The Learning Organization

Empowerment, knowledge conversion and dimensions of organizational learning

Marlieke Van Grinsven, Max Visser,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Marlieke Van Grinsven, Max Visser, (2011) "Empowerment, knowledge conversion and dimensions
of organizational learning", The Learning Organization, Vol. 18 Issue: 5, pp.378-391, https://
doi.org/10.1108/09696471111151729
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471111151729
Downloaded on: 15 March 2018, At: 09:47 (PT)
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 81 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2974 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2012),"The importance of organizational learning for organizational sustainability", The Learning
Organization, Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 4-10 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471211199285">https://
doi.org/10.1108/09696471211199285</a>
(2001),"On differences between organizational learning and learning organization", The Learning
Organization, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 125-133 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470110391211">https://
doi.org/10.1108/09696470110391211</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:402646 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm

TLO
18,5 Empowerment, knowledge
conversion and dimensions of
organizational learning
378
Marlieke Van Grinsven and Max Visser
Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen,
Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Abstract
Purpose – Research on antecedents of organizational learning generally ignores the fact that
organizational learning is at least a two-dimensional construct and that its dimensions may be
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

conflicting. This research often fails to investigate the simultaneous effects of antecedents on these
dimensions. To address this gap in the literature, this paper aims to discuss the effects of
empowerment and knowledge conversion, two factors often considered to be important antecedents of
organizational learning.
Design/methodology/approach – The approach adopted involves a review of and reflection on the
pertinent literature on learning organizations, organizational learning, empowerment and knowledge
conversion.
Findings – It is found that both antecedents have contradictory effects on two dimensions of
organizational learning. Empowerment affects second-order learning in a positive sense, but
first-order learning in a negative sense. Knowledge conversion is positively related to first-order
learning, but negatively to second-order learning. Thus, it appears that efforts to improve
organizational learning on one dimension may have (unintended) effects on the other, unmeasured
dimension.
Originality/value – The paper connects disjointed streams of theory and research in a novel way
that is of interest and importance to both the academic literature and to organizational practitioners.
Keywords Learning organizations, Organizational learning, First-order learning, Second-order learning,
Empowerment, Knowledge conversion, Workplace learning, Knowledge management
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
The importance of learning in and by organizations has been recognized by
organization scientists at least since the early 1960s (e.g. Chapman et al., 1959; Cyert
and March, 1963; Cangelosi and Dill, 1965). In particular, in the last two decades the
interest in organizational learning and learning organizations has been growing, as
evidenced by a continuously increasing output in journals and books (Bapuji and
Crossan, 2004), and an increasing number of reviews of the field (e.g. Easterby-Smith
and Lyles, 2003; Örtenblad, 2004; Shipton, 2006).
Obviously, the concepts of learning organization and organizational learning
diverge in terms of structure versus process. But there are some other important
differences between them. On the one hand, most of the literature on learning
The Learning Organization organizations in the past decades has adopted a prescriptive, practice-oriented
Vol. 18 No. 5, 2011
pp. 378-391
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-6474
The authors thank the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and valuable
DOI 10.1108/09696471111151729 comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
 approach, directed at developing learning organizations (Easterby-Smith and Araujo, Dimensions of
1999; Örtenblad, 2002; Tsang, 1997). However, recent retrospective accounts of the field organizational
have tended to become somewhat pessimistic about the concept of the learning
organization. It is argued that this concept seems to have lost much of its practical and learning
scientific value and that its conceptual clarity should be improved (e.g. Örtenblad,
2007; Smith, 2008), while some even argue that it should be abandoned altogether
(Grieves, 2008). 379
On the other hand, most of the literature on organizational learning in the past
decades has adopted a scientific, descriptive approach, directed at analyzing
organizational learning. Contrary to the work on learning organizations, the outcomes
of this literature have generally remained insignificant for organizations, as they were
not translated in practical instrument development or consultancy practices. However,
an increasing number of studies have addressed these practical concerns by
identifying influential antecedents, i.e. organizational factors and mechanisms that
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

