a theoretical approach to the organizational knowledge formation process: integrating the concepts...

http://hrd.sagepub.com/Development Review

Human Resource

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/7/4/424The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1534484308324983

October 2008 2008 7: 424 originally published online 20Human Resource Development Review

Ji Hoon Song and Thomas J. ChermackOrganization Culture

Process: Integrating the Concepts of Individual Learning and Learning A Theoretical Approach to the Organizational Knowledge Formation

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Academy of Human Resource Development

can be found at:Human Resource Development ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/7/4/424.refs.htmlCitations:

at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 27, 2014hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 27, 2014hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hrd.sagepub.com/

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/7/4/424

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ahrd.org/

http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/7/4/424.refs.html



What is This?

- Oct 20, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Nov 18, 2008Version of Record >>

at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 27, 2014hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 27, 2014hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/7/4/424.full.pdf

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/10/20/1534484308324983.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Human Resource Development Review Vol. 7, No. 4 December 2008 424-442DOI: 10.1177/1534484308324983© 2008 SAGE Publications

A Theoretical Approach to theOrganizational KnowledgeFormation Process: Integrating the Concepts of IndividualLearning and LearningOrganization CultureJI HOON SONGOklahoma State UniversityTHOMAS J. CHERMACKColorado State University

The purpose of this article is to examine the link between individual learningprocesses and continuous organizational knowledge formation through anintegrated literature review of these perspectives from both academic andpractical viewpoints. In the current fierce economic environment, individualknowledge is regarded as the most valuable asset for competitive advantage.However, only when individual knowledge is accumulated and embeddedinto organizational culture as organizational knowledge can it be consideredthe critical factor for the promotion of performance improvement. In thisresearch, two process-oriented factors—individual learning processes andorganizational knowledge creation—were reviewed by means of theoreticaland integrative analysis based on a lack of empirical research on the asso-ciation between these two key factors and organizational performanceimprovement. The results of this research propose an integrated conceptualmap for effective organizational performance improvement through organiza-tional knowledge formation based on individual learning and organizationalknowledge creation processes.

Keywords: individual learning process; organizational learning; learningculture; theory building approach

The primary intent of training and learning activities in organizations is improv-ing organizational performance based on the transferring of individuals’ learned

at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 27, 2014hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from


Song, Chermack / KNOWLEDGE FORMATION PROCESS 425

knowledge to the workplace through collaborative and integrated learningprocesses (Rothwell & Sredl, 2000). Additionally, the goal of transfer is thefull application of newly learned knowledge and adapted skills to improveindividual and organizational performance (Broad, 2003). In this regard, orga-nizational performance improvement is strongly associated with individuallearning processes and transfer of learned knowledge to the workplace in aperspective of performance-oriented human resource development (HRD).Currently, in light of technology-based globally competitive economic trends,integrated individuals’ knowledge is regarded as the most critical asset beyondany other resources (DeLong, 2004; Gupta & Sharma, 2004; Senge, 1990). Tofully implement a knowledge-based competitive advantage, continuous orga-nizational performance improvement through systematic organizationalknowledge creation based on the organizational learning system and integratedindividuals’ knowledge articulation process has to be much more focused andwell understood (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, &Flowers, 2005).

Purpose of the Research and Significance

This research is aimed at conceptually integrating a process of creativeorganizational knowledge formation through the linkage between organiza-tional learning process and individual learning modes. There is little, if any,research to identify the correlation between individual learning modes andorganizational knowledge creation for the continuous organizational knowl-edge formation system, so this research has little previous work to stand on,but is based on a question of how these levels of learning are related and canbe integrated.

This research has critical significance for both academics and practitioners.Although this research does not provide much in the way of practical applica-tion given its preliminary nature, the overlap among individual learning,knowledge, and performance improvement at the individual and organiza-tional levels has the potential to be a critical point of leverage for HRD pro-fessionals. In addition, this interdisciplinary research, dealing with threeperspectives—learning, knowledge, and performance improvement—in twocritical facets, individual and organization, could shed light on the mutuallycomplementary conceptual framework for implication of various performanceimprovement practices, including general training, organization development,knowledge management, organizational learning interventions, and so forth.

From a more practical standpoint, the roles and required competencies ofperformance improvement practitioners are expanded to the construction of anentire learning system along with the organization’s value, mission, and busi-ness strategies for individuals’ competency-based performance improvementstrategies (Rothwell, Sanders, & Soper, 1999; Rothwell & Sredl, 2000). In thisregard, this incorporated research, in an effort to integrate the learning process,



426 Human Resource Development Review / December 2008

knowledge formation, and organizational performance improvement, could bethe groundwork for practitioners to construct the systematic knowledge man-agement system, to promote the applicable strategies of continuous organiza-tional knowledge creation practices, and to develop organization developmentand change interventions. All the aforementioned applications have criticalimplications for the overall organizational performance improvement throughlearning-based individuals’ competency improvement.

Research Questions and Conceptual Framework

Individual and organizational learning processes have been dominantthemes in the disciplines of HRD and other adult education fields; however,little attention has been given to the themes of knowledge creation and man-agement in these disciplines. The majority of the knowledge creation–relatedresources were found in the fields of general management.

