Organisational learning styles and organisational ...

3 downloads 0 Views 91KB Size Report
Yanow, 2000) understands the nature of OL to be determined by the organisational culture. Nevis et al. (1995) state that the nature of OL and the way it occurs ...
6_Chiva

23/9/05

96

6:50 pm

Page 96

Int. J. Learning and Change, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2005

Organisational learning styles and organisational values in the ceramic tile sector Ricardo Chiva * and Joaquín Alegre Universitat Jaume I, Campus del Riu Sec, 12071 Castellón, Spain Fax: 34-964-728629 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: The aim of this paper is to analyse the relationship between organisational learning styles and organisational values in the Spanish ceramic tile sector. We examine this relationship through a comparative case study within this sector in Spain. The main findings of the study are: (1) Organisations that stress the importance of both adaptive and innovative learning (exploration and exploitation) and of collective learning are flexible, open to change and emphasise human resource management. (2) Organisations that stress solely the importance of adaptive learning (exploitation) are, on the whole, not participative and do not emphasise human resource management. Keywords: ceramic tile sector; organisational learning styles; organisational learning; organisational values. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2005) ‘Organisational learning styles and organisational values in the ceramic tile sector’, Int. J. Learning and Change, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.96–109. Biographical notes: Ricardo Chiva is a Lecturer at the Management and Marketing Department of Jaume I University, Castellón, Spain, where he teaches subjects related to human resources management. His Doctoral dissertation deals with organisational learning and innovation management in the Spanish ceramic tile industry. At present, Dr Chiva is leading an international project dealing with organisational learning and innovation in the ceramic tile industry. Joaquín Alegre is a Lecturer at the Management and Marketing Department of Jaume I University, Castellón, Spain, where he teaches subjects related to operations and innovation management. In 2002, he was a Visiting Researcher at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Recently he received his PhD in Management from Jaume I University. His research interest focuses on knowledge management and technological innovation from a strategic perspective. Dr Alegre has also collaborated in several research projects dealing with local firms’competitiveness and with ceramic tile producers.

1 Introduction The literature on the concept of organisational learning (OL), one of the most prolific and popular in our field, has expanded greatly over the last few years both in research and among practitioners. However, OL currently faces various problems such as confusion

Copyright © 2005 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

6_Chiva

23/9/05

6:50 pm

Page 97

Organisational learning styles and values in the ceramic tile sector

97

and theoretical disarray, together with a relative shortage of empirical research, especially of case studies that attempt to infer theory from practice (Easterby-Smith and Araujo, 1999). One important direction for future empirical work is to operationalise the co-alignment between a firm’s learning style or strategy and other organisational features (Vera and Crossan, 2003). Rather than presume that there is only one form of organisational culture or appropriate learning structure, we need to understand the relativity of these organisational characteristics and the relationship between learning styles and other organisational processes (DiBella et al., 1996). Further research in these areas would contribute to developing a pluralistic (rather than normative) view of OL capability. Most of the literature that relates OL with organisational culture (Cook and Yanow, 1993; Nevis et al., 1995; Taylor and Easterby-Smith, 1999; Weick and Westley, 1996; Yanow, 2000) understands the nature of OL to be determined by the organisational culture. Nevis et al. (1995) state that the nature of OL and the way it occurs are determined by the organisation’s culture and subcultures. However, none of them identifies which organisational culture is required to determine a certain OL style. This is the main aim of the present paper. Organisational values constitute one of the three levels of organisational culture determined by Schein (1985), the intermediate level: artefacts and creations, values and basic assumptions. While artefacts and creations are the most visible level of culture, they are very difficult to interpret; basic assumptions are the essence of culture but are unconscious, which makes them difficult to figure out; and values are less complex, as they are more decipherable than artefacts and creations, and more conscious than basic assumptions. The aim of this paper is to analyse the relationship between OL styles and other organisational features, particularly organisational values, in the Spanish ceramic tile sector. We examine this relationship through a comparative case study within this sector in Spain. We also suggest valuable propositions to companies in this and related sectors. The paper principally aims to answer two questions: first, which organisational values and characteristics are related to a certain OL style? And second, which OL styles can stimulate more growth in the sector? The introduction is followed by a brief review of the main literature on OL styles and organisational values. We then present the methodological aspects and results of a comparative case study within the Spanish ceramic tile sector. Finally a number of implications for managers will be drawn from these findings.

