Abstract
Different organizational settings have been gaining ground in the world economy, resulting in a proliferation of different forms of strategic alliances that translate into a growth in the number of organizations that have started to deal with interorganizational relationships with different actors. These circumstances reinforce Crossan, Lane, White and Djurfeldt (1995) and Crossan, Mauer and White (2011) in exploring what authors refer to as the fourth, interorganizational, level of learning. These authors, amongst others, suggest that the process of interorganizational learning (IOL) warrants investigation, as its scope of analysis needs widening and deepening. Therefore, this theoretical essay is an attempt to understand IOL as a dynamic process found in interorganizational cooperative relationships that can take place in different structured and unstructured social spaces and that can generate learning episodes. According to this view, IOL is understood as part of an organizational learning continuum and is analyzed within the framework of practical rationality in an approach that is less cognitive and more social-behavioral.
interorganizational learning; social learning spaces; learning episodes; cooperation; interorganizational relationships
Introduction
Different organizational settings have been gaining ground in the world economy, with
a growing number of different forms of strategic alliances (Inkpen & Tsang, 2007Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2007). Learning and strategic
alliances. The Academy of Management Annals,
1(1), 479- 511. doi: 10.1080/078559815
https://doi.org/10.1080/078559815...
). As a result, organizations are
increasingly introducing new settings involving interorganizational relationships
with different actors such as organizations, universities and trade associations,
etc. (Dacin, Reid, & Ring, 2008). This constitutes an appropriate strategy when
faced with an environment that is becoming more and more uncertain (Human & Provan, 1997Human, S. E., & Provan, K. G. (1997). An emergent theory of
structure and outcomes in small-firm strategic manufacturing networks.
Academy of Management Journal,
40(2), 368-403. doi: 10.2307/256887).
In addition to this, a second point highlighting the importance of organizations
working from collaborative perspectives, exploring learning (situations) built on
relationships between organizations is highlighted by Crossan, Lane and White (1999)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution.
Academy of Management Review,
24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135...
, where the authors discuss
different levels of learning. Crossan, Mauer and
White (2011)Crossan, M. M., Mauer, C. C., & White, R. E. (2011). Reflections
on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory of organizational learning?
Academy of Management Review,
36(3), 446-460. suggest new studies in the field of interorganizational
learning, reinforcing this paper focus’s.
Interorganizational learning (IOL) processes have become a relevant field of
research, particularly as researchers attempt to understand the scenarios and
processes involved in new organizational relationships and settings. It should be
pointed out that, however relevant IOL may be, it is still poorly investigated and
is best termed a field in progress (Crossan, Mauer, & White, 2011Crossan, M. M., Mauer, C. C., & White, R. E. (2011). Reflections
on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory of organizational learning?
Academy of Management Review,
36(3), 446-460.; Engeström & Kerosuo, 2007Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2007). From workplace learning to
inter-organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory.
Journal of Workplace Learning,
19(6), 336-342. doi: 10.1108/13665620710777084
https://doi.org/10.1108/1366562071077708...
; Inkpen
& Tsang, 2007Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2007). Learning and strategic
alliances. The Academy of Management Annals,
1(1), 479- 511. doi: 10.1080/078559815
https://doi.org/10.1080/078559815...
; Knight & Pye,
2005Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically
derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human
Relations,
58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427...
; Larsson, Bengtsson, Henriksson,
& Sparks, 1998Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., & Sparks, J. (1998).
The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in
strategic alliances. Organization Science,
9(3), 285-305. doi: 10.1287/orsc.9.3.285
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.3.285...
). The earliest studies dealing with IOL date back to
the late 1990s (Larsson et al.,
1998Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., & Sparks, J. (1998).
The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in
strategic alliances. Organization Science,
9(3), 285-305. doi: 10.1287/orsc.9.3.285
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.3.285...
) and are still seen as limited in scope, which means that further
investigation is of paramount importance (Dierkes,
Antal, Child, & Nonaka, 2001Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J., & Nonaka, I. (2001).
Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. New
York: Oxford University Press USA.; Easterby-Smith, Burgoyne, & Araujo,
2001; Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2003Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (2003). The blackwell
handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.; Engeström & Kerosuo, 2007Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2007). From workplace learning to
inter-organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory.
Journal of Workplace Learning,
19(6), 336-342. doi: 10.1108/13665620710777084
https://doi.org/10.1108/1366562071077708...
; Greve, 2005Greve, H. R. (2005). Inter-organizational learning and heterogeneous
social structure. Organization Studies,
26(7), 1025-1047. doi:
10.1177/0170840605053539
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605053539...
; Inkpen & Tsang, 2007Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2007). Learning and strategic
alliances. The Academy of Management Annals,
1(1), 479- 511. doi: 10.1080/078559815
https://doi.org/10.1080/078559815...
; Nooteboom,
2008Nooteboom, B. (2008). Learning and innovation in
inter-organizational relationships. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P.
S. Ring (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations
(pp. 307-634). Oxford: Oxford University Press.).
Indeed Engeström and Kerosuo state that “recent conceptual models of organizational
and interorganizational learning tend to be worryingly generalized and
common-sensical” (2007, p. 338). Antonello and Godoy (2009, 2010, 2011) identified
gaps in studies on organizational learning and highlighted the need to expand their
scope of analysis by identifying learning processes that pervade organizational
boundaries, which reinforces the need to introduce additional units of analysis in
order to advance this field of knowledge. Considering this, Hardy, Phillips and Lawrence (2003)Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources,
knowledge and influence: the organizational effects of interorganizational
collaboration. Journal of Management Studies,
40(2), 321-347. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00342
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00342...
, Greve (2005)Greve, H. R. (2005). Inter-organizational learning and heterogeneous
social structure. Organization Studies,
26(7), 1025-1047. doi:
10.1177/0170840605053539
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605053539...
, Engeström and
Kerosuo (2007)Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2007). From workplace learning to
inter-organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory.
Journal of Workplace Learning,
19(6), 336-342. doi: 10.1108/13665620710777084
https://doi.org/10.1108/1366562071077708...
, Inkpen and Tsang
(2007)Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2007). Learning and strategic
alliances. The Academy of Management Annals,
1(1), 479- 511. doi: 10.1080/078559815
https://doi.org/10.1080/078559815...
, Nooteboon (2008), Estivalete, Pedrozo and Cruz (2008) and Balestrin and Verschoore (2008)Balestrin, A., & Verschoore, J. (2008). Redes de
cooperação empresarial: estratégias de gestão na nova economia.
Porto Alegre: Bookman. amongst others
point out the need to deepen studies on IOL.
With this in mind, the need to put forward some theoretical and empirical
reflections, and afford greater depth to studies in the field of IOL is clear. This
theoretical essay is based on the assumption that IOL is understood as part of the
continuum of Organizational Learning as was proposed by Crossan et al. (1995)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L.
(1995). Organizational learning: dimensions for a theory. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(4), 337-360. doi:
10.1108/eb028835
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028835...
, Knight (2002)Knight, L. (2002). Network learning: exploring learning by
interorganizational networks. Human Relations,
55(4), 427-454. doi: 10.1177/0018726702554003
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702554003...
, Bapuji and
Crossan (2004)Bapuji, H., & Crossan, M. (2004). From questions to answers:
reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning,
35(4), 397-417. doi: 10.1177/1350507604048270
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507604048270...
, Holmqvist (2004)Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of
exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical
study of product development. Organization Science,
15(1), 70-81. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1030.0056
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0056...
,
Knight and Pye (2005)Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically
derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human
Relations,
58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427...
and Crossan et al. (2011)Crossan, M. M., Mauer, C. C., & White, R. E. (2011). Reflections
on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory of organizational learning?
Academy of Management Review,
36(3), 446-460..
Following this line of thought, IOL is understood as a dynamic process that occurs
in interoganizational relations of cooperation, in different social spaces
(structured and non-structured), stimulating learning situations that will be
referred to in this paper as learning episodes.
More specifically, we consider that the practice-based perspective extends the
literature on organizational learning by advocating a fourth level of analysis (the
interorganizational level) and a fifth process (cooperation) to be added to the
three levels of analysis (individual, group and organizational) and the four
processes (intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing) of the
Organizational Learning construct proposed by Crossan et al. (1999)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution.
Academy of Management Review,
24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135...