affect an organization’s capability for learning (e.g. Alegre and Chiva, 2008; Chiva and
Alegre, 2009; Galer and Van Der Heijden, 1992; Goh, 2003; Gómez et al., 2005; Harvey
and Denton, 1999). Given the apparent pessimism about the learning organization
concept, this appears a promising alternative route towards developing the practical
value of the general idea of learning in and by organizations.
In the literature on organizational learning a variety of antecedents has been
recognized, related to organizational structure, delegation and participation in decision
making, knowledge transfer and integration, learning climate, managerial leadership
and commitment, and clarity of vision, mission and purpose. Among these antecedents,
two appear to be most influential and well-researched. The first is empowerment,
referring to the degree of decentralization of decision-making responsibilities in
organizations (e.g. Alegre and Chiva, 2008; Argyris, 1998; Chiva and Alegre, 2009; Goh,
2003; Jansen et al., 2006; Örtenblad, 2004; Pearn et al., 1995; Visser, 2008, 2010; Watkins
and Marsick, 1993). The second is knowledge conversion, referring to the degree to
which knowledge is being tacitly and explicitly disseminated throughout
organizations (e.g. Darling et al., 2005; Goh, 2003; Gómez et al., 2005; Hansen et al.,
1999; Hislop, 2005; Jansen et al., 2005; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 2001).
However, with few exceptions (e.g. Jansen et al., 2005, 2006), these studies do not
attempt to systematically investigate the effects of antecedents on organizational
learning, while admitting and appreciating that organizational learning is a concept
with conflicting dimensions, on which these antecedents may have contradictory
effects. The purpose of this review paper is to reflect on these dimensions of
organizational learning and to identify contradictory effects of these antecedents.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In the next section dimensions and
antecedents of the concept of organizational learning are discussed and reviewed. From
this review the two antecedents empowerment and knowledge conversion are singled
out and their effects on the dimensions of organizational learning are examined.
Finally, limitations are discussed and implications for managerial practice and
directions for future research are provided.

Organizational learning: dimensions and antecedents

For the purpose of this paper we regard organizational learning as the “detection and
correction of error”, whereby an error is defined as the discrepancy between what
 TLO members in an organizational context aspire to achieve and what they actually achieve
18,5 (Argyris and Schön, 1978, p. 2; 1996; March and Olsen, 1975). Along these lines, there
appears a certain amount of conceptual agreement in the literature that learning may
be accomplished along two dimensions. In its first, basic dimension, learning is
action-oriented, routine, and incremental, occurring within existing mental models,
norms, policies and underlying assumptions. In its second, higher dimension, learning
380 involves changing mental models, norms, policies and assumptions underlying
day-to-day actions and routines (e.g. Argyris, 1996; Arthur and Aiman-Smith, 2001;
Miner and Mezias, 1996; Visser, 2007). The more complex, dynamic and turbulent the
organization’s environment, the more necessary the second, higher form of learning is
considered to be[1].
In the literature these two dimensions appear under a variety of labels: single-loop
and double-loop learning (e.g. Argyris and Schön, 1978, 1996); lower-level and
higher-level learning (Fiol and Lyles, 1985); first-order and second-order learning
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

(Adler and Clark, 1991; Arthur and Aiman-Smith, 2001; Lant and Mezias, 1992; Virany
et al., 1992); exploitation and exploration in learning (Levinthal and March, 1993;
March, 1991); incremental and radical learning (Miner and Mezias, 1996; Sörensen,
2002); passive and active learning orientation (Sadler-Smith et al., 2001); adaptive and
generative learning (Senge, 1990); local search and long jump (Levinthal, 1997), to
mention just a few. In the remainder of this paper we adopt the terms first-order and
second-order learning to cover these two dimensions.
There is, however, less conceptual agreement in the literature on the exact nature of
the relationship between first-order and second-order learning. On the one hand, it is
often recognized that both dimensions of learning are essential to organizational
survival and that they need to be addressed simultaneously, a notion referred to as
ambidexterity (Duncan, 1976; Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008). First-order learning is
necessary for an organization to be aligned and efficient in its management of current
business demands, while second-order learning is necessary to be adaptive to changes
in a rapidly changing environment and to manage future business demands. A well
balanced combination of the two types of learning will lead to long-term organizational
success (Easterby-Smith and Prieto, 2008; Jansen et al., 2006; Levinthal and March,
1993).
On the other hand, it is often acknowledged that the relationship between first and
second-order learning may be conflicting. As both dimensions compete for the same
limited available resources, efforts to enhance learning on one dimension may limit
success on the other (Levinthal and March, 1993; March, 1991). Additionally, first-order
and second-order learning may actually exhibit reciprocal disrupting effects.
First-order learning involves adapting actions and routines within existing (mental)
frameworks and underlying assumptions, whereas second-order learning challenges
the very frameworks and assumptions that underlie such actions and routines.
Learning in one dimension thus complicates or inhibits learning in the other dimension
(Adler and Clark, 1991; Wang and Rafiq, 2009). This makes the two dimensions of
learning more or less incompatible (Gharajedaghi, 1999) and organizations may have to
face trade-offs in learning.
While most students of organizational learning seem to acknowledge that
organizational learning is at least two-dimensional and that these two dimensions may
 be conflicting, studies on antecedents of organizational learning appear to neglect this Dimensions of
notion in at least four ways. organizational
First, when looking at the definitions of organizational learning used in these
studies, we often find that they do not reflect the two-dimensionality of organizational learning
learning. For example, Harvey and Denton (1999, p. 899) regard organizational learning
as “the distinctive behaviors that are characteristic of a learning organization”, which
is a theoretically ‘empty’ definition. Others, however, do define organizational learning 381
in terms of knowledge acquisition and use, but do not indicate whether this knowledge
originates from changing routine behavior (i.e. first-order learning) or from changing
mental frameworks (i.e. second-order learning). Such definitions of organizational
learning include “an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring
knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights”
(Garvin, 1993, p. 80), or “the propensity of the firm to create and use knowledge”
(Sinkula et al., 1997, p. 309), or “the development of new knowledge or insights that
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

