Organization Learning: A Sociocognitive Model Of Strategic Management

The traditional view of strategic management suggests that the performance of the organization is dependent upon the fit between its strategy and the internal and external environment. However, this rational-analytic view neglects the critical question of how organizations learn about their environment and then act on the knowledge/understanding. This dissertation develops a sociocognitive model of strategic management which is rooted in an organization learning paradigm. The sociocognitive model acts as a framework for identifying points of leverage to improve an organization\u27s collective interpretation of the environment.;It is hypothesized that the ability to interpret complex, dynamic domains is likely to reside in a group of individuals with a high potential level of interpretation; that is, a group with diverse and complex schemas. Integration is, however, key to exploiting cognitive diversity within a group. Based on the level of potential interpretation and the degree of integration achieved by a group, four types of organization schema are proposed: Impoverished (low interpretation and integration), Contentious (high interpretation, low integration), Groupthink (low interpretation, high integration), and Productive (high interpretation and integration).;The model was applied to a debate in the strategic management literature: whether consensus on goals and/or means leads to better performance. The cognitive perspective provides a different interpretation of consensus, suggesting that previous research has not distinguished among Impoverished, Groupthink and Productive schemas.;A total of 398 graduates and undergraduates, randomly assigned to 70 groups, participated in the week long Markstrat simulation. Cause maps were elicited from the respondents for the purpose of measuring schema complexity and view divergence.;The results of the study supported the importance of integration. As well, a high level of potential interpretation without integration (Contentious groups) was consistently associated with extremely poor performance, as expected. The results suggest that while Productive groups had a high level of performance, it was difficult for groups to integrate their high level of diversity and complexity. Moreover, failing to do so led to very poor performance, as found in the Contentious groups. Overall, the results provided strong support for the model and for the use of cause mapping techniques to measure cognitive diversity

Time and Organizational Improvisation

This paper argues that the apparent contradiction in current conceptualizations of time in organizations (e.g., Chronos vs. Kairos) is only apparent, and that a synthesis between these opposing poles is both possible and desirable. We propose improvisation (where time to plan converges with time to act) as a vehicle for articulating a dialectical view of time-based organizational phenomena, while focusing on the three major time-related problems organizations have to solve: scheduling, synchronization, and allocation. The paper discusses how improvisation helps to synthesize even time and event time in scheduling processes, internal pacing and external pacing in synchronization processes, and linear and cyclical time in allocation processes. Methodological and practical obstacles to synthesis are also discussed.Improvisation, Planning, Time

Time and Organizational Improvisation

This paper argues that the apparent contradiction in current conceptualizations of time in organizations (e.g., Chronos vs. Kairos) is only apparent, and that a synthesis between these opposing poles is both possible and desirable. We propose improvisation (where time to plan converges with time to act) as a vehicle for articulating a dialectical view of time-based organizational phenomena, while focusing on the three major time-related problems organizations have to solve: scheduling, synchronization, and allocation. The paper discusses how improvisation helps to synthesize even time and event time in scheduling processes, internal pacing and external pacing in synchronization processes, and linear and cyclical time in allocation processes. Methodological and practical obstacles to synthesis are also discussed.N/

Leadership on Trial: A Manifesto for Leadership Development

Recent books and articles have analyzed the causes of the global financial and economic crisis of 2007-09. Yet little attention has been paid to the quality of leadership in organizations that were at the epicentre of the storm, were victims of it, avoided it or even prospered from it. In the summer of 2009 a multi-disciplinary group of Ivey faculty decided to look at the leadership dimensions of the recent financial and economic crisis. We started by writing a working paper that laid out our preliminary views. We then engaged more than 300 business, public sector and not-for-profit leaders in small and large groups, as individuals and collectives, to get their reaction to this paper and, more generally, to discuss the role that organizational leadership played before, during and after the crisis. We examined leadership not just in the financial sector but also in many other public and private sector organizations that were affected by the crisis. In a sense, we were putting leadership on trial. Our aim in doing this was not to identify and assign blame. Rather, we examined leadership during this critical period in recent history to learn what we could, and use the learning to improve the practice of leadership today and the development of next generation leaders. As we analyzed the role of leadership in this crisis we were faced with one major question: “Would better leadership have made a difference?” Our answer is unequivocal: “Yes!” We recognize that many people could argue it is unfair to criticize leaders whose decisions were based on their knowledge of the situation at the time and which only eventually, with the aid of 20/20 hindsight, proved bad. We respect this view but we disagree with it. Some business and public sector leaders predicted better than others the bursting of the housing bubble and financial markets turmoil, positioned their organizations to avoid problems, and coped with them skillfully. Their organizations were not badly damaged by the crisis and some even prospered. Some governments and regulatory agencies’ control and monitoring systems were superior to those in the U.S., the U.K., Ireland, Spain, Iceland and other countries that had to bail out their banks and other industries. Our evidence supports the conclusion that these companies, these agencies, these governments and these countries had better leadership. Good leadership mattered then and good leadership will matter in the future. We are presenting our conclusions about what good leadership involves in the form of a public statement of principles—a manifesto that addresses what good leaders do, who they are, and how they can be developed in organizations