Little attention has been given to how to use individual learning processesfor organizational knowledge creation or how to synthesize the three themesof individual learning, organizational learning, and organizational knowledgecreation in the culture of the learning organization.

Finally, these themes are theoretically related; however, limited research hasbeen done to integrate them based on any sequential influences. Furthermore,many commonly referred to knowledge creation enabling factors, which arementioned in the management perspectives, are theoretically identical to thecritical factors of learning processes in HRD perspectives. Based on theseinitial problematic inquiries, two research questions emerged to form the basisof an attempt to synthesize these interdisciplinary concepts:

1. What are the critical factors for promoting individuals’ learning at each mode ofthe learning process?

2. What are the required sequential factors to promote continuous organizationalknowledge creation?

The synthesizing process undoubtedly raises many debatable issues regard-ing even something as simple as defining terms. Nevertheless, to understandthe human learning–based organizational knowledge creation process from aholistic perspective, identification of the theoretical linkage is essential.

To more specifically address issues found in previous conceptual and theo-retical research on the integration of individual and organizational learning, thefollowing subquestions were generated based on Argyris and Schön (1978,1996), Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, and Howton (2002), Nonaka and Takeuchi(1995), Rothwell and Sredl (2000), Rothwell et al. (1999), and Senge et al.(2005). Although there is much disagreement in the thinking on how these con-cepts are related, there is agreement on many of the unanswered questions. Ourresearch subquestions are intended to reflect the elements commonly stated asmisunderstood, or areas in which further research is required (Figure 1).




What are the primary individual learning processes, and how could they be influenced?How could individuals create knowledge, and how could this be related to the learning

process?How could individuals’ knowledge be formulated into organizational knowledge,

and what are the key factors to promote the conversion process?How could the created organizational knowledge be captured as an embedded orga-

nizational mental model, and how could the internalized knowledge be appliedfor performance improvement?

Based on a holistic interdisciplinary literature review of the learning-relatedconcepts in the adult learning and HRD fields, and the knowledge creation andmanagement concepts in the management field, the authors concluded they havetheoretically similar and mutually related concepts to explain the integrative per-spectives of the learning-based human knowledge creation process, even thoughthey have had a somewhat different focus and have used slightly different ter-minologies. For example, the learning process is critically related to humanknowledge; however, in the field of adult learning, more focus has been given tothe individual learning process. Also, one of the basic principles of knowledgecreation is the continuous organizational learning process for sharing of tacitknowledge in terms of the social reflective perspectives. Finally, individual

FIGURE 1: The Integrated Process of Organizational Knowledge FormationThrough the Organizational Learning System Based on Individuals’Learning Modes and Knowledge Creation

- Formal and Informal Training/ Work experience- Individuals’ PRE-existed knowledge

- Internalization- Application- RE-creation

- Externalization- Collaboration- Repository

OrganizationalKnowledgeGeneration

Individuals’Knowledge

Creation

OrganizationalPerformanceImprovement

Individuals’LearningModes

- Socialization- Reflection- Interaction

Transfer of KnowledgeSupportive Environment

Organizational LearningKnowledge ManagementSystem

Adaptive LearningGenerative LearningTransformative Learning

Knowledge RE-FormationOrganizational Mental Model

Organization’s Mission/ Vision/ Value/ Culture



learning is the agent of the organizational learning process; in turn, organiza-tional learning is the key locomotive for the knowledge-sharing process; conse-quently, organizational shared knowledge is the basis of knowledge creation. Allthose practices have been influenced by the organizational learning culture fromthe adult learning standpoint, as well as organizations’ managerial mission andvisionary concepts in the perspectives of management.

The cultural aspects, individuals’ learning processes, and knowledge man-agement system in the organization would influence all the factors of organi-zational knowledge generation processes. Based on these supportive factors,individuals could learn through the three basic learning theories, and it wouldbe linked with individuals’ knowledge creation along with interactive social-izations. Organizational knowledge could be generated based on the clustersof individuals’knowledge based on the supports of both collaborative approachesand knowledge management system for the transferable and actionable knowl-edge creation. Finally, the created organizational knowledge could be elabo-rated for re-creating organizational knowledge based on the organizationalmental model and the internalization process.

Method

This is an integrated research study based on the relevant literature reviewof core themes of organizational knowledge formation (Torraco, 2005; Yorks,2008). The Pennsylvania State University Access System, which contains 350interlinked scholarly and practical databases, was used to search comprehen-sive literature for developing reliable research.

On the one hand, the authors first conducted an electronic search for pub-lished research articles on four primary keywords: individual learning, orga-nizational learning, learning organization, and knowledge creation. Second,the authors used the subprimary terms learning theory and human knowledgeon the same electronic search engines. Among the approximately 1,600 searchresults, subject-related articles were selected, then 57 relevant articles werereviewed, and finally 25 articles were cited for this research. The following cri-teria were used: (a) articles with reliable resources from peer-reviewed forums,(b) subject relevance to the research objectives, and (c) a 15-year timeframe,except for the psychological learning theory–related articles.