have the potential to influence behavior” (Slater and Narver, 1995, p. 63).
Second, some authors do recognize that antecedents of organizational learning may
affect different dimensions, but deliberately choose to focus on a single dimension. For
example, Galer and Van der Heijden (1992, p. 6) explicitly mention the distinction
between single loop and double loop learning, but in their article they indicate that
“learning will be interpreted in the ‘double loop’ sense of the word”. The same is true
for Nevis et al. (1995, p. 83), who state that the learning process includes three areas:
knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization and that, in
order to improve their learning capacity, organizations may decide to focus on any of
these areas. However, they add to this that, while it may be necessary to address all
areas of organizational learning simultaneously, “focusing on a single area is more
manageable”.
Third, in some contributions the two-dimensionality of organizational learning is
acknowledged, but not when investigating the effects of antecedents. For example,
Slater and Narver (1995) acknowledge the difference between adaptive and generative
learning, but when discussing antecedents of organizational learning, the authors use
their initial definition as the dependent variable, not clearly distinguishing between the
two dimensions. In discussing their set of organizational antecedents, they do not
address how each of these affects each of the dimensions.
Finally, in other instances the two-dimensionality of the concept is acknowledged
and actually used when investigating the effects of antecedents. However, here it
appears that dimensions are treated as being independent and as having different and
exclusive antecedents. For example, Gómez et al. (2005, p. 717) consider organizational
learning as a complex multidimensional construct and therefore argue that, to exhibit a
high degree of learning, the organization “should show a high degree of learning in
each and every one of the dimensions defined”. These dimensions include managerial
commitment, systems perspective, openness and experimentation, and knowledge
transfer and integration. For each of these dimensions they discuss related antecedents.
They do however, relate these antecedents to one dimension only, and ignore the
possibility that antecedents might affect other dimensions as well.
The conclusion seems warranted that research on antecedents of organizational
learning does not always pay attention to the fact that organizational learning has
different dimensions, that these dimensions may be conflicting, and that antecedents
 TLO may have contradictory effects on these dimensions. We will attempt to address this
18,5 lack of attention by discussing the effects antecedents have on the dimensions on
organizational learning. However, as discussed we limit ourselves to two antecedents
that have been well-researched and have been found to be quite influential:
empowerment and knowledge conversion (e.g. Alegre and Chiva, 2008; Chiva and
Alegre, 2009; Goh, 2003).
382
Empowerment and organizational learning
The concept of empowerment was introduced by Kanter (1983) as a successor to the
older command-and-control approach, in which power in organizations is centralized
and in which management directs employees what to do and how to do it. In an
empowered organization, power has largely been decentralized to employees of lower
echelons, giving them a responsibility to make their own decisions (Randolph, 2000).
Empowerment may be defined as “the process of enhancing an individual’s or group’s
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

capacity to make purposive choices and to transform those choices into desired actions
and outcomes” (Alsop et al., 2005, p. 1). Elements associated with empowerment
typically include authority delegation, motivation, job enrichment, autonomy,
self-leadership, high-involvement and participative management, although not all of
these elements appear in empirical practice (Jaw and Liu, 2003; Lee and Koh, 2001;
Lopez et al., 2006).
Empowerment affects organizational learning in various ways. In a decentralized,
flat, team-based organizational structure, employees have the opportunity to evaluate
their work effectiveness and to suggest measures for improvement, thereby replacing
old routines by new ones. This flexibility helps the organization to adapt to a rapidly
changing external and internal environment, with employees becoming more adaptive
to present circumstances and more predisposed towards innovative behavior (Drumm,
1995; Örtenblad, 2004; Scott and Bruce, 1994).
Important in relation to empowerment is the distinction between internal and
external commitment. External commitment refers to contractual compliance in which
employees do what is expected of them by others. In this type of commitment,
management defines the objectives, goals and plans. Internal commitment, on the other
hand, refers to the participation of employees in defining goals and performing
standards, making employees feel more involved in accomplishing their tasks.
Employees are no longer merely concerned with how to effectively carry out their
prescribed tasks, but they become actively involved with the underlying mental
models, norms, policies and assumptions of their work, thus increasing reflection and
learning (Argyris, 1998; Randolph, 2000).
Although most authors seem to agree on the positive effects of empowerment on
organizational learning, others have pointed at negative effects. For example, Chang
and Harrington (2002) argue that, as business practices are placed under the
responsibility of lower echelon employees, they are adapted to local conditions.
Therefore, the degree of knowledge sharing is likely to diminish, since what works in
some conditions might not work in other conditions. Or, even if conditions are similar,
lessons learned from individual experiences may not be captured at the organizational
level, since empowerment through a decentralized approach implies that organizations
must reduce standardization in the form of work standards, formalized guidelines,
procedures and policy manuals shared by the entire organization (Bowen and Lawler,
 1992; Simons, 1995). A reduction of capturing knowledge in routines and formalized Dimensions of
guidelines logically means a restriction with respect to reusing existing knowledge. organizational
Mills and Ungson (2003) also argue that the limits of empowerments have not been
well articulated in the literature. They state that the concept of empowerment might learning
lead to opportunism as employees may focus their attention on making divisional,
rather than organizational profits, placing the interests of the employees’ own division
above the interests of the entire organization. This may induce a poor flow of 383
information across divisions, as organizations start to behave as internal markets, with
knowledge as a trading resource. Thus, empowerment may limit the dissemination of
knowledge and restrict the organization in reusing existing knowledge.
Another negative effect of empowerment is explained by Alvesson and Willmott
(1992). They argue that, on the one hand, empowerment (or emancipation as they call
it) may provoke employees to challenge existing norms and to call into question
long-established belief systems, which is necessary for innovation. On the other hand,
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