2 OL styles Organisational learning can be defined as the process of social construction of shared beliefs and meanings in which the social context plays an essential role (Chiva and Alegre, 2005). An organisation learning style is a description of how and what an organisation learns based on different considerations or orientations (DiBella, 2001). Shrivastava (1983) used a matrix of two bi-polar dimensions to develop a typology of organisational learning styles. The first dimension, individually-organisationally orientated, pertains to the process whereby knowledge is used to inform decision making. The second dimension, evolutionary designed, pertains to the process by which organisational mechanisms came into existence.

6_Chiva

23/9/05

98

6:50 pm

Page 98

R. Chiva and J. Alegre

A more recent proposal (DiBella, 2001; DiBella et al., 1996) puts forward seven orientations to determine learning style. These orientations are: knowledge source (internal vs. external), product-process focus, documentation mode (personal vs. collective), dissemination mode (formal vs. informal), learning focus (adaptive vs. innovative), value-chain focus (engineering or production activities vs. sales or service activities) and skill development focus (individual vs. group). The first orientation, knowledge source, is the preference for developing knowledge internally as opposed to acquiring externally developed knowledge. It refers to the environment in which an organisation develops new knowledge and ideas, either internally or emanating from external sources which might include the firm’s competitors, other organisations, technological institutes, universities, etc. This would pose the alternative between learning generated within the organisation, and that arising from relationships with the environment. The product-process focus is the emphasis on knowledge about what products or services are, as compared to an emphasis on knowledge about how those products or services are developed or delivered. It aims to determine whether the company prefers to accrue and orientate knowledge within the product itself, or rather within the process of its creation. According to DiBella et al. (1996), this idea is relevant given that Japanese companies based their success on investments made in process technologies, in contrast to the North American company’s way of working, thereby giving rise to different results. With regard to the documentation mode, the dichotomy lies in whether knowledge is considered to be possessed by individuals or publicly available. Spender (1996) sets out the meaning of collective knowledge, as distinct from individual knowledge. For Spender (1996) both individuals and collectives can possess knowledge, and this in turn may be explicitly articulated or implicitly manifest. Thus, there are four types of organisational knowledge: conscious (an individual’s explicit knowledge), objectified (an organisation’s explicit knowledge), automatic (an individual’s implicit knowledge) and collective (organisational knowledge manifest in practice). The fourth orientation, the dissemination mode, sets out to determine whether knowledge is shared in formal, prescribed methods or through informal methods, such as role-modelling and casual interaction. One possibility is to create a highly structured, formalised approach whereby insights are shared across the entire organisation. Another approach is to adopt a more informal attitude. This distinction would be closely linked to the typology put forward by Polanyi (1966) between explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit, or codified, knowledge refers to that which can be transmitted through formal and systematic language. Tacit knowledge is characterised as being intuitive and unarticulated, ‘non-verbalisable’, and firmly rooted in actions. The learning focus sets out two alternatives: adaptive (incremental) versus innovative (transformative) learning. It is the preference for knowledge related to the improvement of existing products, services or capabilities rather than for knowledge related to the development of new ones. This could be related to March’s concept of exploitation and exploration (March, 1991) and the most important typology within organisational learning (Miner and Mezias, 1996): single and double loop learning. The former, based on Behavioural Theory of the Firm by Cyert and March (1963), describes organisations as adaptive learning systems, in which routines and their adaptations are the cornerstones of organisational learning. However, Argyris and Schön (1978) emphasise the importance of double loop learning, and hold that single-loop learning or adaptive learning is an