Archaeological investigations at the Cruz Bay public cemetery in St. John, US Virgin Islands

The Jeffrey L. Brown Institute of Archaeology (JBIA) of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) in partnership with the Forensic Anthropology Center (FAC) of the University of Tennessee Knox-ville (UTK) performed archaeological monitoring and data recovery to remove and relocate burial features near the Cruz Bay Public Cemetery within the Cruz Bay Historic District in Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands. The current Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the cemetery excavations targets the portion of the historic Cruz Bay Public Cemetery impacted by the Cruz Bay Underground project, encompassing 132 m (433 ft) of conduit excavations within Strande Gade (Bay Street) and 30 m (98 ft) of conduit excavations within the Gallows Point Resort driveway.https://scholar.utc.edu/archaeology-reports/1089/thumbnail.jp

Perspectivas clásicas y modernas de las virtudes en la empresa (II)".

Este cuaderno contiene: "En busca de la virtud: el papel de las virtudes, los valores y las fortalezas de carácter en la toma de decisiones éticas" "Participar en el bien común de la empresa" "Antes de la virtud: biología, cerebro, comportamiento y ‘sentido moral’" "La posibilidad de la virtud

Improvisation and Transformation: Yes to the Mess

The field of organizational change has chiefly been studied from a teleological perspective. Most models of change emphasize action that is rational and goal oriented. What often gets overlooked and under theorized is the continuous, iterative nature of organizational life, the unplanned and serendipitous actions by and between people that lead to new discoveries and innovation. Recent research on organizational improvisation seeks to explore this area. In this chapter we will address two questions – what is the experience of improvisation and what are the conditions that support improvisation to flourish in organizations? In the first part of this paper, we look at the phenomenology of improvisation, the actual lived experience of those who improvise in the face of the unknown or in the midst of chaotic conditions. We will explore the strategies that some professional improvisers employ to deliberately create the improvisatory moment. We will then look at the dynamics of organizational life and explore the cultural beliefs, organizational structures, and leadership practices that support improvisation. We will draw primarily upon the model from Barrett (2012) that focuses on the how the nature of jazz improvisation and the factors that support improvisation can be transferred to leadership activities. This falls in the tradition of others who draw upon arts-based metaphors, including jazz music and theatrical improvisation, to suggest insights for leadership and ways of organizing. Since this is a book devoted to individual transformation as well as organizational transformation, we will also touch on the topic of how improvisation is a developmental project and explore the potential for improvisation to lead to personal transformation. We will attempt to move back and forth between both themes – organizational and personal transformation. Ultimately the two topics are not separate. Any significant organizational transformation begins with an improvisation. And any meaningful improvisatory move by a person is potentially a moment of self-discovery and an identity-shaping event

Effect of exploitation and exploration on the innovative as outcomes in entrepreneurial firms