this may also “estrange the individual from the tradition that has formed his or her
very subjectivity” (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992, p. 447). This may cause a loss of a
sense of shared identity, which is a key factor in providing direction for organizational
learning (Senge, 1990).
It may be concluded that empowerment is an important antecedent to
organizational learning, but that its effects on learning are not uniformly positive.
This becomes more comprehensible when the effects of empowerment are related to the
different dimensions of organizational learning: first-order and second-order. With this
in mind, it seems that empowerment improves the development of new knowledge as it
allows organizational members to develop their own ideas and practices and to adapt
to local current circumstances. It provides employees with the ability to reflect on the
underlying governing values of their work and to come up with new solutions.
Therefore it seems that empowerment positively affects the second-order dimension of
organizational learning.
On the other hand, empowerment may at the same time lead to individualistic
approaches and fragmented learning experiences that may not become embedded at
the organizational level, due to experiences being connected to specific (local)
conditions or due to a weakened link to organizational routines. Empowerment may
also lead to a limited reuse of existing knowledge as a result of opportunistic behavior,
instigated by the decentralization of decision-making responsibilities. Therefore, it also
seems that empowerment negatively affects the first-order dimension of organizational
learning (see left side of Table I).

Knowledge conversion and organizational learning

Knowledge conversion refers to the creation of new knowledge through the interaction
between tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Nonaka (1994) presents four
modes of knowledge conversion:
(1) socialization;
(2) combination;
(3) externalization; and
(4) internalization.
 TLO
Empowerment Knowledge conversion
18,5
First-order Negative effects Positive effects
learning Individualistic approaches and Converting insights, identified mistakes
fragmented learning experiences are not and successes into organizational
embedded at the organizational level standards encourages future reuse
384 Opportunistic behavior leads to a limited
reuse of existing knowledge
Embedding insights in organizational
systems and processes enables
Challenging existing norms and long- routinization, so that lessons learned can
established belief systems causes a loss be enacted upon by all employees
of shared identity providing the
direction for organizational learning
Second-order Positive effects Negative effects
learning Employees have more flexibility to An overly dominant focus on current
adapt to local current circumstances procedures hampers the ability to reflect
Table I. Employees are more actively involved on, and change underlying mental
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

The effects of with underlying governing values of models, norms, policies and assumptions
empowerment and their work Fixed rules and routines reduce the
knowledge conversion on likelihood that new problems are
first- and second-order perceived as opportunities for second-
learning order learning

Socialization is the process in which tacit knowledge is transferred through shared