6_Chiva

23/9/05

6:50 pm

Page 99

Organisational learning styles and values in the ceramic tile sector

99

organisation’s main adversary in the solution of complex problems. Single-loop learning is based on the ability to detect and correct errors in a given set of operational norms, whereas double-loop learning involves being able to attain a vision beyond the situation itself, and question the operational norms (Argyris, 1976; Argyris and Schon, 1978). Miner and Mezias (1996) argue that both learning types are important, depending on the organisational and environmental features involved. Innovation is strongly related to double loop learning (Nooteboom, 2000). However, this author emphasises the connection between exploration and exploitation in the innovation process. The next orientation, the value-chain focus, is the emphasis on learning investments in engineering or production activities (‘design’ and ‘make’ functions) versus sales or service (‘market and deliver’ functions). It aims to ascertain where organisations invest in learning, by which it comprehends all types of effort, both human and capital, employed in the development of knowledge and skills. The perspectives put forward for this type of organisation are related to the product and its production, and that related to the market or its commercialisation process. Finally, the skill development focus is the development of knowledge and skills pertaining to individual performance as compared to the development of knowledge and skills pertaining to group performance. This orientation chiefly aims to discover whether companies tend to learn and work in teams, or whether this only occurs at an individual level.

3 Organisational values Organisational culture has been defined in many ways (Schein, 1985; Smircich, 1983; Wilkins and Ouchi, 1983). Cook and Yanow (1993) define organisational culture as a set of values, beliefs, and feelings together with the artefacts of their expression and transmission, that are created, inherited, shared and transmitted within one group of people and that, in part, distinguish that group from others. Organisational values are considered by many authors as a key element of culture (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1996; Schein, 1985; Taylor and Easterby-Smith, 1999; Wiener, 1988). Taylor and Easterby-Smith (1999) consider that the idea of groups of people having distinct value orientations is widely held by anthropologists (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961). Values are considered to be essential elements in the behaviour of the individual (Rokeach, 1973) and of organisations (Schein, 1985; Taylor and Easterby-Smith, 1999), and are even judged by some to be the cause of a successful management style (Mitchell and O’Neal, 1994). A value can be defined as a belief by which an individual prefers to act (Allport, 1961) or should behave (Rokeach, 1968). In general, we might consider values as abstract ideals that represent an individual’s beliefs about determined ideal ways of behaving (sincerity, order, justice, compassion, loyalty etc.) or vital objectives (freedom, equality, power, etc.). An individual’s values, as with his or her beliefs, can be conscious or unconscious, but we must be able to infer what they are from what a person says or does. Within the framework of company organisation, the existence of various types of values has led to much confusion. According to Brown (1976), there are four completely interrelated types of value, which differ in qualities, effects and influences: social values, organisational values, managers’ values and workers’ values. Most of the literature that

6_Chiva

23/9/05

100

6:50 pm

Page 100

R. Chiva and J. Alegre

relates OL with organisational culture (Cook and Yanow, 1993; Nevis et al., 1995; Taylor and Easterby-Smith, 1999; Weick and Westley, 1996; Yanow, 2000) understands the nature of OL to be determined by the organisational culture. However, none of them identify which organisational culture is required to determine a certain OL style. This is the main aim of the paper.

4 Research method 4.1 Case selection The concepts analysed above in the literature review, OL styles and organisational values, were examined by conducting five case studies in companies belonging to the Spanish ceramic tile sector. Given the aim of this study, we wanted to select heterogeneous companies with different characteristics, and probably organisational values, in this sector. In order to do so, the collaboration of the Spanish Technological Institute of Ceramic Design (ALICER) was of vital importance. The ALICER technicians’ knowledge of the ceramic tile sector enabled us to select firms that were different and heterogeneous. Five of them finally agreed to form part of our study. The Spanish ceramic floor and wall tile manufacturing industry’s most outstanding feature is its high geographical concentration, with more than 80% of the firms located in the province of Castellón, Spain. After Italy, the Spanish sector is the world’s second largest producer and exporter of ceramic tiles. In 1998, almost 92% of the total national production came from this province, while providing employment for 21,700 workers. However, it is not only firms from this sector itself that are to be found in the province, but also their suppliers or other related companies such as manufacturers of machinery, frits, enamels and ceramic colouring agents, producers of special pieces, design studios, mould manufacturers, and so on.