.Therefore, our proposed model is
based on new evidence gathered from our practice-based approach, taking as a
starting point Crossan et al.
(1995)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L.
(1995). Organizational learning: dimensions for a theory. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(4), 337-360. doi:
10.1108/eb028835
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028835...
and Crossan et
al. (2011)Crossan, M. M., Mauer, C. C., & White, R. E. (2011). Reflections
on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory of organizational learning?
Academy of Management Review,
36(3), 446-460..
Understanding IOL as part of a multi-level framework of learning, the following
research question comes about: How does the process of IOL occur from a
practice-based perspective? Therefore the objective is to understand IOL,
based on a socio-behavioral view, within the logic of practical rationality, without
remaining centered on cognitive approaches. With this in mind, we will make use of
the based-on-practice or practice-based approach. Gherardi (2006)Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: the texture
of workplace learning. Malden, MA, Oxford, UK, Victoria, Australia:
Blackwell publishing. work on a practice-based
approach, contemplating learning as a process and the different levels that occur
within this process. Thus, despite the authors’ primary concern being with
organizational learning, we feel that analyzing IOL through this theoretical lens is
innovative, and that it can result in worthwhile insights into the construction of
referential concepts around the topic in question. Corradi, Gherardi and Verzelloni (2010)Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., & Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the
practice lens: where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading?
Management Learning,
41(3), 265-283. doi: 10.1177/1350507609356938
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609356938...
argue that the practice-based
perspective has been used as a theoretical lens for reinterpreting many
organizational phenomena. This in turn leads to the idea that it is also possible to
reinterpret IOL as an interorganizational phenomenon.
Practice-based studies can make a significant contribution to link the analysis of working, learning and organizing because they enable contextualization of organizing within a circumscribed empirical context, define them as a collective practical accomplishment, analyze the activities that contribute to the stabilization and performativity of organizing, and analyze knowledge in knowing (Gherardi & Souto, 2013Gherardi, S., & Souto, P. C. N. (2013, setembro). What do people do when they work? The contribution of practice-based studies to the understanding of working and organizing. Anais do Encontro Nacional da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 37.).
This theoretical article is structured as follows: following this introduction, as a result of an extensive review of the theory of organizational and interorganizational learning, as well as of studies on interorganizational relationships from 1990 to 2011, the following inquiries regarding IOL are proposed: (a) some reflections about organization and learning that allow us to understand the ontological position proposed by this paper; (b) the multi-level structure of the learning process; (c) Interorganizational Learning as a process-based practice; (d) Interorganizational Learning and cooperation; (e) the range of social spaces that make learning possible. Finally, the contribution and the most important reflections and considerations on the topic and their implications for further research are presented.
Organization and Learning
The author’s understanding of organization follows a positioning of organizing, highlighting the procedural idea, based on an interpretive paradigm.
This ontological position is important in enabling us to understand
interorganizational learning that emphasizes relationships and a built process based
on organizational practices, in a continuous process. The decision to follow this
line of reasoning leads to different views about organization, as highlighted by
Czarniawska (2008)Czarniawska, B. (2008). Organizing: how to study it and how to write
about it. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal,
3(1), 4-20. doi: 10.1108/17465640810870364
https://doi.org/10.1108/1746564081087036...
.
Czarniawska (2008, p. 5) points out three main ideas about organization. The first,
characterized by the adjective “organized”, is related to mechanistic Taylorism and
idealist administration theory. In the second idea, the participle “organized” has
been replaced by the adjective “organizational”, which was inspired by what the
author calls “the most fashionable branch of science – cybernetics”. However, there
is a third position in describing what organization is, and it is exactly this idea
that inspired our understanding of organization. We follow Weick’s perception of
organizing, which focuses on “what people do when they act collectively in order to
achieve something” (Czarniawska, 2008Czarniawska, B. (2008). Organizing: how to study it and how to write
about it. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal,
3(1), 4-20. doi: 10.1108/17465640810870364
https://doi.org/10.1108/1746564081087036...
, p. 5).
In other words, we have opted for a practice-oriented approach to the study of
organizational knowing and acting, which indicates movement and process. As Suchman (2000Suchman, L. (2000). Organizing alignment: a case of bridge-building.
Organization,
7(2), 311-327. doi: 10.1177/135050840072007
https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072007...
, p. 313) points out, “learning
how to be a competent organization member involves learning how to translate one’s
experience, though acknowledged forms of speaking, writing and other productions, as
observably intelligible and rational organizational action”.
We justify this point of view by the fact that modern management and learning occur in multiple contexts, though multitudes of kaleidoscopic movements. As Weick (1979)Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison’Wesley. notes, organizing happens in many places at once, and organizers move around quickly and frequently. In this scenario organizational learning is gaining ground and attention amongst researchers and practitioners.
OL has been the subject of extensive research in the last few years. Although OL is
widely accepted and its importance to the strategic performance of organizations is
fully acknowledged, the complexity and diversity of concepts that permeate these
studies compound this scenario (Amorim & Fischer,
2009Amorin, W. A. C., & Fischer, A. L. (2009). Aprendizagem
organizacional: uma análise sobre o debate e a escolha de categorias para
estudos de caso. Perspectiva Contemporânea,
4(1), 101-125.; Antonacopoulou & Chiva,
2007Antonacopoulou, E., & Chiva, R. (2007). The social complexity of
organizational learning: the dynamics of learning and organizing.
Management Learning,
38(3), 277–295. doi: 10.1177/1350507607079029
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607079029...
; Argote, 2011Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: past, present
and future. Management Learning,
42(4), 439-446. doi: 10.1177/1350507611408217
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611408217...
; Bitencourt, 2005Bitencourt, C. C. (2005). Gestão de competências e
aprendizagem nas organizações. São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil: Editora
Unisinos.; Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2003Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (2003). The blackwell
handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.; Fiol & Lyles, 1985Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning.
The Academy of Management Review, 10(4),
803-813. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1985.4279103
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1985.4279103...
; Ruas,
Antonelo, & Boff, 2005Ruas, R., Antonello, C. S., & Boff, L. H. (2005).
Aprendizagem organizacional e competências: os novos horizontes da
gestão. Porto Alegre: Bookman.). The situation of IOL is not different.
While OL is not the main focus of this research, it supports another dimension of this concept, namely IOL. The intraorganizational dimension serves as a basis for the understanding of an interorganizational dimension, with a focus on their intersection (OL and IOL).
Holmqvist (2003Holmqvist, M. (2003). A dynamic model of intra-and
interorganizational learning. Organization Studies,
24(1), 95-123. doi:
10.1177/0170840603024001684
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024001...
, 2004Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of
exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical
study of product development. Organization Science,
15(1), 70-81. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1030.0056
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0056...
, 2009Holmqvist, M. (2009). Complicating the organization: a new
prescription for the learning organization? Management
Learning,
40(3), 275–287. doi: 10.1177/1350507609104340
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609104340...
) claims that
the interconnection between intraorganizational and interorganizational learning
cannot be dismissed, even though they can be analyzed separately (Larsson et al., 1998Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., & Sparks, J. (1998).
The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in
strategic alliances. Organization Science,
9(3), 285-305. doi: 10.1287/orsc.9.3.285
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.3.285...
). The
focus of this theoretical essay is on the type of IOL that takes place in different
interorganizational relationships (strategic alliances) within the framework of the
multi-level learning process.
Multi-level structure of the learning process
The necessity to advance the studies on IOL is a natural result of the growing
importance of interorganizational relationships. Over the last ten years, the focus
of studies on OL has been shifting gradually from intraorganizational learning to
multi- and interorganizational learning. Nevertheless this has been achieved at the
expense of conceptual developments (Engeström &
Kerosuo, 2007Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2007). From workplace learning to
inter-organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory.
Journal of Workplace Learning,
19(6), 336-342. doi: 10.1108/13665620710777084
https://doi.org/10.1108/1366562071077708...
).
In their exploration of OL in the last decade, Crossan et al. (2011)Crossan, M. M., Mauer, C. C., & White, R. E. (2011). Reflections on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory of organizational learning? Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 446-460. demonstrated the need for studies to be carried out using a multi-level structure, as OL is a phenomenon that takes place on multiple levels, including the external context of the organization and the interorganizational level.
Crossan et al. (1999)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution.