experiences in joint activities (Nonaka et al., 2001). Traditional apprenticeship, in
which an apprentice learns a skill from a master, and on-the-job-training are typical
examples. Combination is the process in which explicit knowledge is paired with
other explicit knowledge that is more complex and systematic through specific
media. Externalization is the process in which tacit knowledge is articulated as
explicit knowledge. By means of externalization tacit skills are made concrete, for
example through a manual, database, or specific knowledge management
methodology (e.g. Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001). The process of internalization
is the embodiment of explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. In this process people
acquire know-how through experiencing explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka
et al., 2001).
Knowledge conversion affects organizational learning in various ways. Lessons
learned from previous error detection and correction constitute new knowledge, which
through the various personal and impersonal processes mentioned above is being
converted for organizational use. For example, Darling et al. (2005) focus on the effect
of knowledge conversion on organizational learning through the use of after-action
reviews, in which implemented actions are evaluated. These after-action reviews create
a tight feedback cycle between thinking and action, thereby converting insights,
identified mistakes and successes into best practices and standards so that they can be
used again.
Knowledge conversion may also aid in new product development. Formal routines
need to be adopted so that knowledge can be used in future development projects. This
encourages employees to focus their attention on prior projects and their outcomes
when they start working on new projects. According to Marsh and Stock (2006, p. 426),
one way of retaining knowledge is through articulation or codification, by which tacit
 knowledge is made explicit. This may be done through formal audits, newsletters, Dimensions of
reports and seminars to retain knowledge. The authors state that “the codification of organizational
knowledge can lead to specific routines that have predictable outcomes”.
Hislop (2005) relates knowledge conversion, which he calls the utilization and learning
institutionalization of existing knowledge, to first-order learning. Through embedding
insights in organizational systems and processes, activities become routinized, so that
they can be enacted upon by all employees, creating organizational learning. Similarly, 385
Antonacopolou (2001) acknowledges that the effect of knowledge conversion through
formal training may be especially strong for first-order learning, as individuals learn
what is in line with organizational policy. The effect of training on second-order
learning is found to be only weak, and it is suggested that the total effect of training
may therefore only be superficial and mechanistic.
Although most authors seem to agree on the positive effects of knowledge
conversion on organizational learning, others have pointed at negative effects. For
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

example, Levitt and March (1988) argue that knowledge conversion may develop into a
competency trap. The continuous, incremental improvement and implementation of
existing knowledge, which is the effect of knowledge conversion, may cause such a
dominant focus on specific procedures that their effectiveness becomes taken for
granted and other, possibly superior, procedures are ignored.
This effect of knowledge conversion is confirmed by Crossan et al. (1999, p. 534),
who argue that, even though embedding insights and knowledge in organizational
systems and processes is necessary to enable routinized action, “learning that has
become institutionalized at the organizational level is often difficult to change”. Thus,
embedding knowledge through processes of knowledge conversion can introduce an
inability to reflect on and change underlying mental models, norms, policies and
assumptions.
Similarly, Boal (2007) observes that the transfer of know-how and tacit knowledge
in organizations is promoted through strong network ties, in which employees are
highly connected. However, in such strong network ties the same knowledge may be
continuously reinforced, leading to an emphasis on first-order learning at the detriment
of second-order learning. She concludes that, even though knowledge conversion
promotes the organization’s capability to exploit its competencies, it may in unstable
environments inhibit second-order learning and exploration.
Finally, March et al. (2000) state that the rules and routines resulting from
knowledge conversion may lead to a feeling of familiarity with dealing with problems.
This may reduce the likelihood that problems are perceived as opportunities for
second-order learning.
It may be concluded that knowledge conversion is an important antecedent to
organizational learning, but that its effects on learning are not uniformly positive.
However, in comparison to empowerment, these effects are reversed. It seems that
knowledge conversion improves the reuse of existing knowledge and promotes its
dissemination throughout the organization. Lessons learned from past experiences are
remembered and used whenever necessary or useful. Therefore, it seems that
knowledge conversion positively affects the first-order dimension of organizational
learning.
On the other hand, knowledge conversion may at the same time limit organizational
members in being flexible and open-minded and being able to adapt to changing
 TLO circumstances on the spot, because of an ever-present emphasis on the use of
18,5 organizational routines. Therefore, it also seems that knowledge conversion negatively
affects the second-order dimension of organizational learning (Table I).

Conclusions and implications

386 This paper argues that, although the literature predominantly regards organizational
learning as at least a two-dimensional construct with conflicting dimensions, research
on antecedents of organizational learning does not specifically address this notion.
This research appears to treat organizational learning as a one-dimensional measure,
or, if the concept’s two-dimensionality is acknowledged, ignores the fact that these
dimensions might be conflicting. To address this gap in the literature, this paper has
discussed two antecedents of organizational learning often mentioned in the literature:
empowerment and knowledge conversion. A review of the literature shows that the
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