4.2 Data sources The data used in our case study came from structured interviews, questionnaires, documents and observation. Each of them was used to analyse OL styles, organisational values and general information about the firm.

4.2.1 OL styles In relation to OL styles, we carried out structured interviews with approximately ten managers of each company. We used a template for learning orientations (knowledge source, product-process focus etc.) developed by DiBella (2001), as derived from former research (DiBella et al., 1996; Nevis et al., 1995). The template consists of a five-step scale that provides a space to mark the organisation’s learning approach on each learning orientation. The two polar approaches of each orientation are listed at opposite ends of the scale, and a mark at one end (‘mostly’) indicates that the organisation puts a great deal of emphasis on that learning approach. A mark towards the middle of the scale (‘more’, ‘even’) means that the organisation uses both learning approaches to some extent or to an equal extent.

6_Chiva

23/9/05

6:50 pm

Page 101

Organisational learning styles and values in the ceramic tile sector

101

4.2.2 Organisational values The diversity of instruments used to measure organisational values is an indication of the lack of consensus on this crucial aspect (Meglino and Ravlin, 1998). Various ways of measuring values are available, such as those devised by Parsons (1951), Scott (1965) or Rokeach (1973), which, although originally proposed for the analysis of individual values, have been adapted to ascertain organisational and social values. The analysis of organisational values is achieved by bringing together the perceptions of workers and managers on the values recognised within the organisation. Livian and Sarning (1987) and Caroli et al. (1989) proposed a questionnaire on internal company values (Les valeurs dans l’entreprise), validated by the Institute de Research de l’Entreprise du Group ESC Lyon (Management Research Institute of Lyon Graduate School of Business) (Institute de Reserche de l’Entreprise, 1987), to be answered by workers and managers in the companies under study, which we employed in this research work. It is made up of 60 attitude-based items on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from one: ‘this value is not characteristic of the company where I work’ to five: ‘this is an essential characteristic of the company where I work’. In each of the five companies studied, a representative sample completed the questionnaire. The actual sample for company A was of 82 respondents, for company B and C, 60 respondents, for company D, 80 respondents and for company E, 70 respondents. A total of 352 people answered the questionnaire.

4.2.3 General information Information was also gathered on strategic and managerial characteristics. To do this, approximately ten managers for each company were interviewed about issues including the critical factors for success, aspects related to company business and strengths and priorities. We also examined articles and reports on the companies that dealt with their best-selling products, their catalogues, and in general any documents relating to in-company communication, in order to improve our knowledge of them.

5 Results The sample included the following five organisations: companies A, B, C, D, and E. Company names have been omitted to protect confidentiality. Detailed descriptions of each company are available upon request (Table 1). Table 1

Selected companies and their data

Year founded Number of workers Turnover (1999) Euros

Company A

Company B

Company C

Company D

Company E

1972 493 116,561,748

1992 120 12,962,647

1972 274 32,157,393

1967 715 109,552,733

1957 370 42,947,177

Each organisation is described in detail below.