Academy of Management Review,
24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135...
propose
an analytical framework (Figure 1) for OL with
four learning processes (intuiting, interpreting, integrating and
institutionalizing) on three levels of analysis. These authors emphasize that these
levels are permeated (linked) by both social and psychological processes. Thus, IOL
is presented as the fourth level of learning, after the organizational level,
inspired in the practice-based perspective. The theoretical framework could be seen
in the Figure 1.
Organizational Learning as a Dynamic Process.Note. Source: Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution (p. 532). Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
With the aim of achieving a clearer understanding, IOL will be treated as part of a
continuum of organizational learning as identified by Crossan et al. (1995)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L.
(1995). Organizational learning: dimensions for a theory. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(4), 337-360. doi:
10.1108/eb028835
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028835...
, and Crossan et al.(1999)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L.
(1995). Organizational learning: dimensions for a theory. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(4), 337-360. doi:
10.1108/eb028835
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028835...
, even
though this is not included in the corresponding frameworks presented by these
authors. We propose the inclusion of fourth level into the framework elaborated by
Crossan et al. (1999) which refers to the analysis of IOL, and
which deals with the fifth process on this level, namely cooperation. Figure 2 demonstrates its inclusion in the
framework.
IOL as a Dynamic Process through Co-operation.Note. Source: Adapted from Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution (p. 532). Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
Building on the ideas in Crossan et
al. (1999)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution.
Academy of Management Review,
24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135...
, the dynamics of this framework is explained with
the inclusion of a fourth level of learning – interorganizational learning (IOL).
This level of learning deals with relationships established through cooperation
between different actors through cooperation. Cooperation, the fifth process
included in the framework, is related to relational strategies (assumed to be
cooperative) established between the different actors in interorganizational
relationships. Such interorganizational relationships happen in structured and
non-structured social spaces and they result in learning episodes under a context of
cooperation.
Thus, in interpreting the framework dynamics, the first three levels of learning and
the four processes involved operate along the lines of the ideas espoused by Crossan et al. (1999)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution.
Academy of Management Review,
24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135...
.
However, with respect to the fourth level and the resulting inclusion of a fifth
level, despite following the same logic, it is worth noting that intuition
intervenes in integration, which in turn intervenes in interpretation, and that
interpretation intervenes in institutionalization. This in turn results in
institutionalization interfering in cooperative processes. As a result, cooperation
intervenes in institutionalization, which in turn interferes in interpretation.
Sequentially then, interpretation intervenes in integration, which ultimately
intervenes in intuition. Faced with this dynamic, (movement in both directions), it
can be observed that learning takes place over four levels: individual, group,
organizational and interorganizational.
However, inclusion on this fourth level means that the direct interference of
intuition on institutionalization (as proposed by Crossan et al., 1999Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution.
Academy of Management Review,
24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135...
) is transferred to cooperation.
Pursuing this line of thought, when the authors propose that institutionalization
has a direct effect on intuition, it is understood that cooperation has a direct
effect on intuition. Moreover, as they point out, such levels are permeated by
social and psychological processes.
Figure 2, as reproduced here, illustrates the multi-level structure characteristics of the learning process, exposing the intimate interconnection between all levels and the fact that they are pervaded by processes that reinforce the importance of approaching learning from a social and behavioral view, from a practice-based approach rather than from a cognitive approach.
Our view follows the reasoning put forward by Marshall (2008)Marshall, N. (2008). Cognitive and practice-based theories of
organizational knowledge and learning: incompatible or complementary?
Management Learning,
39(4), 413-435. doi: 10.1177/1350507608093712
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608093712...
, who believes that cognitive theory is not opposed to
the practice-based approach, but that it constitutes a limited approach when guided
by positivism, tending towards reductionism. Marshall (2008Marshall, N. (2008). Cognitive and practice-based theories of
organizational knowledge and learning: incompatible or complementary?
Management Learning,
39(4), 413-435. doi: 10.1177/1350507608093712
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608093712...
, p. 420) corroborates this in stating that, “socially
shared cognitions play a crucial part in guiding practices”.
Given the fact that learning is an everyday action in the sense that it is the effect
of a series of interrelated practices and operations (Corradi, Gherardi, & Verzelloni, 2010Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., & Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the
practice lens: where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading?
Management Learning,
41(3), 265-283. doi: 10.1177/1350507609356938
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609356938...
; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of
practice: theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of
Management Review,
36(2), 338-360.; Styhre,
Josephson, & Knauseder, 2006), it should be noted that learning is closely
related to the social-behavioral view (Macdonald
& Crossan, 2010MacDonald, P., & Crossan, M. (2010, June). Learning to innovate:
the process of learning between diverse organizations. Proceedings
of
Organisational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities Conference
2010, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 5.) and that this is a less cognitive approach (Knight & Pye, 2005Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically
derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human
Relations,
58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427...
). It is believed that
viewing learning as a social-behavioral process greatly contributes to a better
understanding and advancement of IOL theory, thus expanding the possibilities for
analysis based on every day practices.
Interorganizational learning as a process: practice-based perspective
Larsson, Bengtsson, Henriksson and Sparks
(1998)Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., & Sparks, J. (1998).
The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in
strategic alliances. Organization Science,
9(3), 285-305. doi: 10.1287/orsc.9.3.285
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.3.285...
claim that IOL may be seen as the collective acquisition of
knowledge between groups of organizations, in this way compassing the idea of
interactions between organizations. Therefore, IOL is distinct from OL in that it
includes the effects of interactions between organizations, which generates greater
synergy and fosters learning.
It is precisely the synergy that results from interactions (cooperation) between organizations that distinguishes interorganizational from intraorganizational learning. Fayard (2008)Fayard, P. (2008). Apresentação. In A. Balestrin & J. Verschoore (Eds.), Redes de cooperação empresarial: estratégias de gestão na nova economia (pp. IX- XII). Porto Alegre: Bookman. believes that it is this interaction between actors, which is not limited to organizational boundaries, that give rise to a collective learning environment. Thus, a diversity of bonds is created, generating competitive advantages (Kenis & Oerlemans, 2008Kenis, P., & Oerlemans, L. (2008). The social network perspective: understanding the structure of cooperation. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. S. Ring (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 289-312). Oxford: Oxford University Press.).
IOL is understood as a form of learning that takes place by means of cooperative relationships (interactions) between different agents. These interactions improve and expand each participant’s knowledge base and boost the potential to create individual and collective comparative advantages.
It is apparent that many variables affect IOL, showing its complexity, and
reinforcing its importance. Therefore, facing this emerging reality (Estivalete, Pedrozo, & Cruz, 2008Estivalete, V. F. B., Pedrozo, E. A., & Cruz, L. B. (2008). The
learning process in interorganizational relationships. Brazilian
Administration Review,
5(4), 319-331. Retrieved from
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bar/v5n4/v5n4a06.pdf. doi:
10.1590/S1807-76922008000400006
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bar/v5n4/v5n4a0...
), this
research field still requires theoretical studies, particularly of an empirical
nature, such as those by MacDonald and Crossan
(2010)MacDonald, P., & Crossan, M. (2010, June). Learning to innovate:
the process of learning between diverse organizations. Proceedings
of
Organisational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities Conference
2010, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 5., that deal with the learning between different organizations.
Knight and Pye (2005)Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically
derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human
Relations,
58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427...
identify the central
role of social interactions in their study of IOL in interorganizational
relationships. Along the same lines, Nooteboom
(2008)Nooteboom, B. (2008). Learning and innovation in
inter-organizational relationships. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P.
S. Ring (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations
(pp. 307-634). Oxford: Oxford University Press. claims that the interactions between different actors in
interorganizational settings are an important element in the facilitation of
learning and innovation. Child, Faulkner and Tallman
(2005)Child, J., Faulkner, D., & Tallman, S. (2005).
Cooperative strategy: managing alliances, networks, and joint
ventures (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press. point out that one of the several reasons leading organizations to
interact with others is the need to acquire new competencies that can generate
innovation with recognized economic market value.
Given IOL’s focus, the plurality of the concepts involved and in particular the
overlapping and subtle differentiations, this theoretical essay will draw on the
concept outlined by Greve (2005Greve, H. R. (2005). Inter-organizational learning and heterogeneous
social structure. Organization Studies,
26(7), 1025-1047. doi:
10.1177/0170840605053539
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605053539...
, p.