[EN] The main aim of this study is to establish the effect of the Exploitation and Exploration; and the influence of these learning flows on the Innovative Outcome (IO). The Innovative Outcome refers to new products, services, processes (or improvements) that the organization has obtained as a result of an innovative process. For this purpose, a relationship model is defined, which is empirically contrasted, and can explains and predicts the cyclical dynamization of learning flows on innovative outcome in knowledge intensive firms. The quantitative test for this model use the data from entrepreneurial firms biotechnology sector. The statistical analysis applies a method based on variance using Partial Least Squares (PLS). Research results confirm the hypotheses, that is, they show a positive dynamic effect between the Exploration and the Innovative as outcomes. In the same vein, they results confirm the presence of the cyclic movement of innovative outcome with the Exploitation.In addition, this research is part of the Project ECO2015-71380-R funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and the State Research Agency. Co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).Vargas-Mendoza, NY.; Lloria, MB.; Salazar Afanador, A.; Vergara Domínguez, L. (2018). Effect of exploitation and exploration on the innovative as outcomes in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 14(4):1053-1069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0496-5S10531069144Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2008). Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: an empirical test. Technovation, 28, 315–326.Amara, N., Landry, R., Becheikh, N., & Ouimet, M. (2008). Learning and novelty of innovation in established manufacturing SMEs. Technovation, 28, 450–463.Aragón-Mendoza, J., Pardo del Val, M., & Roig, S. (2016). The influence of institutions development in venture creation decision: a cognitive view. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4941–4946.Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541–554.Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison Wesley.Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: two extensions international. Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 125–140.Belda, J., Vergara L., Salazar, A., & Safont G. (2018). Estimating the Laplacian matrix of Gaussian mixtures for signal processing on graphs, accepted for publication in Signal Processing.Boland, R. J. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372.Bontis, N., (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures models. Management Decision, 36, 63–76.Bontis, N. (1999). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows of knowledge: an empirical examination of intellectual capital, knowledge management, and business performance. 1999. Management of Innovation and New Technology Research Centre, McMaster University.Bontis, N., Keow, W., & Richardson, S. (2000). Intellectual capital and the nature of business in Malaysia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 85–100Bontis, N., Hullan, J., & Crossan, M. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 438–469.Brachos, D., Kostopulos, K., Sodersquist, K. E., & Prastacos, G. (2007). Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(5), 31–44.Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 515–524.Chang, T. J., Yeh, S. P., & Yeh, I. J. (2007). The effects of joint rewards system in new product development. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 276–297.Chin, W. (1998). The partial least square approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.) (pp. 294–336). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cho, N., Li, G., & Su, C. (2007). An empirical study on the effect of individual factors on knowledge sharing by knowledge type. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 3(2), 1–15.Cohen, W. M., & Levin, R. C. (1989). Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. Schmalansee & R. D. Willing (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization II. New York: Elsevier.Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive-capacity – a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.Cooper, R. G. (2000). New product performance: what distinguishes the star products. Austrian Journal of Management, 25, 17–45.Crossan, M., & Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1087–1105.Crossan, M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.Crossan, M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537.Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454.Damanpour, F., & Shanthi, G. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of products and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 21–65.Decarolis, D. M., & Deeds, D. L. (1999). The impact of stock and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 953–968.Demartini, C. (2015). Relationships between social and intellectual capital: empirical Evidence from IC statements. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(2), 99–111.Dupuy, F. (2004). Sharing knowledge: they why and how of organizational change. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. I. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2013). Deciphering antecedents of organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66(5), 575–584.Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2014). Configurational paths to organizational innovation: qualitative comparative analyses of antecedents and contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1285–1292.Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. International Journal of Management Science, 25, 15–28.Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design. New York: Oxford University.Hedlund, G., & Nonaka, I. (1993). Models of knowledge management in the west and Japan. In: P. Lorange, B. Chacravrarthy, J. Ross, and J. Van de ven (Eds.) Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use the partial least squares path modeling. In: R. Sinkovics and N. Pervez (Eds.) 277–319.Hsu, I. (2006). Enhancing employee tendencies to share knowledge-case studies on nine companies in Taiwan. International Journal of Information Management, 26(4), 326–338.Hsu, I. (2008). Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating factor for improving organizational performance though human capital: a preliminary test. Expert Systems with Application, 35, 316–1326.Huang, Q., Davison, R., & Gu, J. (2008). Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge sharing in China. Asia Pacific Journal Management, 25(3), 451–471.Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement – determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501.Iebra, I. L., Zegarra, P. S., & Zegarra, A. S. (2011). Learning for sharing: an empirical analysis of organizational learning and knowledge sharin. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 7, 509–518.Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359.Jenkin, T. (2013). Extending the 4I organizational learning model: information sources, foraging processes and tools. Administrative Sciences, 3, 96–109.Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 408–417.Kane, G. C., & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational learning: an investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science, 18(5), 796–812.Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, N. N., Muller, K. E. (1988). Applied regression analysis and other Multivariable’s methods, PWS KENT.Klomp, L., & Van Leeuwen, G. (2001). Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(3), 343–364.Lansisalmi, H., Kivimaki, M., Aalto, P., & Ruoranen, R. (2006). Innovation in healthcare: a systematic review of recent research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(1), 66–72.Laperrière, A., & Spence, M. (2015). Enacting international opportunities: the role of organizational learning in knowledge-intensive business services. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 212–241.Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.Lin, H. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.Lloria, M. B., & Moreno-Luzón, M. D. (2014). Organizational learning: proposal of an integrative scale and research instrument. Journal of Business Research, 67, 692–697.March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2, 71–87.Matikainen, M., Terho, H., Parvinen, P., & Juppo, A. (2016). The role and impact of firm’s strategic orientations on launch performance: significance of relationship orientation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(5), 625–639.Mone, M. A., McKinley, W., & Barker, V. L. (1998). Organizational decline and innovation: a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 23, 115–132.Moreno-Luzón, M. D., & Lloria, B. (2008). The role of non-structural and informal mechanisms of integration and integration as forces in knowledge creation. British Journal of Management, 19, 250–276.Moskaliuk, J., Bokhorst, F., & Cress, U. (2016). Learning from others' experiences: how patterns foster interpersonal transfer of knowledge-in-use. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 69–75.Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: a study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 12, 1147–1164.Pew, H., Plowman, D., & Hancock, P. (2008). The involving research on intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9, 585–608.Potter, R. E., & Balthazard, P. A. (2004). The role of individual memory and attention processes during electronic brainstorming. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 621–643.Ramadani, V., Hyrije, A. A., Léo-Paul, D., Gadaf, R., & Sadudin, I. (2017). The impact of knowledge spillovers and innovation on firm-performance: findings from the Balkans countries. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 13, 299–325.Ren, S., Shu, R., Bao, Y., & Chen, X. (2016). Linking network ties to entrepreneurial opportunity discovery and exploitation: the role of affective and cognitive trust. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 465–485.Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). Smart PLS 2.0 (M3) beta, Hamburg: http://www.smartpls.de .Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.Sanchez, R., & Heene, A. (1997). A competence perspective on strategic learning and knowledge management. En Sanchez, R. and Heene, A. (eds.) Strategic learning and knowledge management. John Wiley and Sons.Seidler-de Alwis, R., & Hartmann, E. (2008). The use of tacit knowledge within innovative companies: knowledge management in innovative enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 133–147.Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 7–28.Tansky, J., Ribeiro, D., & Roig, S. (2010). Linking entrepreneurship and human resources in globalization. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 217–223.Teece, D. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401.Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 49, 159–205.vande Vrande, V., de Jong, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29, 423–437.Vargas, N., & Lloria, M. B. (2014). Dynamizing intellectual capital through enablers and learning flows. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 114(1), 2–20.Vargas, N., & Lloria, M. B. (2017). Performance and intellectual capital: how enablers drive value creation in organisations. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2), 114–124.Vargas, N., Lloria, M. B., & Roig-Dobón, S. (2016). Main drivers of human capital, learning and performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 961–978.Vergara, L., Salazar, A., Belda, J., Safont, G., Moral, S., & Iglesias, S. (2017). Signal processing on graphs for improving automatic credit card fraud detection. Proceeding of 2017 I.E. 51st international Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST 2017), https://doi.org/10.1109/CCST.2017.8167820 , 23–26 Oct, 2017, Madrid, Spain.Wallin, M. W., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for open innovation: focus o the integration of knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145–154.Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach. European International Journal of Technology Management, 27, 674–688.Wold, H. (1980). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce. In J. Kmenta & J. B. Ramsey (Eds.), Evaluation of econometric models (pp. 47–74). Cambridge: Academic Press.Wold, H. (1985). Factors influencing the outcome of economic sanctions. In Sixto Ríos Honorary. Trabajos de Estadística and de Investigación Operativa, 36(3), 325–337