On the other hand, the authors searched the related books and bookchapters based on the titles of learning theory, individual learning, learningorganization, organizational learning, and knowledge creation on thePennsylvania State University Library CAT system and a commercial retailWeb site. Initially, approximately 58 relevant books and book chapters wereselected, and among them 26 related references were reviewed and cited forthis research. This review process of the relevant literatures is intended to becomprehensive, but might not be exhaustive.





The critical factors associated with the knowledge formation process and per-formance improvement were analyzed. To construct a genuinely integratedalliance among the various perspectives, the subsequent core themes were scru-tinized: (a) individuals’ learning mode, (b) organizational knowledge creation,(c) systematic knowledge management practices, (d) effective organizationallearning process, and (e) supportive environmental elements and performanceimprovement. To synchronize the procedures of each relevant perspective, thetheory of organizational knowledge creation has been more intensively exploredin a holistic view. From a more practical standpoint, more focus has been givento the accumulation of organizational performance improvement.

For the reason that this study is conceptually valuable research, which hasmore focus on theoretical integration, critical recommendations for furtherempirical research have been proposed; finally, implicational strategies forperformance improvement practitioners are offered.

Individual Learning Processes and Organizational Knowledge Formation

To identify the proposed research questions, the following areas of relevantliterature were reviewed.

Individual Learning Modes

With regard to individual learning processes, individuals in organizationshave been influenced by given policy, organizational culture, and interpersonalrelationships (Sessa & London, 2006).

Adaptive learning mode. According to Argyris and Schön’s (1978, 1996)single-loop learning process, individuals’ learning process could be initiated bythe reflective and adaptive learning manner. Through this learning mode, indi-viduals’ preexisting tacit knowledge, which was learned from past experiences,daily work experiences, and formal/informal training interventions, could bedeep-rooted as the more truly believed knowledge within the individuals’ men-tal model (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). In this learning mode, more important,individuals have active interaction with any type of organizational environment;organizations need to provide the opportunities and positive environmentalsupport for the promotion of the individuals’ continuous adaptive learningprocess (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Sessa & London, 2006).

Generative learning mode. The generative learning process in organizationsis purposeful to generate new skills, knowledge, and applicable methods (Sessa& London, 2006). This generative learning mode could be more effectivethrough an alliance with social interaction in organizations; and through thesesocialized learning practices (Bandura, 1986), individuals’ tacit knowledgecould be shared and embedded into organizational knowledge commonality




(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Sessa & London, 2006). Accumulated individuals’knowledge could be converted into the organizational explicit knowledge—called externalization—through the process of continuous knowledge genera-tion based on the circulative organizational social interactions (Nonaka &Takeuchi, 1995). This type of generative individual learning mode is leadingthe groundwork for continuous organizational change, which is the core themeof organizational knowledge–based performance improvement (Ramanujam,2003; Sessa & London, 2006).

Transformative learning mode. Individuals’ learning modes are solidly relatedto several factors, including the given environment, past experiences, and reflec-tions on the practices in organizations (Serra & London, 2006). Among the criti-cal factors, reflective and critical thinking practices could be the most significantcomponents of transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991). The ultimate goal of thelearning modes in organizations could be considered as the transfer of the learnedknowledge to the workplace in both effective and efficient ways. In this perspec-tive, the individuals’ transformative learning mode, which has been drawn fromthe theories of constructivist traditions (Dewey, 1900; Piaget, 1952; Rogoff,1990), is regarded as the more practical learning mode for organizational knowl-edge applications. Furthermore, through the transformative learning process,individuals could reframe their knowledge based on critical reflection and vali-dation of their insights and actions (Mezirow, 1991, 1997). According to Kreberand Cranton (2000) and Habermas (1971), the mixture of both experience- andresearch-based knowledge could play a critical role in the successful transforma-tive learning process based on the integrative activities in communicative andemancipatory learning. Even though some scholars insist that transformativelearning may occur only in the individual learning process, through the collabo-rative learning process more transformed knowledge could be created, whichresults in more practical actions in the workplace (DeLong, 2004). To promotethis practice-oriented reflective learning mode, continuous interpersonal conver-sation and supportive culture for applications are more critical aspects in terms oforganizational knowledge application (Nonaka, Peltokorpi, & Tomae, 2005;Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Sessa & London, 2006).

In summary, individuals learn adaptively, generatively, and transformatively(Sessa & London, 2006), and all of these individuals’ learning modes are inter-connected with several organizational environment and cultural themes (Argyris& Schön, 1978, 1996). From a performance-oriented perspective, these learningmodes are fundamental processes for the systematic organizational knowledgeformation process based on the integrated, broad, and deep knowledge.

Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation

In the current economic environment, the importance of knowledge andknowledge creation ability has been recognized more than any other resourceas the most important asset of a firm’s sustainable competitive advantage



(Corno, Reinmoeller, & Nonaka, 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka,Takeuchi, & Umemoto, 1996), and knowledge workers have been regarded asthe most valuable assets in developing and improving organizational perfor-mance (Drucker, 1999, 2002).

Organizational knowledge conversion (SECI) theory. The definition ofknowledge and organizational knowledge creation vary, depending on thedifferent perspectives of economics, psychology, and management views.Knowledge is defined as “a set of justified true beliefs” (Nonaka & Takeuchi,1995, p. 3), and organizational knowledge creation is defined as “the capabilityof a company as a whole to create new knowledge, disseminate it throughout theorganization, and embody it in products, services, and systems” (p. 58).