1026):
Interorganizational learning is a distinctive form of learning because the organization learns from the experience of others rather than from its own experience. While distinctive in the source of learning, interorganizational learning is supported by intraorganizational processes of knowledge creation and retention, and some of its findings parallel those of research on intraorganizational transfer of knowledge.
In order to gain a better understanding of the IOL process, some of the precepts from
OL, which explain certain aspects of IOL, will be employed. This draws particularly
on Crossan et al. (1999)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution.
Academy of Management Review,
24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135...
.
Pursuing this logic, the question of process-based learning (Easterby-Smith, 1997Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning:
contributions and critiques. Human Relations,
50(9), 1085-1113. doi:
10.1177/001872679705000903
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726797050009...
; Gherardi,
2006Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: the texture
of workplace learning. Malden, MA, Oxford, UK, Victoria, Australia:
Blackwell publishing.) arises - returning to Bitencourt’s statement (2010) on how learning
occurs through relationships, which is interesting precisely for its process-based
perspective of learning and rather than a descriptive perspective.
Lundvall (1992)Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National innovation systems: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers. already understood learning to be a process rather than a product (or stock of knowledge), recognizing the value of interaction and personal contact. Considering that this study returns to a process-based vision of learning at an organizational level, it is necessary to understand action within the social context, in the sense highlighted by Gherardi, Nicolini and Odella (1998)Gherardi, S., & Souto, P. C. N. (2013, setembro). What do people do when they work? The contribution of practice-based studies to the understanding of working and organizing. Anais do Encontro Nacional da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 37., reiterating that learning is inherently a relational activity.
It should be remembered that in the scope of this theoretical essay, learning is
defined along the lines of the work developed by Styhre, Josephson and Knauseder (2006)Styhre, A., Josephson, P-E., & Knauseder, I. (2006).
Organization learning in non-writing communities: the case of construction
workers. Management Learning, 37(1), 83-100. doi:
10.1177/1350507606060983
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507606060983...
, Corradi et al. (2010)Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., & Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the
practice lens: where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading?
Management Learning,
41(3), 265-283. doi: 10.1177/1350507609356938
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609356938...
and Sandberg and Tsoukas (2011)Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of
practice: theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of
Management Review,
36(2), 338-360.. These authors see learning as an
everyday action, a flow of activities that are part of the daily work routine, an
effect of a series of interrelated practices and operations that are carried out. In
other words, learning happens by means of practical rationality.
Studies making use of a practice-based approach have surfaced in recent years, and
can potentially go beyond a conventional organizational analysis (Geiger, 2009Geiger, D. (2009). Revisiting the concept of practice: toward an
argumentative understanding of practicing. Management Learning,
40(2), 129-144. doi: 10.1177/1350507608101228
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608101228...
). Indeed as Marshall (2008)Marshall, N. (2008). Cognitive and practice-based theories of
organizational knowledge and learning: incompatible or complementary?
Management Learning,
39(4), 413-435. doi: 10.1177/1350507608093712
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608093712...
criticizes a purely cognitive position, Geiger (2009)Geiger, D. (2009). Revisiting the concept of practice: toward an
argumentative understanding of practicing. Management Learning,
40(2), 129-144. doi: 10.1177/1350507608101228
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608101228...
, in addition to the cognitive
view, highlights that the practice-based approach also came about as a critique of a
positivist and rationalist view of organizations. Both authors however understand
that this is not a conflict that necessarily needs to be resolved.
As Geiger (2009)Geiger, D. (2009). Revisiting the concept of practice: toward an
argumentative understanding of practicing. Management Learning,
40(2), 129-144. doi: 10.1177/1350507608101228
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608101228...
states, the variety of
interests and research traditions that are dubbed practice-based
studies(1), means that it is not easy to delineate a common
perspective. This paper will however also adopt this perspective, with the aim of
reaching a better understanding of the IOL process, just as Gherardi (2000)Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and
knowing in organizations: an introduction. Organization,
7(2), 211–23. doi:
10.1177/135050840072001
https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072001...
attempted to do in understanding OL.
Something that many practice-based studies have in common is an interest in the
collective, situated and provisional nature of knowledge (Gherardi, 2009Gherardi, S. (2009). Practice? It’s a matter of taste!
Management Learning,
40(5), 535-550. doi: 10.1177/1350507609340812
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609340812...
). In terms of the differences, the same author
states that some central questions remain, for example the very concept of practice,
and above all, when it is used synonymously with routine.
In situating our work as an attempt to improve understanding of IOL in practice-based
theories, we intend to focus our attention on socially-constructed phenomena
situated within the fifth process that is delineated in the framework proposed by
Crossan et al. (1999)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution.
Academy of Management Review,
24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135...
that is to say, interorganizational cooperation. This agrees with Geiger’s (2009)Geiger, D. (2009). Revisiting the concept of practice: toward an
argumentative understanding of practicing. Management Learning,
40(2), 129-144. doi: 10.1177/1350507608101228
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608101228...
view that is oriented towards
the subjective, emotional and provisional, as the author considers that
practice-based studies call into question the objective, cognitive and abstract
nature of knowledge. Also according to Gherardi
(2000Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and
knowing in organizations: an introduction. Organization,
7(2), 211–23. doi:
10.1177/135050840072001
https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072001...
, 2008Gherardi, S. (2008). Situated knowledge and situated action. In D.
Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organization
(pp. 516–525). London: Sage Publications., 2009Gherardi, S. (2009). Practice? It’s a matter of taste!
Management Learning,
40(5), 535-550. doi: 10.1177/1350507609340812
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609340812...
), Nicolini, Gherardi and
Yanow (2003)Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003). Introduction:
towards a practice-based view of knowing and learning in organizations. In D.
Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations:
a practice-based approach (pp. 3-31). New York:
Sharpe., Nicolini (2009)Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: practices by switching
theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organizations
Studies,
30(12), 1391-1418. doi:
10.1177/0170840609349875
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609349875...
and
Gherardi and Souto (2013)Gherardi, S., & Souto, P. C. N. (2013, setembro). What do people
do when they work? The contribution of practice-based studies to the
understanding of working and organizing. Anais do Encontro Nacional da
Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração,
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 37., organizational
learning takes place in practice through participation.
This view of learning as a process at the interorganizational level sees everyday
action as an element in the social setting as a whole, in the sense stressed by
Gherardi et al. (1998)Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social
understanding of how people learn in organizations: the notion of situated
curriculum. Management Learning,
29(3), 273-298. doi: 10.1177/1350507698293002
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507698293002...
:
learning is an inherently relational activity. Referring to Le Boterf (1999)Le Boterf, G. (1999). L’ingénierie des compétences.
Paris: Les editions d’organisation., Antonello
(2011)Antonello, C. S. (2011). Contextos do saber: a aprendizagem
informal. In C. S. Antonello & A. S. Godoy, Aprendizagem
organizacional no Brasil (pp. 139-159). Porto Alegre:
Bookman. states that “everyday situations can become a vehicle for the
development of learning processes” (Antonello,
2011Antonello, C. S. (2011). Contextos do saber: a aprendizagem
informal. In C. S. Antonello & A. S. Godoy, Aprendizagem
organizacional no Brasil (pp. 139-159). Porto Alegre:
Bookman., p. 140).
“Practice-based approaches conceptualize context not simply as a container within
which activities occur, but crucially as enacted, whereby its elements are
simultaneously influenced by mediums and outcomes of social activity” (Marshall, 2008Marshall, N. (2008). Cognitive and practice-based theories of
organizational knowledge and learning: incompatible or complementary?
Management Learning,
39(4), 413-435. doi: 10.1177/1350507608093712
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608093712...
, p. 419). According to Bispo (2013Bispo, M. (2013). Estudos baseados em prática: conceitos, história e
perspectivas. Revista Interdisciplinar de Gestão Social,
2(1), 13-33., p. 22) “practices can be
associated with a bricolage work which gathers material, mental,
social and cultural elements in a situated context”.
Gherardi (2006Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: the texture of workplace learning. Malden, MA, Oxford, UK, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell publishing., p. 47) suggest that “learning is integrated into individuals’ daily lives, deriving from informal sources of social relations. It is therefore assumed that any activity can constitute an opportunity for learning and that casual social situations are as important as formal learning experiences”.