effects of these antecedents are not confined to a single dimension. Rather, it seems that
empowerment affects second-order learning in a positive sense, but affects first-order
learning in a negative sense. Also, it appears that knowledge conversion positively
affects first-order learning, but negatively affects second-order learning.
These findings have several implications for managerial practice and empirical
research. For practicing managers it may be useful to recognize that efforts to improve
organizational learning on one dimension may have other (unintended) effects on the
other, unmeasured dimension. For example, empowering lower-level employees to take
on more decision-making responsibilities is likely to lead to more creativity, reflection
on governing values, and development of new solutions, but also to fragmentation of
learning, individualistic and opportunistic behavior, and a weakening of routines.
Improving knowledge conversion among employees is likely to lead to an
improvement of work standards and routines through dissemination of lessons
learned, but also to decreasing reflection on governing values and less novel
applications of existing knowledge to new problems. Managers should be aware of the
possible side effects of their efforts, and these should be taken into account when
considering learning goals and strategies.
Implications for empirical research are twofold. First, given the potential gains and
losses associated with different antecedents of organizational learning, further
research seems warranted to sort out the precise impact of antecedents, since the
current investigation is limited to two antecedents only. Future research might engage
in empirically investigating the effect of multiple antecedents and should focus on their
combined effects. Examples of such antecedents include learning climate, managerial
leadership and commitment, and clarity of vision, mission and purpose. While research
on ambidexterity (e.g. Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008; Jansen et al., 2005, 2006) appears
to head in that direction, research on organizational learning capability (e.g. Galer and
Van Der Heijden, 1992; Gómez et al., 2005; Nevis et al., 1995) generally does not. Second,
it seems desirable to assess additional dimensions of organizational learning. In this
paper, the relevant dimensions of organizational learning are restricted to first-order
and second-order learning. In the literature other types, levels and modes of learning
have been assessed as well. All these could be further theoretically integrated and
empirically researched to arrive at a more holistic view of organizational learning and
its antecedents.
 Note Dimensions of
1. In addition, some authors have distinguished a third dimension of organizational learning, organizational
variously labeled deutero-learning (e.g. Argyris and Schön, 1978; 1996; Rowe and Boyce,
2009; Visser, 2007) or triple-loop learning (e.g. Romme and Van Witteloostuyn, 1999; Snell learning
and Chak, 1998; Yuthas et al., 2004). Unlike the two other dimensions, however, in the
literature there appears to be little conceptual consensus on what this dimension exactly
signifies (Visser, 2007). 387

References
Adler, P.S. and Clark, K.B. (1991), “Behind the learning curve: a sketch of the learning process”,
Management Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 267-81.
Alegre, J. and Chiva, R. (2008), “Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on
product innovation performance: an empirical test”, Technovation, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 315-26.
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M. and Holland, J. (2005), Empowerment in Practice: From Analysis to
Implementation, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992), “On the idea of emancipation in management and
organizational studies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 432-54.
Antonacopolou, E.A. (2001), “The paradoxical nature of the relationship between training and
learning”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 327-50.
Argyris, C. (1996), “Unrecognized defenses of scholars: impact on theory and research”,
Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 79-87.
Argyris, C. (1998), “Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76
No. 3, pp. 98-105.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Arthur, J.B. and Aiman-Smith, L. (2001), “Gainsharing and organizational learning: an analysis
of employee suggestions over time”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4,
pp. 737-54.
Bapuji, H. and Crossan, M. (2004), “From questions to answers: reviewing organizational
learning research”, Management Learning, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 397-417.
Boal, K.B. (2007), “Strategic leadership, organizational learning, and network ties”,
in Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J., Antonakis, J., Boal, K. and Lane, N. (Eds), Being There even
when You Are Not: Leading through Strategy, Structures, and Systems. Monographs in
Leadership and Management, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 69-86.
Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. (1992), “The empowerment of service workers: what, why, when,
and how”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 31-9.
Cangelosi, V.E. and Dill, W.R. (1965), “Organizational learning: observations toward a theory”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 175-203.
Chang, M.H. and Harrington, J.E. (2002), “Decentralized business strategies in a multi-unit firm”,
Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 109 Nos 1-4, pp. 77-98.
Chapman, R.L., Kennedy, J.L., Newell, A. and Biel, W.C. (1959), “The systems research
laboratory’s air defense experiments”, Management Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 250-69.
 TLO Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2009), “Organizational learning capability and job satisfaction:
an empirical assessment in the ceramic tile industry”, British Journal of Management,
18,5 Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 323-40.
Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W. and White, R.E. (1999), “An organizational learning framework: from
intuition to institution”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 522-37.
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice Hall, Englewood
388 Cliffs, NJ.
Darling, M., Parry, C. and Moore, J. (2005), “Learning in the thick of it”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 83 No. 7, pp. 84-93.
Drumm, H.J. (1995), “The paradigm of a new decentralization: its implications for organizations
and HRM”, Employee Relations, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 29-45.
Duncan, R. (1976), “The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation”,
in Kilman, R.H., Pondy, L.R. and Slovin, D.P. (Eds), The Management of Organization:
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