The foundation of the organizational knowledge creation process has beenresearched by many scholars and practitioners, and among them, four modelsof knowledge conversion and a five-phase model of the organizational knowl-edge creation process developed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) were reviewed.The basic concept of knowledge conversion is based on how two types ofknowledge (tacit and explicit knowledge) interact to create new organizationalknowledge, and the knowledge creation process model refers to whether thereare particular stages and actions that facilitate some firms to continuously cre-ate knowledge (Oh, 2001). On the one hand, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) con-ceptualized the concept of knowledge conversion as follows: “that knowledgeis created through social interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge”(p. 61). The following are the general assumptions of knowledge conversion:(a) tacit to tacit (socialization), (b) tacit to explicit (externalization), (c) explicitto explicit (combination), and (d) explicit to tacit (internalization; Oh, 2001).On the other hand, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) developed a five-phase modelof the knowledge creation process based on the proposed four different waysof knowledge conversion as internal dynamics of knowledge creation: (a) shar-ing tacit knowledge, (b) creating concepts, (c) justifying concepts, (d) buildingan archetype, and (e) cross-leveling knowledge.

Organizational knowledge creation based on individuals’ knowledge forma-tion is a synthesized dialectical process, in which various feats are integratedand amalgamated through dynamic interrelationship among individuals, groups,the entire organization, and the organizational environmental factors (Nonaka& Toyama, 2003; Nonaka, Toyama, & Nagata, 2000; Nonaka et al., 1996).Organizational knowledge is created through dialectic thinking and actingbased on the individuals’ continuous communication generated by their ownexperiences or tacit knowledge rather than by the existing theorized knowledgein the organization (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003).

In accordance with organizational knowledge theory (Nonaka & Toyama,2003), the entities (individuals, groups, and organizations) coexist with arelated environment because they are subject to environmental influence asmuch as the environmental factors are influenced by the entities; thus, positive




organizational environmental factors promote knowledge creation for both theindividual and the organization, and those environmental factors need to beregarded as one of the critical components for the continuous and systemicecosystem of organization knowledge creation (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003;Nonaka et al., 2000).

Finally, in this research, the concept of knowledge creation was defined asthe human interaction–based continuous collaborative learning process forcreating applicable knowledge in the workplace.

Knowledge Creation and Management

One of the key trends of performance improvement fields is the increasingfocus on systematic knowledge retention and continuous knowledge creationthrough the knowledge management system and the learning organizationmechanism.

Learning organization. The notion of learning organization has receivedconsiderable attention in the scholarly literature because advanced learningprocesses have been heralded as a foundation of competitive advantage(Ellinger et al., 2002).

There have been various efforts to define learning organization and amongthe various studies are two remarkable efforts: The Fifth Discipline by PeterSenge (1990) and Sculpting the Learning Organization by Watkins and Marsick(1993). The term learning organization was defined in these publications asfollows:

The learning organization is an organization that possesses not only an adaptivecapacity but also “generative”—that is, the ability to create an alternative future.(Senge, 1990, p. 17)

The learning organization is one that learns continuously and transforms itself . . .Learning is a continuous, strategically used process integrated with and runningparallel to work . . . Learning also enhanced organizational capacity for innova-tion and growth. The learning organization has embedded systems to capture andshare learning. (Watkins & Marsick, 1993, p. 8)

In the more practical perspective, Slater and Narver (1994) defined a learningorganization as one that continuously acquires, processes, and disseminatesknowledge about market, products, technologies, and business processes, andthis knowledge is often based on experience, experimentation, and informationprovided by customers, suppliers, competitors, and other sources (Ellinger,Watkins, & Bostrom, 1999). Other researchers claim that learning organizationsare generally market oriented and have an entrepreneurial mission, a system-atic structure, a flexible process, and transformational facilitative leadership(Ellinger et al., 1999; Lundberg, 1991; Slater & Narver, 1994; Watkins &Marsick, 1993, 1996).





More recently, the term learning organization was defined in the broaderperspective by Jensen (2005):

A learning organization is an organization that is organized to scan for informa-tion in its environment, by itself creating information, and promoting individu-als to transform information into knowledge and coordinate this knowledgebetween the individuals so that new insight is obtained. (p. 61)

The following commonalities, focusing on the definition and basic assump-tions of learning organization, were drawn from the various reviews of litera-ture: (a) the learning environment–related factors, (b) the continuous learningprocess within the organization, (c) the system-oriented learning structure,(d) the autogenously learned and knowledge creation environment, and (e) theperformance- and goal-oriented learning systems. Consistent with the cama-raderie of these themes based on the remarkable previous efforts, in the currentresearch the authors redefined the learning organization in a perspective ofsubstantiality regarding contextual integrated theory:

The learning organization is structure-based learning environment factors thattrigger individuals’ learning and knowledge transformation autogenously for thepromotion of continuous and spontaneous organizational learning processes withinthe organization itself. The learning organization is the fundamental culture andstructure for taking the market advantages through performance improvement.