MacDonald and Crossan (2010)MacDonald, P., & Crossan, M. (2010, June). Learning to innovate: the process of learning between diverse organizations. Proceedings of Organisational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities Conference 2010, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 5. state that behavioral issues have received insufficient attention in spite of the perception that they may help understand learning between different organizations. Therefore, it is believed that an analysis of IOL should not focus solely on cognitive aspects. Such an analysis should rather follow a relational, socio-behavioral assessment that is centered on a process view along the lines of practical rationality. As MacDonald and CrossanMacDonald, P., & Crossan, M. (2010, June). Learning to innovate: the process of learning between diverse organizations. Proceedings of Organisational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities Conference 2010, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 5. state (2010, p. 12): “The integration of new information at the group level makes inter-organizational learning possible. It is the individuals and the social processes and practices, such as dialogue, through which they develop shared understandings that facilitate inter-organizational learning”.
In line with this view, these authors identify dialogue as a central element of IOL processes because dialogue creates a shared understanding that facilitates learning. “The more that the structures and mechanisms of engagement between the organizations make sustained dialogue, and hence a kind of joint sensemaking, possible the more likely there will be inter-organizational learning” (Macdonald & Crossan, 2010MacDonald, P., & Crossan, M. (2010, June). Learning to innovate: the process of learning between diverse organizations. Proceedings of Organisational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities Conference 2010, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 5., p. 12). Larsson et al. (1998)Le Boterf, G. (1999). L’ingénierie des compétences. Paris: Les editions d’organisation. already advocated that IOL may be hindered by a lack of communication.
Importance is given to dialogue and communication precisely because learning is seen as a process that involves issues of context and interaction. Such interactions, particularly cooperative ones, foster IOL, which takes place through a range of existing interorganizational relationships.
Interorganizational learning and cooperation
The interorganizational cooperation strategy is linked with several important
results. It facilitates the production of new knowledge, fosters innovation and new
solutions and helps organizations achieve a more central and competitive position in
relation to enterprises that work in isolation. Cooperation as the fifth process
included in the Crossan et al.
model (1999)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution.
Academy of Management Review,
24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135...
is related to relational strategies established between the
different actors that are external to the organization, facilitating IOL as a
dynamic process.
As Jorde and Teece (1989)Jorde, T. M., & Teece, D. J. (1989). Competition and cooperation: striking the right balance. California Management Review, 25-37. point out, these new organizational arrangements offer improved access to new knowledge by facilitating OL, providing access to new technologies and innovation processes and improving technological capabilities. To sum up, different interorganizational arrangements yield gains to the economic actors involved.
The importance of information and, consequently, of knowledge flows is clear,
something which is facilitated in a system of interorganizational cooperation. Hardy et al. (2003)Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources,
knowledge and influence: the organizational effects of interorganizational
collaboration. Journal of Management Studies,
40(2), 321-347. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00342
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00342...
discuss
the effects of interorganizational cooperation and claim that, in addition to
allowing the sharing of knowledge between organizations, this facilitates the
production of new knowledge. Shima (2006)Shima, W. T. (2006). Economia de redes e inovação. (2006). In V.
Pelaez & T. Szmrecsányi (Orgs.), Economia da inovação tecnológica
(Cap. 14, pp. 333-364). São Paulo: Editora
HUCITEC/Ordem dos Economistas do Brasil.
underscores how important it is for companies to share resources and information and
to increase the flow of information global enterprises now need.
Therefore, it can be said that organizations that assume different organizational
arrangements by means of interorganizational relations are also trying to facilitate
the spread of knowledge (Child, 2003Child, J. (2003). Learning through strategic alliances. In M.
Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational learning and knowledge (part VI, pp. 657-680).
United States: Oxford University Press.; Easterby-smith, Lyles, & Tsang, 2008Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2008).
Inter-organizational knowledge transfer current themes and future prospects.
Journal of Management Studies,
45(4), 677- 690. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00773.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008...
; Holmqvist, 2004Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of
exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical
study of product development. Organization Science,
15(1), 70-81. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1030.0056
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0056...
; Inkpen, 2000Inkpen, A. C. (2000). Learning through joint ventures: a framework
of knowledge acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies,
37(7), 1019-1045. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00215
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00215...
; Inkpen &
Tsang, 2007Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2007). Learning and strategic
alliances. The Academy of Management Annals,
1(1), 479- 511. doi: 10.1080/078559815
https://doi.org/10.1080/078559815...
; Knight & Pye,
2005Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically
derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human
Relations,
58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427...
; Lane, 2001Lane, C. (2001). Organizational learning in supplier networks. In M.
Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 699-715). United States:
Oxford University Press.; Macdonald & Crossan, 2010MacDonald, P., & Crossan, M. (2010, June). Learning to innovate:
the process of learning between diverse organizations. Proceedings
of
Organisational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities Conference
2010, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 5.; Powell, 1998Powell, W. W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: knowledge and
networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California
Management Review,
40(3), 228-240. doi: 10.2307/41165952
https://doi.org/10.2307/41165952...
).
Richardson (1972)Richardson, G. B. (1972). The organisation of industry.
Economic Journal,
82(327), 883-896. also emphasized the
importance of adding cooperation to the picture by saying that cooperation can be
found in different organizational arrangements and contrasted this concept with the
idea that the market rules. Ebers and Jarillo
(1998)Ebers, M., & Jarillo, J. C. (1998). The construction, forms, and
consequences of industry networks. International Studies of Management
& Organization, 27(4), 3-21., Powell (1998)Powell, W. W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: knowledge and
networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California
Management Review,
40(3), 228-240. doi: 10.2307/41165952
https://doi.org/10.2307/41165952...
, Cassiolato and Lastres (2003)Cassiolato, J. E., & Lastres, H. M. M. (2003). O foco em
arranjos produtivos e inovativos locais de micro e pequenas empresas. In H. M.
M. Lastres, J. E. Cassiolato, & M. L. Maciel (Orgs.), Pequena
empresa: cooperação e desenvolvimento local (pp. 21-34). Rio de
Janeiro: Relume Dumará., Muthusamy and White (2005)Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge
transfer in strategic alliances: a social exchange view. Organization
Studies, 26(3), 415-441. doi:
10.1177/0170840605050874
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605050874...
, Balestrin and Verschoore (2008)Balestrin, A., & Verschoore, J. (2008). Redes de
cooperação empresarial: estratégias de gestão na nova economia.
Porto Alegre: Bookman., Zaheer, Gözübüyük and Milanov (2010)Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R., & Milanov, H. (2010). It’s the
connections: the network perspective in the interorganizational research.
Academy of Management Perspectives,
24(1), 62-77., among
other researchers on the topic of cooperation, also highlight the importance of
cooperative strategies in order to improve organizations’ performance.
Jarillo (1993)Jarillo, J. C. (1993). Strategic networks: creating the
borderless organization. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann. and Ebers and Jarillo (1998)Ebers, M., & Jarillo, J. C. (1998). The construction, forms, and
consequences of industry networks. International Studies of Management
& Organization, 27(4), 3-21. state that collective actions must be
considered in strategic terms so that cooperative relationships can become the
source of competitive forces. In the same line advocated by Richardson (1972)Richardson, G. B. (1972). The organisation of industry.
Economic Journal,
82(327), 883-896., Jarillo
(1993)Jarillo, J. C. (1993). Strategic networks: creating the
borderless organization. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann. points out that the atomistic view of traditional models, in which
each individual player faces the world by him or herself, may not be the most
efficient way to compete. Lubatkin, Florin and Lane
(2001)Lane, C. (2001). Organizational learning in supplier networks. In M.
Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 699-715). United States:
Oxford University Press., Hardy et al.
(2003)Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources,
knowledge and influence: the organizational effects of interorganizational
collaboration. Journal of Management Studies,
40(2), 321-347. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00342
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00342...
and Zaheer et
al. (2010)Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R., & Milanov, H. (2010). It’s the
connections: the network perspective in the interorganizational research.
Academy of Management Perspectives,
24(1), 62-77. also share this cooperative premise.
Cooperation may be seen as stemming from collaborative actions established in
interorganizational relationships, with mutual commitment. However, the idea of
competition is not absent in this setting. Even within the logic of cooperation, the
coexistence of cooperation and competition is accepted (Jarillo, 1993Jarillo, J. C. (1993). Strategic networks: creating the
borderless organization. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.; Jorde &
Teece, 1989Jorde, T. M., & Teece, D. J. (1989). Competition and
cooperation: striking the right balance. California Management
Review, 25-37.; Nalebuff &
Brandenburger, 1996Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1996).