Strategies and Implementation, North Holland, New York, NY, pp. 167-88.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. (1999), “Organizational learning: current debates and
opportunities”, in Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (Eds), Organizational
Learning and the Learning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice, Sage,
London, pp. 1-22.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (2003), “Introduction: watersheds of organizational learning
and knowledge management”, in Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (Eds), Blackwell
Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell, Oxford,
pp. 1-15.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Prieto, I.M. (2008), “Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management:
an integrative role for learning?”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 235-49.
Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), “Organizational learning”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 803-13.
Galer, G. and Van Der Heijden, K. (1992), “The learning organization: how planners create
organizational learning”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 5-12.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 78-92.
Gharajedaghi, J. (1999), Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Butterworth Heinemann, Boston, MA.
Goh, S.C. (2003), “Improving organizational learning capability: lessons from two case studies”,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 216-27.
Gómez, P.J., Lorente, J.C. and Cabrera, R.V. (2005), “Organizational learning capability: a proposal
for measurement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 715-25.
Grieves, J. (2008), “Why we should abandon the idea of the learning organization”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 463-73.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), “What’s your strategy for managing
knowledge?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-16.
Harvey, C. and Denton, J. (1999), “To come of age: the antecedents of organizational learning”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 897-918.
Hislop, D. (2005), Knowledge Management in Organizations: A Critical Introduction, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
 Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. and Volberda, H.W. (2005), “Managing potential and realized Dimensions of
absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter?”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 999-1015. organizational
Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. and Volberda, H.W. (2006), “Exploratory innovation, learning
exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and
environmental moderators”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 1661-74.
Jaw, B.S. and Liu, W. (2003), “Promoting organizational learning and self-renewal in Taiwanese 389
companies: the role of HRM”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 223-41.
Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American
Corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Lant, T.K. and Mezias, S.J. (1992), “An organizational learning model of convergence and
reorientation”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 47-71.
Lee, M. and Koh, J. (2001), “Is empowerment really a new concept?”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 684-95.
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

Levinthal, D. (1997), “Adaptation on rugged landscapes”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 7,

pp. 934-50.
Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993), “The myopia of learning”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 14, Special issue, pp. 95-112.
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), “Organizational learning”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 319-40.
Lopez, S.P., Peon, J.M. and Ordas, C.J. (2006), “Human resource management as a determining
factor in organizational learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 215-39.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization
Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1975), “The uncertainty of the past: organizational learning under
ambiguity”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 147-71.
March, J.G., Schulz, M. and Zhou, X. (2000), The Dynamics of Rules: Change in Written
Organizational Codes, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Marsh, S.J. and Stock, G.N. (2006), “Creating dynamic capability: the role of intertemporal
integration, knowledge retention, and interpretation”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 422-36.
Mills, P.K. and Ungson, G.R. (2003), “Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment:
organisational constitution and trust as controls”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 143-53.
Miner, A.S. and Mezias, S.J. (1996), “Ugly duckling no more: pasts and futures of organizational
learning research”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 88-100.
Nevis, E.C., Dibella, A. and Gould, J.M. (1995), “Understanding organizations as learning
systems”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 73-85.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization
Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Byosière, P. (2001), “A theory of organizational knowledge creation:
understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge”, in Dierkes, M.,
Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning
and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 491-517.
Örtenblad, A. (2002), “A typology of the idea of learning organization”, Management Learning,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 213-30.
 TLO Örtenblad, A. (2004), “The learning organization: towards an integrated model”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 129-44.
18,5
Örtenblad, A. (2007), “Senge’s many faces: problem or opportunity”, The Learning Organization,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 108-22.
Pearn, M., Roderick, C. and Mulrooney, C. (1995), Learning Organizations in Practice,
McGraw-Hill, London.
390 Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008), “Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and
moderators”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 375-409.
Randolph, W. (2000), “Re-thinking empowerment: why is it so hard to achieve?”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 94-107.
Romme, A.G.L. and Van Witteloostuyn, A. (1999), “Circular organizing and triple-loop learning”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 439-54.
Rowe, P.A. and Boyce, R.A. (2009), “Deutero-learning: implications for managing public health
change”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 298-310.
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

Rubenstein-Montano, B., Liebowitz, J., Buchwalter, J., McCaw, D., Newman, B. and Rebeck, K.
(2001), “SMARTVision: a knowledge-management methodology”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 300-10.
Sadler-Smith, E., Spicer, D.P. and Chaston, I. (2001), “Learning orientations and growth in smaller
firms”, Longe Range Planning, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 139-58.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of
individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 580-607.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Bantam
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Shipton, H. (2006), “Cohesion or confusion: towards a typology of organizational learning
research”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 233-52.
Simons, R. (1995), Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive
Strategic Renewal, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E. and Noordewier, T. (1997), “A framework for market-based
organizational learning: linking values, knowledge and behavior”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 305-18.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74.
Smith, P.A.C. (2008), “The Learning Organization turns 15: a retrospective”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 441-8.
Snell, R. and Chak, A. (1998), “The learning organization: learning and empowerment for
whom?”, Management Learning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 337-64.
Sörensen, J.B. (2002), “The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 70-91.
Tsang, E.W.K. (1997), “Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomy
between descriptive and prescriptive research”, Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 73-89.
Virany, B., Tushman, M.T. and Romanelli, E. (1992), “Executive succession and organization
outcomes in turbulent environments: an organization learning approach”, Organization
Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 72-91.
Visser, M. (2007), “Deutero-learning in organizations: a review and a reformulation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 659-67.
 Visser, M. (2008), “Learning under conditions of hierarchy and discipline: the case of the German Dimensions of
Army. 1939-1940”, Learning Inquiry, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 127-37.
Visser, M. (2010), “Configurations of human resource practices and battlefield performance:
organizational
a comparison of two armies”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, learning
pp. 340-9.
Wang, L. and Rafiq, M. (2009), “Organizational diversity and shared vision: resolving the
paradox of exploratory and exploitative learning”, European Journal of Innovation 391
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 86-101.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organization, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Yuthas, K., Dillard, J. and Rogers, R. (2004), “Beyond agency and structure: triple-loop learning”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 229-43.