6_Chiva

23/9/05

102

6:50 pm

Page 102

R. Chiva and J. Alegre

5.1 Company A Founded in 1972, it currently has a workforce of 493 and had a turnover of 116.5 million euros in 1999. Company A has a large capacity for innovation in both products and production processes. Its differentiating strengths are product design and total quality management. It considers human resource management as an essential factor of the company. It stresses the importance of strategies aimed at increasing and improving training, integration and participation of human resources. It also highlights the constant need to improve product design, quality, and production efficiency and to invest in R&D. Company A claims that the source of its knowledge is mainly internal, although it recognises the importance of ideas generated by its competitors or by technological institutes. It considers the product and the process to be of equal importance, and carries out innovations in both fields accordingly. Knowledge related to the market and its strategies tends to be at an individual level, while that related to the production process appears to be collective. The company’s policy on training and learning is explicit and structured. It considers innovative and adaptive learning to be of equal importance, together with product design, production technology and the market focus, therefore, it fosters learning and innovation in all these aspects. Furthermore, team or group learning is encouraged by management and is of significant importance in the company, where teamwork is a common occurrence. The organisational values of company A are mainly: ‘the right to make a mistake’, ‘self-development’, ‘participation in decision-making’, ‘change’, ‘autonomy’ and ‘equality’. From this, we are able to conclude that this company is relatively open to change, and is flexible and participative.

5.2 Company B This company was founded in 1992. It has a workforce of 120 and its 1999 turnover was 13 million euros. Company B values the importance of the integration of its workers and its internal communication, together with its efficiency in commercialisation and production, and its standards of total quality. Its priorities are to improve product quality, human resource management (training, integration and participation), efficiency and information on the market. Company B considers its source of knowledge to be both internal and external. Like company A, it places equal importance on the product, production and the market. Knowledge tends to be personal, since knowledge of the market, of production processes or of product strategy is only available to a few staff members. On the whole learning is formal, through the promotion of courses and structured teaching. Innovative and adaptive learning are considered to be equally important. The company’s general manager stated that work is practically always carried out in groups, with very satisfactory results, through which collective learning is fostered. Company B, although to a lesser extent, appears to show the same tendency as company A in organisational values: ‘self-development’, ‘change’ etc. Values that promote change and improvement may be said to be shared, which encourages a feeling of self-development.

6_Chiva

23/9/05

6:50 pm

Page 103

Organisational learning styles and values in the ceramic tile sector

103

5.3 Company C Founded in 1972, it currently employs 274 workers and reached a turnover of 32 million euros in 1999. Company C considers its main strength to be its capacity for product innovation and design, along with, although to a lesser extent, the regularisation of its processes (ISO Quality certification). Its strategic options or priorities include internationalisation and the integration of its personnel in the company. Company C maintains that its ideas and knowledge come from both within the company and outside, and as such, are of equal importance. Unlike the previous cases, this company appears to have a greater focus on the product, with higher levels of investment and innovations in this area, rather than in the area of the production process. Knowledge tends to be personal, and the dissemination mode is considered to be completely formal. The tendency within this company appears to lean towards adaptive learning. Equal importance is accorded to individual and collective learning, although it seems that teamwork is not very usual in the company. Company C can be considered as tolerant, but not participative or open to change.

5.4 Company D Company D was founded in 1967, and currently employs a workforce of 715. In 1999, its turnover reached 109 million euros. Company D points to its innovative capacity in the quality of its products and its company image as its main strengths. Its priorities are essentially internationalisation, diversification and the introduction of quality assurance systems. Company D regards the source of its knowledge to be both internal and external, as shown by its open disposition towards technological institutes and other organisations linked to the sector. The product is seen as being more important than the production process and the market. Knowledge of both the production process and of market and product strategies is available to only a few staff members. Learning is mainly formal, adaptive and individual. Company D appears to be somewhat more authoritarian than company C. There is ‘inequality’ and lack of ‘participation’ in decision making. This company appears to encourage change and innovation, which enables a certain feeling of self-development and organisational curiosity to flourish.

5.5 Company E Company E was founded in 1957, and as such, is the oldest of the five companies. It is a second-generation family firm with a workforce of 370. Its 1999 turnover was 42 million euros. Company E emphasises its product innovation capability, production and commercialisation efficiency, product design, and regularisation of processes (quality certification). Its main strategic priorities highlighted are the continual improvement of product quality, together with the internationalisation, diversification and specialisation of the company. Company E considers its knowledge to come from both within and outside the company. Innovation and learning are concentrated on the product and its design. In the same way as company A, knowledge of the market is personal while knowledge of the production process is completely diffused (collective). There are no formal learning

6_Chiva

23/9/05

104

6:50 pm

Page 104

R. Chiva and J. Alegre

dissemination policies. Learning is on the whole adaptive, although there is a growing tendency towards working in groups and the resulting likelihood of collective learning. The organisational values of company E are ‘authority’, ‘application at work’, ‘faithfulness’, ‘discipline’, ‘respect for the rules’, ‘duty’, ‘availability for work’, ‘perseverance’ and ‘experience’. Furthermore, respondents state that they do not ‘participate in decision making’.