Co-opetição. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Editora
Rocco.) as it constitutes an important source of competitive
advantage (Cassiolato & Lastres, 2003Cassiolato, J. E., & Lastres, H. M. M. (2003). O foco em
arranjos produtivos e inovativos locais de micro e pequenas empresas. In H. M.
M. Lastres, J. E. Cassiolato, & M. L. Maciel (Orgs.), Pequena
empresa: cooperação e desenvolvimento local (pp. 21-34). Rio de
Janeiro: Relume Dumará.;
Ebers & Jarillo, 1998Ebers, M., & Jarillo, J. C. (1998). The construction, forms, and
consequences of industry networks. International Studies of Management
& Organization, 27(4), 3-21.; Kenis & Oerlemans, 2008Kenis, P., & Oerlemans, L. (2008). The social network
perspective: understanding the structure of cooperation. In S. Cropper, M.
Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. S. Ring (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
inter-organizational relations (pp. 289-312). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.; Muthusamy & White, 2005Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge
transfer in strategic alliances: a social exchange view. Organization
Studies, 26(3), 415-441. doi:
10.1177/0170840605050874
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605050874...
; Zaheer, Gözübüyük, & Milanov, 2010Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R., & Milanov, H. (2010). It’s the
connections: the network perspective in the interorganizational research.
Academy of Management Perspectives,
24(1), 62-77.). In
interorganizational relationships, learning is often seem as a natural result of
cooperation (Child, 2003Child, J. (2003). Learning through strategic alliances. In M.
Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational learning and knowledge (part VI, pp. 657-680).
United States: Oxford University Press.).
IOL is viewed as part of a continuum of organizational learning, thus enlarging the scope of IOL analysis. However, it is also seen as a dynamic process that takes place in cooperative interorganizational relationships, found in the interactions established in different structured and unstructured social spaces. Such social learning spaces are discussed below and the occurrence of learning episodes in them are highlighted.
Different social learning spaces and learning episodes
Given that this theoretical essay aims to understand the IOL process through
interorganizational cooperative relationships, we propose a micro-level analysis in
which the various social spaces involved are important to this dynamics.
Interorganizational relationships are established in both structured and
unstructured social spaces for learning (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven, 2009Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2009). Trust,
calculation, and interorganizational learning of tacit knowledge: an
organizational roles perspective. Organization Studies,
30(10), 1021-1044. doi:
10.1177/0170840609337933
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609337933...
), providing learning
episodes (Knight & Pye,
2005Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically
derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human
Relations,
58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427...
).
Janowicz-Panjaitan and Noorderhaven (2009)Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2009). Trust,
calculation, and interorganizational learning of tacit knowledge: an
organizational roles perspective. Organization Studies,
30(10), 1021-1044. doi:
10.1177/0170840609337933
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609337933...
demonstrate that learning behaviors can be formal (taking the form of planned
events) or informal (taking the form of spontaneous interaction), with different
repercussions in the IOL process. These authors emphasize that IOL does not always
occur spontaneously. As a result, IOL can be stimulated if structural measures are
formalized.
Similarly, Wenger (1998)Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning,
meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. has stressed that in
an ordinary interorganizational contexts, informal social interactions are supported
by the formal structure. In agreement with this, Knight (2002)Knight, L. (2002). Network learning: exploring learning by
interorganizational networks. Human Relations,
55(4), 427-454. doi: 10.1177/0018726702554003
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702554003...
stated that studies on IOL require equal focus on the
formal and informal aspects of learning, without privileging one over the other.
Powell (1998)Powell, W. W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: knowledge and
networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California
Management Review,
40(3), 228-240. doi: 10.2307/41165952
https://doi.org/10.2307/41165952...
highlighted formal and
informal aspects as subtle elements that need to be thought out, given that neither
information nor knowledge are easily transferred by way of license or purchase.
When these opportunities for social interaction are perceived as an obligation and
not as a voluntary learning opportunity, people become less willing to interact and
formality tends to inhibit informality, leading to a loss of spontaneity (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven, 2009Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2009). Trust,
calculation, and interorganizational learning of tacit knowledge: an
organizational roles perspective. Organization Studies,
30(10), 1021-1044. doi:
10.1177/0170840609337933
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609337933...
).
These authors assert that both formal and informal social interactions have a
positive effect on IOL results, as Contu and
Willmott (2003)Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: the
importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization
Science,
14(3), 283–296. doi:
10.1287/orsc.14.3.283.15167
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.283.15...
suggest. They also highlight the complementarity between
formal and informal interactions. Even though formality and informality reinforce
each other, these relationships cannot be said to be perfect complements, given that
the positive effect of informalization tends to disappear as the degree of formality
increases.
Therefore, while an increase in the extent of informal learning behavior will yield
consistent positive effects on formal behavior, additional formalization will have a
positive effect on informal learning mechanisms only up to a point (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven, 2009Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2009). Trust,
calculation, and interorganizational learning of tacit knowledge: an
organizational roles perspective. Organization Studies,
30(10), 1021-1044. doi:
10.1177/0170840609337933
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609337933...
).
The authors show that, as Thompson (2005)Thompson, M. (2005). Structural and epistemic parameters in
communities of practice. Organization Science,
16(2), 151–164. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0120
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0120...
advocated in the case of OL, excessive formalization (formal mechanisms), even when
used with the intent of stimulating learning, can hinder both informal learning
behaviors and IOL.
Therefore, it is clear that social spaces can foster interorganizational
relationships, which, in turn, can lead to the occurrence of learning episodes in
the flow of everyday activities that take place in formal and informal spaces. More
specifically, it is understood that IOL should be analyzed in accordance with Knight and Pye (2005)Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically
derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human
Relations,
58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427...
, when they refer to the
importance of analyzing context (history, aims and routine), content (changes that
took place) and process (actions and intentions, leading to learning episodes).
According to the assumptions demonstrated by Janowicz-Panjaitan and Noorderhaven (2009)Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2009). Trust,
calculation, and interorganizational learning of tacit knowledge: an
organizational roles perspective. Organization Studies,
30(10), 1021-1044. doi:
10.1177/0170840609337933
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609337933...
, these formal spaces in
interorganizational settings are essential in fostering IOL, a process, which can
also be stimulated by informal spaces. In this line of reasoning, IOL is understood
as a process, a result of a flow of everyday activities, which is recurrent in
horizontal relationships established between different actors; i.e.
within the logic of practical rationality. Such activity flows are what Knight (2002)Knight, L. (2002). Network learning: exploring learning by
interorganizational networks. Human Relations,
55(4), 427-454. doi: 10.1177/0018726702554003
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702554003...
termed network learning
episodes, which, according to the author, offer an appropriate unit of
analysis for empirical research, thus improving the understanding of learning in
interorganizational relationships.
These learning episodes, according to Knight
(2002)Knight, L. (2002). Network learning: exploring learning by
interorganizational networks. Human Relations,
55(4), 427-454. doi: 10.1177/0018726702554003
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702554003...
and Knight and Pye (2005)Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically
derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human
Relations,
58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427...
,
are related to the flow of everyday activities that are found both in structured and
unstructured spaces. In other words, learning episodes are actions and interactions
that take place between different actors and which foster events and learning
experiences (learning events), with a direct or indirect impact on different
interacting actors.
Such learning episodes can be analyzed for their content, with a focus on
what was learned (e.g. the research of Knight & Pye, 2005Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically
derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human
Relations,
58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427...
). Alternatively, the
focus can be on episode occurrences, in which case their importance to
the actors involved is analyzed.
It is understood that establishing cooperative relationships between different actors
favors the occurrence of learning episodes, triggering IOL. Moreover, each
organization’s internal dynamics, as well as the nature of the interorganizational
dynamics, determine whether IOL will take place (Van
Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., & Lyles, M. A. (2008). Inter-
and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: a meta-analytic review and
assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management
Studies,
45(4), 830-853. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00771.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008...
).
To sum up, it is clear that everyday activities that are carried out according to
interorganizational relationships provide structured and unstructured social
learning spaces, in which learning events (episodes and experiences) take place
(Knight & Pye, 2005Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically
derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human
Relations,
58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427...
). Such events are
perceived as examples of IOL. In other words, interorganizational relationships that
take place in structured and unstructured social spaces make learning episodes
possible, which are important to the analysis of IOL processes.