Along these lines, the collaborative learning–oriented organizational culturesor environments are seriously associated with all the last learning processes,which include the individuals’ learning, learning and knowledge transfer,knowledge management system, and collaborative organizational learningculture (Kofman & Senge, 1993; Nonaka, 1991; Senge, 1990; Tsang, 1997).To take advantage of learning-based performance improvement in organiza-tions, the establishment of the learning organization culture or environmentshould be the priority of organizational learning processes.

Knowledge management. Interest in knowledge management has growndramatically in recent years as more people have become conscious of itspotential to constrain innovation and achieve better performance (Cavaleri,2004). The concept of knowledge management is more narrowed down andmore specifically structured from the perception of organizational learning; inthis regard, knowledge management is a more tactic-oriented and system-focused supportive concept for learning organization. It might be true that it isnot easy to define knowledge management. The field of knowledge manage-ment contains many systematic practices and organizing efforts in organiza-tions: creation, retention, succession, and management of learned knowledgein organizational levels (DeLong, 2004; Nonaka & Toyama, 2003; Wenger,1998). Recently, in a general perspective, Cavaleri (2004), presenting the caseof BP Amoco, described the concept of knowledge management as follows:




Knowledge management technologies make it possible to enable various knowl-edge processes that are often neglected in organizations because they were viewedas being too complex or time consuming. At its core, knowledge management isfundamentally a human social process. More to the point, it is a specific process,called knowledge processing, involving the production, evaluation, integrationand control of how knowledge is created and used in organizations. Knowledgemanagement is the precursor to all effective business processes. (p. 160)

Because of advanced technology systems, organizations are more focused onsystems-based knowledge management approaches (DeLong, 2004). From thetechnology-based standpoint, however, little attention has been directed to theimportance of the human interaction and knowledge sharing processes.According to DeLong, human interaction is a more effective method to captureand transfer the tacit types of knowledge, which could be the core knowledge interms of market advantage. Furthermore, sharing of tacit knowledge based onthe dialogue and inquiry process—social interaction—is the most practicalapproach to create applicable knowledge in the workplace (Nonaka & Takeuchi,1995). From this social interaction–oriented standpoint, one of the mostcommon and widely known approaches might be the communities of practicefor sharing and capturing organizational core tacit knowledge. The followingdefinition was presented by Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002):

A community of practice is a group of people informally bound together byshared expertise and passion a joint enterprise. . . . Regardless of the circum-stances that give rise to communities of practice, their members inevitably shareknowledge in free-flowing, creative ways that foster new approaches to prob-lems. . . . The purpose of the community of practice is to develop members’capabilities; to build and exchange knowledge (pp. 1-6).

In a more specific perspective, DeLong (2004) stressed the importance ofknowledge succession and retention in his book Lost Knowledge. Providingseveral actual business cases in various organizations, including NASA, Shell,Northrop Grumman, and the U.S. Department of Energy, he defined knowledgeretention as follows:

Knowledge retention is effectively the act of building organizational memory. . . .Knowledge retention is more action-oriented, and knowledge retention alsodescribes a solution to a critical problem that affects performance . . . Knowledgeretention consists of three activities—knowledge acquisition, storage, andretrieval.” (p. 24)

Of course, all the detailed schemes were not able to be explained onlythrough these concepts; however, from these approaches, the following per-ceptions of the knowledge management practice were drawn: (a) knowledgemanagement consists of certain practical activities based on human socializa-tion, (b) various practices of knowledge management are action oriented, and(c) knowledge management is systematic practices for the effective sharingand transformation of learned knowledge.




Findings

Along with the critically reviewed relevant literature, the following corethemes were identified to create a theoretical alliance among individual learn-ing, organizational knowledge creation, and continuous organizational knowl-edge formation for performance improvement: (a) individuals’ tacit knowledgeis stimulated by learning modes, (b) individuals’ tacit knowledge is convertedinto the organizational explicit knowledge through the collaborative socializa-tion process, (c) organizational explicit knowledge is re-created into theactionable knowledge through supportive organizational environment basedon continuous interactions, and (d) re-created organizational knowledge couldbe transferred to the workplace and embedded into the organizational confir-mative knowledge through the organizational knowledge formative internal-ization based on the shared mental model. In a broader perspective, all theknowledge formation modes have been influenced by the following factors:(a) organizational strategies, (b) organizational learning process, (c) organiza-tional environment, and (d) systematic knowledge management practices. Todescribe the visible intercorrelation among each of the features, a conceptuallyintegrated roadmap of the organizational knowledge formation process isillustrated in Figure 2.

RQ1: What are the critical factors to promote individual learning in each mode ofthe learning process?

The organizational learning process and knowledge creation modes are crit-ically associated with the individuals’ learning modes (Argyris & Schön, 1978,1996; Garvin, 1992; Senge, 1990; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). In organization,furthermore, organizational supportive environmental factors are core catalystsfor the promotion of an effective learning process (Chen, Holton, & Bates, 2005;Gilley & Maycunich, 2000; Holton, Chen, & Naquin, 2003; Khasawneh,Bates, & Holton, 2004; Yamnill & McLean, 2005). In a perspective of organi-zational knowledge creation, interpersonal communication and interaction area significant theme for the individuals’ creativity through the three modes ofthe individuals’ learning process—adaptive, generative, and transformative.In a more practical perspective, the organizational knowledge managementsystem, which includes technology-based systematized knowledge manage-ment structure and integrated collaboration-based intergroup virtual practices,could be a more practical advocate for the applicable knowledge creationmode (DeLong, 2004; Wenger & Snyder, 2001).

