made are derived from a synthesis of existing theory and insights gained from descriptions of leadership in the scholarly and popular literatures. Both descriptions and theoretical considerations suggest that, while cultural innovation and maintenance leadership differs in some ways, the behaviors of effective cultural leaders do not. Cultural leadership apparently has some generic characteristics. Two variants of each of the basic types are identified and linked to extant conceptualizations of leadership. Implications discussed include the risks and advantages of organizations' having multiple cultural leaders at the same time.

Success in the global marketplace increasingly requires that firms develop capabilities in innovation. In this paper we argue that firms can use employment and compensation practices to foster innovation and support for innovation by employees. Conversely, some employment and compensation systems will inhibit innovation. A system that allows gain sharing by employees and provides employment assurance will foster innovation in the firm. However, a system that compensates employees with a fixed wage and allows for termination at will contains anti-innovative incentives. The former system is the prototypical Japanese system (particularly in large firms), while the latter system is the prototypical American system. The commercial success of Japanese firms is increasingly attributed to successful innovation, particularly in processes. We argue that this success is partly attributable to the Japanese-style system of employment and compensation. None of this suggests, however, that the Japanese-style practices constitute a universally superior system of employment and compensation. The Japanese-style system will not necessarily be beneficial to firms, nor be preferred by employees. The preferences of both employees and firms will depend upon market circumstances. In stable domestic markets in relatively full employment economies, companies derive competitive advantage from mass production and scale economies. Under such circumstances, the American-style system is likely to be preferred by both employees and firms. However, when the firm operates in a volatile international market the preferences of both employees and firms will shift toward the Japanese-style system. The employment and compensation systems of both countries were well suited to the market circumstances under which they evolved.