In this microanalysis learning episodes occur daily in different social learning spaces through cooperation, as shown in Figure 3. This figure is part of the proposition of the inclusion shown in Figure 2, now exposed singly, and explains the interactions treated in this subsection.
Finally, the existence of barriers that hamper interorganizational relationships is accepted. Some of these barriers are cognitive (social and cultural issues), while others are emotional (attachments, detachments, rivalries, family ties and friendship bonds). They make relationships difficult and thus affect learning. Cognitive barriers and limited emotionality are also implicit control mechanisms that hamper IOL (Child, 2003Child, J. (2003). Learning through strategic alliances. In M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (part VI, pp. 657-680). United States: Oxford University Press.; MacDonald & Crossan, 2010MacDonald, P., & Crossan, M. (2010, June). Learning to innovate: the process of learning between diverse organizations. Proceedings of Organisational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities Conference 2010, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 5.).
Final Remarks
To conclude the proposal presented here, we should emphasize that firstly, the ontological stance taken concerning organizing is best suited for understanding the context and the framework that is proposed in this study. Secondly, IOL features were addressed according to social-behavioral views more than to cognitive approaches, emphasizing the practice-based approach. And thirdly, IOL was analyzed as a dynamic process that takes place in cooperative interorganizational relationships found in different structured and unstructured social spaces in everyday life, that provide learning episodes.
In line with this approach, IOL is understood as part of a multi-level learning
structure that is presented as an element of an organizational learning continuum, a
level proposed by Crossan et al.
(1995)Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L.
(1995). Organizational learning: dimensions for a theory. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(4), 337-360. doi:
10.1108/eb028835
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028835...
, Knight (2002)Knight, L. (2002). Network learning: exploring learning by
interorganizational networks. Human Relations,
55(4), 427-454. doi: 10.1177/0018726702554003
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702554003...
, Bapuji and Crossan (2004)Bapuji, H., & Crossan, M. (2004). From questions to answers:
reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning,
35(4), 397-417. doi: 10.1177/1350507604048270
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507604048270...
, Holmqvist (2004)Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of
exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical
study of product development. Organization Science,
15(1), 70-81. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1030.0056
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0056...
, Knight and
Pye (2005)Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically
derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human
Relations,
58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427...
and Crossan et
al. (2011)Crossan, M. M., Mauer, C. C., & White, R. E. (2011). Reflections
on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory of organizational learning?
Academy of Management Review,
36(3), 446-460.. To end this theoretical essay, it can be said
that the scope of IOL analysis was expanded by identifying it as the fourth level of
learning, with cooperation being the fifth dynamic process in the multi-level
structure of the learning process.
Such learning levels are believed to be permeated by social and psychological
processes (Crossan et al.,
1999Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution.
Academy of Management Review,
24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135...
), a situation which is not different for the fourth level, IOL.
Figure 2 illustrates the multi-level
structure of the learning process, revealing the close interconnections between all
learning levels. This makes it clear that these levels are permeated by processes
that reinforce the importance of dealing with learning by means of a
social-behavioral view in which social interactions and context are considered
according to the logic of practical rationality. Specifically in relation to the
fourth level, that of IOL, we highlight cooperation as a key process for integrating
the different organizations basing itself on a set of elements that are both
structural (structured and unstructured social spaces), and relational (learning
spaces based on interaction).
Thus, stated that understanding the process of IOL is facilitated by its analysis in terms of the occurrence of everyday activities in both structured and unstructured social spaces for learning. Such social spaces lead to cooperative interorganizational relationships, triggering learning episodes that are echoed in differing ways in the process of IOL.
To conclude, it should be underscored that this research is expected to contribute to the advancement of studies in the field of IOL, making its understanding easier by means of an analysis of learning episodes that take place in different social spaces in which cooperation is ordinary. It is thought that this essay contributed to the advancement of existing knowledge on OL in organizational studies, given that this research contemplates a lesser-known level of analysis, namely interorganizational learning. It may also foster the advancement of the understanding of interorganizational relationships, bringing the field of organizational studies closer to the area of interorganizational relations studies.
We believe that understanding IOL through the lens of practice-based approach can
generate important insights, including supporting the interpretive paradigm. The
shift in theoretical lens in organizational studies with the use of vision-based
practice can help us in the search for a non-functionalist paradigm (Nicolini, 2009Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: practices by switching
theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organizations
Studies,
30(12), 1391-1418. doi:
10.1177/0170840609349875
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609349875...
). Gherardi (2009)Gherardi, S. (2009). Practice? It’s a matter of taste!
Management Learning,
40(5), 535-550. doi: 10.1177/1350507609340812
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609340812...
corroborates this assertion, highlighting the
power of critique of practice-based studies. As a practical contribution, we
underline the possibility of stimulating IOL using the proposed model. In this way,
organizations will be able to stimulate learning and cooperation between
organizations based on the creation of learning spaces that value formal and
informal practices.
Although the need for further studies remains, we expect that the debate presented here will contribute to a better understanding and development of IOL, in addition to encouraging further theoretical and empirical research in different interorganizational settings.
As a suggestion for future studies, we propose the application of the framework in the context of collective nature, as in Local Productive Arrangements (LPAs), clusters, joint ventures and other organizational arrangements by means of interorganizational relations.
References
- Amorin, W. A. C., & Fischer, A. L. (2009). Aprendizagem organizacional: uma análise sobre o debate e a escolha de categorias para estudos de caso. Perspectiva Contemporânea, 4(1), 101-125.
- Antonacopoulou, E., & Chiva, R. (2007). The social complexity of organizational learning: the dynamics of learning and organizing. Management Learning, 38(3), 277–295. doi: 10.1177/1350507607079029
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607079029 - Antonello, C. S. (2011). Contextos do saber: a aprendizagem informal. In C. S. Antonello & A. S. Godoy, Aprendizagem organizacional no Brasil (pp. 139-159). Porto Alegre: Bookman.
- Antonello, C. S., & Godoy, A. S. (2009). Uma agenda brasileira para os estudos em aprendizagem organizacional. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 49(3), 266-281.
- Antonello, C. S., & Godoy, A. S. (2010). A encruzilhada da aprendizagem organizacional: uma visão multiparadigmática. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 14(2), 310-332. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rac/v14n2/v14n2a08.pdf. doi: 10.1590/S1415-65552010000200008
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552010000200008» http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rac/v14n2/v14n2a08.pdf - Antonello, C. S., & Godoy, A. S. (2011). Aprendizagem organizacional no Brasil Porto Alegre: Bookman.
- Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: past, present and future. Management Learning, 42(4), 439-446. doi: 10.1177/1350507611408217
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611408217 - Balestrin, A., & Verschoore, J. (2008). Redes de cooperação empresarial: estratégias de gestão na nova economia Porto Alegre: Bookman.
- Bapuji, H., & Crossan, M. (2004). From questions to answers: reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning, 35(4), 397-417. doi: 10.1177/1350507604048270
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507604048270 - Bispo, M. (2013). Estudos baseados em prática: conceitos, história e perspectivas. Revista Interdisciplinar de Gestão Social, 2(1), 13-33.
- Bitencourt, C. C. (2005). Gestão de competências e aprendizagem nas organizações. São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil: Editora Unisinos.
- Bitencourt, C. C. (2010). Gestão contemporânea de pessoas: novas práticas, conceitos tradicionais (2a ed.). Porto Alegre, RS: Bookman.
- Cassiolato, J. E., & Lastres, H. M. M. (2003). O foco em arranjos produtivos e inovativos locais de micro e pequenas empresas. In H. M. M. Lastres, J. E. Cassiolato, & M. L. Maciel (Orgs.), Pequena empresa: cooperação e desenvolvimento local (pp. 21-34). Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumará.
- Child, J. (2003). Learning through strategic alliances. In M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (part VI, pp. 657-680). United States: Oxford University Press.
- Child, J., Faulkner, D., & Tallman, S. (2005). Cooperative strategy: managing alliances, networks, and joint ventures (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283–296. doi: 10.1287/orsc.14.3.283.15167
» https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.283.15167 - Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., & Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the practice lens: where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading? Management Learning, 41(3), 265-283. doi: 10.1177/1350507609356938
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609356938 - Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L. (1995). Organizational learning: dimensions for a theory. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(4), 337-360. doi: 10.1108/eb028835
» https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028835 - Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135
» https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135 - Crossan, M. M., Mauer, C. C., & White, R. E. (2011). Reflections on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory of organizational learning? Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 446-460.