5.6 Three OL styles A comparison between the different cases or companies through groupings determined various learning styles and facilitated our analysis. These groupings established three learning styles: that of companies A and B, of companies C and D, and of company E (Figure 1). Figure 1 OL styles

Learning style 1 (Companies A and B) Learning style 2 (Companies C and D) Learning style 3 (Company E) Mostly

More

Even More

Mostly

1) Knowledge source

Internal

External

2) Product-process focus

Product

Process

3) Documentation mode

Personal

4) Dissemination mode

Formal

5) Learning focus

Adaptive

6) Value-chain focus

Design/ make

7) Skill development focus

Individual

Collective

Informal

Innovative

Market/ deliver

Group

6_Chiva

23/9/05

6:50 pm

Page 105

Organisational learning styles and values in the ceramic tile sector

105

Learning style 1 (companies A and B) is characterised by the fact that it does not lean towards any particular focus, or that all of them are important to the company, and therefore promote learning in all of the approaches considered: product, process or market. Learning in this group is balanced between innovative and adaptive, it is formal, and on the whole is developed in groups (teamwork). Learning style 2 (companies C and D) demonstrates a bias towards the product over the process. Knowledge is mainly personal, and learning is formal and adaptive. Learning style 3 (company E) is characterised by a learning focused on the product and its design. There are informal learning dissemination policies. Learning is on the whole adaptive and individual.

5.7 OL styles and organisational values Companies A and B are grouped within learning style 1, chiefly due to the following: they are considered to be the most innovative; they consider innovative and adaptive learning (exploitation and exploration) to be equally important; they learn and work in groups to a greater extent, and they demonstrate a certain balance in their key competencies or approaches; their organisational values tend towards change and improvement. Companies A and B appear to focus on human resource management, given that all issues relating to competitiveness and priorities are to be found within that aspect. The high degree of importance given to personal initiatives in generating more and better ideas, in short, to learning, is worthy of note. Both organisations show themselves to be open to flexibility and change, which appears to be linked to their competitive priorities. Companies C and D, grouped within learning style 2, maintain a more formal and individual learning policy than the previous companies. They appear to focus more on the product than on the process, and to focus on adaptive learning (exploitation). Neither company seems to possess high levels of participation, although company C demonstrates a greater level of tolerance than company D, whose values come nearer to duty and authority. Finally, company E is seen to focus solely on the product, to carry out informal learning (there is an absence of any type of training courses), and rather to learn in an individual way, although with certain exceptions and there is a great interest shown in teamwork. The company stresses product innovation and the regularisation of processes (quality certification), while all references to human and learning issues are absent from its list of priorities. The organisational values of company E are shown to approach authority and duty, with change being left out of the picture. Table 2 shows a summary of the above descriptions. The first two companies (A and B) are noteworthy for their various approaches (product, process and market) and in relation to the type of knowledge held (individual/ collective). They are also confirmed to be the most innovative (exploration), a fact which appears to be backed up by cultural data. Moreover, they show the greatest tendency to work in groups. They consider human resources as an essential priority. The remaining companies show values that are generally not participative; they tend to learn individually and tend not to share knowledge. Likewise, they are not greatly innovative and human resource management is not included in their priorities.