From an individual learning standpoint, the learning process is essentiallyrelated to the predominant knowledge and given environment, especially for theadaptive learning process (Sessa & London, 2006). The individuals’ adaptivelearning process is an effort to demonstrate a relatively permanent change inbehavior in reaction to a stimulus in the given external environmental factors,which is a learning type exemplified in the behaviorist (Pavlov, 1927, as cited in




Sessa & London, 2006; see also, Reber, 1993; Skinner, 1971; Thorndike, 1932).To date, this type of learning has been little considered to take advantage ofthe organizational learning concept; however, in line with the company mission,values, strategies, practices, and procedures, the individuals’ adaptive learningprocess is a key element for the initiative changes for the step-forwarding to themore creative learning modes (Sessa & London, 2006).

In the generative learning mode, which is associated with the cognitive-oriented learning theory, individuals are generating explicit learning through theinternal mental process in line with socialization and restructuring practicesamong others (Bandura, 1986; Bruner, 1960; Gagne, 1978). During this mode,individuals in organizations have continuous interactions through all theorganizational entities in terms of interpersonal knowledge and behaviors,intergroup collaborative teamwork, and organizational environment (Bandura,1986; Sessa & London, 2006).

In the mode of transformative learning of individuals, which is drawn from theconstructivism learning theorists, individuals are re-creating meaning and valueof their knowledge of reality from various experiences of learning practices

Individuals’Adaptive

Learning Mode

Individuals’TransformativeLearning Mode

Individuals’Generative

Learning Mode

IntegratedOrganizational

Knowledge

Individuals’Tacit

Knowledge

Individuals’ActionableKnowledge

Individuals’Explicit

Knowledge

OrganizationalRE-created Applicable

Knowledge

OrganizationalCreative/Actionable

Knowledge

PRE-existed knowledgeInformal/Formal TrainingDaily Work Experience

ContinuousInteractionCritical Reflection

Knowledge AcquisitionIntegrated Learning Process

Reflective InteractionSocialization Process

Transfer of KnowledgeKnowledge Repository

Collaborative InteractionExternalization Process

OrganizationalKnowledgeFormation

Shared Mental ModelCultural Changes Knowledge Internalization

FIGURE 2: Theoretically Integrated Conceptualization of the OrganizationalKnowledge Formation Process Through Socialization, Externalization,Knowledge Repository, and Internalization With Alliances of theContinuous Learning, Interaction, and Knowledge Management Systems



(Dewey, 1900; Piaget, 1952). More recently, this type of transformative learningis related to the organizational double-loop and triple-loop learning concepts ofArgyris and Schön (1978). In this process, individuals’ learning occurs from thetrial-/error-reflective and re-generative process through the alliance with recon-struction from past experience, reutilization from the organizational knowledgerepository, and re-creation from the continuously shared interaction practices(Sessa & London, 2006). More seriously, this transformative learning mode isdecisively correlated with application, supportive structure, and strategies in orga-nizations (Gallo, 2004; Sessa & London, 2006) and strappingly connected withtransfer of learning into the reality of the workplace.

RQ2: What are the required sequential factors to promote continuous organizationalknowledge formation?

One of the key factors to take advantage of organizational performanceimprovement through the individuals’ knowledge asset is containing andretaining organizational knowledge within the systematic circulation of theorganizational knowledge formation process without any negative impact ofthe lost knowledge (DeLong, 2004). Along with the repeated circulativeknowledge formation modes, organizational knowledge could be re-created andregenerated through the continual transfer of learned knowledge, and ultimately,undefeatable organizational knowledge could be formed and embedded intothe shared mental models (Nonaka & Toyoma, 2003; Nonaka et al., 2005). Therequired sequential procedures will be detailed below.

The first stage is known as a socialization mode, which is adapted from theorganizational knowledge creation theory (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonakaet al., 1996). In this mode, through the various individuals’ learning modes,which have been influenced by the given organizational environment, preex-isting knowledge, and daily work experience, with an alliance with continuouscommunication-based interaction, the individuals’ separated tacit knowledgecould be converted into the integrated organizational knowledge. This type ofcollectively incorporated organizational tacit knowledge is curved toward theindividuals’ generative learning mode (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka &Toyoma, 2003; Nonaka et al., 1996).

The second mode of organizational knowledge formation is conceived as acollaborative externalization process, in which individuals’ generated knowl-edge could be transformed into organizational explicit knowledge throughthe individuals’ regenerative knowledge-based intergroup collaboration prac-tices, including daily communication, organizational learning activities, and ateam-based approach. Along with these practices, creative organizationalknowledge could be created through the reflective and critical learning process(Mezirow, 1991). Furthermore, according to Mezirow (2000), individuals’learning is the process to reform new knowledge based on one’s experience andknowledge through revised interpretation to guide further actions. This mode





influences the individuals’ transformative learning process with an alliancewith various organizational structures and environments.