- Czarniawska, B. (2008). Organizing: how to study it and how to write about it. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 3(1), 4-20. doi: 10.1108/17465640810870364
» https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640810870364 - Dacin, T., Reid, D., & Ring, P. S. (2008). Alliances and joint ventures: the role of partner selection from an embeddedness perspective. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. S. Ring (Eds.), Inter-organizational relations (pp. 90-117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J., & Nonaka, I. (2001). Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge New York: Oxford University Press USA.
- Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50(9), 1085-1113. doi: 10.1177/001872679705000903
» https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679705000903 - Easterby-Smith, M., & Araujo, L. (2001). Aprendizagem organizacional: oportunidades e debates atuais In M. Easterby-Smith, J. Burgoyne, & L. Araujo, Aprendizagem organizacional e organização de aprendizagem (pp. 15-38). São Paulo: Atlas.
- Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (2003). The blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
- Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2008). Inter-organizational knowledge transfer current themes and future prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 677- 690. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00773.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00773.x - Ebers, M., & Jarillo, J. C. (1998). The construction, forms, and consequences of industry networks. International Studies of Management & Organization, 27(4), 3-21.
- Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2007). From workplace learning to inter-organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 336-342. doi: 10.1108/13665620710777084
» https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620710777084 - Estivalete, V. F. B., Pedrozo, E. A., & Cruz, L. B. (2008). The learning process in interorganizational relationships. Brazilian Administration Review, 5(4), 319-331. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bar/v5n4/v5n4a06.pdf. doi: 10.1590/S1807-76922008000400006
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-76922008000400006» http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bar/v5n4/v5n4a06.pdf - Fayard, P. (2008). Apresentação. In A. Balestrin & J. Verschoore (Eds.), Redes de cooperação empresarial: estratégias de gestão na nova economia (pp. IX- XII). Porto Alegre: Bookman.
- Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1985.4279103
» https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1985.4279103 - Geiger, D. (2009). Revisiting the concept of practice: toward an argumentative understanding of practicing. Management Learning, 40(2), 129-144. doi: 10.1177/1350507608101228
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608101228 - Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations: an introduction. Organization, 7(2), 211–23. doi: 10.1177/135050840072001
» https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072001 - Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: the texture of workplace learning Malden, MA, Oxford, UK, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell publishing.
- Gherardi, S. (2008). Situated knowledge and situated action. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp. 516–525). London: Sage Publications.
- Gherardi, S. (2009). Practice? It’s a matter of taste! Management Learning, 40(5), 535-550. doi: 10.1177/1350507609340812
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609340812 - Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations: the notion of situated curriculum. Management Learning, 29(3), 273-298. doi: 10.1177/1350507698293002
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507698293002 - Gherardi, S., & Souto, P. C. N. (2013, setembro). What do people do when they work? The contribution of practice-based studies to the understanding of working and organizing. Anais do Encontro Nacional da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 37.
- Greve, H. R. (2005). Inter-organizational learning and heterogeneous social structure. Organization Studies, 26(7), 1025-1047. doi: 10.1177/0170840605053539
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605053539 - Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources, knowledge and influence: the organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 321-347. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00342
» https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00342 - Holmqvist, M. (2003). A dynamic model of intra-and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies, 24(1), 95-123. doi: 10.1177/0170840603024001684
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024001684 - Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15(1), 70-81. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1030.0056
» https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0056 - Holmqvist, M. (2009). Complicating the organization: a new prescription for the learning organization? Management Learning, 40(3), 275–287. doi: 10.1177/1350507609104340
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609104340 - Human, S. E., & Provan, K. G. (1997). An emergent theory of structure and outcomes in small-firm strategic manufacturing networks. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 368-403. doi: 10.2307/256887
- Inkpen, A. C. (2000). Learning through joint ventures: a framework of knowledge acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 37(7), 1019-1045. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00215
» https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00215 - Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2007). Learning and strategic alliances. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 479- 511. doi: 10.1080/078559815
» https://doi.org/10.1080/078559815 - Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2009). Trust, calculation, and interorganizational learning of tacit knowledge: an organizational roles perspective. Organization Studies, 30(10), 1021-1044. doi: 10.1177/0170840609337933
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609337933 - Jarillo, J. C. (1993). Strategic networks: creating the borderless organization Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
- Jorde, T. M., & Teece, D. J. (1989). Competition and cooperation: striking the right balance. California Management Review, 25-37.
- Kenis, P., & Oerlemans, L. (2008). The social network perspective: understanding the structure of cooperation. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. S. Ring (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 289-312). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Knight, L. (2002). Network learning: exploring learning by interorganizational networks. Human Relations, 55(4), 427-454. doi: 10.1177/0018726702554003
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702554003 - Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: an empirically derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human Relations, 58(3), 369-392. doi: 10.1177/0018726705053427
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053427 - Lane, C. (2001). Organizational learning in supplier networks. In M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 699-715). United States: Oxford University Press.
- Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., & Sparks, J. (1998). The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 285-305. doi: 10.1287/orsc.9.3.285
» https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.3.285 - Le Boterf, G. (1999). L’ingénierie des compétences Paris: Les editions d’organisation.
- Lubatkin, M., Florin, J., & Lane, P. (2001). Learning together and apart: a model of reciprocal interfirm learning. Human Relations, 54(10), 1353-1382.
- Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National innovation systems: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning London: Pinter Publishers.
- MacDonald, P., & Crossan, M. (2010, June). Learning to innovate: the process of learning between diverse organizations. Proceedings of Organisational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities Conference 2010, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 5.
- Marshall, N. (2008). Cognitive and practice-based theories of organizational knowledge and learning: incompatible or complementary? Management Learning, 39(4), 413-435. doi: 10.1177/1350507608093712
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608093712 - Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: a social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26(3), 415-441. doi: 10.1177/0170840605050874
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605050874 - Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1996). Co-opetição Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Editora Rocco.
- Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organizations Studies, 30(12), 1391-1418. doi: 10.1177/0170840609349875
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609349875 - Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003). Introduction: towards a practice-based view of knowing and learning in organizations. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: a practice-based approach (pp. 3-31). New York: Sharpe.
- Nooteboom, B. (2008). Learning and innovation in inter-organizational relationships. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. S. Ring (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 307-634). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Powell, W. W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review, 40(3), 228-240. doi: 10.2307/41165952
» https://doi.org/10.2307/41165952 - Richardson, G. B. (1972). The organisation of industry. Economic Journal, 82(327), 883-896.
- Ruas, R., Antonello, C. S., & Boff, L. H. (2005). Aprendizagem organizacional e competências: os novos horizontes da gestão Porto Alegre: Bookman.
- Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338-360.
- Shima, W. T. (2006). Economia de redes e inovação. (2006). In V. Pelaez & T. Szmrecsányi (Orgs.), Economia da inovação tecnológica (Cap. 14, pp. 333-364). São Paulo: Editora HUCITEC/Ordem dos Economistas do Brasil.
- Styhre, A., Josephson, P-E., & Knauseder, I. (2006). Organization learning in non-writing communities: the case of construction workers. Management Learning, 37(1), 83-100. doi: 10.1177/1350507606060983
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507606060983 - Suchman, L. (2000). Organizing alignment: a case of bridge-building. Organization, 7(2), 311-327. doi: 10.1177/135050840072007
» https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072007 - Thompson, M. (2005). Structural and epistemic parameters in communities of practice. Organization Science, 16(2), 151–164. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0120
» https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0120 - Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., & Lyles, M. A. (2008). Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 830-853. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00771.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00771.x - Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison’Wesley.
- Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R., & Milanov, H. (2010). It’s the connections: the network perspective in the interorganizational research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 62-77.
Note
-
1
See Gherardi, S. (2008). Situated knowledge and situated action. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp. 516–525). London: Sage Publications, for a broader view of practice-based studies, (both historical and current). Gherardi, S. (2009). Practice? It’s a matter of taste! Management Learning, 40(5), 535-550. doi: 10.1177/1350507609340812. This issue is dedicated to articles that use practice-based theory.
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
Sept 2014
History
-
Received
1 July 2013 -
Reviewed
13 Jan 2014 -
rev-request
28 Jan 2014 -
Accepted
1 July 2014