Comp. E

Comp. D

Comp. C

Adaptive, product approach, balance of personal and collective knowledge, individual and informal learning

Adaptive, product/market approach, personal knowledge, generally individual and formal learning

Adaptive and innovative learning, balance of approaches and key competences, balance of collective and personal knowledge, formal learning, learning in groups (teamwork)

Authoritarian, absence of change and participation

Authoritarian, absence of participation but disposed to change

Tolerant, although lacking in participation and change

Change and improvement

Change flexibility, participation

Product innovation, efficiency in commercialisation and production; regularisation processes (quality certification) Improvement in product quality, diversification, internationalisation

Innovation in product quality. Internationalisation, diversification, product and process quality (quality certification)

Product innovation, process quality (quality certification). Internationalisation; integration of personnel

Qualification in HR; total quality; efficiency in commercialisation and production. HR management (participation, integration, staff qualifications, learning), information on market and competitors

Innovation in processes and product (design); total quality. Importance of HR management (participation, integration, staff qualifications, learning); R&D; improvement in product quality

6:50 pm

Comp. B

Comp. A

General information: strengths / priorities

Table 2

Organisational values

106

OL style

Post hoc ANOVA analyses for differences in business performance between planning levels

23/9/05

Company

Table ?

6_Chiva Page 106

R. Chiva and J. Alegre OL styles and organisational values

6_Chiva

23/9/05

6:50 pm

Page 107

Organisational learning styles and values in the ceramic tile sector

107

The five companies analysed coincide in that the source of their knowledge comes from both within and outside the company, which may be due to the fact that they are all located in one industrial area, and receive considerable support from technological institutes and universities. From these ideas we can put forward two propositions: Proposition 1: A balanced approach to learning, which stresses the importance of the product, process and market, together with a learning process that emphasises both adaptive and innovative learning (exploration and exploitation), in which learning takes place collectively (teamwork), appears to be linked to values which are markedly flexible and open to change, and to competitive priorities focused on human resources. Proposition 2: A more specialised approach, together with a relatively individual, solely adaptive learning process, appears to be related to values which are generally not participative, and in which competitive priorities do not focus on human resources.

6 Conclusion Our article empirically links OL styles (DiBella, 2001; DiBella et al., 1996; Nevis et al., 1995) and organisational values, with the aim of going deeper into this relationship and putting forward some propositions. From a case study of five companies from the Spanish ceramic tile sector, we suggest relationships between the two constructs, which are summarised in the propositions set out in the previous section. The key findings of this research in the ceramic tile sector are:



Organisations that stress the importance of both adaptive and innovative learning (exploration and exploitation) and of collective learning, are flexible, open to change and emphasise human resource management.



Organisations that stress solely the importance of adaptive learning (exploitation) are on the whole not participative and do not emphasise human resource management.

A number of implications for managers can be drawn from these findings. Managers should consider the organisational values needed to achieve a certain learning style. If innovative learning (exploration, double loop learning) is required, then it is important to develop a participative, flexible and open-to-change approach. Due to the increasing importance of innovation for all these companies resulting from the low cost strategy of their Asian competitors, this is probably the most interesting approach for the sector. The interviews reveal a generalised need to innovate and differentiate; however this is not an easy target for companies to achieve. Learning style 1 is probably the best way for their goal to be attained, but in order to do so the above-mentioned values and strategic views are required. These findings might be extrapolated to other industrial sectors such as those of furniture, shoes, lighting, etc. and to other countries. Nevertheless, some limitations should also be pointed out, as well as those inherent in case studies themselves.

6_Chiva

23/9/05

108

6:50 pm

Page 108

R. Chiva and J. Alegre



The companies selected are assumed to represent the various managerial orientations of this sector, which was mainly determined by experts on the sector (Alicer).



Interviews on learning orientations were carried out only on (ten) managers in each company, which could have affected the results of the study.



The empirical research was carried out in the Spanish ceramic tile industry and its idiosyncratic characteristics may well have affected the results of the study.

Some suggestions for future lines of research, which would complement this study and go beyond some of its limitations, include the following. Firstly, the propositions should be tested by means of quantitative analyses in other sectors and countries. Secondly, similar qualitative studies should also be undertaken, although in other sectors and countries.