The third mode is related to the systemized practice-oriented approach,which is called the knowledge repository mode. Currently, organizations arestruggling with their knowledge management system to retrieve their existingknowledge for effectiveness and efficiency purposes (DeLong, 2004). In suchsituations, one of the key modes of the organizational knowledge formationprocesses is knowledge repository, in which organizational knowledge andpractices are filtering and reorganizing for the synergic permutation throughthe organizational learning practices. These systems are including not only atechnology-based knowledge management system but also a community ofpractice and knowledge succession and retention interventions. This system-oriented approach is a fundamentally supportive mode for the creation of orga-nizational knowledge in the perspective of a living–learning organism; andorganizational knowledge in this repository could be transferred to the work-place in both effective and efficient applications.

The last, but the most significant, mode—mutual internalization—is a struc-turally and culturally embedded continuous process of all entities in organiza-tions. Through this internalization process, organizational explicit applicableknowledge is embedded into the individuals’ mental models stimulating indi-viduals’ tacit knowledge and organizational shared mental models promotingcontinuous collaborations for the repeated processes of organizational knowl-edge creation.

With the intention of describing the virtual concept the four modes of orga-nizational knowledge formation are included in Figure 3, which presents theconsequential flow of an organizational knowledge formation process fromthe individuals’ tacit knowledge to organizational applicable knowledge.Furthermore, a continuous and circulative knowledge formation process couldbe encouraged by confirmative organizational knowledge and could influenceevery entity of this knowledge formation process. Additionally, the entireprocess of learning-related practices is related to overall cultural and visionaryfactors in organization.

Summary

Each figure presented in this article attempts to depict relationships sug-gested in the literature. These representations, although imperfect, are our bestefforts at visually representing the relationships we found and are proposed asa result of this research. Of course, any attempt at representing these complexrelationships and phenomena in two dimensions has shortcomings. However,we believe these figures make a contribution in that they, for the most part,convey the relationships we found. We ask readers to consider in addition thateach component of these models is inextricably linked to the others and thatour representations are therefore simplified by default.




Implications and Further Research

According to previous research on the roles and competency of humanresource and organization performance improvement practitioners, more focushas been given to the broader competencies related to an overall strategicplanning and performance-oriented approach beyond simple training deliveryand implication (Dubois & Rothwell, 2004; Rothwell & Sredl, 2000). Morerecently, organizational knowledge and knowledge retention issues have beenfocused more on the creative knowledge–based organizational performanceimprovement (DeLong, 2004).

Thus, the understanding of the conceptually integrated knowledge forma-tion process requires shedding light on the overall strategic planning of humanresource–based performance improvement and knowledge-based competitive-ness. The theoretically combined organizational knowledge formation processis providing not only the holistic view of the learning organism but also thesystematic practical understanding of core themes of knowledge creation–basedperformance improvement. According to the given conceptual knowledgeformation system, performance improvement practitioners need to encouragethe supportive application-advocating environment along with supportingthe continuous interpersonal communication in terms of a positively openorganizational environment. Furthermore, practitioners should consider thevalue of non-technology-oriented, human activity–based knowledge-creatingpractices to be as important as the technological knowledge management system.Finally, the practitioners whose task is more concerned with organizationalpolicy making and strategy making could apply each of the current roadmaps ofknowledge formation for the purpose of reflecting on the theoretically inter-connected factors for successful implications.

Individuals’Tacit

Knowledge

IntegratedOrganizational

Tacit Knowledge

CreativeOrganizational

Explicit Knowledge

Re-CreatedOrganizational

Applicable Knowledge

ReflectiveSocialization

CollaborativeExternalization

SystematicKnowledge Repository

Confirmative OrganizationalKnowledge

Culturally EmbeddedInternalization

1 2 3 4

FIGURE 3: The Four Modes of Organizational Knowledge Formation—A Theoreti-cally Conceptualized Process



This research may not provide specific tools of applications, because theprimary method of this research is critical interdisciplinary literature review;and the ultimate goal of this study is to provide a theoretically integratedconcept by way of systemic triangulation of multiple aspects from individuals’learning modes, organizational knowledge creation, and performance-orientedknowledge formation. Finally, we submit that this research offers “potentialanswers to new and interesting questions not brought to light by existingtheory” (Yorks, 2008, p. 139) and have situated these potential answers and aprovocative understanding of the literature.

For the sake of providing a more empirical research-based theory, futureresearch to identify the interrelations among the factors, in terms of theconstruction of an item validation process, needs to be conducted regardingthe reality of the workplace, even though it might not be easy to conduct theexperimental research while controlling all the unrelated factors. Anotherpossible research method to provide the empirical evidence of research valida-tion is to conduct case studies based on the best sample business stories thatcontain performance-based knowledge creation cases.

References

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice

(Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Broad, M. L. (2003). Managing the organizational learning transfer system: A model and case

study. In E. F. Holton III & T. T. Baldwin (Eds.), Improving learning transfer in organization(pp. 97-117). San Francisco: John Wiley.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage.Cavaleri, S. A. (2004). Leveraging organizational learning for knowledge and performance. The

Learning Organization, 11, 159-176.Chen, H. C., Holton, E. F., & Bates, R. (2005). Development and validation of the learning transfer

system inventory in Taiwan. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 55-84.Corno, F., Reinmoeller, P., & Nonaka, I. (1999). Knowledge creation within industrial systems.