Corresponding author
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

Marlieke Van Grinsven can be contacted at: m_van_grinsven@hotmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Ali Aminrezaei. A Study on the Potential of Systematic Unconscious Learning in Fostering the Ties
between Individual Learning and Organizational Sustainability 187-193. [Crossref]
2. CaniëlsMarjolein C.J., Marjolein C.J. Caniëls, NeghinaCarmen, Carmen Neghina, SchaetsaertNico, Nico
Schaetsaert. 2017. Ambidexterity of employees: the role of empowerment and knowledge sharing. Journal
of Knowledge Management 21:5, 1098-1119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. PradhanRabindra Kumar, Rabindra Kumar Pradhan, JenaLalatendu Kesari, Lalatendu Kesari Jena,
SinghSanjay Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Singh. 2017. Examining the role of emotional intelligence between
organizational learning and adaptive performance in Indian manufacturing industries. Journal of Workplace
Learning 29:3, 235-247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. VisserMax, Max Visser. 2017. Teaching giants to learn: lessons from army learning in World War II. The
Learning Organization 24:3, 159-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Jacob Guinot, Ricardo Chiva, Fermín Mallén. 2016. Linking Altruism and Organizational Learning
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)

Capability: A Study from Excellent Human Resources Management Organizations in Spain. Journal of
Business Ethics 138:2, 349-364. [Crossref]
6. VisserMax, Max Visser. 2016. Organizational learning capability and battlefield performance. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis 24:4, 573-590. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Max Visser. Management Control, Accountability, and Learning in Public Sector Organizations: A Critical
Analysis 75-93. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Kaveh Hasani, Saman Sheikhesmaeili. 2016. Knowledge management and employee empowerment.
Kybernetes 45:2, 337-355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Jurgita Giniuniene, Lolita Jurksiene. 2015. Dynamic Capabilities, Innovation and Organizational
Learning: Interrelations and Impact on Firm Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 213,
985-991. [Crossref]
10. Erhan Aydin, Alparslan Sahin Gormus. 2015. Does organizational forgetting matter? Organizational
survival for life coaching companies. The Learning Organization 22:3, 150-162. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
11. Jacob Guinot, Ricardo Chiva, Fermín Mallén. 2015. The effects of altruism and relationship conflict
on organizational learning. International Journal of Conflict Management 26:1, 85-112. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
12. Pelin Kanten, Selahattin Kanten, Mert Gurlek. 2015. The Effects of Organizational Structures and
Learning Organization on Job Embeddedness and Individual Adaptive Performance. Procedia Economics
and Finance 23, 1358-1366. [Crossref]
13. Caroline Swee Lin Tan, Kosmas X. Smyrnios, Lin Xiong. 2014. What drives learning orientation in fast
growth SMEs?. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 20:4, 324-350. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
14. Milena M. Parent, Darlene MacDonald, Gabriel Goulet. 2014. The theory and practice of knowledge
management and transfer: The case of the Olympic Games. Sport Management Review 17:2, 205-218.
[Crossref]
15. Marcel Arends, Paul H.J. Hendriks. 2014. Smart grids, smart network companies. Utilities Policy 28,
1-11. [Crossref]
 16. John Pourdehnad, Peter A.C. Smith. 2012. Sustainability, organizational learning, and lessons learned
from aviation. The Learning Organization 19:1, 77-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Peter A.C. Smith. 2012. The importance of organizational learning for organizational sustainability. The
Learning Organization 19:1, 4-10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Peter A. C. Smith, Tom Cockburn. Reflecting Emerging Digital Technologies in Leadership Models
1662-1688. [Crossref]
19. Peter A. C. Smith, Tom Cockburn. Reflecting Emerging Digital Technologies in Leadership Models
1822-1848. [Crossref]
20. Peter A. C. Smith, Tom Cockburn. Reflecting Emerging Digital Technologies in Leadership Models
19-44. [Crossref]
21. . Dynamic Leadership Process 33-64. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Tulane University At 09:47 15 March 2018 (PT)