References Allport, G.W. (1961) Pattern and Growth in Personality, Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Wilnston. Argyris, C. (1976) ‘Single loop and double loop models in research on decision making’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp.363–375. Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Brown, M. (1976) ‘Values – a necessary but neglected ingredient of motivation on the job’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 1, pp.15–23. Caroli, R., Livian, Y.F. and Sarnin, P. (1989) ‘Pour une théorie des relations entre culture d’entreprise et performance économique’, Revue Francaise de Gestion, June–August, pp.39–50. Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2005) ‘Organizational learning and organizational knowledge: towards the integration of two approaches’, Management Learning, Vol. 36, pp.49–68. Cook, S. and Yanow, D. (1993) ‘Culture and organizational learning’, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.373–390. Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963) A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Englewwod Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. DiBella, A.J. (2001). Learning Practices: Assessment and Action for Organizational Improvement, NJ: Prentice Hall. DiBella, A.J., Nevis, E.C. and Gould, J.M. (1996) ‘Understanding organizational learning capability’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33, pp.361–379. Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. (1999) ‘Organizational learning: current debates and opportunities’, in M. Easterby-Smith, J. Burgoyne and L. Araujo (Eds) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage Publications. Institute de Reserche de l’Entreprise (1987) Questionnaire sur la Culture d’Entreprise, Lyon: Group ESC. Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck, F. (1961) Variations in Value Orientations, Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Livian, Y.F. and Sarning, P. (1987) Les Cultures d’Entreprises: Contribution a l’Etude des Valeurs. Problemes Methodologiques, Lyon: Institute de Researche de l’Entreprise (Management Research Institute). Group ESC.

6_Chiva

23/9/05

6:50 pm

Page 109

Organisational learning styles and values in the ceramic tile sector

109

March, J. (1991) ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.71–87. Meglino, B. and Ravlin, E. (1998) ‘Individual values in organizations: concepts, controversies, and research’, Journal of Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.351–389. Miner, A. and Mezias, S. (1996) ‘Ugly duckling no more: pasts and futures of organizational learning research’, Organization Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.88–99. Mitchell, R. and O’Neal, M. (1994) ‘Managing by values: is Levi Strauss’ approach visionary or flaky?’, Business Week, Vol. 1, pp.46–52. Nevis, E., DiBella, A.J. and Gould, J.M. (1995) ‘Understanding organization learning systems’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36. No. 2, pp.73–85. Nooteboom, B. (2000) Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. O’Reilly, C.A. and Chatman, J.A. (1996) ‘Culture as a social control: corporations, cults and commitment’, in B. Staw and L. Cummings, L. (Eds) Research in Organizational Behaviour, Greenwich: JAI Press. Parsons, T. (1951) El Sistema Social, Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Rokeach, M. (1968) Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values, London: Jossey-Bass. Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values, New York: Free Press. Schein, E.H. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership, Oxford: Jossey Bass. Scott, W.A. (1965) Values and Organizations, A Study of Fraternities and Sororities, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Shrivastava, P. (1983) ‘A typology of organizational learning systems’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 20, pp.7–28. Smircich, L. (1983) ‘Concepts of culture and organizational analysis’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.339–358. Spender, J. (1996) ‘Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp.45–62. Taylor, S. and Easterby-Smith, M. (1999). ‘Culture and organizational learning: toward pluralism’, in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (Eds) Organizational Learning. 3rd International Conference, Lancaster University, Lancaster, pp.1039–1059. Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2003) ‘Organizational learning and organizational knowledge’, in M. Easterby-Smith and M.A. Lyles (Eds) Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell Publishing. Weick, K. and Westley, F. (1996) ‘Organizational learning: affirming an oxymoron’, in S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W.R. Nord (Eds) Handbook of Organizational Studies, London: Sage, pp.440–458. Wiener, Y. (1988) ‘Forms of value systems: a focus on organizational effectiveness and cultural change and maintenance’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.534–545. Wilkins, A.L. and Ouchi, W. (1983) ‘Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp.468–481. Yanow, D. (2000) ‘Seeing organizational learning: a ‘cultural’ view’, Organization, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.247–268.