Journal of Management & Governance, 3, 379-394.DeLong, D. W. (2004). Lost knowledge: Confronting the threat of an aging workplace. New York:

Oxford University Press.Dewey, J. (1900). Psychology and social practice. Psychological Review, 7, 105-124.Drucker, P. (1999). Beyond the information revolution. The Atlantic Monthly, 284, 47-57.Drucker, P. (2002). Knowledge work. Executive Excellence, 19, 12-13.Dubois, D. D., & Rothwell, W. J. (2004). Competency-based human resource management. Palo

Alto, CA: Davies-Black.Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002). The relationship between the

learning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 5-21.

Ellinger, A. D., Watkins, K. E., & Bostrom, R. P. (2000). Managers as facilitators of learning inlearning organizations: A rejoinder to Dirkx’s invited reaction. Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, 11, 403-409.





Gagne, N. L. (1978). The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.Gallo, K. (2004). Building a learning organization. Unpublished manuscript, Department of

Psychology, Hofstra University, New York.Garvin, D. A. (1992). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000). Organizational learning, performance and change: An

introduction to strategic human resource development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Gupta, J. N. D., & Sharma, S. K. (Eds.). (2004). Creating knowledge based organization. Hershey,

PA: Idea Group.Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.Holton, E. F., Chen, H. C., & Naquin, S. (2003). An examination of learning transfer system

characteristics across organizational settings. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14,459-482.

Jensen, P. E. (2005). A contextual theory of learning and the learning organization. Knowledge andProcess Management, 12, 53-64.

Khasawneh, S., Bates, R., & Holton, E. F. (2006). Construct validation of an Arabic version of thelearning transfer system inventory for use in Jordan. International Journal of Training andDevelopment, 10, 180-194.

Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organi-zations. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 5-23.

Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. A. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. Journal of HigherEducation, 71, 476-495.

Lundberg, C. C. (1991). Creating and managing a vanguard organization: Design and humanresource lessons from Jossey-Bass. Human Resource Management, 30, 89-102.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformation theory out of context. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 60-62.Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In

J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theoryin progress (pp. 3-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96-105.Nonaka, I., Peltokorpi, V., & Tomae, H. (2005). Strategic knowledge creation: The case of

Hamamatsu Photonics. International Journal of Technology Management, 30, 248-264.Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies

create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., & Umemoto, K. (1996). A theory of organizational knowledge creation.

International Journal of Technology Management, 11, 833-845.Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation

as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1, 2-10.Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creation entity: A new

perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9, 1-12.Oh, H. S. (2001). The relationship between work environment factors and organizational knowl-

edge creation process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International University Press.Ramanujam, R. (2003). The effects of discontinuous change on latent errors in organizations: The

moderating role of risk. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 608-617.Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in the social context. New

York: Oxford University Press.Rothwell, W. J., Sanders, E. T., & Soper, J. G. (1999). ASTD models for workplace learning and

performance: Roles, competencies, and outputs. Alexandria, VA: American Society forTraining and Development.

Rothwell, W. J., & Sredl, H. (2000). The ASTD reference guide to workplace learning and per-formance: Present and future roles and competencies. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.



Senge, P., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. (2005). Presence: Exploring profoundchange in people, organizations, and society. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. NewYork: Doubleday/Currency.

Sessa, V. I., & London, M. (2006). Continuous learning in organizations: Individual, group, andorganizational perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Market orientation, customer value, and superior perfor-

mance. Business Horizons, 37, 22-28.Thorndike, E. L. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York: Teachers College Press.Torraco, R. (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews. Human Resource Development Review,

4, 356-367.Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy

between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50, 73-79.Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (Eds.). (1996). Creating the organization. Alexandria, VA:

American Society for Training and Development.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide

to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2001). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. In

Harvard Business Review on organizational learning (pp. 1-20). Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Publishing.

Yamnill, Y., & McLean, G. N. (2005). Factors affecting transfer of training in Thailand. HumanResource Development Quarterly, 16, 323-344.

Yorks, L. (2008). What we know, what we don’t know, what we need to know—Integrative liter-ature reviews are research. Human Resource Development Review, 7, 139-141.

Ji Hoon Song, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of Teaching andCurriculum Leadership—Occupational Education Studies at Oklahoma StateUniversity. His research focuses on theoretical approach on the organizationallearning process, cross-cultural learning organization, human interaction–basedknowledge formation process, and developing an integrative inventory andmeasurement tools for organizational knowledge formation.

Thomas J. Chermack, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Colorado StateUniversity in the Organizational Performance and Change Program. Formerlya consultant with Personnel Decisions International and Key Investment, hisresearch focuses on the effects of scenario planning in organizations and on theorybuilding methods in applied disciplines. He is also the founder and managingpartner of Chermack Scenarios (www.thomaschermack.com), a scenario planningconsultancy affiliated with the Centre for Innovative Leadership. Chermack’sresearch has appeared in scholarly publications such as Futures, Futures ResearchQuarterly, Human Resource Development Review, The Academy of StrategicManagement Journal, and the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studiesamong others.


a theoretical approach to the organizational knowledge formation process: integrating the concepts...

Documents